Sunday, October 28, 2012



Exclusive: Nonie Darwish on why BHO didn't provide security needed in Benghazi

By Nonie Darwish

I have never entertained the idea that Obama was a Muslim and always believed he was a socialist. But Obama’s behavior over the last four years regarding Islam has convinced me that Obama has a Socialist/Islamic centered world view – a combination that is not uncommon in many parts of the Muslim world.

Having been a journalist in Egypt for six years in the’70s, I have witnessed socialism with an Islamic twist to be a popular political ideology, especially amongst Arab journalists and intellectuals. Socialism and even communism have managed to survive in the ruthless Islamic political system as an alternative to full-fledged Shariah. The two ideologies blended together in the Baath Party in Syria, Iraq and socialist regimes in Egypt and Yemen. One major difference between the two ideologies is that Islam uses Allah, while socialism uses atheism, to fight the God of Christianity. Free democracies such as the United States are alien to Islam and socialists because they regard government as a servant to the people and believe that human rights are from God and not from government or Shariah.

Having said that, both Shariah and socialism united in their envy of Western society and needed to change it. That is when Obama became the savior of both Islam and socialism. He embodied both ideologies, socialism and Islam, and was groomed for years to help the socialist and Islamic causes inside America. The claim that Obama is a Christian was a silly joke, but a necessary lie for the greater cause of changing America to fit the goals of socialists and Islamists.

Obama became the one, the savior of both Islam and socialists. For that Obama had to deny who he really was. That is why Obama’s actions and words never added up. At the recent Catholic charity dinner speech, Obama did not seem just to be kidding when he said that Romney uses his middle name, Mitt, and “I wish I could use my middle name.” Obama was referring to his Islamic middle name of Hussein. In Obama’s mind he was not ashamed for having deceived America, but he blamed America for putting him in this quagmire of having to deny his true pride in his middle name.

That brings us to an important discovery by WND in an article by Jerome Corsi entitled: “Obama’s ring: ‘There is no God but Allah.’” The article shows close-up photos of a ring still worn by Obama today in the White House and that he has been wearing since his visit to Pakistan as a young man. The ring, which later also became his wedding ring, has very tiny and discrete Arabic calligraphy that means nothing to Americans, but to Arabic speaking people like myself and Dr. Mark Gabriel, means a lot. Such Islamic calligraphy is common all over the gold markets in the Muslim world. I am not a writing expert, but I can clearly see on the ring the word “La Ilaha IllaAllah.” Such a sentence in Arabic has a lot of the letters A and L, which in Arabic are simply a straight line like the number one.

Now, I am sure that Obama defenders will claim that the calligraphy design on his ring has nothing to do with Arabic letters, but that it just happens to be similar design of the Arabic Shahada. The ring is just another coincidence in the many coincidences throughout Obama’s life, just like his pastor, Rev. Wright, that does not express support to America, its Constitution or its Judeo/Christian heritage. Muslim or not, Obama has no problem misleading the American public by telling them he is a Christian when he is not, so why shouldn’t he tell them he is not a Muslim when he is?

For the sake of “hope and change” Obama found it convenient to say he is Christian. Obama would have better represented himself in the eyes of America if he was honest about his faith because lying about one’s religion is major deception and is not the everyday policy lies of politicians. The only religion on earth that advises its followers to lie about being a Muslim in a majority non-Muslim country is Islam. That adds to the suspicion about Obama, his faith and why he favors Islam so much. Lying for the purpose of jihad in Islam is also not only allowed, but an obligation to be proud of and a means to blame the enemies of Islam for one’s lies. Shariah law states: “Lying is obligatory if the purpose is obligatory.” Incidentally, Obama never criticizes Shariah and has people in his administration that defend Shariah. All of that take us to the same direction; why is Obama acting so much in favor of Islam?

That brings us to the current debacle in Libya, which can only be understood if we understand Obama’s worldview on the “the Muslim World.” Like the so-called “moderate” Muslims, Obama insists Islam has nothing to do with terrorism and blames previous American foreign policy and Israel for Islamic anger. Obama narrowed down the problem of Islamism to al-Qaida while embracing other Islamic groups as moderate, such as the Muslim Brotherhood. By doing that Obama dismissed the long history of terror of the Muslim Brotherhood, which gave birth to al-Qaida and hundreds of other terror groups. Nothing in Obama’s world is the fault of Islam, and that is why he ordered the Fort Hood massacre to be classified as workplace violence and not Islamic terrorism.

Obama believes that he uniquely understands the Muslim world and will bring a new era of peace with Islam, at least during his administration. There are also strong rumors in Egypt that when Obama met with the Egyptian foreign minister, he confided in him that he was a Muslim and that he would help the Islamic cause in America after he passed his health-care bill.

But as president of the United States, Obama was in a quagmire between protecting American lives and being loyal to Islam and appeasing his Islamic friends. Placing American Marines in U.S. consulates in dangerous terror-infested Islamic countries was going to jeopardize a bloody confrontation between American security and Islamists. That was also going to discredit Obama’s theory of Islam having nothing to do with terrorism. Also, if Obama were to confront militarily Muslim jihadists in Islamic countries, his whole theory that he has brought a new page in American/Islamic relations would fall apart and he would be no different from his predecessors, Bush or Reagan.

That explains why the demands for American security instead of Libyan security by U.S. Ambassador Stevens went unanswered. Obama did not want to deal with the possibility that American Marines would shoot at Muslim attackers to save American lives.

Whether Obama secretly considers himself Muslim or not, his suspicious behavior in Libya supports those who believe he is a Muslim. According to Shariah, it is a capital crime for a Muslim individual or leader to shoot Islamists for the purpose of protecting Americans. That would make Obama a violator of Shariah and an apostate. Obama in Libya acted like he does not want to upset Muslims, and that he does not want to shoot on Muslim attackers. That is why he opted for the lesser of the two evils, to get Muslims, Libyan security, to guard the embassy and this way, it will be Muslims who will have to shoot other Muslims to defend the consulate. But that plan was useless because even the Muslim guards had to follow Shariah and ran away and left the Americans to be killed rather than violate Shariah themselves and kill other Muslims.

Muslim or not, Obama gambled with the lives of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others and left them as sacrificial lambs rather than engage in fire exchange between American security and Muslim attackers. And until today, the murder of the Americans at the hand of Muslims did not get us an apology from any Muslim leader or cleric. No one is taking responsibility, not even Obama.

With the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Islamists and jihadists made it clear to us that they couldn’t care less about Obama, his appeasement, his apology and even his Islam. They could not put on hold their jihad or restrain themselves for an American president who wanted to help build a better image of Islam to the world. They could not play the game with Obama and refrain from jihad even during the Obama presidency. Jihadists declared that Obama, Muslim or not, is just another American president who should not be trusted. The Muslim world has no respect for authority or the rule of law and that is what Islamic Shariah produces in all Muslim countries and that is why Islamic angry mobs recently were torching Obama’s effigy in anger.

It is unfortunate that it took a tragedy in Libya and the lives of decent Americans to prove that Obama is unfit to be president. Obama has fooled many Americans for four years, and that is why when he sees the face of Romney he is reminded of a reality he could not fully eliminate. Obama knows the game is over and his presidency is over.

Friday, October 26, 2012

Outrage as UN Report Calls for Israel Boycott

Outrage as UN Report Calls for Israel Boycott

The UN investigator tasked with Israel-PA affairs openly supports a boycott of Israeli companies.

Maayana Miskin

The United Nations official responsible for investigating Israel-PA affairs has openly expressed support for a boycott of all companies doing business with Israelis east of the 1949 armistice line.

In his latest report, UN special rapporteur on Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories Richard Falk has called for a boycott on all companies tied to Israeli towns in Judea and Samaria.

Falk included “settlement expansion” as one of the reasons to boycott.

His statements have been severely condemned by Israel and its allies. Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird, quoted by the AFP news agency, called on Falk to “either withdraw this biased and disgraceful report – or resign from his position at the United Nations.”

Falk has “not only done a disservice to the United Nations, but also to the Palestinian people,” Baird charged.

Israel condemned Falk’s statements as “grossly biased.” United States UN Ambassador Susan Rice rejected his statements as well, saying, “His call for a boycott of private companies is irresponsible and unacceptable.”

Falk’s boycott statements “do nothing to further a peaceful settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and indeed poison the environment for peace,” she added.

Israeli experts say that Israel’s civilian communities in Judea and Samaria are legal under international law. The Palestinian Authority, backed by much of the international community, claims that the territories won by Jordan in 1949, and retaken by Israel in 1967, rightfully belong to Arab residents of the area for the establishment of a new Arab state.

Richard Falk was appointed by the UN Human Rights Council, not by UN Chief Ban-Ki-Moon. The Human Rights Council is notoriously anti-Israel, and has gone so far as to conduct its own probes criticizing Israel in cases where other official UN reports are more balanced.

Falk’s mission was criticized from the beginning due to his biased mandate, under which he is to examine Israeli Jewish violations of Arab rights, with no mention of Arab terrorism or other Arab violations of Israeli rights. The appointment of Falk, specifically, also came under fire due to his past extremist statements, including claims of a U.S. cover-up in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Obama’s Real Record on Israel

Obama’s Real Record on Israel

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Barack Obama at a previous occasion. Photo: AP/Charles Dharapak.
Anne Bayefsky
During the final debate, President Obama pointed to his 2008 pre-election visit to Israel’s Holocaust memorial, Yad Vashem, as an answer to Governor Romney’s criticism of his foreign policy on Israel. That stop was made by over a million visitors and hundreds of world leaders and dignitaries the same year. Invoking it as a means to establish the President’s pro-Israel credentials is an insult to the intelligence of voters who care about the welfare of the Jewish state.
The President’s move is reminiscent of a similar game played by the United Nations. The organization trashes the state of Israel 364 days a year, and pauses on the anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz concentration camp on January 27th for an “International Day of Commemoration.”
Undoubtedly, keeping the memory of the Holocaust alive is a service not only to Jews but to anyone interested in preserving and protecting universal human rights and freedoms.
But the question before American voters, who value our special bond with the Middle East’s only democracy, is whether the specifics of the President’s four-year record are consistent with the well-being of the people who live and breathe Jewish self-determination as a bulwark against modern antisemitism.
Just a partial rap-sheet speaks for itself.
President Obama never visited Israel during his time in office, despite having been as close as thirty minutes away in Egypt, and managing to go to Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iraq.
President Obama told Jewish leaders in July 2009 that he was deliberately adopting a policy of putting daylight between America and Israel.
President Obama has legitimized the UN body most responsible for demonizing Israel as the world’s worst human rights violator. The President joined the UN Human Rights Council in 2009 and is now seeking a second 3-year term, despite Israel’s requests that he do the opposite.
President Obama made Israeli settlements the key stumbling block in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Starting in 2009 he chose to castigate Israel publicly, often, and in extreme terms at the General Assembly and the Security Council. The Palestinians took the President’s cue and ended direct negotiations until such time as Israel capitulates, even though the subject is supposed to be a final status issue.
President Obama treated Israel’s Prime Minister to a series of insulting snubs during his visit to the White House in March 2010.
President Obama cut a deal with Islamic states at a May 2010 meeting of parties to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, contrary to assurances given to Israel. He agreed to help convene a 2012 international conference intended to pivot attention towards disarming Israel and is currently negotiating the details of this diplomatic onslaught.
President Obama introduced in his September 2010 address to the General Assembly, a September 2011 timeline for full Palestinian statehood and membership in the UN, thus encouraging Palestinians to push the same unilateral move.
President Obama suggested in May 2011 that Israel use the 1967 borders as a starting point for negotiations – knowing full well that Israel considers those borders to be indefensible, and that agreements require the border issue to be determined by the parties themselves.
President Obama created a “global counter-terrorism forum” in September 2011 and invited eleven Muslim states to join – on the grounds that they were “on the front lines in the struggle against terrorism.” At the insistence of Turkey, he then denied entry to Israel.
President Obama told French President Nicolas Sarkozy in November 2011 – when he thought he was off-mike – that he regretted having to deal with Israel’s Prime Minister.
President Obama asked Congress in February 2012 to waive a ban on American funding of UNESCO. The ban had been imposed following UNESCO’s recognition of Palestinian statehood and was consistent with U.S. law denying funding for any international organization that recognized Palestinian statehood in the absence of a peace agreement with Israel.
President Obama has indeed put daylight between American and Israeli policy on Iran. In August, Joint Chiefs Chairman General Dempsey said: “our clocks are ticking at different paces” and he wouldn’t be “complicit” in an Israeli effort to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities. In September Secretary Clinton explained this divergence. In her words, the Iranian threat is “existential” only for Israel; only Israel is “right in the bull’s eye.” President Obama’s “pro-Israel” policy, therefore, is to wait past the point that the intended victim of the planned genocide believes is safe.
President Obama denied Prime Minister Netanyahu’s request to meet with him in September, despite the Iranian peril.
President Obama’s UN ambassador, Susan Rice, didn’t even attend the Israeli Prime Minister’s speech to the UN General Assembly in September – during which he made a plea for global attention to the Iranian threat.
And last night, Governor Romney answered the question on the greatest threat to national security with “a nuclear Iran,” while President Obama responded “terrorist networks.”
Iran is the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. An Iranian nuclear weapon will result in a nuclear arms race in the most volatile region of the world. And it will make nuclear weapons ending up in the hands of terrorists all that more likely.
It isn’t hard to figure out which man will better partner with Israel to combat antisemitism today and ensure that the lesson of Yad Vashem is more than a glib debating point.
This article was originally published by Fox News.