Thursday, August 19, 2010
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Monday, August 16, 2010
Obama Strongly Backs Islam Center Near 9/11 Site
BY SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
WASHINGTON — President Obama delivered a strong defense on Friday night of a proposed Muslim community center and mosque near ground zero in Manhattan, using a White House dinner celebrating Ramadan to proclaim that “as a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country.”
After weeks of avoiding the high-profile battle over the center — his press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said last week that the president did not want to “get involved in local decision-making” — Mr. Obama stepped squarely into the thorny debate.
“I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. Ground zero is, indeed, hallowed ground,” the president said in remarks prepared for the annual White House iftar, the sunset meal breaking the day’s fast.
But, he continued: “This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are.”
In hosting the iftar, Mr. Obama was following a White House tradition that, while sporadic, dates to Thomas Jefferson, who held a sunset dinner for the first Muslim ambassador to the United States. President George W. Bush hosted iftars annually.
Aides to Mr. Obama say privately that he has always felt strongly about the proposed community center and mosque, but the White House did not want to weigh in until local authorities made a decision on the proposal, planned for two blocks from the site of the Sept. 11 attack on the World Trade Center.
Last week, New York City removed the final construction hurdle for the project, and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg spoke forcefully in favor of it.
The community center proposal has led to a national uproar over Islam, 9/11 and freedom of religion during a hotly contested midterm election season.
In New York, Rick A. Lazio, a Republican candidate for governor and a former member of the House of Representatives, issued a statement responding to Mr. Obama’s remarks, saying that the president was still “not listening to New Yorkers.”
“With over 100 mosques in New York City, this is not an issue of religion, but one of safety and security,” he said.
Sarah Palin, the former governor of Alaska and the Republican vice-presidential candidate in 2008, has called the project “an unnecessary provocation” and urged “peace-seeking Muslims” to reject it.
The Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish organization, has also opposed the center.
In his remarks, Mr. Obama distinguished between the terrorists who plotted the 9/11 attacks and Islam. “Al Qaeda’s cause is not Islam — it is a gross distortion of Islam,” the president said, adding, “In fact, Al Qaeda has killed more Muslims than people of any other religion, and that list includes innocent Muslims who were killed on 9/11.”
Noting that “Muslim Americans serve with honor in our military,” Mr. Obama said that at next week’s iftar at the Pentagon, “tribute will be paid to three soldiers who gave their lives in Iraq and now rest among the heroes of Arlington National Cemetery.”
Mr. Obama ran for office promising to improve relations with the Muslim world, by taking steps like closing the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and more generally reaching out. In a speech in Cairo last year, he vowed “a new beginning.”
But Ali Abunimah, an Arab-American journalist and author, said the president has since left many Muslims disappointed.
“There has been no follow-through; Guantánamo is still open and so forth, so all you have left for him to show is in the symbolic field,” Mr. Abunimah said, adding that it was imperative for Mr. Obama to “stand up to Islamophobia.”
Once Mr. Bloomberg spoke out, the president’s course seemed clear, said Steven Clemons of the New America Foundation, a public policy institution here.
“Bloomberg’s speech was, I think, the pivotal one, and set the standard for leadership on this issue,” Mr. Clemons said.
Mr. Bloomberg, in a statement, said: “This proposed mosque and community center in Lower Manhattan is as important a test of the separation of church and state as we may see in our lifetime, and I applaud President Obama’s clarion defense of the freedom of religion tonight.”
Sharif el-Gamal, the developer on the project, said, “We are deeply moved and tremendously grateful for our president’s words.”
A building on the site of the proposed center is already used for prayers, and some worshipers there on Friday night discussed the president’s remarks.
Mohamed Haroun, an intern at a mechanical engineering firm, said, “What he should have said was: ‘This is a community decision. Constitutionally, they have the right to do it, but it’s a community decision and we should see what the local community wants to do.’ ”
Anne Barnard and M. Amedeo Tumolillo contributed reporting from New York.
WASHINGTON — President Obama delivered a strong defense on Friday night of a proposed Muslim community center and mosque near ground zero in Manhattan, using a White House dinner celebrating Ramadan to proclaim that “as a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country.”
After weeks of avoiding the high-profile battle over the center — his press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said last week that the president did not want to “get involved in local decision-making” — Mr. Obama stepped squarely into the thorny debate.
“I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. Ground zero is, indeed, hallowed ground,” the president said in remarks prepared for the annual White House iftar, the sunset meal breaking the day’s fast.
But, he continued: “This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are.”
In hosting the iftar, Mr. Obama was following a White House tradition that, while sporadic, dates to Thomas Jefferson, who held a sunset dinner for the first Muslim ambassador to the United States. President George W. Bush hosted iftars annually.
Aides to Mr. Obama say privately that he has always felt strongly about the proposed community center and mosque, but the White House did not want to weigh in until local authorities made a decision on the proposal, planned for two blocks from the site of the Sept. 11 attack on the World Trade Center.
Last week, New York City removed the final construction hurdle for the project, and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg spoke forcefully in favor of it.
The community center proposal has led to a national uproar over Islam, 9/11 and freedom of religion during a hotly contested midterm election season.
In New York, Rick A. Lazio, a Republican candidate for governor and a former member of the House of Representatives, issued a statement responding to Mr. Obama’s remarks, saying that the president was still “not listening to New Yorkers.”
“With over 100 mosques in New York City, this is not an issue of religion, but one of safety and security,” he said.
Sarah Palin, the former governor of Alaska and the Republican vice-presidential candidate in 2008, has called the project “an unnecessary provocation” and urged “peace-seeking Muslims” to reject it.
The Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish organization, has also opposed the center.
In his remarks, Mr. Obama distinguished between the terrorists who plotted the 9/11 attacks and Islam. “Al Qaeda’s cause is not Islam — it is a gross distortion of Islam,” the president said, adding, “In fact, Al Qaeda has killed more Muslims than people of any other religion, and that list includes innocent Muslims who were killed on 9/11.”
Noting that “Muslim Americans serve with honor in our military,” Mr. Obama said that at next week’s iftar at the Pentagon, “tribute will be paid to three soldiers who gave their lives in Iraq and now rest among the heroes of Arlington National Cemetery.”
Mr. Obama ran for office promising to improve relations with the Muslim world, by taking steps like closing the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and more generally reaching out. In a speech in Cairo last year, he vowed “a new beginning.”
But Ali Abunimah, an Arab-American journalist and author, said the president has since left many Muslims disappointed.
“There has been no follow-through; Guantánamo is still open and so forth, so all you have left for him to show is in the symbolic field,” Mr. Abunimah said, adding that it was imperative for Mr. Obama to “stand up to Islamophobia.”
Once Mr. Bloomberg spoke out, the president’s course seemed clear, said Steven Clemons of the New America Foundation, a public policy institution here.
“Bloomberg’s speech was, I think, the pivotal one, and set the standard for leadership on this issue,” Mr. Clemons said.
Mr. Bloomberg, in a statement, said: “This proposed mosque and community center in Lower Manhattan is as important a test of the separation of church and state as we may see in our lifetime, and I applaud President Obama’s clarion defense of the freedom of religion tonight.”
Sharif el-Gamal, the developer on the project, said, “We are deeply moved and tremendously grateful for our president’s words.”
A building on the site of the proposed center is already used for prayers, and some worshipers there on Friday night discussed the president’s remarks.
Mohamed Haroun, an intern at a mechanical engineering firm, said, “What he should have said was: ‘This is a community decision. Constitutionally, they have the right to do it, but it’s a community decision and we should see what the local community wants to do.’ ”
Anne Barnard and M. Amedeo Tumolillo contributed reporting from New York.
You've Lost America, Mr. President
By Arnold Ahlert
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | I was "one incident too early." On November 5, 2009, I wrote this for JWR's "sister site", Political Mavens:
"Barack Obama's presidency is effectively over. Strong words? Ask yourself this: what other president of the United States would have spent almost three minutes speaking at the Dept. of Interior before getting around to mentioning the fact that twelve soldiers had been killed, and thirty one wounded in a massacre at Fort Hood in Texas?"
Alas, most Americans let this travesty slide down the memory hole. Thankfully, like he has with so many other unpopular positions, Barack Hussein Obama has "doubled down:" his support of the Ground Zero mosque is game, set, match.
As I wrote in my previous column, the true intentions of the mosque builders were revealed when they turned down NY Governor David Patterson's offer of state land in return for re-locating the mosque away from Ground Zero. They refused. That this "factoid" was seemingly irrelevant to the president speaks volumes.
It is worth remembering this is the same president who belittled ordinary Americans for "clinging" to religion. I guess Muslims "clinging" to a location that infuriates the overwhelming majority of Americans is perfectly fine, even after it's been revealed for the rankly provocative plan it truly is.
Ordinary Americans? They recognize a self-aggrandizing, holier-than-thou phony when they see one. They aren't fooled by a president who says that, "Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground"--only seconds before he reveals the total hollowness of that statement by saying he's fine with a mosque on top of it.
Some one must have told Mr. Obama it wasn't flying. On Saturday, he issued a "clarifying" statement: he wasn't commenting on the "wisdom" of putting a mosque in a particular location, but on the "right people have that dates back to our founding."
Baloney. Reasonable Americans aren't demanding anything remotely resembling a ban on Islam or the ability of its adherents to worship as they please. They're saying show some respect for American sensibilities, and don't build a mosque adjacent to the place where a national tragedy took place--one perpetrated in the name of Islam.
I have tremendous respect for the office of the presidency. That respect has gotten me and doubtless a lot of other Americans through some pretty tough times. And as much as I've disliked some of the people who've occupied that office, I've always taken comfort in the fact that, when push comes to shove, every one of those men, irrespective of political ideology, had America's best interests at heart.
No longer. For the first time in my lifetime, we have an alien in the White House.
And that doesn't mean what some of you might think. For the purposes of this column, the "birther debate" is irrelevant. What I'm talking about is a man completely divorced from the American ethos. A man who is utterly clueless about what most Americans want, think or feel. The first president of the United States on the public record with the idea that American exceptionalism is nothing more than one item on a laundry list of national exceptionalisms--none better or worse than any other.
A man who will take America's side--only after he's concluded that it doesn't conflict with his larger worldview.
Sadly, we've reached a point where most Americans don't expect anything different. And why should they? This is a man up to his neck in meaningful associations with card-carrying members of the Hate America crowd--from boyhood mentor, communist Frank Marshall, and racist preacher, Jeremiah Wright, to Weather Underground terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn, and other rabid leftists. This is a man who has stacked his administration with a roster of radicals dedicated to the idea that America is a nation of unrepentant bigots, racists and other low-lifes who must be whipped into "progressive" shape. This is a man who learned--and taught--the "Alinsky Method," a blueprint for the radical re-organization of America by stealth.
Why has the president doggedly kept entire parts of his life, from his early college years straight through law school, away from public view? Bet the farm it's because any paper trail from those years would reveal this president to be the Marxist/socialist radical that occasionally breaches the "teleprompted" facade he has so carefully erected.
Last Friday, the mask slipped once again. It would have been the easiest thing in the world to point a comment directly towards the Cordoba House builders explaining that, while freedom of religion is a sacred American value, their refusal to accept an alternative site on state land offered by the governor is very troubling. He could have called their bluff and said he stands with the overwhelming majority of Americans who find such a refusal appalling. He could have said that "cultural sensitivity" is a two-way street, and that it is about time self-professed "moderate Muslims" demonstrated their moderation.
But he didn't. And he didn't because, for this "citizen of the world," the idea of "putting America first" requires considerable effort. Quite frankly, this is astounding. There is no other position in government where the idea of being "reflexively American" is more important. There is no other man in the country with the unfettered power to put American men and women in harm's way. That fact alone requires unstinting loyalty to our nation, and an unbridled sense of patriotism.
Is that what Americans see when they look at Barack Obama? Or do they see a narcissistic, serial apologizer, a split-the-difference-with-our-enemies appeaser who golfs and parties--while America burns?
This president, along with his lap-dog media supporters, will continue to tell Americans that their anger and disgust has little or nothing to do with the shortcomings of Barack Obama. Everything wrong with the country is "someone else's fault," be it "racist" tea partiers, "fat cat" bankers, "greedy" doctors, "irresponsible" corporations, Republicans, or their favorite whipping boy, George W. Bush.
Sorry, Mr. Obama, no sale. You've done a grand job of alienating the majority of Americans all by yourself. And you know it too, or you wouldn't have "clarified" your position on the Ground Zero mosque twenty four hours after the "real you" revealed itself.
Perhaps someday we'll have someone in the Oval Office with a more jaundiced view of America than yours. I hope I never live to see it. And I fervently hope Americans remember exactly who you are when 2012 rolls around. We can probably muddle through two more years with a charlatan in the White House.
Heaven help America if it's six.
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | I was "one incident too early." On November 5, 2009, I wrote this for JWR's "sister site", Political Mavens:
"Barack Obama's presidency is effectively over. Strong words? Ask yourself this: what other president of the United States would have spent almost three minutes speaking at the Dept. of Interior before getting around to mentioning the fact that twelve soldiers had been killed, and thirty one wounded in a massacre at Fort Hood in Texas?"
Alas, most Americans let this travesty slide down the memory hole. Thankfully, like he has with so many other unpopular positions, Barack Hussein Obama has "doubled down:" his support of the Ground Zero mosque is game, set, match.
As I wrote in my previous column, the true intentions of the mosque builders were revealed when they turned down NY Governor David Patterson's offer of state land in return for re-locating the mosque away from Ground Zero. They refused. That this "factoid" was seemingly irrelevant to the president speaks volumes.
It is worth remembering this is the same president who belittled ordinary Americans for "clinging" to religion. I guess Muslims "clinging" to a location that infuriates the overwhelming majority of Americans is perfectly fine, even after it's been revealed for the rankly provocative plan it truly is.
Ordinary Americans? They recognize a self-aggrandizing, holier-than-thou phony when they see one. They aren't fooled by a president who says that, "Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground"--only seconds before he reveals the total hollowness of that statement by saying he's fine with a mosque on top of it.
Some one must have told Mr. Obama it wasn't flying. On Saturday, he issued a "clarifying" statement: he wasn't commenting on the "wisdom" of putting a mosque in a particular location, but on the "right people have that dates back to our founding."
Baloney. Reasonable Americans aren't demanding anything remotely resembling a ban on Islam or the ability of its adherents to worship as they please. They're saying show some respect for American sensibilities, and don't build a mosque adjacent to the place where a national tragedy took place--one perpetrated in the name of Islam.
I have tremendous respect for the office of the presidency. That respect has gotten me and doubtless a lot of other Americans through some pretty tough times. And as much as I've disliked some of the people who've occupied that office, I've always taken comfort in the fact that, when push comes to shove, every one of those men, irrespective of political ideology, had America's best interests at heart.
No longer. For the first time in my lifetime, we have an alien in the White House.
And that doesn't mean what some of you might think. For the purposes of this column, the "birther debate" is irrelevant. What I'm talking about is a man completely divorced from the American ethos. A man who is utterly clueless about what most Americans want, think or feel. The first president of the United States on the public record with the idea that American exceptionalism is nothing more than one item on a laundry list of national exceptionalisms--none better or worse than any other.
A man who will take America's side--only after he's concluded that it doesn't conflict with his larger worldview.
Sadly, we've reached a point where most Americans don't expect anything different. And why should they? This is a man up to his neck in meaningful associations with card-carrying members of the Hate America crowd--from boyhood mentor, communist Frank Marshall, and racist preacher, Jeremiah Wright, to Weather Underground terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn, and other rabid leftists. This is a man who has stacked his administration with a roster of radicals dedicated to the idea that America is a nation of unrepentant bigots, racists and other low-lifes who must be whipped into "progressive" shape. This is a man who learned--and taught--the "Alinsky Method," a blueprint for the radical re-organization of America by stealth.
Why has the president doggedly kept entire parts of his life, from his early college years straight through law school, away from public view? Bet the farm it's because any paper trail from those years would reveal this president to be the Marxist/socialist radical that occasionally breaches the "teleprompted" facade he has so carefully erected.
Last Friday, the mask slipped once again. It would have been the easiest thing in the world to point a comment directly towards the Cordoba House builders explaining that, while freedom of religion is a sacred American value, their refusal to accept an alternative site on state land offered by the governor is very troubling. He could have called their bluff and said he stands with the overwhelming majority of Americans who find such a refusal appalling. He could have said that "cultural sensitivity" is a two-way street, and that it is about time self-professed "moderate Muslims" demonstrated their moderation.
But he didn't. And he didn't because, for this "citizen of the world," the idea of "putting America first" requires considerable effort. Quite frankly, this is astounding. There is no other position in government where the idea of being "reflexively American" is more important. There is no other man in the country with the unfettered power to put American men and women in harm's way. That fact alone requires unstinting loyalty to our nation, and an unbridled sense of patriotism.
Is that what Americans see when they look at Barack Obama? Or do they see a narcissistic, serial apologizer, a split-the-difference-with-our-enemies appeaser who golfs and parties--while America burns?
This president, along with his lap-dog media supporters, will continue to tell Americans that their anger and disgust has little or nothing to do with the shortcomings of Barack Obama. Everything wrong with the country is "someone else's fault," be it "racist" tea partiers, "fat cat" bankers, "greedy" doctors, "irresponsible" corporations, Republicans, or their favorite whipping boy, George W. Bush.
Sorry, Mr. Obama, no sale. You've done a grand job of alienating the majority of Americans all by yourself. And you know it too, or you wouldn't have "clarified" your position on the Ground Zero mosque twenty four hours after the "real you" revealed itself.
Perhaps someday we'll have someone in the Oval Office with a more jaundiced view of America than yours. I hope I never live to see it. And I fervently hope Americans remember exactly who you are when 2012 rolls around. We can probably muddle through two more years with a charlatan in the White House.
Heaven help America if it's six.
Obama Is Colluding with a New Fascist Imperialism
By James Lewis
Nothing is more like the fascist Axis of the 1930s than Islamist expansionism today. Like the Hitler-Tojo-Mussolini Axis of the 1930s, Islamic fascists are fundamentally imperialistic, with an explicit order from on High to subjugate civilized people or turn them to ashes. Mohammed himself famously threatened the cultured Persian and Byzantine Emperors of his time, and in the following years, his followers knocked those empires over like devouring army ants.
The peace-loving Buddhist monasteries of India were consumed by invading Muslim armies, with the result that there are no Buddhist monasteries left in India today. Not a single one. Only Hinduism survived the Muslim invasions, because Hindus are not pacifists. You can ask any Sikh about that; they are a huge warrior religion that arose as a buffer between Hindu India and its many Muslim invaders, who now hold Pakistan and Afghanistan. In India, the Buddhist monks just died or fled to Tibet. So much for the glorious results of peaceful resistance against Muslim armies.
Wherever Islamic fascists go, they first like to frighten and intimidate less warlike peoples -- as in London today, where any BBC criticism of Islamic fascists is streng verboten. That's what the Ground Zero Mosque and the Mohammed cartoon uproar have in common: They are purposeful agitprop campaigns to scare and intimidate all the weak-willed liberals in the West, a standard Islamist tactic to conquer by intimidation, just as Muslim conquerors have always done. Why bother to wage war when you can win by terror? Putin understands that, the Chinese understand it, and it's clear enough around the Middle East. Only American liberals and European socialists are in denial. That's why they are the biggest round-heels in the world. They will happily collude in their own subjection and degradation.
Islamic practice has always required mosques to have the highest towers in any subjugated city. No Jews or Christians were ever allowed to build higher places of worship, to ride higher (on horses or mules), or even to raise their heads higher while walking the streets than any Muslim. If you were a Jew or a Christian, you would duck your head deep down as you passed a Muslim, who was allowed to spit on you at will. As recently as the Ottoman Empire (crumbled in 1917), all dhimmis were unceremoniously beaten to the ground if they dared to raise their heads higher than a passing Muslim. Modern Westerners deny the obvious, but that is because they are wishful idiots, self-inflicted ignorami, and dead meat to all the predators of this world. It's Little Red Riding Hood skipping into the dark forest again, but this time nobody told her about the Big Bad Wolf.
Islamic fascism is committing African genocides here and now, as in the Sudan, where a radical Muslim murder regime has been enabled by the "international community" to persecute and kill animist and Christian Africans since the 1990s. Rather than stopping the horrors by simply arming Africans who are killed for Allah, the Sudan has been gloriously elected to the Human Rights Commission of the U.N. General Assembly with the active connivance of the Left. That is just another fact that is understood by anybody who cares to open their eyes. The U.N. has been conquered without a shot by the new fascists, so that U.N. "peacekeeping" forces are rendered impotent in the face of genocide.
Kofi Annan stood by during the Rwandan genocides in the 1990s and then was elected Secretary General of the U.N. partly as a reward; Islamic regimes and the Euro-Left knew he wouldn't make trouble for them. Annan earned his by using the Food for Oil conspiracy to skim billions off "humanitarian" Iraqi oil sales to help Saddam Hussein, in criminal collusion with French President Jacques Chirac and Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin. The U.S. press, filled to the brim with useless idiots and suckers, celebrated the bad guys and attacked the good guys. The biggest liberals always fall for the worst tyrants.
You think that evil is safely dead and in the past? You must be a liberal and self-deluded. But I repeat myself, as Mark Twain said in similar circumstances.
Islamofascists constantly threaten genocide against the Jews, as in the daily fulminations of that little Twelver freak Ahmadinejad -- but also in the words just reported by our good friend the Saudi King of the Arabian desert: "There are two nations that do not deserve to live: Israel and Iran."
This is the 7th-century king of the camel-raiders that the President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, publicly bowed down to -- in a universal gesture of submission that was instantly understood throughout the Muslim world.
Neville Chamberlain gave Adolf Hitler only a half-bow after the Munich appeasement summit of 1938. Liberals are forever thus.
To complete the bleak parallels to the horrible 1930s, we see the Left-Fascist alliance together again. If you think Bill Ayers and Jodie Evans were just accidentally whipping up a PR stunt with the Turkish suiciders off the coast of Gaza a few months ago, then you, too, were taken in by classic agitprop collusion between the radical Left and Islamic fascists. Those were Muslim Bro suiciders (Turkish allies of Hamas) on board the tourist ship Mavi Marmara, under the direct command of the new Islamist fascist regime in Turkey. Like the recent Lebanese border assassination ambush of a senior Israeli military leader, this was a murderous setup. The assassination team in Lebanon Army uniforms had their snipers all set up with 50-caliber long-distance weapons, conveniently provided by U.S. military trainers.
But don't expect any JournoListers to grok those facts any time soon. They are too busy looking for evil among American conservatives. The Left is half-deluded and half-Machiavellian, and each half constantly lies to the other. The lefty media desperately want to be deluded, of course, like the abused wife of a violent alcoholic. It's a sort of token of love.
Socialist Europeans are knocking each other out like bowling pins today in their hurry to kowtow to the rising Fascist powers, who have bought all three British Parliamentary parties with their oil billions. Tony Blair is working for Libya's Muammar Khadafi today, which tells you where the Labour Party's heart really is. Eurosocialists have for decades imported hundreds of thousands of fundamentalist Muslims from the badlands of Pakistan with promises of lifelong welfare and four wives apiece, a promise that an ambitious young Islamofascist from Peshawar can hardly be expected to resist. As a result, Muslim fundamentalists now virtually control parts of Europe's major cities, including Rotterdam, Hamburg, and Paris. Socialist Europeans know that their countries are coming to an end as Western states. They are not as idiotic as they constantly pretend to be. But they are drunk on the perks of power -- and let tomorrow be damned. After us, the deluge.
Like the demonic 1930s, the Left is again a lot more interested in sabotaging freely elected governments than in fighting rising fascist tyrannies that delight in oppressing millions of women, in persecuting and hanging homosexuals, and in practicing sadistic violence toward a host of other victim groups. Sadistic violence -- an intense delight in inflicting pain on innocent people -- was a huge and now-forgotten feature of the three big Fascist powers of the 1930s: the Nazis, the Japanese Imperial Army, and even Mussolini's Italians in North Africa.
Some people define Fascism as a corporatist economic system, like Obama Motors today. It could just as well be defined as the public celebration and practice of massive sadism against enslaved peoples. Mussolini practiced massive sadism in Africa. Hitler practiced systematic sadism against inferior peoples wherever he could -- against Russians, Poles, Jews, Gypsies, German social democrats, on and on. Imperial Japan was horrific in its sadistic treatment of non-Japanese -- American and European prisoners, Chinese people as a whole, black Americans, Filipinos and other Malay peoples in Asia, on and on. Even the Soviets did not celebrate sadistic torture of its enemies in public, as far as I remember, though they certainly practiced it in private, as the Russians still do today in Chechnya.
Ideologically rationalized sadism and cruelty is not even acknowledged today by such lowlife organs as the New York Times. The Times mostly ignored and thereby colluded in Hitler's and Stalin's industrialized sadism in the 1930s. Some things change, but the New York Times always enables the very worst regimes in the world. It is one of those constants that give one faith in the basic stability of things. Tyrannies change names, but the Times always kowtows to the most bloodstained nastocrats it can find. They may even teach it in Journalism 101 at Columbia.
The historic fact is that the Left always enables fascist monsters. I don't claim to understand that fact, but it's easy enough to see it over and over again. It seems to be part of their deep moral cowardice and weakness of character. The prophet Jeremiah saw it in the sixth century BCE and roundly attacked those who pretended to heal "the broken daughter of my people, saying Peace, Peace, but there is no Peace." Listen to our liberal friends, and they are constantly saying it over and over again, a mantra that makes them feel better even if it is a flagrant lie.
Liberalism is just the self-delusion of moral cowards throughout history. It is not a modern ideology, as it always claims to be -- now it's "progressive" again. They can't even think of new labels. It's is just a form of denial, a pop fantasy that allows them to avoid thinking scary thoughts. That is why liberalism can be found over and over again in human history, under a thousand different labels.
We can see that delusional thinking right now in Barack Hussein Obama and in Hillary, just as we saw it in the Carter administration -- which gave Islamic fascism its first taste of real power in 1979. It's important to remember that reactionary Islamic fascism was mostly gone after the Ottoman Empire crumbled in 1917. A number of Muslim countries desperately tried to modernize for sixty years -- until Jimmy Carter gave the pre-medieval throwback Ayatollah Khomeini his first big chance in 1979. That started a race among all the suppressed Islamofascists in Sunni and Shiite countries. Nobel Peace Prize-winner Jimmy Carter's dysfunctional politics was not an accident, nor his love affair with Hamas and Khomeini; it is an obsessive-compulsive psychopathology, and it happens over and over again in human history.
That's why the Norwegian politicians keep handing out that the Nobel Appeasement Prize. It's why Obama got it just for getting elected. The Left and the Islamic fascists figured out who Obama was long before the people of America were told. After all, he's one of them.
Nothing is more like the fascist Axis of the 1930s than Islamist expansionism today. Like the Hitler-Tojo-Mussolini Axis of the 1930s, Islamic fascists are fundamentally imperialistic, with an explicit order from on High to subjugate civilized people or turn them to ashes. Mohammed himself famously threatened the cultured Persian and Byzantine Emperors of his time, and in the following years, his followers knocked those empires over like devouring army ants.
The peace-loving Buddhist monasteries of India were consumed by invading Muslim armies, with the result that there are no Buddhist monasteries left in India today. Not a single one. Only Hinduism survived the Muslim invasions, because Hindus are not pacifists. You can ask any Sikh about that; they are a huge warrior religion that arose as a buffer between Hindu India and its many Muslim invaders, who now hold Pakistan and Afghanistan. In India, the Buddhist monks just died or fled to Tibet. So much for the glorious results of peaceful resistance against Muslim armies.
Wherever Islamic fascists go, they first like to frighten and intimidate less warlike peoples -- as in London today, where any BBC criticism of Islamic fascists is streng verboten. That's what the Ground Zero Mosque and the Mohammed cartoon uproar have in common: They are purposeful agitprop campaigns to scare and intimidate all the weak-willed liberals in the West, a standard Islamist tactic to conquer by intimidation, just as Muslim conquerors have always done. Why bother to wage war when you can win by terror? Putin understands that, the Chinese understand it, and it's clear enough around the Middle East. Only American liberals and European socialists are in denial. That's why they are the biggest round-heels in the world. They will happily collude in their own subjection and degradation.
Islamic practice has always required mosques to have the highest towers in any subjugated city. No Jews or Christians were ever allowed to build higher places of worship, to ride higher (on horses or mules), or even to raise their heads higher while walking the streets than any Muslim. If you were a Jew or a Christian, you would duck your head deep down as you passed a Muslim, who was allowed to spit on you at will. As recently as the Ottoman Empire (crumbled in 1917), all dhimmis were unceremoniously beaten to the ground if they dared to raise their heads higher than a passing Muslim. Modern Westerners deny the obvious, but that is because they are wishful idiots, self-inflicted ignorami, and dead meat to all the predators of this world. It's Little Red Riding Hood skipping into the dark forest again, but this time nobody told her about the Big Bad Wolf.
Islamic fascism is committing African genocides here and now, as in the Sudan, where a radical Muslim murder regime has been enabled by the "international community" to persecute and kill animist and Christian Africans since the 1990s. Rather than stopping the horrors by simply arming Africans who are killed for Allah, the Sudan has been gloriously elected to the Human Rights Commission of the U.N. General Assembly with the active connivance of the Left. That is just another fact that is understood by anybody who cares to open their eyes. The U.N. has been conquered without a shot by the new fascists, so that U.N. "peacekeeping" forces are rendered impotent in the face of genocide.
Kofi Annan stood by during the Rwandan genocides in the 1990s and then was elected Secretary General of the U.N. partly as a reward; Islamic regimes and the Euro-Left knew he wouldn't make trouble for them. Annan earned his by using the Food for Oil conspiracy to skim billions off "humanitarian" Iraqi oil sales to help Saddam Hussein, in criminal collusion with French President Jacques Chirac and Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin. The U.S. press, filled to the brim with useless idiots and suckers, celebrated the bad guys and attacked the good guys. The biggest liberals always fall for the worst tyrants.
You think that evil is safely dead and in the past? You must be a liberal and self-deluded. But I repeat myself, as Mark Twain said in similar circumstances.
Islamofascists constantly threaten genocide against the Jews, as in the daily fulminations of that little Twelver freak Ahmadinejad -- but also in the words just reported by our good friend the Saudi King of the Arabian desert: "There are two nations that do not deserve to live: Israel and Iran."
This is the 7th-century king of the camel-raiders that the President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, publicly bowed down to -- in a universal gesture of submission that was instantly understood throughout the Muslim world.
Neville Chamberlain gave Adolf Hitler only a half-bow after the Munich appeasement summit of 1938. Liberals are forever thus.
To complete the bleak parallels to the horrible 1930s, we see the Left-Fascist alliance together again. If you think Bill Ayers and Jodie Evans were just accidentally whipping up a PR stunt with the Turkish suiciders off the coast of Gaza a few months ago, then you, too, were taken in by classic agitprop collusion between the radical Left and Islamic fascists. Those were Muslim Bro suiciders (Turkish allies of Hamas) on board the tourist ship Mavi Marmara, under the direct command of the new Islamist fascist regime in Turkey. Like the recent Lebanese border assassination ambush of a senior Israeli military leader, this was a murderous setup. The assassination team in Lebanon Army uniforms had their snipers all set up with 50-caliber long-distance weapons, conveniently provided by U.S. military trainers.
But don't expect any JournoListers to grok those facts any time soon. They are too busy looking for evil among American conservatives. The Left is half-deluded and half-Machiavellian, and each half constantly lies to the other. The lefty media desperately want to be deluded, of course, like the abused wife of a violent alcoholic. It's a sort of token of love.
Socialist Europeans are knocking each other out like bowling pins today in their hurry to kowtow to the rising Fascist powers, who have bought all three British Parliamentary parties with their oil billions. Tony Blair is working for Libya's Muammar Khadafi today, which tells you where the Labour Party's heart really is. Eurosocialists have for decades imported hundreds of thousands of fundamentalist Muslims from the badlands of Pakistan with promises of lifelong welfare and four wives apiece, a promise that an ambitious young Islamofascist from Peshawar can hardly be expected to resist. As a result, Muslim fundamentalists now virtually control parts of Europe's major cities, including Rotterdam, Hamburg, and Paris. Socialist Europeans know that their countries are coming to an end as Western states. They are not as idiotic as they constantly pretend to be. But they are drunk on the perks of power -- and let tomorrow be damned. After us, the deluge.
Like the demonic 1930s, the Left is again a lot more interested in sabotaging freely elected governments than in fighting rising fascist tyrannies that delight in oppressing millions of women, in persecuting and hanging homosexuals, and in practicing sadistic violence toward a host of other victim groups. Sadistic violence -- an intense delight in inflicting pain on innocent people -- was a huge and now-forgotten feature of the three big Fascist powers of the 1930s: the Nazis, the Japanese Imperial Army, and even Mussolini's Italians in North Africa.
Some people define Fascism as a corporatist economic system, like Obama Motors today. It could just as well be defined as the public celebration and practice of massive sadism against enslaved peoples. Mussolini practiced massive sadism in Africa. Hitler practiced systematic sadism against inferior peoples wherever he could -- against Russians, Poles, Jews, Gypsies, German social democrats, on and on. Imperial Japan was horrific in its sadistic treatment of non-Japanese -- American and European prisoners, Chinese people as a whole, black Americans, Filipinos and other Malay peoples in Asia, on and on. Even the Soviets did not celebrate sadistic torture of its enemies in public, as far as I remember, though they certainly practiced it in private, as the Russians still do today in Chechnya.
Ideologically rationalized sadism and cruelty is not even acknowledged today by such lowlife organs as the New York Times. The Times mostly ignored and thereby colluded in Hitler's and Stalin's industrialized sadism in the 1930s. Some things change, but the New York Times always enables the very worst regimes in the world. It is one of those constants that give one faith in the basic stability of things. Tyrannies change names, but the Times always kowtows to the most bloodstained nastocrats it can find. They may even teach it in Journalism 101 at Columbia.
The historic fact is that the Left always enables fascist monsters. I don't claim to understand that fact, but it's easy enough to see it over and over again. It seems to be part of their deep moral cowardice and weakness of character. The prophet Jeremiah saw it in the sixth century BCE and roundly attacked those who pretended to heal "the broken daughter of my people, saying Peace, Peace, but there is no Peace." Listen to our liberal friends, and they are constantly saying it over and over again, a mantra that makes them feel better even if it is a flagrant lie.
Liberalism is just the self-delusion of moral cowards throughout history. It is not a modern ideology, as it always claims to be -- now it's "progressive" again. They can't even think of new labels. It's is just a form of denial, a pop fantasy that allows them to avoid thinking scary thoughts. That is why liberalism can be found over and over again in human history, under a thousand different labels.
We can see that delusional thinking right now in Barack Hussein Obama and in Hillary, just as we saw it in the Carter administration -- which gave Islamic fascism its first taste of real power in 1979. It's important to remember that reactionary Islamic fascism was mostly gone after the Ottoman Empire crumbled in 1917. A number of Muslim countries desperately tried to modernize for sixty years -- until Jimmy Carter gave the pre-medieval throwback Ayatollah Khomeini his first big chance in 1979. That started a race among all the suppressed Islamofascists in Sunni and Shiite countries. Nobel Peace Prize-winner Jimmy Carter's dysfunctional politics was not an accident, nor his love affair with Hamas and Khomeini; it is an obsessive-compulsive psychopathology, and it happens over and over again in human history.
That's why the Norwegian politicians keep handing out that the Nobel Appeasement Prize. It's why Obama got it just for getting elected. The Left and the Islamic fascists figured out who Obama was long before the people of America were told. After all, he's one of them.
WASHINGTON (AFP) – US President Barack Obama's endorsement of a controversial plan to build a mosque just blocks from Ground Zero poured fuel Saturday on a raging debate over religious freedom and sensitivities over the 9/11 attacks.
Muslims "have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country," Obama said at an Iftar meal at the White House for Muslims breaking their Ramadan fast late Friday.
That includes "the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan."
Obama had remained on the sidelines over plans to build an Islamic cultural center, which includes a mosque, two blocks away from the gaping Ground Zero hole where the Twin Towers were destroyed on September 11, 2001.
But after a New York city commission on August 3 unanimously approved the plans, the president came out to fully support the project.
"This is America," Obama said, "and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are."
Planners say the multi-story "Cordoba House" will include a mosque, sports facilities, theater, restaurant and possibly a day care, and would be open to all visitors to demonstrate that Muslims are part of their community.
In the remarks Obama acknowledged that the site where the World Trade Center towers once stood remains "hallowed ground," and that the 9/11 attacks "were a deeply traumatic event for our country."
The proposed location however has touched raw nerves.
On Saturday the group 9/11 Families for a Safe & Strong America, which represents some relatives of attack victims, said it was "stunned" by the president's remarks.
Obama "has abandoned America at the place where America's heart was broken nine years ago, and where her true values were on display for all to see," the group said.
"Now this president declares that the victims of 9/11 and their families must bear another burden. We must stand silent at the last place in America where 9/11 is still remembered with reverence or risk being called religious bigots."
Building the mosque "is a deliberately provocative act that will precipitate more bloodshed in the name of Allah," the group claimed.
Another group representing other relatives of 9/11 victims, the September Eleventh Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, said in May that it "strongly supports" the Islamic center.
A CNN/Opinion Research poll earlier this month showed that 68 percent of Americans opposed the Islamic center plans, while only 29 percent favored them.
Congressman Peter King, who represents New York in the US House of Representatives, said the Muslim community was "abusing" its rights and "needlessly offending" many people.
"It is insensitive and uncaring for the Muslim community to build a mosque in the shadow of ground zero," said King, a Republican. "Unfortunately the president caved in to political correctness."
Self-described "liberal Muslim" Farzana Hassan, a Canadian, told Fox News on Saturday that she believes the Islamic center's location is "provocative."
"This is highly insensitive to the sentiments of the people who lost loved ones in the 9/11 attacks," said Hassan, who has written books on Islam.
Obama said the Al-Qaeda terrorists responsible for the 9/11 attacks do not represent Islam.
"It is a gross distortion of Islam," the president said late Friday. "In fact, Al-Qaeda has killed more Muslims than people of any other religion -- and that list of victims includes innocent Muslims who were killed on 9/11."
The Council on American-Islamic Relations, a US advocacy group, said it welcomed Obama's "strong support for Muslim religious rights."
Nihad Awad, a senior CAIR official, said he hoped his remarks "will serve as encouragement to those who are challenging the rising level of Islamophobia in our society."
Awad also urged "other national political and religious leaders to speak out in defense of the freedom of religion and equality of all Americans."
One of those reacting Saturday was New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
"I applaud President Obama's clarion defense of the freedom of religion," Bloomberg said in a statement.
The proposed site "is as important a test of the separation of church and state as we may see in our lifetime," he said.
Passions over the issue run high across the country.
A Florida church has already said it will hold a "Koran-burning" on September 11 -- which this year coincides with Eid al-Fitr, the end-of-Ramadan holiday.
Muslims "have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country," Obama said at an Iftar meal at the White House for Muslims breaking their Ramadan fast late Friday.
That includes "the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan."
Obama had remained on the sidelines over plans to build an Islamic cultural center, which includes a mosque, two blocks away from the gaping Ground Zero hole where the Twin Towers were destroyed on September 11, 2001.
But after a New York city commission on August 3 unanimously approved the plans, the president came out to fully support the project.
"This is America," Obama said, "and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are."
Planners say the multi-story "Cordoba House" will include a mosque, sports facilities, theater, restaurant and possibly a day care, and would be open to all visitors to demonstrate that Muslims are part of their community.
In the remarks Obama acknowledged that the site where the World Trade Center towers once stood remains "hallowed ground," and that the 9/11 attacks "were a deeply traumatic event for our country."
The proposed location however has touched raw nerves.
On Saturday the group 9/11 Families for a Safe & Strong America, which represents some relatives of attack victims, said it was "stunned" by the president's remarks.
Obama "has abandoned America at the place where America's heart was broken nine years ago, and where her true values were on display for all to see," the group said.
"Now this president declares that the victims of 9/11 and their families must bear another burden. We must stand silent at the last place in America where 9/11 is still remembered with reverence or risk being called religious bigots."
Building the mosque "is a deliberately provocative act that will precipitate more bloodshed in the name of Allah," the group claimed.
Another group representing other relatives of 9/11 victims, the September Eleventh Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, said in May that it "strongly supports" the Islamic center.
A CNN/Opinion Research poll earlier this month showed that 68 percent of Americans opposed the Islamic center plans, while only 29 percent favored them.
Congressman Peter King, who represents New York in the US House of Representatives, said the Muslim community was "abusing" its rights and "needlessly offending" many people.
"It is insensitive and uncaring for the Muslim community to build a mosque in the shadow of ground zero," said King, a Republican. "Unfortunately the president caved in to political correctness."
Self-described "liberal Muslim" Farzana Hassan, a Canadian, told Fox News on Saturday that she believes the Islamic center's location is "provocative."
"This is highly insensitive to the sentiments of the people who lost loved ones in the 9/11 attacks," said Hassan, who has written books on Islam.
Obama said the Al-Qaeda terrorists responsible for the 9/11 attacks do not represent Islam.
"It is a gross distortion of Islam," the president said late Friday. "In fact, Al-Qaeda has killed more Muslims than people of any other religion -- and that list of victims includes innocent Muslims who were killed on 9/11."
The Council on American-Islamic Relations, a US advocacy group, said it welcomed Obama's "strong support for Muslim religious rights."
Nihad Awad, a senior CAIR official, said he hoped his remarks "will serve as encouragement to those who are challenging the rising level of Islamophobia in our society."
Awad also urged "other national political and religious leaders to speak out in defense of the freedom of religion and equality of all Americans."
One of those reacting Saturday was New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
"I applaud President Obama's clarion defense of the freedom of religion," Bloomberg said in a statement.
The proposed site "is as important a test of the separation of church and state as we may see in our lifetime," he said.
Passions over the issue run high across the country.
A Florida church has already said it will hold a "Koran-burning" on September 11 -- which this year coincides with Eid al-Fitr, the end-of-Ramadan holiday.
A ‘NOD’ FROM THE CRAFT & THE ALTAR OF ZEUS
It would be pleasant to think that using the Bible during the US Presidential Oath of Office actually means something to those who place their hand on it and swear to “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States… so help me God.” But Obama, who had to repeat his swearing in ceremony after the word “faithfully” was garbled by Chief Justice John Roberts during the inauguration, did so the following day in the Map Room of the White House before a press pool and a small group of aides, and this time, the Oath was administered without the use of a Bible, insinuating to some that the Good Book was only public “eye-candy” in the first instance and also that the Oath of Barack Hussein Obama was biblically invalid.
While this may seem trivial to the average person, what it means to secret orders is consequential. Groups such as Masons (who honored Obama with the first-ever-inaugural ball in Washington, DC, January 20th, 2009) esteem rituals, gestures, the use of books such as the Bible, and Oaths taken by heads of State to be of the highest mystical importance. This is why everything they do is administered through appropriate rituals, initiations and incitations. Ethereal power—including supernatural agents—can be manipulated, bound and released to execute blessings or curses as a result of proper oaths. Breaking an oath can likewise result in dire repercussion in their opinion. Because this is not taken lightly by occultists, members of the Craft would have a difficult time believing the Oath of Office of the President of the US—one of the most hallowed American traditions—was so easily flubbed. The very beginning of the Oath, “I do solemnly swear,” is a spiritual petition. The word ‘solemn’ means ‘an invocation of a religious sanction’ or entreaty before deity to witness, sanction and bless the binding nature of the ceremony to carry out the office or duty. The oath also binds the individual before “God” to faithfully execute the covenant. Thus government representatives make an oath before taking public office, and witnesses in a court of law take an oath to “swear to tell the truth” before offering testimony.
These principles are deeply rooted in the Judeo-Christian faith as well as most other religions. Though there is no way of knowing what the Presidential Oath of Office deeply means to Obama or whether the blunder and redo of the swearing in ceremony was anything more than an accident, the unprecedented gaffe was suspicious to some as possibly representing important hidden meaning. Misgivings over it were additionally compounded when reflected against other curious activities and declarations by Barack Obama, which most of the media missed, downplayed, or simply refused to report on, that strongly connected his emergence with occult mythology identified in the Bible as both prophetic and demonic.
An extraordinary example of this was when Obama gave his speech in Berlin, Germany, on July 24th, 2008, titled “The World that Stands as One.” More than a few students of occult history took notice of the symbolism and location of the event, even causing some who until then had rejected any “antichrist” labels hurled at Obama to reconsider their position. This included respected Catholic writer Michael O’Brien, best known for his apocalyptic novel Father Elijah. O’Brien had received numerous letters and emails from subscribers and visitors to his website wondering if Obama was the Antichrist. At first O’Brien wrote that this was not possible. Then a friend that had seen Obama’s speech in Berlin called him, talking about how mesmerizing the speech was and that an announcer over German radio had said: “We have just heard the next President of the United States… and the future President of the World.” By now Obama was conveying an unusual likeness to the Antichrist character of his novel. After watching the Berlin speech several times for himself, O’Brien sent out a newsletter in which he admitted that, while he still doubted Obama was the prophesied ruler of the end times, he had come to believe he was “a carrier of a deadly moral virus, indeed a kind of anti-apostle spreading concepts and agendas that are not only anti-Christ but anti-human as well.” O’Brien finally conceded Obama could be instrumental in ushering in the dreaded Great Tribulation period, and worse, that he was “of the spirit of Antichrist.” [34] After Obama’s term of office was underway, O’Brien pointed out the numerous foreign and domestic problems Obama was facing, including wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the possibility of a new war with Iran, and issues related to the crumbling financial systems, saying these obstacles could overshadow Obama and lead to his defeat in the next presidential election. O’Brien then added in what was a clear reference to the coming of Antichrist, “Alternatively, he could become the ‘Great Facilitator,’ negotiator, peacemaker, working marvels throughout the world as he moves from one seemingly unsolvable problem to another.” [35]
Because it is true that any significant public political event requires both forethought and symbolic meaning, the location where Obama gave his Berlin speech in front of Berlin’s Victory Column contributed to O’Brien’s conclusions. The site was offensive to educated Germans as well as to Christians and Jews because of its ties to Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. It was nevertheless oddly appropriate, for it was upon this exact location that Hitler had planned to enthrone himself in the Welthauptstadt Germania—the new “World Capital” upon winning World War II.
During the 1930s, Hitler commissioned Albert Speer “the first architect of the Third Reich” to design the new capital. As part of the plans, the “Siegessäule” or Berlin Victory Column—a 226-foot monument topped by a golden winged figure representing Borussia, the female personification of Prussia, and Victoria, the cult goddess of military victory—was removed from its location in front of the Reichstag building in 1939 and relocated to its current location in the Tiergarten, a 495 acre park in the middle of Berlin where Obama gave his speech in front of the Nazi symbol.
Rainer Brüderle, deputy leader of the liberal political party Free Democrats in Germany complained to the newspaper Bild am Sonntag: “The Siegessäule in Berlin was moved to where it is now by Adolf Hitler. He saw it as a symbol of German superiority and of the victorious wars against Denmark, Austria and France.” This represented a serious question In Brüderle’s mind as to “whether Barack Obama was advised correctly in his choice of the Siegessäule as the site to hold a speech on his vision for a more cooperative world.” [36] Another German politician named Andreas Schockenhoff was equally disturbed, saying, “It is a problematic symbol.” [37]
Evidently it was not problematic for Obama, who stood in front of it and saluted the German audience in a way eerily similar to what Adolf Hitler used to do, followed by thousands returning the salute, which is against German law. When Obama ended his speech in front of the war goddess, he said, “With an eye toward the future, with resolve in our hearts, let us remember this history, and answer our destiny, and remake the world once again.” This is exactly what Hitler had promised to do and exactly where he had planned to memorialize it.
Of greater significance and not far from where Obama delivered his rousing speech, is the Great Altar of Zeus in the Pergamon Museum. According to several reports, Obama visited the Great Altar while in Berlin, which is especially important given what he did on returning to the United States. Before we examine Obama’s revealing actions, consider carefully what the Bible says about the Altar of Zeus in the letter to the church in Pergamos (Pergamum, Pergamon).
“And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These things saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges; I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan’s seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and has not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth” (Rev. 2:12-13).
In the Greek, the phrase “where Satan’s seat is” literally means, “where a throne to Satan is.” Scholars identify this throne or ‘seat’ as the Great Altar of Zeus that existed in Pergamos at that time. So important was the worship of Zeus in ancient Pergamos that perpetual sacrifices were offered to him upon the towering and famous 40-foot high altar. Antipas, the first leader and martyr of the early Christian church is believed to have been slain on this altar, slowly roasting to death inside the statue of a bull, the symbol and companion of Zeus. The phrase in Revelation 2:13 “wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth” is considered a citation of this event.
Approximately two-thousand years after Revelation 2:13 was written, German archeologists removed the massive altar of Zeus from the ruins of Pergamos and took it to Berlin, where it was restored as the centerpiece of the Pergamon Museum. It is here that Hitler first adored it, later building an outdoor replica of it from which he gave a series of speeches that mesmerized many Germans.
“Fast forward about another 75 years,” says blogger El Gallo. “Another charismatic young politician mesmerizes huge German crowds with a rousing speech in Berlin. Barack Hussein Obama…. [and] did Barack Obama visit… the Great Altar of Zeus…? Presumably he did.” [38]
Whether Obama received inspiration from the throne of Satan while in Berlin or not, what he did next was astonishing. Upon returning to the United States, he immediately commissioned the construction of a Greek-columned stage from which he made his acceptance speech for his party’s nomination. Because Greek temples such as those built to honor Zeus were thought to house the patron deity, the GOP ridiculed Obama, mocking him as playing Zeus of “Mount Olympus” and accusing his supporters of “kneeling” before the “Temple of Obama.” The New York Post ran an enlightening Convention Special supplement on August 28th, 2008 with the telling headline: ‘O’ MY GOD: DEMS ERECT OBAMA TEMPLE blazoned across the front cover. But it was not until blogger Joel Richardson pointed out how the design of Obama’s stage was a dead ringer for the Great Altar of Zeus [39] that Obama’s campaign managers tried to explain away the design as being a conglomeration representing the portico of the White House with the U.S. capital building. “But experts agreed with Richardson,” Gallo wrote, “it was a replica of the Great Altar of Pergamum.” [40]
Thus, incredibly, like Hitler, Obama had honored the goddess Victoria with his presence before ordering a replica of the biblical throne of Satan built, upon which he accepted his date with destiny.
A final troubling disclosure at the conclusion of this entry may cast light on why Obama seemed fascinated with such anti-Christian symbolism in the lead-up to his election victory. A Hadith (tradition) sacred to Shiite Islam from the 17th century contains a prophecy from Ali ibn Abi-Talib, which predicts that just before the return of the Mahdi (the end-times redeemer of Islam), a “tall black man will assume the reins of government in the West.” This leader will command “the strongest army on earth” and will bear “a clear sign” from the third imam, Hussein. The prophecy concludes that: “Shiites should have no doubt that he is with us.”
Does this Islamic prophecy identify Obama as the “promised warrior” who comes to help the savior of Shiite Muslims conquer the world? Amir Taheri asked this very question for Forbes Magazine in October, 2008, pointing out how “Obama’s first and second names—Barack Hussein—mean ‘the blessing of Hussein’ in Arabic and Persian” while his “family name, Obama, written in the Persian alphabet, reads O Ba Ma, which means ‘he is with us,’ the magic formula in Majlisi’s tradition.” [41]
Leap forward to 2009, and Barack Hussein Obama on June 4 gave an unprecedented speech to the Muslim world from Cairo, Egypt declaring that he is launching a new era between the United States and the Muslim world. For the first time, Obama was forthright about his Muslim heritage and stated that the United States—which he is on record as saying is “no longer a Christian nation”—is now “one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.” Newsweek editor Evan Thomas followed the president’s speech with a declaration reflected in the opinion of many, that “Obama is standing above the country, above the world, he is a sort of God.”.
It would be pleasant to think that using the Bible during the US Presidential Oath of Office actually means something to those who place their hand on it and swear to “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States… so help me God.” But Obama, who had to repeat his swearing in ceremony after the word “faithfully” was garbled by Chief Justice John Roberts during the inauguration, did so the following day in the Map Room of the White House before a press pool and a small group of aides, and this time, the Oath was administered without the use of a Bible, insinuating to some that the Good Book was only public “eye-candy” in the first instance and also that the Oath of Barack Hussein Obama was biblically invalid.
While this may seem trivial to the average person, what it means to secret orders is consequential. Groups such as Masons (who honored Obama with the first-ever-inaugural ball in Washington, DC, January 20th, 2009) esteem rituals, gestures, the use of books such as the Bible, and Oaths taken by heads of State to be of the highest mystical importance. This is why everything they do is administered through appropriate rituals, initiations and incitations. Ethereal power—including supernatural agents—can be manipulated, bound and released to execute blessings or curses as a result of proper oaths. Breaking an oath can likewise result in dire repercussion in their opinion. Because this is not taken lightly by occultists, members of the Craft would have a difficult time believing the Oath of Office of the President of the US—one of the most hallowed American traditions—was so easily flubbed. The very beginning of the Oath, “I do solemnly swear,” is a spiritual petition. The word ‘solemn’ means ‘an invocation of a religious sanction’ or entreaty before deity to witness, sanction and bless the binding nature of the ceremony to carry out the office or duty. The oath also binds the individual before “God” to faithfully execute the covenant. Thus government representatives make an oath before taking public office, and witnesses in a court of law take an oath to “swear to tell the truth” before offering testimony.
These principles are deeply rooted in the Judeo-Christian faith as well as most other religions. Though there is no way of knowing what the Presidential Oath of Office deeply means to Obama or whether the blunder and redo of the swearing in ceremony was anything more than an accident, the unprecedented gaffe was suspicious to some as possibly representing important hidden meaning. Misgivings over it were additionally compounded when reflected against other curious activities and declarations by Barack Obama, which most of the media missed, downplayed, or simply refused to report on, that strongly connected his emergence with occult mythology identified in the Bible as both prophetic and demonic.
An extraordinary example of this was when Obama gave his speech in Berlin, Germany, on July 24th, 2008, titled “The World that Stands as One.” More than a few students of occult history took notice of the symbolism and location of the event, even causing some who until then had rejected any “antichrist” labels hurled at Obama to reconsider their position. This included respected Catholic writer Michael O’Brien, best known for his apocalyptic novel Father Elijah. O’Brien had received numerous letters and emails from subscribers and visitors to his website wondering if Obama was the Antichrist. At first O’Brien wrote that this was not possible. Then a friend that had seen Obama’s speech in Berlin called him, talking about how mesmerizing the speech was and that an announcer over German radio had said: “We have just heard the next President of the United States… and the future President of the World.” By now Obama was conveying an unusual likeness to the Antichrist character of his novel. After watching the Berlin speech several times for himself, O’Brien sent out a newsletter in which he admitted that, while he still doubted Obama was the prophesied ruler of the end times, he had come to believe he was “a carrier of a deadly moral virus, indeed a kind of anti-apostle spreading concepts and agendas that are not only anti-Christ but anti-human as well.” O’Brien finally conceded Obama could be instrumental in ushering in the dreaded Great Tribulation period, and worse, that he was “of the spirit of Antichrist.” [34] After Obama’s term of office was underway, O’Brien pointed out the numerous foreign and domestic problems Obama was facing, including wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the possibility of a new war with Iran, and issues related to the crumbling financial systems, saying these obstacles could overshadow Obama and lead to his defeat in the next presidential election. O’Brien then added in what was a clear reference to the coming of Antichrist, “Alternatively, he could become the ‘Great Facilitator,’ negotiator, peacemaker, working marvels throughout the world as he moves from one seemingly unsolvable problem to another.” [35]
Because it is true that any significant public political event requires both forethought and symbolic meaning, the location where Obama gave his Berlin speech in front of Berlin’s Victory Column contributed to O’Brien’s conclusions. The site was offensive to educated Germans as well as to Christians and Jews because of its ties to Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. It was nevertheless oddly appropriate, for it was upon this exact location that Hitler had planned to enthrone himself in the Welthauptstadt Germania—the new “World Capital” upon winning World War II.
During the 1930s, Hitler commissioned Albert Speer “the first architect of the Third Reich” to design the new capital. As part of the plans, the “Siegessäule” or Berlin Victory Column—a 226-foot monument topped by a golden winged figure representing Borussia, the female personification of Prussia, and Victoria, the cult goddess of military victory—was removed from its location in front of the Reichstag building in 1939 and relocated to its current location in the Tiergarten, a 495 acre park in the middle of Berlin where Obama gave his speech in front of the Nazi symbol.
Rainer Brüderle, deputy leader of the liberal political party Free Democrats in Germany complained to the newspaper Bild am Sonntag: “The Siegessäule in Berlin was moved to where it is now by Adolf Hitler. He saw it as a symbol of German superiority and of the victorious wars against Denmark, Austria and France.” This represented a serious question In Brüderle’s mind as to “whether Barack Obama was advised correctly in his choice of the Siegessäule as the site to hold a speech on his vision for a more cooperative world.” [36] Another German politician named Andreas Schockenhoff was equally disturbed, saying, “It is a problematic symbol.” [37]
Evidently it was not problematic for Obama, who stood in front of it and saluted the German audience in a way eerily similar to what Adolf Hitler used to do, followed by thousands returning the salute, which is against German law. When Obama ended his speech in front of the war goddess, he said, “With an eye toward the future, with resolve in our hearts, let us remember this history, and answer our destiny, and remake the world once again.” This is exactly what Hitler had promised to do and exactly where he had planned to memorialize it.
Of greater significance and not far from where Obama delivered his rousing speech, is the Great Altar of Zeus in the Pergamon Museum. According to several reports, Obama visited the Great Altar while in Berlin, which is especially important given what he did on returning to the United States. Before we examine Obama’s revealing actions, consider carefully what the Bible says about the Altar of Zeus in the letter to the church in Pergamos (Pergamum, Pergamon).
“And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These things saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges; I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan’s seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and has not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth” (Rev. 2:12-13).
In the Greek, the phrase “where Satan’s seat is” literally means, “where a throne to Satan is.” Scholars identify this throne or ‘seat’ as the Great Altar of Zeus that existed in Pergamos at that time. So important was the worship of Zeus in ancient Pergamos that perpetual sacrifices were offered to him upon the towering and famous 40-foot high altar. Antipas, the first leader and martyr of the early Christian church is believed to have been slain on this altar, slowly roasting to death inside the statue of a bull, the symbol and companion of Zeus. The phrase in Revelation 2:13 “wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth” is considered a citation of this event.
Approximately two-thousand years after Revelation 2:13 was written, German archeologists removed the massive altar of Zeus from the ruins of Pergamos and took it to Berlin, where it was restored as the centerpiece of the Pergamon Museum. It is here that Hitler first adored it, later building an outdoor replica of it from which he gave a series of speeches that mesmerized many Germans.
“Fast forward about another 75 years,” says blogger El Gallo. “Another charismatic young politician mesmerizes huge German crowds with a rousing speech in Berlin. Barack Hussein Obama…. [and] did Barack Obama visit… the Great Altar of Zeus…? Presumably he did.” [38]
Whether Obama received inspiration from the throne of Satan while in Berlin or not, what he did next was astonishing. Upon returning to the United States, he immediately commissioned the construction of a Greek-columned stage from which he made his acceptance speech for his party’s nomination. Because Greek temples such as those built to honor Zeus were thought to house the patron deity, the GOP ridiculed Obama, mocking him as playing Zeus of “Mount Olympus” and accusing his supporters of “kneeling” before the “Temple of Obama.” The New York Post ran an enlightening Convention Special supplement on August 28th, 2008 with the telling headline: ‘O’ MY GOD: DEMS ERECT OBAMA TEMPLE blazoned across the front cover. But it was not until blogger Joel Richardson pointed out how the design of Obama’s stage was a dead ringer for the Great Altar of Zeus [39] that Obama’s campaign managers tried to explain away the design as being a conglomeration representing the portico of the White House with the U.S. capital building. “But experts agreed with Richardson,” Gallo wrote, “it was a replica of the Great Altar of Pergamum.” [40]
Thus, incredibly, like Hitler, Obama had honored the goddess Victoria with his presence before ordering a replica of the biblical throne of Satan built, upon which he accepted his date with destiny.
A final troubling disclosure at the conclusion of this entry may cast light on why Obama seemed fascinated with such anti-Christian symbolism in the lead-up to his election victory. A Hadith (tradition) sacred to Shiite Islam from the 17th century contains a prophecy from Ali ibn Abi-Talib, which predicts that just before the return of the Mahdi (the end-times redeemer of Islam), a “tall black man will assume the reins of government in the West.” This leader will command “the strongest army on earth” and will bear “a clear sign” from the third imam, Hussein. The prophecy concludes that: “Shiites should have no doubt that he is with us.”
Does this Islamic prophecy identify Obama as the “promised warrior” who comes to help the savior of Shiite Muslims conquer the world? Amir Taheri asked this very question for Forbes Magazine in October, 2008, pointing out how “Obama’s first and second names—Barack Hussein—mean ‘the blessing of Hussein’ in Arabic and Persian” while his “family name, Obama, written in the Persian alphabet, reads O Ba Ma, which means ‘he is with us,’ the magic formula in Majlisi’s tradition.” [41]
Leap forward to 2009, and Barack Hussein Obama on June 4 gave an unprecedented speech to the Muslim world from Cairo, Egypt declaring that he is launching a new era between the United States and the Muslim world. For the first time, Obama was forthright about his Muslim heritage and stated that the United States—which he is on record as saying is “no longer a Christian nation”—is now “one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.” Newsweek editor Evan Thomas followed the president’s speech with a declaration reflected in the opinion of many, that “Obama is standing above the country, above the world, he is a sort of God.”.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)