The American people, that is the people which created the Great American Constitution, are being led into the jaws of dictatorship, which has at its centre an Alliance between extreme right wing dictatorial forces inside capitalism, represented above all by the CIA, and the most reactionary force on earth, Sharia Islam.

The woman who stood closest to the defence of The First Amendment was Sarah Palin. When she withdrew Romney was inevitable. But Romney even though he is intelligent and independent has by his very business position all the cards stacked against him.

The withdrawal of Palin was hasty and somewhat strange. I wonder was she threatened. Was her life placed in danger and was this somehow made known to her?

It is no accident that the corrupt Communist Party of America, a Stalinist and anti-working class organisation, working from inside the working class, is heavily involved in much to do with Obama.

The history of the Communist Party of America was to act directly in the elimination of the only real hope for a new socialist leadership which centred on Leon Trotsky. It is simply a factual matter that the CPA did act as the conduit by which the Stalinist agents, some of whom were recruited among Stalinist forces inside the Spanish Revolution and Francoist Counter Revolution, where Franco came to power thanks to Stalin’s agents literally murdering all of the potential revolutionary socialist leaders.

Movements are infiltrated. The Good Friday Agreement happened because British Intelligence took over the Provisionals.

Something very similar is happening in America. In a very direct way Obama in winning the election in 2008 is a part of this Stalinist movement. His mother was a Stalinist, his real Father MOST PROBABLY BUT CERTAINLY POSSIBLY was a Stalinist, and it is also known that the CIA had infiltrated the Stalinist Communist Party  of America as well.

The American Conservative and Americans rightly proud of their American constitution lose the plot here. They are brain-washed to see such Stalinists as Obama as being Marxist.


Also involved in this is the racist Black Middle Class Movement to which the CIA agent provocateur Bill Ayers was heavily involved, to lead the black movement, against the wishes of Martin Luther King, into a racist and antisemitic direction.

The whole purpose in a general overall sense is to sow confusion, to create a situation where the American working class is literally beheaded, left in the hands of trade union bureaucrats who support the very forces (Obama and his CIA backers), who are at the front of preparation of military rule and dictatorship in America.

The Jews are dragged into these affairs because the actual and material force of Antisemitism has always been used by every ruling class and elite in history, in order to use the Jews as a scapegoat for the actual real crisis in their system.


Many people are confused by such conspiracy speculation. But not every actor in a situation has to be totally conscious.


So, for example, Obama may hate Netanyahu because Obama has bought into the reactionary and lying “Palestinian Narrative”, the Nakba, the Occupation, and all that old Antisemitic bull.


And Obama may be trained to believe that Islam is not so reactionary at all, and that words can convince the iranian Mullahs to desist. So Obama snubs Netanyahu and thus by snubbing Israel encourages the Muslim Brotherhood to continue and to be ever more dangerous to Israel, though a new Alliance of Syria, Iran, hamas and Hizbullah.




“Very possibly Vernon Jarrett’s path crossed that of Frank Marshall Davis when Barack Obama, Frank Marshall Davis’ son, needed financing to attend Harvard,” Gilbert said.

“Remarkably,” he continued, “Obama was in Chicago at the time, and Jarrett was on the scene to find politically favorable funding from a former Black Panther turned Black Muslim in the person of Khalid Al-Monsour, who had a convenient relationship with one of the richest men in the world – Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal.”
Gilbert carried the relationships full circle. As a former colleague of Davis in Chicago, he said, Jarrett had reason to want to connect Obama with al-Mansour’s funding program.

“But it doesn’t end there,” Gilbert continued. “Very possibly, Jarrett helped finance Frank’s son, possibly explaining why Obama would later return to use the connection once again, when he sought to get his wife, Michelle Obama, hired into Chicago Mayor Harold Washington’s office by none other than Valerie Jarrett, daughter-in-law of Vernon Jarrett.”
Gilbert noted the 1979 article also sheds light on the claim that veteran New York power broker and well-known attorney Percy Sutton intervened at the request of al-Mansour to write a letter of recommendation to get Obama into Harvard Law School.
“All it would have taken was for Vernon Jarrett to introduce Obama, the son of Frank Marshall Davis, to Al-Monsour,” Gilbert continued.

As WND reported in 2009, Sutton, then an octogenarian, explained on the New York-produced “Inside City Hall” television show that al-Monsour brought Obama to his attention.

Sutton said al-Mansour told him about Obama in a letter: “There’s a young man that has applied to Harvard. I know that you have a few friends left there because you used to go up there to speak. Would you please write a letter in support of him?”
Gilbert said al-Monsour might have known he could fund Obama through the Saudi prince, but first Obama had to get accepted into Harvard Law School for the plan to work. Al-Monsour realized Sutton had the necessary connections to make his recommendation credible to the Harvard Law School admittance committee, Gilbert said.

Gilbert also noted the 1979 article explains why Obama was so well accepted in the Chicago-based Muslim community, including by pro-Palestinian professor Rashid Khalidi and Syrian-born Democratic fundraiser Tony Rezko, who is now serving a prison sentence for fraud and bribery.

“Rezko and his many Arab-American partners funded Obama’s political campaigns, his state Senate races, his failed congressional race and his U.S. Senate campaign,” Gilbert explained. “It appears Obama’s academic career funders handed him off to Rezko’s Arab network to advance Obama’s political career. To what ends?”

Gilbert wondered if financial indebtedness to the Saudis might explain why Obama was so deferential as to bow to the Saudi king upon meeting him for the first time, at the G20 meeting in London in 2009.
“What did the Arab funders expect in return from Obama in return for the academic and political funding?” Gilbert asked.
“Is Barack Obama and the United States itself subject to blackmail, revealing the source of his academic funding, from those Arab funders if he does not follow their wishes?”

Gilbert continued speculating.
“Does the Jarrett-Al-Monsour connection dating from the time Obama went to Harvard explain why Obama has conducted an open-door policy for the Muslim Brotherhood to penetrate the White House, the State Department and even the U.S. military? How about Obama’s hostility toward Israel and Prime Minister Netanyahu? Maybe the roots there go back to 1979 as well.”
WND reported the testimony of Allen Hulton, a U.S. Postal Service carrier who delivered mail to the home of Weather Underground bomber Bill Ayers’ parents in suburban Chicago. Hulton says he was told by Mrs. Ayers that she and her husband helped finance Obama’s education at Harvard Law School.

“One thing is certain,” Gilbert concluded. “Obama comes out of a nexus of people in Chicago that includes not only Frank Marshall Davis and Vernon Jarrett but also Tony Rezko, Valerie Jarrett and the Bill Ayers family.”
He said the 1979 article “strongly suggests Obama used all of these connections to advance himself politically, and none of these connections were accidental.”






Pamela Geller has the blockbuster story:

Islamic supremacist journalist Mona Eltahawy was arrested today after assaulting a defender of freedom who caught her in the act of vandalizing one of AFDI’s pro-Israel ads in the New York Subway Stations.This again proves the Islamic supremacists and the Leftist thugs are dedicated to shutting down free speech. Anti-Israel ads ran all over the country without a murmur of protest; but this pro-Israel ad was hardly up an hour before fascist thugs like Eltahawy went to work to deface it.

At 12:42PM on Tuesday, September 25, Eltahawy tweeted: “Meetings done; pink spray paint time. #ProudSavage#FuckHate.”

Shortly thereafter, she was about to spray paint over AFDI’s pro-Israel ad in a subway station when freelance journalist and pro-freedom blogger Pamela Hall stood between her and the ad. Eltahawy thereupon sprayed Hall with paint; Eltahawy was arrested and Hall is pressing charges.

The attack was witnessed by Georgette Roberts of the New York Post. We look forward to the Post’s full report, since Roberts witnessed this entire incident.

This criminal behavior and fascism will be lauded in Leftist circles.

Eltahawy’s thuggish behavior is a telling indication of how relentlessly opposed the left and Islamic supremacists are to the freedom of speech, and how desperate they are to keep any pro-freedom, anti-jihad message from getting out.

AFDI’s ad reads: “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat jihad.”

Eltahawy’s behavior is all the more ironic in light of the fact that she was viciously sexually assaulted by “protesters” in Cairo’s Tahrir Square last year, and subsequently wrote a searching piece about the misogyny that is inherent in Islamic law. But she was roundly attacked by her fellow Islamic supremacist writers for that article, and made a full retreat. Now, in a classic case of Stockholm Syndrome, she is defending the same savages who brutally attacked her in Tahrir Square.

AFDI calls upon the NYPD to prosecute Eltahawy for her assault on Pamela Hall to the fullest extent of the law, and to guard the pro-Israel ads from further Leftist/Islamic supremacist vandalism.

Related: Left rejoices at vandalism of pro-freedom, pro-Israel ads


A brief update on the big story from yesterday: the arrest of Islamic supremacist journalist Mona Eltahawy after she spray painted our AFDI pro-freedom ad and assaulted blogger Pamela Hall in a New York subway station.

Why would a renowned and respected journalist resort to a juvenile act of vandalism and persist even when confronted? Here’s a clue: reading this ABC News report on the arrest, these lines leapt out at me:

“This is non-violent protest, see this America” Eltahawy said in the video as police officers were arresting her. “I’m an Egyptian-American and I refuse hate.”

You can see Eltahawy saying that in Pamela Hall’s video, above.

Now, in my May 31 piece for PJ Media, I wrote this:

Mona Eltahawy’s piece in the May/June issue of Foreign Policy criticized a series of practices that are justified in Islamic law, including child marriage, wife-beating, and female genital mutilation. Counter-jihadist activists and writers have been calling attention to these human rights abuses for years, but Eltahawy’s piece was singular in that she is a Muslim journalist….Harvard professor Leila Ahmed confronted Eltahawy on MSNBC:

Mona, I appreciate what you do. I would love it if — I understand if you want to get your message across. It’s an important message. But if possible [you should not] give fuel, fodder to people who simply hate Arabs and Muslims in this climate of our day.

Eltahawy, you see, told unwelcome truths about Islam and was accused of spreading “hate” — which is exactly what the Left and the Islamic supremacists do to those of us who have been telling those truths for years. But this was something new for Eltahaway, who had reliably been on the Left’s media reservation throughout her career. Now she was suddenly being criticized by her old friends, probably not invited to the best parties, etc.

So instead of having the courage of her convictions, Eltahawy folded, and cast about for a way to distance herself from counter-jihad freedom activists and prove that she was on the right (Left) side and would not make waves again. What better way than to vandalize our pro-freedom message, all the while accusing us of the “hate” she was accused of when she told the truth about Islam?

The arrest, even if she didn’t expect it or plan it, was icing on the cake: because of it, now she will be lionized as a hero and martyr by the very people who were shunning her for her Foreign Policy piece: the hate-filled Leftist totalitarians who despise free speech anyway.

Mona Eltahawy could have been a journalist of integrity, and almost was, for a brief moment. Instead, she is a fascist brownshirt.




As the Islamic world, in the guise of the 57-member state Organization of Islamic Cooperation, continues to push for the enforcement of “religious defamation” laws in the international arena—theoretically developed to protect all religions from insult, but in reality made for Islam—one great irony is lost, especially on Muslims: if such laws would ban movies and cartoons that defame Islam, they would also, by logical extension, have to ban the religion of Islam itself—the only religion whose core texts actively defame other religions.


  If films and cartoons defame Islam, the Quran itself defames other religions. 


To understand this, consider what “defamation” means. Typical dictionary-definitions include “to blacken another’s reputation” and “false or unjustified injury of the good reputation of another, as by slander or libel.” In Muslim usage, defamation simply means anything that insults or offends Islamic sensibilities.

However, to gain traction among the international community, the OIC maintains that such laws should protect all religions from defamation, not just Islam. Accordingly, the OIC is agreeing that any expression that “slanders” the religious sentiments of others should be banned.

What, then, do we do with Islam’s core religious texts—beginning with the Quran itself, which slanders, denigrates and blackens the reputation of other religions? Consider Christianity alone: Quran 5:73 declares that “Infidels are they who say Allah is one of three,” a reference to the Christian Trinity; Quran 5:73 says “Infidels are they who say Allah is the Christ, [Jesus] son of Mary”; and Quran 9:30 complains that “the Christians say the Christ is the son of Allah … may Allah’s curse be upon them!”

Considering that the word “infidel” (or kafir) is one of Islam’s most derogatory terms, what if a Christian book or Western movie appeared declaring that “Infidels are they who say Muhammad is the prophet of God—may God’s curse be upon them“? If Muslims would consider that a great defamation against Islam—and they would, with the attendant rioting, murders, etc.—then by the same standard it must be admitted that the Quran defames Christians and Christianity.

Similarly, consider how the Christian Cross, venerated among millions, is depicted—is defamed—in Islam: according to canonical hadiths, when he returns, Jesus supposedly will destroy all crosses; and Muhammad, who never allowed the cross in his presence, ordered someone wearing a cross to “take off that piece of idolatry.”

What if Christian books or Western movies declared that the sacred things of Islam—say the Black Stone in the Ka’ba of Mecca—are “idolatry” and that Muhammad himself will return and destroy them? If Muslims would consider that defamation against Islam—and they would, with all the attendant rioting, murders, etc.—then by the same standard it must be admitted that the hadith defames the Christian Cross.

Here is a particularly odious form of defamation against Christian sentiment, especially to the millions of Catholic and Orthodox Christians. According to Islam’s most authoritative Quranic exegetes, including the revered Ibn Kathir, Muhammad is in paradise married to and having sex with the Virgin Mary.

What if a Christian book or Western movie portrayed, say, Muhammad’s wife, Aisha the “Mother of Believers,” as being married to and having sex with a false prophet in heaven? If Muslims would consider that a great defamation against Islam—and they would, with all the attendant rioting, murders, etc.—then by the same standard it must be admitted that Islam’s most authoritative Quranic exegetes defame the Virgin Mary.

Nor does such defamation of Christianity occur in Islam’s ancient texts only; modern day Muslim scholars and sheikhs agree that it is permissible to defame Christianity. Qatar-based “Islam Web” even issued a fatwa that legitimizes insulting Christianity.

Now consider the wording used by Muslim leaders calling on the U.N. to enforce religious defamation laws in response to the Muhammad film on YouTube, and how these expressions can easily be used against Islam:

The OIC “deplored… an offensive and derogatory film on the life of Prophet Muhammad” and “called on the producers to show respect to the religious sentiments held sacred by Muslims and those of other faiths.”

But what about the “offensive and derogatory” depictions of Christianity in Islam’s core texts? Are Muslims willing to expunge these from the Quran and hadith, “to show respect to the religious sentiments held sacred … by those of other faiths,” in this case, Christians?

Turkish Prime Minister Erodgan said the film “insults religions” (note the inclusive plural) and called for “international legal regulations against attacks on what people [not just Muslims] deem sacred.”

Well, what about the fact that Islam “insults religions”—including Judaism and all polytheistic faiths? Should the West call for “international legal regulations against attacks on what people deem sacred,” in the case of Christianity, regulations against Islam’s teachings which attack the sanctity of Christ’s divinity, the Cross, and Virgin Mary?

Even Saudi Arabia’s Grand Mufti—who a few months ago called for the destruction of all Christian churches in the Arabian Peninsula (first reported here)—is calling for a “global ban on insults targeting all” religious figures, while the Grand Imam of Egypt’s Al Azhar is calling for “a U.N. resolution outlawing ‘insulting symbols and sanctities of Islam’ and other religions.” Again, they, too, claim to be interested in banning insults to all religions, while ignoring the fact that their own religion is built atop insulting all other religions.

And surely this is the grandest irony of all: the “defamation” that Muslims complain about—and that prompts great violence and bloodshed around the world—revolves around things like movies and cartoons, which are made by individuals who represent only themselves; on the other hand, Islam itself, through its holiest and most authoritative texts, denigrates and condemns—in a word, defames—all other religions, not to mention calls for violence against them (e.g., Quran 9:29).

It is this issue, Islam’s perceived “divine” right to defame and destroy, that the international community should be addressing—not silly cartoons and films









My latest entry there on that thread is today:


The left as it stands is reactionary

author by Felix Quigley
One thing that is most noticeable about Geller, Spencer, Kincaid and all others in that field is that they equate the American Communist Party as being Marxist.

It is of course not in the slightest bit Marxist. It is Stalinist.

But then Spencer and Geller can be forgiven for doing this because the Left, for example www.wsws.org, is joining with the Muslim Jihadists AGAINST the First Amendment.


By eliminating Saddam Hussein Bush also eliminated the main counter to the Khomeini Islamist Revolution, really a counter revolution against the Iranian workers. Saddam was relatively speaking a secularist.

As I said at top Obama travelled to Cairo in June 2009 and insisted on the Muslim Brotherhood being present even though Mubarak had them well boxed in and illegal. Obama was in that promoting the Jihad, the replacement of secular with Sharia. That has been the pattern of US and European policy.

Who will suffer from Sharia. Primarily minorities, such as Christian Copts, or Christian Syrians.

Then the Jews of Israel and Israel finds itself more and more surrounded by Sharia and Jew Hating states.

How is therefore this US elite on the side of Israel. it is not.

Bush did enormous damage by elinating Saddam. But that is only a fraction of what Obama has done.

And the Republican Party as well as the Democrats are involved in this betrayal of the principles of the Great American Revolution. Whatever happens in the election this is not going to be over. The American people are based on the GAINS of the Great American (Bourgeois) revolution.

But if the Left cannot defend Free Speech, the First Amendment, then of course it cannot call itself Left in any case.

Pamela Geller has this very day drawn our attention to the terrible hatred of Islam towards ordinary people in Southern Thailand, and Pamela makes the point that if you were depending on the present Media, such as the BBC, you would have no clue as to what has been happening.
And this report is taken from the site of Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs.
While the Left is silent on the torture that these poor WORKING CLASS people in Southern Thailand are going through. But the Left have the nerve to attack Geller.

Jihad in Thailand: Heavy civilian casualties in latest Islamic attack

Our correspondent in Thailand, Chai, reports:

Thailand 920 3
Jihad in Thailand

BREAKING: Celebrating the Muslim Jumu’ah Friday prayer day with more Jihad murder in Thailand. Heavy civilian casualties in latest attack.
Are 6 dead and 39 injured in a Muslim terror attack worth reporting in the international news media?
The Muslim terror attacks continue daily in Thailand’s south with innocent people wounded or murdered on average every six hours for the last eight years.* 
The international news media doesn’t bother reporting the daily terror unless the body count in one in attack exceeds some unknown threshold. Kill seven or ten in one attack and it might be reported, but kill one a day for a week and nobody in the West seems to care. 
Over 5,000 dead and 9,000 injured attest to the scale of Jihad in only a small area of Thailand. There is a war going on in Thailand’s south, coupled with a massive population shift as non-Muslim Thais abandon lands, homes and businesses built over generations; but you would never know the truth by relying upon the international news media.
Will this latest attack be reported by American news media? We will see.
Time of attack: Friday, September 21, 2012 12:40pm (Thailand time)
Friday, September 21, 2012 1:40am (New York time)
Story by Chai sourced as it is breaking on Thai language press, broadcasters and social media.
Thailand 920 1

Muslim terrorists killed 6 civilians and injured 39 in Pattani Province’s on Friday afternoon. Reports in the Thai language media indicate that at least half of the injured are in ‘serious’ or ‘critical’ condition and that more may succumb to their wounds.
The terrorists increased the civilian casualties by first machine gunning staff and customers at the Kamolphan jewellery store in the Sai Buri business district. After the shooters fled, other terrorists then waited for the police to arrive and further waited for a large crowd of onlookers to gather before remotely detonating a pickup truck bomb of an estimated 50kg size.
Five civilians died at the scene, with one more dying in hospital so far. More deaths are expected. Local news reports that twenty-five of the dead and wounded are civilians including some children.  
The attack followed the terrorist murder of a Pattani police officer on Thursday evening. Sub-Lieutenant Abdulloh Doloh, 56, was ambushed and shot by four men on his way home from work.  
Photos courtesy of krobkruakao.com 
Thai language news article, photos and video here:
News from Thai English language press:here
Six killed, 39 injured in Pattani car bomb attack
Pattani – Insurgents fired at a gold shop in this southern border province before detonated a car bomb Friday, killing six people and injuring 39 others, police said.
The explosion occurred at about 12:40 pm in the business area of Sai Buri district.
About five insurgents opened fire at the Kamolphan gold shop and when police and rangers rushed to check the scene. Although the officials tried to block onlookers away, a huge crowd gathered to watch. The explosion occurred about 20 minutes later after the officials arrived at the scene.
* Source for the statement that Muslim terror attacks continue daily in Thailand’s south with innocent people wounded or murdered on average every six hours for the last eight years: here
Thailand 920

Five killed by Pattani car bomb
Published: 21/09/2012 at 04:21 PM
Online news:  
PATTANI – At least five people were killed and 37 wounded on Friday when a car bomb detonated in a packed market in Thailand’s insurgency-hit far south, officials told AFP.
“As of now five are dead including a paramilitary ranger and four civilians,” a Sai Buri district hospital official told AFP, adding 14 of the injured were in “serious condition”.
Local police confirmed the death toll and said 37 had been wounded, among them 25 civilians.
More than 5,000 people have been killed and over 9,000 hurt in more than 11,000 incidents, or about 3.5 a day, in the three southernmost provinces and the four districts of Songkhla since the violence erupted afresh in January 2004, according to Deep South Watch – an independent research group that monitors the southern unrest.


Why Islam Does Not Belong in the Western World
by Fjordman

Many observers in the press thought that I would disappear as a writer after I stepped forward with my real name during the Breivik case.

They were wrong.

I will continue using Fjordman as a pen name, but I have no intention of changing my views as Peder Jensen, either. I started out writing about Islam. I later diversified to include other subjects, too, since there are many things wrong with the modern West, but I do not regret what I have written about Islam previously. I told the truth then, and will continue to do so in the future.

The fact is that the much-vilified Islam-critics and so-called “Islamophobes” have been entirely correct in their comments and analyses for years. Political leaders and media commentators throughout the Western world keep telling us that Islam is at heart a peaceful religion which is being abused by “extremists” and that continued Muslim immigration to our countries is good and should continue. They are not telling the truth.

Yes, mass immigration can be a problem by itself, also of non-Muslims, but Islam is a uniquely aggressive and violent creed. No other major, established religion on this planet stipulates the death penalty for criticizing or mocking its founder and its teachings. Traditional Islamic law does. That’s why no other religious community on Earth behaves the way Muslims are doing globally this September, attacking Western embassies in multiple countries over a single, somewhat amateurish movie most people had never even heard of. Attacking embassies can easily be seen as an act of war. The people and groups doing this have already declared war on us and our societies, whether we like this or not.

Needless to say, movies, cartoons, novels and other objects merely constitute convenient pretexts as targets for the eternal Muslim rage and aggression against the rest of humanity. What these riots and threats are really about is imposing dhimmitude on the West, as Bat Ye’or has prophetically warned. Muslim leaders — from the Prime Minister of NATO member Turkey, via the Western-backed Muslim Brotherhood President of Egypt, to the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the largest voting bloc at the United Nations — are pushing for national and international laws or speech codes banning any criticism of Islam, its founder and its teachings. Although Western mass media virtually never explain this to their audiences, this would essentially imply submission to Islamic law and Islamic rule.

For over a thousand years, Islamic teachings have stipulated only three options for non-Muslims: Convert to Islam, submit to Islamic rule as a virtual hostage in your own country, or fight. Once you start kneeling to Islam, though, there is no going back. You will have to live on your knees every single day for the rest of your life, and your children and grandchildren will be condemned to doing the same, under an eternal shadow of fear of Muslim abuse, violence and aggression.


Islam means “submission.” If you are not willing to submit to Islam or Islamic rule then Islam is your mortal enemy, always has been and always will be. Yes, Islam itself. Not “radical Islam,” “militant Islamism” or “evildoers abusing the peaceful teachings of the Koran.” Islam.

Islamic culture is incompatible with all of the best aspects of European civilization. No form of Islam as it exists today belongs in any Western country.

If you think the above statement sounds “extreme,” this is only because you have been fed a steady diet of misleading nonsense for decades by Western media and academia. I don’t have the time or space to provide a detailed theological explanation for my statements here, but I can do so whenever I need to. I intend to complete a book next year about precisely this issue. Spending years studying Islamic teachings and history and partly living in the Middle East has only convinced me of one thing: Islam cannot be reconciled with our way of life. It is incompatible with any civilization worthy of that name, Eastern or Western.

Any discussion of an Islamic “Reformation” projects a Western European phenomenon, the Protestant Reformation, onto a totally different religion with more violent core teachings and religious texts than all other major religions on the planet combined. If by “reformation” we mean to imply a peaceful, tolerant religion with no Jihad and secular laws, then no, it is very unlikely whether such a form of Islam will ever exist. There are a few types of what we might term “diluted Islam” that are slightly less violently aggressive than the mainstream version of it, but these are all marginal in the greater scheme of things and are frequently persecuted precisely because they deviate from traditional Islamic practices.

If by “reformation” we simply mean a return to the earliest practices of the religion then we have already had a Muslim Martin Luther: the terrorist leader Osama bin Laden. He was a violent Jihadist because the earliest followers of Mohammed were also violent Jihadists. You can base a peaceful Christian religion with secular laws on the peaceful example of Jesus and his disciples as contained in the Christian Gospels. In Islam, however, such an example can only be found in the early Mecca period. As long as the example of Mohammed and his followers in Medina remain in force, along with the chapters of the Koran supposedly introduced there, any form of Islam based on traditional Islamic texts is bound to be potentially repressive, aggressive and violent. You may successfully question whether the story of Mohammed as told in traditional text is historically accurate. It probably isn’t. But if you abandon traditional sources and state that Mohammed as we think of him never existed, Islam may not be reformed, but could collapse instead.

Another factor which usually isn’t brought up in discussions is that the Protestant Reformation was no picnic when it happened. It caused generations of turmoil and war, even though it was mainly confined to Europe at the time. An Islamic reformation is unlikely to materialize, but even if it did, it would probably be a very turbulent and messy affair with global consequences in an age of nuclear weapons. On the other hand, if Islam cannot be reformed, the result will be a continuation of the violence we see today.

Immigrants in Birmingham

We are currently mass importing this very conflict to all of our major cities, a process which is already well underway. It is criminal negligence on the part of our so-called leaders to continue this madness and conduct a dangerous Multicultural experiment with hundreds of millions of people as guinea pigs. This needs to end. Now.

If you believe that this analysis is correct then you are left with only one possible conclusion: We must physically separate ourselves from Islam and Islamic culture as much as is practically possible. The American essayist Lawrence Auster has dubbed this strategy “separationism,” which is not a bad term.

We cannot continue as we are today, or our freedoms will slowly be eroded and our societies gradually destroyed. We need to halt Muslim immigration to all Western countries on a permanent basis. Any agreements or charters that prevent such a policy from being implemented must be changed. This probably means that Westerners in return have to accept less freedom of movement in Muslim majority countries, but given that these are becoming more dangerous and less hospitable year by year, the age of mass tourism there may soon be over, anyway.

The writer Hugh Fitzgerald has for years advocated the strategy of making Western countries as unfriendly to Islamic practices as humanly possible, which is an excellent idea. We must immediately ban any and all applications of sharia law in all Western countries, including minarets, calls to prayer, halal meat and veils in public places.

We should not try to export “democracy” to Islamic societies that are not ready for them. The attempt to do so has been a costly failure in Iraq and Afghanistan and has brought hostile Islamic regimes to power in places like Egypt. Muslims should not be in our suburbs, but neither should we occupy their countries. We should maintain an armed and vigilant separation. If we need to briefly invade their countries to take out terrorist camps or neutralize serious military threats then we should do so, and leave again afterwards.

A final, but crucial point to emphasize in the separationist strategy is that we should never bail out Muslims from their own failures. Islamic culture is backward and aggressive, but also in many ways an immense failure in a modern society. The only hypothetical situation in which Muslims may change their ways is if they are forced to enjoy the bitter fruits of their own failures.

Don’t bail them out. Don’t send them aid of any kind, which will only feed local corruption and possibly be used to finance Jihad against us. They’re adults who can fix their own problems.

The idea that Islamic violence and aggression is somehow caused by “poverty,” a notion that has been echoed by Western politicians from Tony Blair to Hillary Clinton, is a Marxist-inspired fallacy. Mohammed Bouyeri did not murder film director Theo van Gogh in the streets of Amsterdam because he was poor, but because his religious beliefs commanded him to wipe out those who criticize or mock Islam. Islamic aggression is caused by Islamic teachings.

Those who harbor the belief that Muslims will somehow “like” us more if we give them money are deluded and fail to grasp Islamic mentality. To Muslims, anything good happens because Allah wills it. If they feel gratitude to anybody it will be to Allah, not to worthless and inferior infidels. Besides, according to sharia law, non-Muslim dhimmis who retain their lives are supposed to pay protection money — jizya — in “willing submission” to Islamic rule. Non-Muslims giving Muslims money is the way Allah has ordained it. Muslims will feel no gratitude to us for doing this. On the contrary, they may in fact become more aggressive, because they will interpret your behavior as a sign of submission.

Is separation a viable long-term strategy in the twenty-first century? It’s not yet possible to supply detailed answers about how such a policy can be successfully implemented in an age of rapid global communications, but I see the urgent need for us to implement as much of it as possible if we want our societies to survive and remain free. Perhaps separationism will not be sufficient to deal with a nuclear-armed Iran, for instance, but it is the very minimum we as a civilization can live with.

For the record: If any Multiculturalists want to charge me with “hate speech” or “racism” for what I have just written here, come and get me. I will repeat the same statements in court and make sure that millions of people hear this message. When faced with the dangerous and escalating wave of Islamic aggression we are now witnessing, we can no longer afford to hide behind convenient lies. Our children will never forgive us for the mess we leave behind if we do nothing substantial about the threats we face.

For a complete archive of Fjordman’s writings, see the multi-index listing in the Fjordman Files.










Has the whole world gone mad? Why is this even a question? Let’s say you call me a racist, bigoted Islamophobe. I am deeply insulted. At that moment I have a huge range of options before me. I can calmly explain to you that Islamic supremacism is not a race, fighting for free speech and equality of rights for all is not bigotry, and “Islamophobia” is a manipulative concept used by the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies to stifle resistance to Islamic supremacism and jihad. Or I can start yelling and calling you names. Or I can start muttering into my vodka tonic about the injustice of it all. Or I can murder you, drag your body through the streets, set fire to your embassy, and demand laws against insulting me. Or I can do any number of other things.

Which one will I choose? It’s up to me, not to you. You might have a strong hunch as to how I will react, and say to your companion, “That Spencer, he is going to come out with another windy, closely reasoned refutation of my charges that everyone will ignore,” or “That Spencer, he is going to burn down my embassy,” but you still can’t be absolutely sure what I am going to do, because I am not an automaton, I am a human being endowed with the faculty of reason, and I may always choose to react in a way that will surprise you.

Or I may not. But in any case, it is up to me. If I kill you, there is absolutely no justifiable basis on which anyone could say, “Well, he had it coming. Look how he provoked him.” My choice was my own, and only I bear responsibility for it.

But today that basic and elemental truth is lost. If Muslims rage, riot and murder for any reason, they bear no responsibility. The only ones who bear any responsibility for their raging, rioting and murdering are the non-Muslims who somehow provoked them.

That I have to take the time to explain this at all, and that it will be universally ignored, is an indication of how much our public discourse has degenerated. The road is being swiftly paved for the destruction of the freedom of speech. When, in another year or so, I am safely imprisoned for daring to speak the truth and a new era of peace has dawned between the West and the Islamic world, and yet the jihad keeps coming, and the full implications of the new “hate speech” laws start to become clear in the quashing of all political dissent, don’t say you weren’t warned.

Of course, maybe none of that will happen, and the freedom of speech will suddenly sport a thousand articulate defenders who have not yet been completely demonized and marginalized out of the public square. But I don’t see them on the horizon right now.




“‘I’m not the one going into the streets with stones and Kalashnikovs’: Charlie Hebdo editor rejects responsibility for violence over naked Mohammad cartoons,” by Nicholas Vinocur for Reuters, September 19 (thanks to Kenneth):

The editor of French magazine Charlie Hebdo has said that when his magazine ridiculed the Prophet Mohammad on Wednesday by portraying him naked in cartoons, he and his organization were not responsible for fuelling the anger of Muslims around the world who are already incensed by a video depicting him as a lecherous fool.The editor, Stephane Charbonnier, also known as Charb, rejected criticism. “We have the impression that it’s officially allowed for Charlie Hebdo to attack the Catholic far-right but we cannot poke fun at fundamental Islamists,” he said.

“It shows the climate. Everyone is driven by fear, and that is exactly what this small handful of extremists who do not represent anyone want: to make everyone afraid, to shut us all in a cave,” he told Reuters.

“Muhammad isn’t sacred to me,” he said in an interview at the weekly’s offices on the northeast edge of Paris. “I don’t blame Muslims for not laughing at our drawings. I live under French law; I don’t live under Koranic law.”

Charbonnier said he had no regrets and felt no responsibility for any violence.

“I’m not the one going into the streets with stones and Kalashnikovs,” he said. “We’ve had 1,000 issues and only three problems, all after front pages about radical Islam.”

One cartoon alluded to the scandal over a French magazine’s publication of topless photos of the wife of Britain’s Prince William. It showed a bare female torso topped by a beard with the caption “Riots in Arab countries after photos of Mrs Mohammad are published”….

“We know that these images will be deeply offensive to many and have the potential to be inflammatory. But we’ve spoken repeatedly about the importance of upholding the freedom of expression that is enshrined in our constitution,” White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters.

“In other words, we don’t question the right of something like this to be published, we just question the judgment behind the decision to publish it.”…


That’s the first step.




The great New York freedom fighter Pamela Geller who publishes a principled American blog called Atlas Shrugs was attacked viciously this very morning by the BBC World Service.


This lying filth of the BBC goes out all over the world, they transmit everywhere, and especially to Arab and African countries.


The British Establishment are the biggest liars in the world. Thus the mouthpiece of the British Establishment, which is undoubtedly the BBC, IS the biggest liar bar none in the world.


The BBC this morning hung its lies against Geller around the hate campaign against Christians in America being waged by the Jihad, in the form of CAIR. They had the CAIR representative from New York in studio. A total set-up. Geller had no right to reply. Justice out the window!


Thus…The BBC this very morning had on this representative of CAIR in New York. This person talked in a slick manner with a clear American accent, but do not be fooled by the American accent, CAIR is an organization which has been proven in an American Court of Law to be supporters of the terrorist group Hamas.


Documents which have been recovered and accepted in an American Court of Law have proved that this group is engaged in Jihad in America, that is to overthrow the American Constitution, and to replace it with Sharia Law (their very own words)


CAIR this morning (again remember broadcast around the world) referred continually to Pamela Geller as a hate group figure. This is the Big Lie technique. Invert the truth, that is the lie, repeat it hundreds of thousands of times, that is the Big Lie.


Calling Pamela Geller and her group SOAS a hate group and a hate figure CAIR this morning with the help of the BBC was broadcasting this filthy lie. Pamela Geller does not ever, ever preach hate as CAIR repeated on the BBC about a hundred times in one interview. What Geller does is explain what Islam is all about, and by the way the people who suffer most under Islam are obviously the poor or rebellious Muslims, and especially women, and it is these women that Geller often defends.


In fact it is the opposite. CAIR is the hate group in America. It is promoting the Jihad which promotes a Nazi type hatred against Catholics, Protestants, Hindus, Buddhists, and so on and also mark you against Muslims who do not toe the line. In fact hatred against anybody who is not a devout Muslim.


As improbable as it sounds when you listen to these slick talkers CAIR has made it known that it is Jihadist and is preaching the Jihad, which is the violent imposition of Sharia Law on the whole world.


But because of the American Revolution the Great American Constitution of separation of Church and State, WHICH KARL MARX SUPPORTED, stand in the way of CAIR and World Jihadism, then America is really in their eyes the GREAT SATAN. (It is often misunderstood, the Jihad is also against Socialism)


Also, because Judaism played a big role in the forming of these concepts in the American Constitution, Israel in their eyes becomes LITTLE SATAN.




This is an extract. To provide “balance” since the BBC was doing a hit job on Geller without Geller being able to answer back, the interviewer said


BBC…She would probably dispute those terms (Hate Group)


CAIR…Her organisation speaks for itself and is why her organisation has been designated as a hate group in the United States of America.





Right there that is where responsible reporters would say something like “Where, When, By whom and how exactly”.


Sadly the BBC has long abandoned the old reporters adage, get the facts, check the facts, report the facts.




A truthful organisation would have had Pamela Geller sitting there in the studio along with CAIR so that Geller could put her point of view ALSO!


There followed another long spiel by the CAIR man. He uses the Nazi technique of repetition, repetition. And he uses Goebbels style methods.


This low level group, which supports terrorist Hamas, which seeks to overturn the American First Amendment and replace it with Sharia, in the most brazen fashion ASSUMES the High Ground. They as Hamas supporting CAIR, as providing the finance to buy arms for Hamas, is of course according to this guy the holiest of the holiest, they are the most honest to goodness Americans you are likely to meet from the Bronx to Nevada deserts, they are the most moderate, they are the most sensible. And fighting the thankless battle against hate. You know, this guy from CAIR had his spiel on Geller off to a t. It brought home to me as an Irish person what people like Spencer have been saying about how practised in the seductive art of lying these CAIR are in America, and what a danger in their lies they are.


Because, you know, this type of stuff ties in with another level of lying about Islam where media people like Steven Gilmour of Talk Radio Europe, I heard him last week talking about giving Morsi a chance in Egypt, and maybe according to Gilmour he Morsi is on the road to reform, just like Adams of PIRA. You know, that kind of shallowness from Gilmour that equates Irish Republicanism with Islam!!! And Gilmour is the chief of that station thanks to the owner Nathan Thomas who is Jewish. And also there is widespread lies in Europe against Israel. The BBC this morning is also running a hit piece on Israel over African immigrants into Israel, without pointing the difficulties of Israel being only the size of Munster.


But the very acute listener will have spotted the lies of CAIR. Towards the end of the interview the lady interviewer (there were two) introduced this desperate moaning plea from this lady:



“Briefly though what can you do given that the Courts have already given her advice that she can put out these ads.”



Ah, the courts! The courts of America. The courts of the American Constitution. The truly great American Constitution.


The BBC lady introduced this element and you want to have heard the poor lady as she moaned about Geller having the backing of the courts. It was the deathly dirge of a Brit who just cannot understand the Great American Constitution.


And with this you will have noticed that this vapid British hag of the BBC was not defending Geller for having, God forbid, taken the trouble to square her campaign against Islam with the American Constitution. In other words Geller taking the time and trouble to visit the Court and the Constitution.


No for the BBC hag excuse of reporter this was a Big Moan.


The BBC hag was mournful that Geller was following the American Constitution!


And just there, you will understand if you are even half a student of history, is where the Islam Jihad and the British Establishment come together.





Look now at these words of Mr CAIR man this morning. In response to Geller getting the backing of the Courts (Constitution) he replied to the lady BBC Hag reporter, exact words and I place in capitals




Oh really Mr Testosterone CAIR Man! Is that what you have done now!




But naturally the obtuse British BBC could not pick up on that. By its very nature it could not pick up on that. The BBC does not understand the American Constitution!







Pamela Geller takes the Constitutional route, gets the train and bus ads squared with the Constitution via the Courts. Does this before she even goes to the printers.


This CAIR guy bypasses the Constitution. Repeats and repeats Nazi propaganda style the big lie that Geller equals Hate. Says repeatedly he speaks for the sensible Americans. Goes to elected officials (again he depends on the gutless BBC reporters not to ask precise details) and talks about the bus and train companies placing riders to Geller’s ads to disown the ads, that is for the bus companies to add a disclaimer to the ads of Geller, ads that they have already taken money from Geller to show, and which Geller has cleared from a legal constitutional standpoint.


Now THAT is Fascism.


Geller plays by the rules of the Constitution and Congress. The other side, CAIR, in a populist Mussolini type fashion, steps out of the boundaries of the Constitution. 







Egypt: Christian gets six years in prison

for insulting Muhammad

and Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood president





(from www.jihadwatch.org)


If the Left and Islamic supremacists get their way, this is the sort of sentence we will see handed down in the U.S. before too long. “Egyptian court sends Copt to prison over anti-Islam post,” from Egypt Independent, September 18 (thanks to Twostellas):

An Egyptian court on Tuesday sentenced a Christian teacher to six years in prison after convicting him of blasphemy and defamation of President Mohamed Morsy and a plaintiff lawyer, according to Egyptian news reports.The Sohag Misdemeanor Court found Bishoy Kamil Kamel guilty of insulting Prophet Mohamed, sentencing him to three years. He was also sentenced to two years for insulting the country’s president, and another year for insulting a plaintiff lawyer.

Independent daily Al-Watan newspaper said on its website that security has been heightened outside churches in Sohag to preempt any violence in response to the verdict.

Sohag’s prosecutor referred Kamel to trial in August after receiving a complaint from Mohamed Safwat Tammam, 32, accusing Kamel of posting insulting caricatures of Prophet Mohamed on his Facebook page, as well as abusing the country’s president in his comments.

Kamel denied the charges during interrogations, claiming that his account had been hacked. Investigators say they had managed to detect his address through the account and arrested him.

A number of lawsuits have been filed against public figures recently over charges of blasphemy and defaming the president, who belongs to the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party….


Last Tuesday Steven Gilmour, director of Talk Radio Europe and a panel guest Mrs Thomas suggested that Islam is  peaceable religion, just spoiled by a minority of “extremists”
Gilmour placed great emphasis on the word “extremists”
Respect it (Islam as a religion of peace just spoiled by extremists), says Gilmour, as Islam in Mali hack another hand off. Tuesday Gilmour and Mrs Thomas said that it was just “extremists”

(From Jihadwatch) “The Islamic supremacists in Mali are characterized as “extremists,” but what they are doing here is strictly Qur’anic:

“This is the recompense of those who fight against God and His Messenger, and hasten about the earth, to do corruption there: th…

ey shall be slaughtered, or crucified, or their hands and feet shall alternately be struck off; or they shall be banished from the land. That is a degradation for them in this world; and in the world to come awaits them a mighty chastisement” — Qur’an 5:33

“And the thief, male and female: cut off the hands of both, as a recompense for what they have earned, and a punishment exemplary from God; God is All-mighty, All-wise.” — Qur’an 5:38

“Islamists hack off hand of 1 more robber in Mali,” from AP, September 18 (thanks to Kenneth):

BAMAKO, Mali (AP) — A spokesman for one of the radical Islamist groups controlling northern Mali says their fighters have cut off a thief’s hand in the former tourist hotspot of Timbuktu.
Oumar Ould Hamaha told The Associated Press the robber had been caught after breaking into a store, from where he had stolen merchandise worth $2,000. His hand was cut off Sunday afternoon.

It was at least the seventh amputation carried out by the Islamists since they seized control of the territory in April. It comes after last Monday’s gruesome double amputation of five highway robbers in the northern city of Gao. According to the strict form of Shariah practiced by the rebels, armed robbery requires the cutting off of both a hand and a foot.

Robert Spencer correctly adds to this report:

That’s not a “strict form of Sharia,” that’s a Qur’anic imperative. See Qur’an 5:38 above.


I have placed this comment on a post by a Jewish dhimmi on the British website Harry’s Place. You will find it at

 19 September 2012, 12:32 pm





Gene Zitver seeks to promote Obama at the expense of the Romney comment in a fund raising meeting about the 47 per cent who are tied in with government aid in some way.

Gene Zitver is therefore first and foremost a Jewish person who is campaigning for Obama to win.

But Obama travelled to Cairo in June 2009 and there insisted on the Muslim Brotherhood being present at his conference. The Muslim Brotherhood was a banned organization. Thus Obama was saying to Mubarak “We are on the side of your enemies”. And Obama repeated this in a whole series of countries…


Gene Zitver supports THAT

THAT is the kind of oppositionist to Romney that Gene Zitver is.


The issue of the film is about censorship in America.


That is the single, ringing, clear issue that comes out of this film issue. in this Obama and Clinton BY ATTACKING THE FILM have proved that THEY ARE TRAITORS TO THE GREAT AMERICAN CONSTITUTION


That is essentially the issue that will determine if Obama and Clinton win in November and move towards an American Fascist/Shia compliant state.


Romney tries his best to combat Obama on this issue, but he is deficient, largely because Romney has not turned his back against the Antisemitic Palestinian narrative, which IS the Muslim Jihad in action, in that case against Jews and Israel.


All of these things are involved here:


* The Holocaust of the Jews by the Nazis in which the Jihad was complicit (through the Arab leader Hajj Amin el Husseini)

* The subsequent turn against Israel and the Jews BY THE WHOLE WORLD and the forcing of a Palestinian State onto the Jews and Israel.




The position of Romney and the Republicans has thus onthis key and central question (of Israel and the Jihad against Israel) been deficient towards the traitor work of Obama.


Romney needs to come out and state in ultra clear and simple language that he defends to the nth degree the right of an American to make and distribute this film.


Instead Government Agencies have come knocking on the door of the FILM MAKER.


That indeed is the issue. THAT is the step towards a Nazi America. If Romney cannot fight Obama on that basis then he loses in November.But if Obama and his Democrats win Nazism in America will take a big step forward.




The Obama administration and the embassy rioters find common ground.


The photo of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula being led from his Cerritos, Calif., home has become an Internet sensation, giving rise, among other things, to a popular QuickMeme and a call from Glenn Reynolds for President Obama’s resignation:

      “By sending–literally–brownshirted enforcers to engage in–literally–a midnight knock at the door of a man for the non-crime of embarrassing the President of the United States and his administration, President Obama violated that oath [to the Constitution]. You can try to pretty this up (It’s just about possible probation violations! 


     or make excuses or draw distinctions, but that’s what’s happened. It is a betrayal of his duties as President, and a disgrace.”

The assumption is that this was a pretextual arrest–one with a patina of propriety but improper motives, in this case punishing or intimidating Nakoula for engaging in constitutionally protected speech.

A Los Angeles County sheriff’s spokesman denies that it was an arrest: “He was never in handcuffs,” Steve Whitmore tells the New York Times. “He was never arrested. This is all voluntary.” But whatever it was, the Times suggests it was pretextual:

    “Federal officials appeared to be investigating whether Mr. Nakoula had been the person who uploaded the video to YouTube. If so, he would have violated the terms of his sentencing in a conviction in a 2010 check-kiting case, which includes restrictions against his using the Internet without permission from a probation officer.”

On the other hand, we can think of reasons the government might want to talk to Nakoula aside from punishing or chilling speech–namely, to understand the story behind the video that has been the pretext of anti-American rioting. Was it an innocent exercise in freedom of expression, or a false-flag operation? That is, were the producers in cahoots with the extremists who egged on the violence? We have no reason to think the answer is yes, but it would behoove the federal government to check out the possibility.

The “optics,” as the politicos say, were terrible. It certainly doesn’t look voluntary in the photos. But that could have been the fault of the “news media encampment” that, according to the Times, had “kept 24-hour watch outside his front door.” The large police presence–we count at least five officers in the QuickMeme photo–might well have been for protective rather than coercive purposes.

Nakoula’s face is covered in what the Times describes as a shawl. It seems a metaphor for the suppression of individual freedom by the American state. In truth, it was probably a sensible precaution. If you were in Nakoula’s position, you wouldn’t want murderous Islamist thugs to know what you look like either.

Yet even if law enforcement’s treatment of Nakoula was entirely above board, critics of the administration have good reason for suspicion that it is hostile to civil liberties.

On Friday, Politico reports, the White House asked Google, which owns YouTube, “to review the video to see if it was in compliance with their terms of use,” in press secretary Jay Carney’s words. Having already done so and finding it compliant, Google rejected the implicit censorship request.

Blogger Eugene Volokh, a First Amendment scholar, wisely counsels against the temptation to attempt to buy calm by yielding to censorship just this one time:

      “It seems to me to actually be safer–not just better for First Amendment principles, but actually safer for Americans — to hold the line now, and make clear that American speech is protected even if foreigners choose to respond to it with murder. That would send the message, ‘murder won’t get you what you want.’ Not a perfectly effective message to be sure, but a better one than ‘murder 


    get you what you want.’ ”

The message of the administration’s ineffectual effort at censorship, however, is something like this: “We can’t guarantee that murder will get you what you want, but we promise we’ll do our best.” That’s arguably more provocative even than simple capitulation.

In its public statements, the Obama administration has put no daylight between itself and the embassy rioters in insisting that this is all about the video.

Susan Rice, the ambassador to the U.N., went so far as to tell ABC’s Jake Tapper yesterday that even the murder of four Americans in Libya, including the ambassador, was the result of a “challenge” to the video having been “hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons.”

As The Wall Street Journal notes in an editorial:

    “That doesn’t square with the view of Libyan officials, who say they believe the attack was the work of Islamists linked to al Qaeda. Peaceful protesters don’t typically carry rocket-propelled grenades and other heavy weapons to a demonstration. The fact that the attack happened on the anniversary of September 11 also suggests terrorist planning.”

If you think of the Obama administration as an extension of the Obama campaign, it’s easy to understand its insensitivity to civil liberties and its eagerness to embrace the pretext that the embassy riots were about the video. From the standpoint of Obama’s re-election, it is imperative that voters be as distracted as possible from Obama’s failures. The murders in Libya and riots across the Middle East underscore failures both tactical (insufficient protection of diplomatic missions and personnel) and strategic.

Obama’s strategic failure consists in having believed his own–well, we really need a barnyard vulgarity to complete that sentence properly. Here he is in 2008:

      I would come to meetings with world leaders with them understanding that I was opposed to this war in Iraq from the start, that I have consistently described a U.S. foreign policy that puts diplomacy at the forefront. . . .


I think the world would see me as a different kind of president, somebody who could see the world through their eyes. . . . If I convene a meeting with Muslim leaders around the world to discuss how they can align themselves in our battle against terrorism, but also put our–the relationship between the West and the Islamic world on a more productive footing, I do so with the credibility of somebody who actually lived in a Muslim country for a number of years.”

With the benefit of anonymity, the Times reports, “senior administration officials” are telling a different story:

    They had concluded that the sometimes violent protests in Muslim countries may presage a period of sustained instability with unpredictable diplomatic and political consequences. While pressing Arab leaders to tamp down the unrest, Mr. Obama’s advisers say they may have to consider whether to scale back diplomatic activities in the region.

Other than a Nobel Peace Prize, what exactly does Obama have to show for being a “different kind of president”?








Following on from the murder of Ambassador Stevens Obama issued this statement which contained


“While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.


Note that Obama does not use the word “murder”.


Islamic Murder, Western Submission

In the wake of the violent and murderous attacks against American and other Western targets across the Middle East, Paul Weston presents an overview of the abject submission to Islam by Western media and political authorities.

Riots in Cairo — US ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens
Islamic Murder, Western Submission
by Paul Weston

The word “Islam” when translated into English means “submission”. The general idea is that Muslims submit to Allah and all non-Muslims around the world submit to Muslims. The Islamic murder of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens earlier this week provides a frightening looking glass through which the sheer scale of Western submission to Muslim violence and terror can be viewed.

The murder of a U.S. Ambassador is effectively an act of war. It shouldn’t matter that the murderers attempted to dress this up as a natural (in the Muslim world) reaction to some obscure YouTube video negatively portraying Mohammed. The only thing that matters is the cold blooded murder of a human being.

The immediate reaction of the Western political and media class was horrifying. Barack Obama issued a statement which included the following: “While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.

Not wishing to be outdone in abject cowardice and evasion, the American Embassy in Cairo went out of its way to excuse the Muslim murderers: “The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims. … We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.” [Note: the linked press release has since been pulled – ed.]

Obama and his representatives are essentially siding with the murderers here. The attacks had nothing to do with the denigration of Mohammed. Spontaneous gatherings of protestors tend not to come armed with rocket propelled grenades. To regurgitate the lie of yet more contrived Muslim displeasure is to actively excuse their murderous behaviour.

A well planned series of attacks, carried out on the 11th anniversary of 9/11 against American Embassies in various parts of the middle-east simply did not happen because some unknown Joe posted a video on YouTube. What they really represent is yet another small part of Islam’s ongoing war against the West.

And why does Obama call it “senseless violence?” There is nothing senseless about it in the eyes of the perpetrators. They knew exactly what they were doing, and they also knew that if they provided a wholly contrived pretext for it, the Dhimmis in the West would dutifully parrot their lies.

Have you noticed there is no reference to murder in Obama’s statement? Despite the fact they were clearly murdered (and possibly sodomised and tortured) Obama would rather not acknowledge this stark reality. Their lives were “taken” you see, by some ambiguous people with no apparent motive other than being angry.

This cowardly use of deceptive wording is shocking. Hard-line Islamists carried out the barbaric murders in the name of Islam against non-Muslims. Period. There is no other honest way of describing it.

And why is it an abuse of free speech to criticise, or to tell the truth about Mohammed?

Is it not a fact that he was himself a murderer and a warlord?

Is it not a fact that political Islam and religious Islam cannot be separated in the eyes of Muslims?

Is it therefore not a fact that to refer to the criticism of a political/religious ideology as an “abuse” of free speech is tantamount to elevating political Islam to a height beyond democratic discourse?

The BBC acted in an all too predictable manner, of course. They went to great lengths to emphasize the deep-seated anger felt by Libyan Muslims. Without verifying their facts, they also managed to falsely claim the video producer was an Israeli Jew. When one considers that Muslims had already murdered people, purportedly because of the video, then surely directing the blame toward Israel was done in the full knowledge it would inevitably incite racial hatred toward both Jews and Israel?

Clever old BBC. Divert attention away from Muslim murderers and turn it toward the hated enemy of the supposedly impartial BBC apparatchiks. Perhaps these irresponsible, anti-Semitic, child-like political activists within the BBC should be reminded there is a law against the incitement of racial and religious hatred, although don’t go holding your breath that such a reminder will come from the British police “service.”

Mind you, one mustn’t grumble too much about the BBC. In one of their early broadcasts from Benghazi they actually praised the security detail surrounding Ambassador Stevens, who refrained from “provoking” the murderers by not shooting at them…how wonderfully suicidally altruistic of them that was; and how predictable that such suicidal inclinations merited praise from the BBC.

As it turns out, the guns may have had no ammunition in them and the people holding them were not even U.S. Marines. Despite intelligence suggesting attacks were imminent, it was deemed “politically insensitive” to actually adopt a genuine, defensive attitude. So much better to allow oneself to be murdered than to upset the murderers, it would appear….

In light of recent revelations about British Muslims fighting for the Free Syrian Army against President Assad, it is entirely possible that British Muslims were involved in Benghazi as well. If Britain charged some sort of terrorist export duty on our holidaying native Muslim fundamentalists, we might be able to employ a few more border guards who could ask them where they had been and what they had been up to…

As we watch the Arab Spring descend into an entirely predictable Koranic Winter, it comes as no surprise that those who happily and naively tweeted about future democracy in the Middle East are the self-same people unable to admit to Islamic realism today. These include Obama, Cameron, Sarkozy and William Hague, who have yet to turn off the financial stop-cock flooding the Muslim Brotherhood with dhimmi-dollars.

All in all, not a good week for the West. Muslims can threaten, bomb and murder in the name of Islam, whilst the liberal/left Western rulers and media submit before them. I have this strange vision of Muslims the world over looking at each other in bemused amazement, saying, “Blimey, Abdullah — it can’t really be this easy, can it?”

Yes, I’m afraid it can — and it is.






It confirms that the far-left Stevens was the liaison for the Obama administration to the Libyan rebels. He was a big part of the Obama plan to remove Qaddafi (with whom we had a de facto peace and an agreement pursuant to which he gave up all weapons of mass destruction) from power and install these animals in his place. As you’ll note, Stevens made a pandering video to Libyan extremists, introducing himself as the new ambassador. And he wanted to become U.S. Ambassador to Iran, where we deliberately DON’T have an ambassador or an embassy, something Stevens wanted to change, because he was constantly in bed with the worst elements of an already dangerous Islam. The attack on him was an attack on America that is outrageous and to be condemned. But his politics–which are also to be condemned–were what ushered his attackers into power to rule the streets of Libya.




“Oh, and don’t look for the Obama administration to confirm the story if it is true. After all, they would swallow poison to protect the reputation of the “peaceful” religion of Islam. Remember, we still haven’t seen the Bin Laden kill photos.”


Those are the words of Debbie Schlussel, a famous American blogger.

They are important words too because Obama has promoted these savages in the murder of Muammar Gadhafi and the Media WORLD WIDE has covered for Obama.

Obama to the Media is a little like the Princess Di and her brat sons, and the whole of the Royalty, every reactionary is calling for censorship so that Princess Di’s daughter in law, kate, does not have her tits shown in some magazine.

And the Media are also calling for the banning of films about Islam.

We are taking massive steps towards dictatorship THANKS TO THE ENEMEDIA.




Was U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens raped by Muslims before they murdered him at the compound along with three other U.S. officials?


Libyans Drag Ambassador Christopher Stevens’ Body Through the Street 

That’s the claim being made by Tayyar, a Lebanese Arabic news site. It’s certainly a credible scenario–we know that Libyan Muslims anally raped Muammar Qaddafi with some sort of implement before they murdered him. That’s how they behave in this part of the world, this religion, this ideology–whether or not someone in America made an anti-Mohammed movie. And, as I said yesterday, they probably tortured Stevens in some way before they murdered him. They never let anyone–especially an “evil American”–die in peace in that place, which is yet another reason we needed a Qaddafi over these savages (but instead have the Obama-Bush “democratic” alternative, something that Stevens, himself, pimped big-time).

But the Tayyar story, which is in Arabic, cites AFP (Agence France-Presse), the French news organization, as the source. And I can find no AFP story (in English or in French) that says this. And there’s nothing on AFP’s website. That doesn’t mean this didn’t happen. As I said, this is the standard M.O. in the Islamic world. But I doubt AFP reported this and it calls into question the Tayyar site, which reported:

The U.S. ambassador to Libya was raped sexually before being killed by gunmen who stormed the embassy building in Benghazi last night to protest against the film, which is offensive to the Prophet Muhammad.



Still, whether or not the report is credible, this is how they act in Libya . . . and greater Arabia. If it’s true, no surprise there. (The story is, frankly, far more believable than the BS falsely reported in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, claiming the non-existent Sam Bacile was an Israeli Jew and that Jews financed the anti-Mohammed movie.)

Oh, and don’t look for the Obama administration to confirm the story if it is true. After all, they would swallow poison to protect the reputation of the “peaceful” religion of Islam. Remember, we still haven’t seen the Bin Laden kill photos.





US Ambassador to Libya Was Raped Before He Was Tortured, Killed #SAVAGE

The horror is unimaginable. The world “radically transformed” by Obama.

And more gruesome then Obama’s lethal delusions is the diversion he is attempting to create using Mitt Romney. Obama and his media jackals are attacking Romney for his much needed and proper criticism of Obama’s epic failing in handling this unfolding crisis of war. The Obama administration apologized for “religious incitement” when the Egyptian emabassy was attacked. It’s all the enemedia jackals are talking about, not Obama’s epic fail, but the timing of Romney’s remarks.

Obama’s sharia spring sacrificing soldiers, diplomats and ambassadors. Obama sanctioned the brutal sodomy of Gaddafi, something that would never have happened under Bush.

White House condemns …….. film.

Below is the rough (Google) translation.

Sources AFP that “the U.S. ambassador to Libya was raped sexually before killing by gunmen who stormed the embassy building in Benghazi last night to protest against the film is offensive to the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh),” The sources said that “Ambassador was killed and representation of his body in a manner similar to what happened with Gaddafi, such as murder. “

Lebanese paper report – Murdered U.S. Ambassador to Libya reportedly raped Washington Times

Hat tip Big Fur Hat?Big Fur Hat September 12, 2012 /Tayyar/News/PoliticalNews/

According to the Lebanese news organization Tayyar.org, citing AFP news sources, U.S. ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, who was killed by gunmen that stormed the U.S. consulate in Benghazi on Tuesday, was reportedly raped before being murdered. A google translation of the report says : 


A news report made by the Libyan Free Press is also reporting that Ambassador Stevens was sodomized before he was killed:

“Libya – USA Ambassador in Bengazi sodomized and killed by his own al-Qaeda puppets.”





Obama’s Muslim Brotherhood revolution continues to metastasize. The enemedia continues to dissemble, defame and mislead the American people.

The attacks and slaughter of our Ambassador and US governement staff in Libya were well planned and executed by Al Qaeda on the anniversary of 911. These were the September 11, 2012 Islamic attacks, eleven years later, and jihad charges on.

I have spent a better part of the day fiercely arguing with enemedia, Mike Taibbi of NBC and Rose Arce of CNN. They called me repeatedly, not to interview me on the epic failure of Obama’s anti-freedom foreign policy (as I have long predicted), but on the alleged filmmaker or the financing behind the youtube video cited in the September 11, 2012 jihadist attacks on America. When jihadists attack and slaughter innocent civilians, the enemedia attacks counter-jihadists and/or the Jews.

The attacks in Cairo. They were led by Mohammad Zawahiri – Ayman Zawahiri’s brother. According the Thomas Josclyn in the Weekly Standard, the US media has been idiotically presenting him as some sort of moderate despite the fact that in an interview with Al Jazeerah he said said, “We in al Qaeda…”
Egypt’s US supported Muslim Brotherhood President Mohamed Morsi recently released Zawahiri from Egyptian prison. The same Barack Obama who has no time in his schedule to meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu next week in New York, is scheduled to meet Morsi.

Obama’s Muslim Brotherhood revolution continues to metastasize. The enemedia continues to dissemble, defame and mislead the American people.

The attacks and slaughter of our Ambassador and US governement staff in Libya were well planned and executed by Al Qaeda on the anniversary of 911. These were the September 11, 2012 Islamic attacks, eleven years later, and jihad charges on.

I have spent a better part of the day fiercely arguing with enemedia, Mike Taibbi of NBC and Rose Arce of CNN. They called me repeatedly, not to interview me on the epic failure of Obama’s anti-freedom foreign policy (as I have long predicted), but on the alleged filmmaker or the financing behind the youtube video cited in the September 11, 2012 jihadist attacks on America. When jihadists attack and slaughter innocent civilians, the enemedia attacks counter-jihadists and/or the Jews.

The attacks in Cairo. They were led by Mohammad Zawahiri – Ayman Zawahiri’s brother. According the Thomas Josclyn in the Weekly Standard, the US media has been idiotically presenting him as some sort of moderate despite the fact that in an interview with Al Jazeerah he said said, “We in al Qaeda…”
Egypt’s US supported Muslim Brotherhood President Mohamed Morsi recently released Zawahiri from Egyptian prison. The same Barack Obama who has no time in his schedule to meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu next week in New York, is scheduled to meet Morsi.

In other words, the freedom of speech is a goner.

“White House: anti-Islam film ‘truly abhorrent,'” by Josh Gerstein for Politico, September 13 (thanks to David):

A top White House official has blasted as “truly abhorrent” the anti-Islam film which appears to have triggered an outpouring of violence against U.S. diplomatic posts in Egypt and Libya.Speaking to an international religious freedom conference in Washington Wednesday, Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough endorsed efforts to create “a world where the dignity of all people—and all faiths—is respected.”

According to his prepared remarks released by the White House, he then added: “This work takes on added urgency given the truly abhorrent video that has offended so many people–Muslims, and non-Muslims alike—in our country and around the world.”

President Barack Obama’s criticism earlier Wednesday of the “Innocence of Muslims” film, or film trailer in question, was a bit more reserved.

In an interview with CBS’s “60 Minutes,” Obama said: “This film is not representative of who we are and our values, and I think it’s important for us to communicate that.”

And in a statement in the Rose Garden Wednesday morning, Obama said in apparent reference to the video: “We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also described the video as “inflammatory.”…














Obama works to surrender our freedom in wake of 911 Jihadist attacks on America: White House spokesman endorses “efforts” to ensure that “all faiths” are “respected”

On September 11th, Islamic groups staged coordinated acts of war on our US embassies in Egypt and Libya, torturing and murdering 4 US diplomats, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. The body of the Ambassador was paraded through Benghazi.

The Bush response to the 9/11/01 jihad was anger, national resolve, and the promise to defeat the enemy.

The Obama response to 9/11/12 jihad was to attack Mitt Romney and promise to institute the Shari’a. This is what surrender looks like. This will never satiate the bloodlust and Islamic imperialism of the jihadist revolution. On the contrary — it emboldens and empowers it. 

Obama say, “respect it!”

White House spokesman endorses “efforts” to ensure that “all faiths” are “respected”: “This work takes on added urgency given the truly abhorrent video that has offended so many people” Jihadwatch


In other words, the freedom of speech is a goner.

“White House: anti-Islam film ‘truly abhorrent,'” by Josh Gerstein for Politico, September 13 (thanks to David):

A top White House official has blasted as “truly abhorrent” the anti-Islam film which appears to have triggered an outpouring of violence against U.S. diplomatic posts in Egypt and Libya.Speaking to an international religious freedom conference in Washington Wednesday, Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough endorsed efforts to create “a world where the dignity of all people—and all faiths—is respected.”

According to his prepared remarks released by the White House, he then added: “This work takes on added urgency given the truly abhorrent video that has offended so many people–Muslims, and non-Muslims alike—in our country and around the world.”

President Barack Obama’s criticism earlier Wednesday of the “Innocence of Muslims” film, or film trailer in question, was a bit more reserved.

In an interview with CBS’s “60 Minutes,” Obama said: “This film is not representative of who we are and our values, and I think it’s important for us to communicate that.”

And in a statement in the Rose Garden Wednesday morning, Obama said in apparent reference to the video: “We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also described the video as “inflammatory.”…






Somebody has said it is like blaming the rape victim for the rape







You can never forget these images. But the absolutely crazy thing is the very close similarity between the torture and murder of Muammar Gadhafi by Jihadists and the torture and murder of Chris Stevens by the same Jihadists.


Since I wrote my article this morning new information has emerged which actually should not surprise me, because it was contained in my analysis of the overall picture, but still does fairly take your breath away.


The forces of Muammar Gadhafi in defending the rightful government of Libya were on the way to defeating the Jihadists operating behind the BBC-type name of “Rebels”, and would surely have won rapidly, if it had not been fot the intervention of the US and NATO which bombed from the air the Gadhafi forces. THAT caused the eventual torture and murder of Gadhafi by the Jihadists, or rather the US assisted Jihadists.


This was a total change of policy by America. We can say TOTAL CHANGE from George Bush who made and kept a deal with Gadhafi against the Jihadists, to Obama who broke that deal, turned traitor to Gadhafi on the deal.


Chris Stevens entered into the situation THEN. He somehow was transported in among the Jihadists, and should we believe that it was aboard a Greek cargo ship.


He had joined Obama’s Jihadist goon team to lead to the sodomizing and murder of Gadhafi.


Was the following, his becoming an Ambassador to the Libyans, a pay off by the disreputble Mrs Clinton for service rendered to the US/Jihad Alliance?


Then his murder as special Mohammedan appreciation for acts rendered.







Big things are happening. The sacred right of free speech contained in the great American Constitution is under serious threat as never before in the history of America.













Libya has declared war on America. U.S. ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens and three other embassy staff were killed in an attack in Benghazi. I warned readers of Obama’s pro-jihadist, anti-freedom foreign policy. I warned readers that Obama was helping to install a sharia government in Libya with jihadist ties. I warned readers countless times of the catastrophic consequences of Obama’s foreign policy.

Obama has “condemned the attack.”

Yesterday, on September 11, in another act of war in Egypt, Egyptians ripped down the American Flag at US embassy and raise black flag of jihad, State dept apologizes. Obama apologized. Yes, our State department apologized for the murderous outrage.

Libya act of war


American Ambassador ‘Suffocated To Death’…
Romney Calls Obama Response: ‘Disgraceful’…
Muslims Attack US Embassies…
Mobs with guns and rocket-propelled grenades…
FLASHBACK: Hillary Clinton boast on Gaddafi: ‘We came, we saw, he died’…



U.S. Ambassador Killed in Libya

AP Photo/Ben Curtis, File

In this Monday, April 11, 2011 file photo, U.S. envoy Chris Stevens, center, accompanied by British envoy Christopher Prentice, left, speaks to Council member for Misrata Dr. Suleiman Fortia, right, at the Tibesty Hotel where an African Union delegation was meeting with opposition leaders in Benghazi, Libya.

U.S. ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens and three other embassy staff were killed in an attack in Benghazi on Wednesday, the White House confirmed on Wednesday.

President Obama strongly condemned the attacks, while also calling on embassies across the globe to increase security.

“Right now, the American people have the families of those we lost in our thoughts and prayers,” Obama said. “They exemplified America’s commitment to freedom, justice, and partnership with nations and people around the globe, and stand in stark contrast to those who callously took their lives.”





4international recognises that the murder of the American Ambassador and 3 others is a grievous murder on a par with the almost 3000 murders of 9-11. The BBC and BBC World Service has tried to minimise the real effect of this by pushing it into a secondary slot behind the Hillsborough Football Tragedy Report. But it cannot be so pushed into a secondary slot and here is why. It is to do with how George Bush went to war in Afghanistan and especially Iraq, and the very reactionary position of the so-called left towards those wars and those events.


Bush went to war for all the wrong reasons. He did not got to war against Islam, against the Jihad, but he went to war with a banner fluttering in the breeze “We are fighting this war because we the west believe that Islam is a Religion of Peace.


Despite what the left of the time thought and said (we mean of course what goes for the left today, in reality a pro-Islamist, pro-Jihadist, pro-Islamist left, a miserably existing dogma-spouting and pacific creature, quite opposed to the great revolutionary traditions of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky)


Underpinning all of this is the alestinian Arab Narrative which was promoted by Islam, directed against the Jews.


Thus the content of much of political discourse in the world today has an Antisemitic edge if not actual content.


Wars in human affairs are indeed often necessary, regardless of Gandhi.


No matter what Karen Armstrong, Tony Blair or George Bush think the real history of Islam is one of endless wars, conquest and unbelievable cruelty.


And this is what all actions by the Jihad against Israel, America, Modernism, actually show. This is the importance of the murder of the American Ambassador in Libya. It comes at a very particular time, in election, when the Media have spent 11 years trying to sell a story of a “peaceful Jihad” but will find it more difficult to keep the lid on this murder of their Ambassador.


Obama is essentially an actor, a Muslim President who is performing theatre for the US media. He now dons a sombre countenance, will wave the big stick, but everybody know that he helped these savages to torture Muammar Gadhafi to death, now those very same savages who he helped have done for his very own Ambassador. Ambasador is the closest connection to a people. Obama will pay for this but Romney is still an “Islam is Peace” Bushite.


In fact we now see that Bush went to his wars with the banner of Jihad fluttering ironically in front of his American and Blair’s British men.


That is what the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq was really about. That has set the pattern for the Arab Spring (Nightmare for the Jews of Israel and for all progressives, and minorities such as Christians, Copts, Kurds and Gays)


Those wars were wars not to fight against Jihad, but wars to promote Jihad.


That is the great change in American Foreign Affairs since the American Revolutionary Campaign against the Barbery Pirates. Under the inspiration of the Founding Fathers of the American Constitution the war against the Jihadist Pirates was a progressive war for real democratic principles and effects, against the Jihad. The wars of Bush and Blair in Afghanistan and in Iraq were wars to promote Jihad, with Jihadist principles engraved on the banner of the western fighters.


Yes they fought Jihadists at times, with courage and loss of life. But when they did they were fighting under the political and military programme of Jihad.


Whether Bush and Blair did this consciously is a separate question. I think not. Bush was a clever man in many respects but not given to self consciousness. Blair was also sharp and a good communicator, but despite appearances had all the obtuseness of a British Labour Leader, and mired in a sickly form of Evangelical Protestantism, a Protestantism fast becoming Catholicism due to the influence of his wife.


But definite forces inside the bowels of THEIR class and society did know exactly what they were doing, that they were indeed fighting wars to promote Jihad.


Indeed this was far from being the first time the “west” has went to war for Jihad. There was the case of Indonesia of the 60s where a million communist youth were liquidated in the Indonesian countryside by Jihadists. Then wihtin our recent memory there was Yugoslavia where the west went to war on behalf of the Jihad (Izetbegovic in Bosnia) and this time against Serbs who were Christians and Socialists.


Yet there is real difference between what took place in those wars (Indonesia, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq) and what has happened in the world in the past 2 years of the Arab Spring (really Nightmare).


The difference can be summed up…the election to the Presidency in America of a Muslim Jihadist.


If something walks like a duck, my friends, then it is a duck.


Also if Obama acts in the Presidency like a Muslim then to all practical purposes he is a Muslim.


He is also a Black president fighting a racist war against Whites in America, and his wife Michelle even more so. Also he is Antisemitic having come from a Christian Church which is Antisemitic.


But this is hardly an individualist phenomenon. He is backed by the Democratic Party, by the trade Union Leaders in America, and by the so-called left.


And most strangely he is on his essential Islam policy backed by the 98 per cent majority of the republican party also, a fact which is proved by the isolation of the “Five” led by Michelle Bachman just a month ago. They in the Republican Party, the 98 per cent, who opposed Bachman hold on to the mistaken theoretical positions towards Jihad of Bush and Blair.


This reference to the instructive case of the isolation of Bachman by Republicans brings us again to the very heart of the matter in relation to the Libya murder of the Ambassador. For simplicity and clarity here are 4 points:


  1. The war against the Talibana nd Bin laden was a justfied war but Bush fought it under the very banner of Islam. Bush was effectively helping the Jihad.
  2. The war in Iraq was totally explicitely fighting for the Jihad, openly on behalf of Islam. It was fought under the banner of Islam is Peace. So let the world have Real Islam, said Bush and Blair.
  3. In both of those wars the so-called left of our times was reinforcing Bush and Blair. This left seemed to be against the war but they were certainly for the Jihad. Thus we say reinforcing Bush’s natural pro-Jihadism.
  4. The ground was thereby well prepared for the first Muslim Prez. Of the United States, the notorious Obama. This Muslim prez. traveleld to Cairo in June 2009, his first international assignment, and made it known that he was backing the Muslim Brotherhood and opposing Mubarak. An old Irish saying “make hay while the sun shines”. That is precisely what the Muslim Prez. began to do in all the events of the Arab Spring.



Thus to follow from those 4 points, and especially number 4, in quick succession the power and force of the US and Europe began to depose relatively secular leaders in a great expanse of the world and replace these secular leaders with Jihadists, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Muslim Jihad in action.


The crippled and crippling leaders of modern Israel and modern Zionism ( shadow of the grandeur of Herzl) sat on their haunches while around their borders secular leader after secular leader were deposed. The defeat of Mubarak, not by the Egyptian Jihad but by the US Prsidential Jihadist, means now a certain and widespread war to save the Jews from extinction, which there is no guarantee they will win.


And now we have reached this stage.


Muammar Gadhafi as a young soldier led a popular overthrow of the Monarchy of Idris. It is not accidental that Gadhafi joined his government to that of Bush and Blair and against Al Qaida in the Magreb in the years previous to the Obama fiend turning on him. This shows that Gadhafi, like Saleh, Gaghbo, Ben Ali, Mubarak and many others, was a relative secularist opposed to Sharia. In that respect he and they were in reality freedom fighters. That is why we on 4international opposed abstentionism. Gadhafi had to be defended UNCONDIONALLY we maintained constantly.


But it was those very forces of Sharia which America has placed in power in Libya and which then brutally murdered Gadhafi and his son, carried out the very same action yesterday against the Ambassador of America.


Thus in every respect the American Ambassador to Libya was murdered by the … the chosen forces of the American Government.


That it must be admitted is a very strange phenomenon. It mirrors the equally strange sitaution of a freedom loving American people electing as President a Sharia loving Jihadist, who is none other than Obama. But sadly the experience of Michelle Bachman and her 4 associates shows that Romney and the Republicans are not qualitatively different. Time will tell. Obama may even be returned because the Media is all powerful and is all (despite everything that has happened) pro-Obama to the very core.


There are many tragedies in the world today but there is one major tragedy in the situation. The left is on the side of the Jihad. There is therefore no alternative for people, especially youth. Youth will join Stalinists, Anarchists, Revisionist Trotskyists etc. but they will be miseducated there. That is the real task ahead…to create the alternative to these traitors. The left has been destroyed by the Palstinian Arab narrative. Our articles will also be on Facebook. Feel free to write your opinion.









Egyptians take down on the American Flag at US embassy and raise black flag of jihad, State dept apologize








The U.S. embassy had put out a statement earlier on Tuesday condemning “misguided individuals” who hurt the religious feelings of Muslims or followers of other religions.

“We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others,” the U.S. embassy said in its statement….

If the enemedia had one scintilla of ethics or objectivity, the Obama administration would be eviscerated for their treasonous, anti-American surrender to the jihad in Egypt.

Protest in Cairo at U.S. Embassy Protesters hold an American flag taken down at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo. (Mohammed Abu Zaid, Associated Press / September 11, 2012)

CAIRO — More than a dozen Egyptian protesters, angry over what they called an anti-Muslim video, scaled the outer wall of the fortress-like U.S. Embassy in Cairo on Tuesday and took down an American flag.

In its place, they raised a black flag that read: “There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet” before Egyptian security forces sought to tame the crowd.

As night fell, protesters continued to gather outside the embassy in one of the biggest demonstrations there since the fall of Hosni Mubarak‘s government early last year. Security forces surrounded the compound to prevent protesters from again storming it, though some demonstrators remained on the wall, waving black flags.

As many as 2,000 demonstrators had rallied outside the embassy in a gathering called for by the Islamic conservative Salafist movement to protest a video posted on YouTube that they said insulted Islam. The mood was heated and people in the crowd could not even agree which video they were protesting against.

Some said it was a film made by Egyptian Coptic immigrants in the United States that had been played in Egypt on private TV channel Al Nas, run by Salafists, before the rally. The video shown on the channel refers to Muhammad and his followers as “child lovers.” It also showed the prophet speaking to a supposed Muslim donkey, asking him whether he loves women. The channel’s enraged host and a commentator then demanded to know how Islam could be treated in such a debasing way.

Others said they were protesting a video made in a collaboration of Copts in the United States and Florida preacher Terry Jones, whose 2011 burning of a Koran triggered riots in Afghanistan.

Nader Bakar, spokesman of Al Nour party, the political arm of the Salafist movement, denied any involvement in the uproar.

“We were there for a couple of hours in a peaceful protest,” said Bakar, who had called for the demonstration the day before. “We are against this movie being made to defame the prophet. The U.S. Embassy understood this and they issued a statement condemning hateful rhetoric.”

Bakar acknowledged that he had only read about the video in a newspaper but not watched it before calling for protests.

The hysteria was a reminder of the volatility of politics in post-Mubarak Egypt, where, more than ever, rumor can stir people into a frenzy.

“Many of the people here haven’t even seen the movie,” said Mostafa Nageh, a youth who attended the protest. “Most people came out to protest just because they heard that a video insulting the prophet was made in the U.S.”

In Washington, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said Tuesday that the breach of the embassy wall “came up pretty quickly” and involved a “relatively modest group of people, but caught probably us and the Egyptian security outside by some surprise.” She said she was not aware of any injuries.

She said that “protest is possible in the new Egypt,” and the action didn’t signal a new anti-Americanism by the public or government of Egypt.

Meanwhile, Egyptian authorities ordered the arrest of former presidential candidate Ahmed Shafik in a corruption case that involves Mubarak’s two sons and four retired military generals.

A judge referred Shafik, along with Gamal and Alaa Mubarak, to criminal court on charges of purposefully squandering public funds and selling land for less than market value in the Ismailia governorate, Egypt’s state news agency reported.

The allegations bring up Shafik’s role as a chairman of a housing association in the 1990s when he reportedly sold land to the Mubarak brothers at unreasonably low prices. The judge called for Shafik, who was Hosni Mubarak’s close friend and last prime minister, to be jailed and remain in custody until trial.

Shafik, who has lived in the United Arab Emirates since losing June’s presidential election to Muslim Brotherhood member Mohamed Morsi, recently slammed the Egyptian authorities’ decision to investigate him. In a television interview, he said the state’s actions were “politically motivated.”



9-11 ANNIVERSARY TODAY…Reluctance to tell the truth about Islam has done such damage

Reluctance to tell the truth about Islam has done such damage.


On this anniversary day of 9-11 there is no better tribute than to publish the outstanding essay and video by Dr. Bill Warner, which is the most thought provoking essay I have ever read on Islam. 


Prepare to have your mind opened.


Everybody is talking about it: Why it is so difficult to teach what Islam is really about? And Dr. Warner gives the answer to that in a most satisfactory fashion.


{This essay is so important we have placed it in the “pages” section of this website. It goes under the heading of “http://4international.me/the-utter-depravity-and-cruelty-of-historical-islam-jihad-has-never-been-told/}


It is fitting that we should include a look at Karen Armstrong, not only does she lie about Islam but she is a good example of this.


In thinking about the lies and deception surrounding Islam and 9-11 over the past eleven years my mind “lit on” none other than that liar Karen Armstrong.


 I came upon a piece in Wiki which is rather good. It follows at the end.


On this eleventh anniversary I am in particular indebted to Jihadwatch, Atlas Shrugs and Gates of Vienna, sites which I consider to be the most important in understanding Islam.

The url for the Gates of Vienna transcription and video is http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com.es/2012/09/why-we-are-afraid-1400-year-secret.html#more


Once again the url for our article which will always appear at the side and on the main page of our site is:





Says Gates of Vienna about this great work by Dr. Warner on Islam:

Dr. Bill Warner is the founder of the Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI). The video below records a talk he gave recently about the real history of Islam, and why there is such a powerful tendency towards collective amnesia about it in the West.

His account of the destruction of classical civilization by the Great Jihad is a superb follow-up to Mohammed and Charlemagne Revisited by Emmet Scott, which was examined at length here last month.

This is possibly the best concise exposition of the history of Islamic violence that I have ever heard




CAS International, PACMA, and Humane Society International have collected 71,000 signatures against the traditional feast of Toro de la Vega.

On June 19, this petition was presented to Pablo Trillo-Figueroa, Deputy of the Governing Council of Valladolid, Spain.
During the annual Toro de le Vega, in the province of Castilla y León, a bull is chased by a crowd of people on foot and on horseback. Meanwhile, the animal is repeatedly stabbed with spears till death follows. The tradition of Toro de la Vega is very controversial in Spain due to the extreme suffering that the bull must undergo. Many Spaniards believe that the event should be banned. Many lovers of bullfighting even openly speak out against this tradition. Toro de la Vega has been declared as an event of “national tourist interest” since 1980 and was in 2011 recognized by the Council of Valladolid as ‘cultural heritage.’
CAS International, started together with the Spanish political party PACMA and HSI, launched the campaign ‘Rompe una Lanza’ (break a lance) with the purpose of widely drawing attention to this subject and to gather signatures against this cruel tradition. “Break a lance” symbolizes the lances used against the bull.

Toro de la Vega © PACMA

“Toro de la Vega is not only a despicable event in itself, but also a bad thing for Spain, which lives on tourism,” said Silvia Barquero, spokesman of the Spanish party for the animals. “The image that we show the rest of the world is regrettable, and it is incomprehensible that this event is still allowed.” Marius Kolff, director of CAS, says that “CAS International since seven years annually visits Tordesillas with Dutch and Belgian volunteers to protest against this cruel tradition.”

About 500 animal rights activists protested in central Spain on Sunday against a centuries-old festival in which a bull is chased and then lanced to death.

For the demonstration the protesters arrived in the fortified town of Tordesillas, which will stage the festival on Tuesday, from across Spain on 10 buses rented by animal rights group PACMA which organised the event.

Wearing white T-shirts with the slogan “Break a Spear”, they gathered in the plain near the town where a bull is killed each year and held up wooden sticks representing spears above their heads before snapping them in two.

Each year hundreds of people, many on horseback, chase a bull through the streets of Tordesillas and across a bridge to the plain where they then spear it to death.

The ritual has been held every second Tuesday in September since at least 1453.

“It is the cruelest tradition incurred upon an animal in our country,” PACMA group said in a statement posted on its website ahead of Sunday’s protest.

Each region of Spain has responsibility for its own animal protection laws, usually with exceptions for bullfighting. The festival in Tordesillas is allowed under the laws of the Castilla y Leon region.

PACMA describes itself as the Animalist Party on its website and says it is the only political party that campaigns for the rights of all animals.

While it has run candidates in elections to both chambers of parliament, it has yet to have any deputies or senators elected.


Of course Obama must be defeated in the election. Anybody who sides with Obama is really treading down a very dangerous path as this article shows.

This is not to say that we are friends of Romney, Daly and the present Republicans. The Daly policy is to screw the American poor, and the workers, make them pay for the crisis, defend the salaries of the rich, and in the process lessen the amount of revenue coming in, so the debt 916 trillion) will increase under them too. It has of course skyrocketed under Obama.

However Mrs Obama paid a visit 2 years ago to highly corrupt Marbella Spain. She stayed just a few days and as far as I could see, did little, a bit of shopping maybe, but dragged her ass around that well known stupid Iberian watering hole.

Now the point is that she took the special presidential plane, a huge affair, and her family cronies etc., and the whole thing must have cost hugely.

America is losing its soul.

Now this was most evident, and I think a step towards Fascism, when Obama went to war in Libya WITHOUT GETTING THE SAYSO OF CONGRESS. THAT IS NEVER DONE, AND I BELIEVE IS WRITTEN INTO THE CONSTITUTION.


But…about Bush as well and the Constitution.

This has come to light in a recent comment on an American website and I quote:

This is yet another example of our leaders, in Congress and numerous Presidents that completely ignore the rule of law and our founding document, The Constitution.
Foreign Aid is unconstitutional, yet Congress passes out our tax dollars in every conceivable way forcing the American Public at gunpoint to support these causes despite the fact they are illegal.
This is Tyranny, something most Americans never learned or could care less about even though this nation was founded on the rule of law.
Consider this exchange between George W Bush and Congressional leaders in late 2004:
Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act, writes Doug Thompson for Capitol Hill Blue.GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. Thompson reports the following exchange:
“I donÔø?t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”
“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”
“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”
After GWB was elected to president, he took an oath of office with his hand on the bible and swore to; “uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
We no longer live in a Constitutional Republic where Tyranny is running rampant.
This is why a sitting President can give our Enemy $500 million to provide housing for terrorists while outsourcing and in-sourcing American jobs destroying the middle class.

ScottyDog on April 19, 2008 at 4:33 pm



The best support for Migron against the Netanyahu conspiracy against young Jewish families came from Jewish Indy


America likes to POSE as the friend of Israel and the Jews but rather than that it placed Khomeini in power, ditched the Shah and has been a supporter of Islamic terrorism since.


Jewish Indy inits comment on this Ynet report has got everything pretty much correct in that if Israel attacks Iran then America better not join in WITH IRAN and against the Jews. Read it. Discuss it.


”Iran must steer clear of US interests in Gulf”
Posted Monday, September 03 @ 15:11:44 EDT
News Washington reportedly sends Tehran indirect message saying it will not back Israeli strike on nuclear facilities as long as Iran refrains from attacking American facilities in Persian Gulf

[JewishIndy Editor:  And Israel will also refrain from attacking American facilities in the Gulf as well, provided that America stays out of the way, and doesn’t impede Israeli efforts!]

By Shimon Shiffer
September 3, 2012

The United States has indirectly informed Iran, via two European nations, that it would not back an Israeli strike against the country’s nuclear facilities, as long as Tehran refrains from attacking American interests in the Persian Gulf, Yedioth Ahronoth reported Monday.
According to the report, Washington used covert back-channels in Europe to clarify that the US does not intend to back Israel in a strike that may spark a regional conflict.
In return, Washington reportedly expects Iran to steer clear of strategic American assets in the Persian Gulf, such as military bases and aircraft carriers.
Israeli officials reported an unprecedented low in the two nations’ defense ties, which stems from the Obama administration’s desire to warn Israel against mounting an uncoordinated attack on Iran.
The New York Times reported Monday that US President Barack Obama is promoting a series of steps meant to curb an Israeli offensive against Iran, while forcing the Islamic Republic to take the nuclear negotiations more seriously.
Iranian drill in Strait of Hormuz (Photo: MCT)
One of the steps considered is “an official declaration by Obama about what might bring about American military action, as well as covert activities that have been previously considered and rejected,” the report said.
Several of Obama’s top advisors believe that Jerusalem is seeking an unequivocal American statement regarding a US strike on Iran – should it actively pursue a nuclear bomb.
Israel hopes such a statement is made during Obama’s address before the UN General Assembly on September 25.
Others in the White House said Israel is trying to drag the US into an unnecessary conflict in the Gulf.
White House spokesman Jay Carney said Monday that “There is absolutely no daylight between the United States and Israel when it comes to preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.”
Carney said that all options remain on the table for Iran. He said the “window for diplomacy remains open,” adding that the diplomatic process remains the best way to deal with the Islamic Republic, though “that window will not remain open indefinitely.”

Cyber war a go?

According to the New York Times, Washington has also sent Iran a back-channel deal suggesting they curb their nuclear ambitions, but Tehran rejected the deal, saying no agreement is possible sans lifting all West-imposed sanctions.
According to the report, the Obama administration is exploring the possibility of mounting a covert operation, as well as waging a “quiet” cyber war against Iran.
President Obama had previously rejected the notion, fearing such cyber assaults would wreak havoc on Iranian civilian life.
Later in September, the United States and more than 25 other nations will hold the largest-ever minesweeping exercise in the Persian Gulf, in what military officials say is a demonstration of unity and a defensive step to prevent Iran from attempting to block oil exports through the Strait of Hormuz.
In fact, the United States and Iran have each announced what amounted to dueling defensive exercises to be conducted this fall, each intended to dissuade the other from attack.