Obama Endorses "Gay" Anti-Christian Bigot

The video shows Dan Savage, a homosexual activist who created It Gets Better Project to help homosexual teens survive bullying during their teenage years.

It sounds good and nice, until you realize that Savage is himself full of the hatred he accuses others of nurturing.

He utters anti-Christian bigotry every time he opens his mouth. He praises violence against people who disagree with him.

He tells kids to f..k their teachers, preachers, parents.

All this is vile but maybe, with all the important events going on, not worth getting out of our way to draw attention to, since he will be one of the many homosexualist militants who do similar things.

But this bigoted, hateful, inciting to violence individual is endorsed by Barack Hussein Obama, Vice President Biden, and White House staff on the White House's own website, with links to Savage's website.

The anti-bully is a bully himself. Yet another, the umpteenth reason to vote for Romney against the bully-in-chief Obama on November 6th election day.

We Know Very Little about Obama the Man

I don't know how the American people can trust as President a man who has been so, shall we say, economical with the truth even about himself as a person.

I'm not referring here to life details which concern someone's privacy. No, this is about things and events that the public has the necessity to know about a man's deep-seated beliefs, ideas and past and present behavior in order to form an opinion on his suitability as their President.

Barack Hussein Obama, about whom the overwhelming evidence is that he was born and raised a Muslim and remained a Muslim until until his late 20s, has repeatedly denied having ever been a Muslim.

A man's religious beliefs are important to understand the person in any case. In the current international political climate, with Islamism on the rise globally, Al-Qaeda much stronger than ever, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation urging the United Nations and the European Council to adopt their particular take on "human rights" through their Sharia-based Cairo Declaration while not signing the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights because in conflict with Islamic values, and the Muslim world asking for Sharia's blasphemy laws to be imposed everywhere, it is imperative for a US President at least to declare his Muslim background and sympathies, not to cover them up.

Obama lied about many facts of his life just because it suited him at the time.

Obama lied when he said that he had never been a member and candidate of the Chicago socialist New Party. Here again we don't have a little white lie, but a deception aimed at keeping the American people in the dark about his real beliefs and affiliations.

Obama lied on his country of birth, when in 1991, in order to sell his autobiography, he falsely claimed that he "was born in Kenya." Is this important? Yes, for a future President.

What all the dispute about his country of birth shows is that Obama, unlike all other US Presidents, was not vetted and scrutinized prior to or after his election.

During the 2008 Presidential election cycle, we as a nation witnessed the collapse of the American mainstream media, and the deterioration of journalism right before our very eyes. We watched the media become completely unhinged losing all journalistic integrity & moral objectivity as they jumped head first into the tank for Barack Obama openly cheer-leading for him, and essentially functioning as a political arm of the Democratic Party. The liberal media practically campaigned for him in a grotesque display of partisanship rendering themselves negligent to their own profession. The fawning media anointed Barack Obama as their “Savior” insulating him from criticism, and ignoring the extremely important Presidential vetting process which has always been a necessary step toward helping the American people select a candidate. The traditional rules & protocols that the media had applied to every other Presidential predecessor of history apparently did not apply to Barack Obama.

If Barack Obama was properly vetted and scrutinized in 2008 the way every Republican candidate is currently being looked at under the microscope, he would never have been elected by the American people. Obama’s extraordinary lack of applicable job experience required to run for the highest office in the land was glaring, but the media did its best to minimize, diminish, and flat out suppress vital information about candidate Obama from the misinformed public which would have disqualified him from contention. He had absolutely no executive/business experience, no leadership/governing experience, served less than 1 full term as a functioning U.S. Senator, had a murky past that is shrouded in secrecy, and also a history of associating himself with the most radical fringe elements of society. This included a friendship with unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers along with spending 20 years in a church of hate with his bigoted mentor & father figure Jeremiah Wright preaching fiery racist rhetoric, anti-Semitic slurs, and spewing vicious anti-American rants from the pews. The fact that Obama spent 2 decades in this hostile environment listening to Wright’s hate filled sermons, and embracing this man so closely speaks volumes about his judgement, character, and world view. While campaigning in 2008, candidate Barack Obama told America, “Judge me by the people with whom I surround myself with.” This revealing statement should have been closely examined given Obama’s numerous relationships with highly questionable, and unsavory individuals yet it gained absolutely no traction within the elite media as they were far too busy drooling over Obama’s grand speeches, and trying to get his autograph.

...Liberals were so enamored by Barack Obama that they were practically ready to carve his face into Mount Rushmore, and inscribe his image onto U.S. currency before he was even sworn into the Oval Office.

If the upcoming election becomes a referendum on Obama’s disastrous economic policies, his failed stimulus packages, recklessly adding over 5 trillion dollars to our nation’s unsustainable debt, Obama-Care which continues stifling businesses from hiring, and sky rocketing gas prices, he will lose the election in a landslide. His far left divisive ideologies, and radical associations alone should be more than enough ammunition for the American people to come out to the polls in droves to ensure he is a 1 term President. Heading into the 2012 election cycle, we are about to embark on the most negative & outright vicious attack/smear campaign against the Republican nominee at the hands of Obama’s Marxist minions within the powerful liberal mainstream media establishment. If Barack Obama, and his billionaire overlord George Soros have it their way, the media conversation will be driven by an unprecedented all-out assault against the Republican opponent in a deliberately deceitful attempt to divert the attention away from Obama’s indefensible failures & abysmal Presidential record.

We are talking about a man who was given the Nobel Peace Prize just for having been elected. Sometimes reality is stranger than fiction.

Obama's autobiography, Dreams from My Father, published in 1995, contains such an enormous amount of lies to legitimately raise the question "Is President Obama A Pathological Liar?". In the book he fabricated an account of his Kenyan grandfather being racially persecuted.

The Obama Record: The most frightening aspect of this president may not be his radical ideology but his rank dishonesty in selling that ideology. Now he's been caught lying about family racism.

In "Dreams from My Father," his 1995 memoir, Obama used the story of his paternal grandfather's imprisonment and torture at the hands of British colonists in Kenya as an example of white cruelty. He claimed Hussein Onyango Obama was unjustly detained for six months before being released a crippled, lice-ridden "old man."

In fact, none of it is true, according to Washington Post editor and biographer David Maraniss, who traveled to Kenya to investigate the tale. His grandfather was not detained or beaten by his "white rulers," as Obama, writing as a 34-year-old lawyer, claimed.

This is only the latest example of a growing body of fabrications, embellishments and outright lies told by this president, who has a real and possibly pathological problem with the truth.

...Lie No. 11: Obama claimed he had only a passing acquaintance with Weather Underground terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, when in fact they held a fundraiser for their Hyde Park neighbor in their living room, and years later, while Obama served in the U.S. Senate, hosted a barbecue for him in their backyard.

Lie No. 12: Obama claimed he never heard Rev. Jeremiah Wright spew anti-American invectives while sitting in his pews for 20 years, when in fact Obama was moved to tears hearing Wright condemn "white folks" and the U.S. for bombing other countries and even named his second book after the sermon.

Lie No. 13: Obama claimed he got in a "big fight" with old white flame Genevieve Cook, who after seeing a black play asked "why black people were so angry all the time," when in fact she never saw the play nor made the remark.

In both his autobiographies, Obama paints a false portrait of a still-racist America and West, where he, his friends and relatives are victimized by that racism. Conveniently, his remedy is redistributive justice through bigger government.

In Dreams from My Father he lied, among other things, about paternal grandfather, "his maternal grandfather, his father, his mother, his parents' wedding, his stepfather's father, his high school friend, his girlfriend, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright".

Victor Davis Hanson has the final word on this: "If a writer will fabricate the details about his own mother's terminal illness and quest for insurance, then he will probably fudge on anything."

Donald Trump may have followed an unorthodox procedure in trying to get to the truth, but he had a point when he said that Obama is the mystery candidate:

“I thought it would be a very easy way to get transparency from the president,” he answered, going on to accuse Obama of being the “least transparent of any president — ever.”

Trump maintains that Obama’s past remains a relative mystery. And since, in his view, not many people know about the president’s personal history, gaining access to his passport and college records would be telling.

“Passport applications tell you a lot,” Trump told TheBlaze. “I would hope to find nothing – but I have a feeling that might not be the answer.”

Given how little we all know about Obama and his life, authors have made plausible and valid explanations. Joel Gilbert produced a video on DVD, Dreams From My Real Father, in which he gives good reasons to believe that Barack Obama's real father, biologically as well as ideologically, was the late Communist Party USA activist Frank Marshall Davis:

At age 18, Barack Obama admittedly arrived at Occidental College a committed revolutionary Marxist. What was the source of Obama’s foundation in Marxism?

...The film begins by presenting the case that Barack Obama's real father was Frank Marshall Davis, a Communist Party USA propagandist who likely shaped Obama’s worldview during his formative years. Barack Obama sold himself to America as the multicultural ideal, a man who stood above politics. Was the goat-herding Kenyan father only a fairy tale to obscure a Marxist agenda, irreconcilable with American values?

This fascinating narrative is based in part on two years of research, interviews, newly unearthed footage and photos and the writings of Davis and Obama himself. "Dreams From My Real Father" weaves together the proven facts with reasoned logic in an attempt to fill in the obvious gaps in Obama’s history.

Since there is a physical resemblance of Obama to communist Frank Marshall Davis, it is thought that Obama had cosmetic surgery in order to disguise that. Two nationally known cosmetic surgery experts independently reached this conclusion:

“It appears Obama had some aesthetic refinement,” said plastic surgeon J. David Holcolm.

...“Obama has gone to great lengths to obscure his past,” Gilbert said. “Now, in addition to the alleged document forgery and photographic forgery by Obama to hide his true identity, we now have evidence of facial forgery.”

Holcolm described in detail his reasons for concluding Obama has had cosmetic surgery.

“The upper and middle nasal vault are both narrowed. The tip and infra-tip are softer and the tip has been rotated up,” he said. “Alar height appears to have been reduced so the lower part of the nose that makes up the nostrils appears softer.

“These changes are not characteristic of the natural aging process,” Holcolm said, “where the tip tends to settle and rotate downward causing the appearance of a longer nose and where the tip also often widens noticeably.”

Wendy Lewis, a cosmetic surgery consultant and author of 11 consumer health and beauty books, including “America’s Cosmetic Doctors & Dentists” and “Plastic Makes Perfect,” agrees.

“In the three younger photographs, Obama appears to have a bulbous nasal tip with wide alar bases, not uncommon with males and with skin of color,” Lewis said. “The more current photos show a thinner nasal tip which suggests some finessing of his nose over the years, but it is a very natural-looking effect.”

...Gilbert suspects Obama had the surgery because he was “concerned he was looking too much like Frank Marshall Davis as he got older.”

“I don’t think it was a coincidence that Obama chose to undergo a rhinoplasty before running for U.S. Senate and facing the national spotlight,” Gilbert said. “If Obama was identified as Davis’ son, it would connect the Marxist dots of Obama’s entire life journey.”

Gilbert said Obama “needed the Kenyan father fairy tale to misdirect the public away from the fact that he is a red diaper baby, the child of a Communist Party USA propagandist and Soviet agent.”

Gilbert told WND he’s received hundreds of emails people who have received a copy of his documentary in the mail, and the main message is “good folks don’t like it when they’ve been lied to.”

Look at the pictures yourself.

The latest revelation comes from an in-depth research by Jerome Corsi of WND, author of many No. 1 N.Y. Times best-seller books on Obama:

Largely ignored [by establishment media] in 2008 was research by the Hillary Clinton campaign based on contacts developed with members of the church Obama attended for two decades, Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. This is the first of a series of articles WND has developed from months of in-person interviews with church members who have known Barack and Michelle Obama over many years.

According to these sources Obama was one of the members of the Trinity United Church of Christ who benefited from a “matchmaking service” run by the Trinity Church and known as the Down Low Club. The latter is a well-known program to "help black men who engage in homosexual activity appear respectable in black society by finding them a wife" as well as to help them find homosexual lovers.

Ten years ago, the New York Times reported on a growing underground subculture in the black community known as Down Low, comprised largely of men who secretly engage in homosexual activity while living “straight” lives in public.

It’s within that subtext that opposition researchers for Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign began investigating rumors that Rev. Jeremiah Wright was running a “matchmaking service” for members of his Trinity United Church of Christ known as the Down Low Club, which included Barack Obama.

Over the past several months, WND investigators have interviewed a number of members of the church who claim the president benefited from Wright’s efforts to help black men who engage in homosexual activity appear respectable in black society by finding them a wife.

The 2003 New York Times story, “Double Lives on the Down Low,” said that though many black men reject “a gay culture they perceive as white and effeminate,” they “have settled on a new identity, with its own vocabulary and customs and its own name: Down Low.”

This is the kind of investigatigative journalism that the mainstream media should engage in to uncover the truth about the President of the United States, if they weren't too afraid of what they may find.

Why I Did not Attend Breast Screening

Breast cancer screening causes more damage than previously thought, headlines The Guardian, and Breast Cancer Screening Comes at a Cost, says Sci-Tech Today.

I had made an extensive research on mass breast screening of asymptomatic women like me, to make up my mind about whether to undergo the test that the UK's National Health Service (NHS) was offering me.

I had concluded that it was not a good idea and decided against it.

You can see the published results of my research here:

Mammogram

Mammography Benefits and Risks

DCIS | Ductal Carcinoma In Situ

Breast Screening


Excerpts from the Guardian article:

Around 4,000 women have unnecessary treatment for a disease that will never threaten their health, though tests should continue.

Breast cancer screening causes more harm than has previously been recognised, even though it saves lives, according to an independent review set up following years of scientific controversy surrounding the NHS programme.

Around 1,300 lives are saved every year by mammography, which women are invited to undergo between the ages of 50 to 70, said the review, which recommends that screenings should continue.

But 4,000 women will undergo unnecessary treatment, including surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy, for a cancer they would not otherwise have known about and which would have done them no harm in their lifetime. Some breast cancers are so tiny and slow growing that they would never be a threat to a woman's health, the review says.

The government is embarking on an immediate revision of the leaflet which invites women for screening, said national cancer director Sir Mike Richards, so that women can weigh up the benefits against potential harm and make their own decision as to whether to be screened.

While he welcomed the review panel's support for screening, he added: "The key thing is that we communicate this new information to women so they can make an informed choice for themselves.

And the Sci-Tech Today article begins:

A British panel says life-saving breast cancer screening has a cost: For every life saved, three other women were overdiagnosed, meaning they were unnecessarily treated for cancer that would never have threatened their lives. The British program has been slammed for focusing on the benefits of mammograms and downplaying the risks.

Breast cancer screening for women over 50 saves lives, an independent panel in Britain has concluded, confirming findings in U.S. and other studies.

But that screening comes with a cost: The review found that for every life saved, roughly three other women were overdiagnosed, meaning they were unnecessarily treated for a cancer that would never have threatened their lives.

The expert panel was commissioned by Cancer Research U.K. and Britain's department of health and analyzed evidence from 11 trials in Canada, Sweden, the U.K. and the U.S.

Why Communists Like Comrade Obama

Norman Thomas, 6-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America, said in a 1944 speech:

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened.

"...I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party has adopted our platform."

Thomas was very prescient of things to come.

And more recently the Marxist-Leninist, formerly generally disliked, Communist Party USA has strongly supported the incumbent President of the United States, Muslim-born Barack Hussein Obama.

During Obama's presidential campaign in 2008, Joelle Fishman, chairman of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) Political Action Commission, fully endorsed the Democratic Party’s candidate for the White House in a column entitled “Big Political Shifts Are Underway”. In it she said that Senator Obama is “ready to listen” to the “left and progressive voters” and appealed to all working people of the United States to back him, in order to cause “a landslide defeat of the Republican ultra-right.” "Fishman makes it clear that the CPUSA is part of this coalition."

Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest-ranking Soviet-bloc official ever to have defected to the West, says in the article The Socialist Mask of Marxism:

That [2008] new alliance between the Democratic Party and the Communist Party was a first in the history of the United States, the world’s headquarters of democracy and free enterprise. In November 2008, over 65 million Americans who were unable to identify the stealth virus of Marxism that was infecting the Democratic Party voted to give this party the White House and both chambers of Congress.

Although we now live in an age of technology, we still do not have an instrument that can scientifically measure to what extent the Communist endorsement of the Democratic Party influenced the results of the 2008 election. But if there had been any doubt in my mind that the Democratic and the Communist parties had secretly joined forces, that doubt was erased in 2009, when Van Jones, part of a left fringe of declared communists, became the White House’s green jobs czar. Soon after that, the White House and the Democrat-controlled Congress began dutifuly following in Marx’s footsteps by redistributing our country’s wealth and putting under government control a part of its health care, banking system, and automobile industry.

... In his Manifesto of the Communist Party, Marx urged his followers to replace capitalism with communism via a “socialist redistribution of wealth,” which “should displace capitalism and precede communism.” Marx advocated ten “despotic inroads on the rights of property,” and he called them the ten planks of communism. The most important are:

• A progressive or graduated income tax;
• Abolition of rights of inheritance;
• Centralization of credit in the hands of the state;
• Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state;
• Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

If you know the Manifesto, you will think Marx himself wrote the Democratic Party’s 2012 electoral campaign, which contains all of the above planks of Marxism. If you don’t know the Manifesto, click here and you’ll get it from the horse’s mouth.

In 2011, the Communist Party USA again supported Obama and the Democrats for re-election in 2012.

Endorsing the Obama campaign, the chairman of the Communist Party USA, Sam Webb, who had called Obama a friend back in 2008, wrote in an article in the People’s Weekly World, his party's official newspaper:

Despite the many frustrations of the past two years, the election of Barack Obama was historic and gave space to struggle for a people’s agenda.

If, on the other hand, the Republicans had been victorious in 2008, the character of class and democratic struggles would have unfolded very differently. Our movement would have been on the defensive from Day One, the Democrats would be running for cover, and the Republicans would have an unfettered hand in their efforts to liquidate the welfare state, roll back the rights revolution of the 1930s and 1960s, and crush the people’s movement – labor in the first place.

As if all this were not enough, the Communist Party USA has a history of infiltrating the Democratic Party and moving it to the left.

Remember all this on Tuesday, November 6.

Obama and Democratic Party Voter Frauds Uncovered

Another pre-election scandal related to the Democratic Party that the mainstream media have not been very happy to report, although the HuffPo and some others have mentioned it.

The above is an undercover video by the organization Project Veritas, which has uncovered many voter fraud episodes this year but, as the presenter says, "none directly implicating a sitting Member of Congress".

The Member of Congress in question is Democratic Representative for Virginia Jim Moran. His son Patrick Moran, who has now resigned over the affair but at the time of filming held the salaried title of Field Director for his father's congressional campaign, is caught on tape offering advice on how to properly commit massive voter fraud to an undercover videographer who claimed to want to do that.

Patrick Moran explains how to forge documents like utility bills and how to impersonate pollsters, all for the goal of circumventing voter ID laws in Virginia and casting fraudulent ballots in the name of unsuspecting inactive registered voters within the state for Barack Obama. He assures the undercover reporter that "committee" lawyers will defend his fraud if the forged documents "look good".

Following publication of the video, Patrick Moran was investigated by the Arlington County Police Department and resigned from the Moran for Congress campaign.

Congressman Jim Moran is a controversial politician who has been criticized for his collaboration with prominent Muslim activists with ties to terrorism. The book Muslim Mafia "documents Moran received thousands of dollars in donations from several Virginia Islamists under federal investigation for financing terrorism".

Last year, as WND reported, Moran headed a fundraiser for the controversial Council on American-Islamic Relations along with an imam tied to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing who urges the violent overthrow of the “filthy” U.S. government and the establishment of Islamic law.

The banquet concluded a day-long leadership conference offering workshops on subjects such as “counteracting Islamophobia,” “challenging scapegoating of Muslims in the 2012 election” and countering “the anti-Shariah campaign,” referring to state legislative efforts to ensure Islamic law is not implemented in the U.S.

...Fierce opposition to Moran among his constituents is reflected in the website Retire Jim Moran.

Along with charges of corruption, the website highlights Moran’s affinity for radical Muslim interests, including his advocacy for moving six al-Qaida-trained Chinese Muslims to Northern Virginia and his insistence that it was “un-American” to oppose the idea of trying 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad on U.S. soil.

Only earlier this month, in a similar case of election fraud discovered by Project Veritas in Houston, Texas, Stephanie Caballero, a salaried Regional Field Director of Organizing for America, Barack Obama’s re-election campaign, was captured on video helping an undercover reporter cast a ballot for Obama in two states.

Stephanie Caballero was fired shortly after the Project Veritas video was released.

The USA is not the only country where parties on the left are usually the ones committing more electoral fraud or using more deceitful methods of electioneering.

During the last election for London mayor in the UK in May, the Labour Party sent to potential voters, including me, a scam letter pretending to be sent from a disaffected Conservative, about which I alerted Andrew Gilligan, The Telegraph's London Editor, who posted my scanned letter on his blog with his and my comments not exactly flattering for Labour.

That time Tory candidate Boris Johnson was elected mayor of London. Will now be Romney's time to be chosen?

The Media Cover Up the Truth about Obama and the Libya Attack

If you don't know the most important events unfolding during the American presidential elections, you are in good company.

Almost all mainstream media, American and non, haven't informed the public of a truth that is deeply inconvenient for their darling, Barack Hussein Obama.

Four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, U.S. diplomat Sean Smith and former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, were killed in the tragic terrorist attack on the U.S. mission in Libya. On Friday, it was revealed that three urgent requests for help were ignored by the CIA. Additionally, State Department emails revealed the White House was given information as the attack was ongoing, including the fact that a terrorist group had taken responsibility for the attack.

In a scandal that has been described as dwarfing "Watergate, weapons of mass destruction, whatever,” the White House has been accused of the cover-up of the century.

“This dwarfs Iran-Contra, about which the media spent three solid years trying to take out Ronald Reagan. The latest shoe to drop in the Benghazi disaster is the news that the State Department was e-mailing about the attack on the consulate and the terrorists who they thought were behind it within two hours, and the e-mails went to the Situation Room of the White House. Obama knew.”

Obama told CBS TV network hours after the attack in Benghazi that he had ‘suspicion’ that the assault had been pre-planned.

Obama knew that this was an Al-Qaeda planned attack, and not a result of a spontaneous demonstration against a Muhammad film.

At the time of the assault on the consulate there was not yet a demonstration, which started only later.

The White House was being kept constantly informed of the developments through a drone sent in reconnaissance.

Not all media are silent.

[US radio show host Glenn Beck said:] “This president is lying to you about Benghazi in such [a] spectacular fashion that I believe people will go to prison. This is impeachable. The president might go to prison for this one,” he said. “What’s happening in Benghazi is so far beyond lying, it is ​staggering.”

While politicians are known for twisting words into half truths, Beck added that has never seen an administration persist in such a boldfaced lie when American lives are at stake, or seen a media so content to let it slide.

He continued, going over the newly-released documents that prove the administration was alerted to what was really happening in Libya before spinning a story about a YouTube video:

"Now we have [the] beginning of the truth on Benghazi. Five days into the Benghazi scandal, when no one was saying anything, I presented a theory…I told you that [Ambassador Stevens] was involved in running guns, and he was running guns to al-Qaeda in Libya, and he was running guns through Turkey into Syria. And whether it was a deal that went bad, I don’t know, but that’s what happened. And the White House knew…And while everyone else was arguing about whether it was a videotape or not, we were furthering the story.

"Today we have evidence that is staggering. We now have a memo posted [at] TheBlaze…to the White House two hours after the attacks began. Last night on the TV show I laid it out again…exactly what happened, when. At 1:00, or 12:54 in the afternoon on September 11, the White House was warned that somebody was watching the Benghazi safe house– and so you know, do not let any member of the press get away with calling this an embassy safe house. It is not. It was a CIA safe house. Now why, in the most dangerous place in one of the most dangerous parts of the world, on Sept. 11…why would he be at a CIA safe house? …We now know he was having dinner with the general counsel of Turkey." [Emphasis added]

Beck reminded that it has been widely reported that President Obama has a close relationship with the Turkish prime minister, before continuing:

"An hour after that, the Turkish ambassador leaves through the front door and the front gate, unmolested. Now you tell me– why was the Turkish general counsel there? …Why was it so important on Sept. 11 to go to the most dangerous city, into a CIA safe house?

"An hour after he leaves, the fight begins. We now know that the White House– somebody, the military, somebody, sent a drone. So there was a live video feed of what was going on. They’re watching it in the State Department, they’re watching it at the Pentagon, they’re watching it at Langley, and they’re watching it in the Situation Room. At 5:00 in the afternoon, Leon Panetta has a meeting with the president of the United States. The first email comes at 4:05. So the Secretary of Defense arrives at the White House to have a meeting with the president 55 minutes after the Situation Room and everybody else gets an email saying, ‘Libya, the safe house is under attack.” ​[Emphasis added]

Beck proceeded to read several more emails explaining how our personnel in Benghazi were missing and under attack, before he got to one timestamped at 6:07. According to the memo, Ansar al-Sharia had claimed responsibility for the attack and– though he isn’t sure– Beck said it’s possible that Ansar al-Sharia was one of the groups that we gave arms and funding to during the war to overthrow Gaddhafi.

“This is why the White House covered, because our ambassador was killed by [guys] we were running guns to, and we are still running guns today.”

He then read an international report from Russia Today saying U.S. Stinger Missiles are in the hands of Syrian rebels, adding that the New York Times has also reported that we are using the Muslim Brotherhood to arm the rebels in Syria.

Beck concluded the segment:

“This president is on the wrong side. It is so crystal clear…let’s just take it one step at a time. The President of the United States of America, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State have all lied to you. They lied to you and said, ‘this might be a video, we don’t have all the information, the information is still sketchy, it’s confusing,’…We now have the documents that came into the Situation Room saying, ‘There’s an attack, they’re watching.’ Then, we have the documents that we had a live video feed in the Situation Room, so they could see that there was no protest. ​Then there are the documents– and there’s now 13, with this new one– there’s now 13 different documents saying it’s a terrorist attack, and here’s the group that’s doing it. And they lied to you.”

Emails Suggest White House Involvement in Loan to Bankrupt Abound Solar

Obama tries to list among his accomplishments his support for "renewables", but his cluelessness about energy production and his misplaced faith in the anthropogenic global warming theory have let him, and more importantly the country, down.

"Emails suggest White House involvement in loan to bankrupt Abound Solar", from the Daily Caller:

Just one day after President Obama went on television saying that politics had nothing to do with the now bankrupt Abound Solar receiving a taxpayer-backed loan guarantee from the Energy Department, emails have surfaced that contradict these claims and suggest White House involvement in the company receiving the loan.

“And these are decisions, by the way, that are made by the Department of Energy, they have nothing to do with politics,” President Obama told KUSA’s Kyle Clark.

However, emails obtained by COMPLETECOLORADO.COM suggest that the White House was involved in the Energy Department awarding Abound Solar a $400 million loan gurantee, contradicting the President’s claim.

The emails also suggest that the loan guarantee was political payback to Democratic benefactor Pat Stryker.

In one email, DOE loan executive Jonathan Silver tells DOE credit advisor Jim McCrea that, “You better [let] him know the [White House] wants to move Abound forward,” referring to Treasury Advisor Ian Samuels who wasn’t moving fast enough on scheduling calls regarding Abound.

The second page of the email mentions the “…transaction pressure under which we are all now operating…” This email chain came just days before President Obama hailed government loan guarantees as a boon to Colorado’s economy in 2010.

Another email puts into question Abound’s market-readiness in regards to their plans with the DOE.

“I was talking with Technical today… re Abound and they still have major issues with the transaction,” wrote McCrea in the email. This email occurred just two months before the Abound loan was announced.

McCrea expressed his doubts about the solar industry in general the year before saying he didn’t “know how to pick winners.”

“All in all in the solar field, l think it is extremely easy to pick losers and l really do not know how to pick winners,” he wrote in a 2009 email.

Abound solar is currently under criminal investigation by the Weld County District Attorney’s Office in northern Colorado for securities fraud, consumer fraud, and financial misrepresentation, according to the Denver Post.

No criminal charges have been filed yet.

Congress has also launched an investigation into Abound Solar, sending secretary Energy Secretary Steven Chu a letter asking for the secretary to provide documents and information regarding what the Energy Department knew about Abound Solar’s actions while giving it taxpayer dollars.

“Recent reports and publicly available documents indicate that persistent technological problems contributed to Abound’s inability to remain commercially viable and ultimately, its bankruptcy,” said the letter to Chu.

“We need to know, did the Department of Energy — did they close on the loan when they knew there were technical problems with the product?” Republican Congressman Cory Gardner of Colorado said. “The fact that we have taxpayers on the hook for $70 million means that we, in Congress, have a responsibility to make sure nothing was done improperly.”

Abound Solar suffered from major technical problems well before they received the $400 million loan guarantee. A Daily Caller News Foundation investigation, using internal documentation and testimony from sources within Abound, revealed that the company was selling a faulty, underperforming product, and may have mislead lenders at one point in order to keep itself afloat.

“Our solar modules worked as long as you didn’t put them in the sun,” an internal source told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

The company knew its panels were faulty prior to obtaining taxpayer dollars, according to sources, but kept pushing product out the door in order to meet Department of Energy goals required for their $400 million loan guarantee.

“The DOE hurt us more than anything,” another source told The DC News Foundation, speaking of DOE production and revenue metrics.

Obama Supporters Never Heard of Benghazi Attack

The video above shows interviews with attendees of an Obama event at the Ohio University campus on October 17th to find out what Obama's supporters thought about the September 11 Benghazi attack.

The astonishing result is that most of the event-goers interviewed had never even heard of it.

Incredible as it is that a large percentage of people who are going to vote for Obama reveal that they don't really know who is the man they are voting for and how he mishandled the events in Benghazi, it should not be so surprising after all.

The mainstream media, both in the US and abroad, have remained silent on this, covering up Obama's cover-up. 

UK Converts to Islam Seemingly on the Rise

Apparently Islam is on the rise in the UK not only because of the increasing number of Muslim immigrants and their progenies, but also due to the natives who convert to Islam either spontaneously or in order to marry Muslims.

A source says that the number of Britons converting to Islam has doubled between 2001 and 2011, and these are more women than men.

A January 2011 study by Kevin Brice of Swansea University, on behalf of the organization Faith Matters, calculated that the number of converts to Islam in the UK in 2001 was just over 60,000 and it may have risen to 100,000 in 2010.

Mathematics does not seem to be the strong point of these people, because 100,000 is not double of 60,000.

A decent and interesting article recently appeared in The Spectator calls it a rise "by two-thirds".

Only 55% of the converts in 2001, however, were white British. In 2010, the percge of white British among the 122 converts surveyed was about the same, at 56%. Women were 62% of respondents of all ethnic groups. The average age at conversion was 27 and a half.

The report estimates that 5,200 people converted to Islam in the UK in 2010.

In November 2011, The Independent came up with an even higher percentage of women converts, although on what basis is not clear: "It emerged that of the 5,200 Britons who converted to Islam last year, more than half are white and 75 per cent of them women".

A reliable estimate of the number of converts to Islam is difficult, admitted director of Faith Matters Fiyaz Mughal, who added: "This report is the best intellectual 'guestimate' using census numbers, local authority data and polling from mosques".

The problem is that, if you look at the website of Faith Matters, the association that commissioned the report, you immediately encounter well-known terms used by Islamic apologists like "Islamophobia" and "hatred". Advertised on its home page there is a disproportionate number of books negatively portraying the English Defence League, but I haven't seen one on Islamic extremism and violence.

Fiyaz Mughal and its creation Faith Matters also work for the TELL MAMA (Measuring Anti-Muslim Violence) project, "to ensure that anti-Muslim incidents and attacks in the UK are mapped, measured and recorded, and support provided for victims." They seem to be much more concerned about the relatively few (if any) episodes of violence against Muslims than the extremely more numerous acts of violence by Muslims.

So, despite Faith Matters' self-description as "a not for profit organisation founded in 2005 which works to reduce extremism and interfaith and intra-faith tensions and we develop platforms for discourse and interaction between Muslim, Sikh, Christian, Jewish and Hindu communities across the globe. We have offices in the United Kingdom, Pakistan and the Middle East (Jerusalem)", I am a bit suspicious about the figures on converts to Islam in the survey paid for by it.

It is interesting to note, as well, that even according to these figures almost half of all new converts are not white British, so the problem of immigration, gone out of the door, comes back by the window.

About the reasons why anybody - in their right mind, I'm tempted to add - should decide to convert to Islam, many people surveyed pointed to certainties, boundaries and well-defined status.

The Spectator article mentioned above, written by a Catholic woman, says:

But above all, I like the moral certainties. I don’t mind the dogma one bit. I would rather dogma and impossible ideals than confusion and compromise. In that sense, I do identify with those who choose Islam over the way of no faith, or a seemingly uncertain faith, like the woolly old C of E.

I am convinced that, while individuals can be atheist, societies for various reasons - which I'll explain in another post - cannot.

So, the more the West distances itself from Christianity, the more likely it will end up in the arms (pun half intended) of Islam.

In Naples Illegal Immigrants Beat Up Police

In Naples, Southern Italy, over 30 North-African illegal immigrants have broken into a police station, assaulting and injuring the officers, 10 of whom had to be taken to the hospital.

This was in response to the rejection of their application for refugee status, for which they are also appealing.

The immigrants belong to a large group of about 1,200 North-Africans who have arrived in Italy as part of the so-called 'Emergency North Africa' program, and are housed in reception centres and hotels in Melito, north of Naples.

During the clashes a police car has also been set on fire. The illegals themselves asked the police to arrest them so that they could remain in Italy. This has given rise to the hypothesis that the illegals committed all these crimes in order to be arrested and avoid being returned to their countries.

Five of them have been arrested.

Once you commit the crime of violating the national borders of a country by entering it illegally, successive crimes must become easier.

Muslims Kill Conscious Animals for Eid Festival

Today, 26 October, is the Islamic festival of Eid-ul-Adha, which Muslims all over the world "celebrate" by sacrificing animals.

Now, thanks to mass immigration, Muslims will perform this very "civilized" ritual of killing conscious animals (7.5 million every year in Pakistan alone) not only in their own countries but also in ours.

See how Moderate Muslims Sacrifice Animals for Eid Celebrations.

Douglas Murray and Yasmin Alibhai-Brown Debate

I've chosen this video of a debate between Douglas Murray and renowned UK Muslim leftist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, a columnist for the (self-proclaimed) Independent newspaper, because it is very representative of several things.

Alibhai-Brown starts by saying that the last time the two of them debated they were very civilized and "British", which we must assume she now regrets because this time she was anything but.

Then, after reprimanding Murray for his - in her view - generalizations about Muslims and fundamentalism, she berates British culture which, she says, is a drinking culture. So he is accused of what he does not do and she, on the other hand, does: tarring everyone in a group with the same brush.

After this nice example of inconsistency, we are treated to her description of herself as "very well-integrated", in the same breath as her protest against imposing "Britishness" on everybody living in the UK.

Many similar inanities follow before the conversation begins revolving around freedom of speech and then Iran, Israel and nuclear arms.

About freedom of speech, I'm glad to see that Douglas Murray appears to believe what I believe regarding Holocaust denial. The gist of what he says is that imprisoning David Irving for denying the Holocaust gives the President of Iran, the madman Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a pretext to accuse the West of double standards by showing its Achilles' heel in the defence of free speech.

Murray seems to think what I also believe about freedom of speech in general, namely that criminalizing Holocaust denial, Nazi and fascist speech is a violation of freedom of expression.

In fact, as many people have observed during the recent Muslim riots against the Muhammad film, making crimes of Holocaust denial and the rest paves the way to the Islamic world's request to impose on the West blasphemy laws outlawing criticism of Islam.

About Iran, the "very well-integrated" Yasmin Alibhai-Brown makes several attempts at morally equating it to Israel and Britain, saying that nobody should have nuclear weapons but, if some countries have them, then all countries ahould be allowed to have them too.

I found the best answer to that in a comment to the video:

In the words of Salman Rushdie:"There is only one group in the world that wishes to get nuclear weapons to use them... radical Islamists". Every country that is armed with them has them for deterrence. There are those who have them not to use them and there are those who want them to use them. Yasmin simply does not get it.

As we well know, Islamists have among their midst many suicide - nuclear or not - bombers.

The most revealing thing in this very enlightening video is the parallel in the irrationality of Alibhai-Brown's performance: she talks as irrationally as she acts irrationally during the discussion.

The lack of logic in her words is not only mirrored but confirmed and reinforced by her continuous interrupting, shouting, patronizing, forcing the others to pay attention to her, treating them like idiots, telling them what to do, pointing fingers under their nose and other hysterical behaviours.

If, at any moment, you may be tempted to take her pseudo-arguments seriously her behaviour serves as a reminder of what degree of irrationality we are dealing with here.

Christmas for Islam is a Crime Worse than Murder

Are you already thinking and dreaming of Christmas?

Enjoy it now because it may not last long.

Watch this beautiful video (the first part is not, but it is educational).

Note: "shirk" is an Arabic term that in Islam means the sin of idolatry or polytheism, the deification or worship of anyone or anything other than Allah.

Shirk is an unforgivable crime when unpardoned before death; Allah may forgive any sin unpardoned before death except shirk.

This is why the Muslim preacher in the video calls Christmas a worse crime than fornication, drinking alcohol and even killing someone.

BBC Question Time Panellist Mehdi Hasan Calls Non-Muslims Animals

On Question Time tonight, the BBC invited as a member of the programme's esteemed panel Muslim journalist Mehdi Hasan, former senior political editor of the left-wing The New Statesman and now political director at the leftist website The Huffington Post, regular contributor to The Guardian, in short one of the mainstream Islam's public figures that the UK elites and media are so keen on.

If you want to know a bit more about his views and see how much of a moderate Muslim he is, watch the video above in which he is caught comparing non-Muslims to "animals": so he is speciesist as well as Islamic supremacist.

Hasan is also in support of Iran's nuclear program.

The BBC's invitation of the leader of the BNP Nick Griffin to Question Time, which provoked so many protests, not only pales in comparison but also Griffin, despite the constant attacks he receives, has done nothing to deserve them.

If people want to continue calling Griffin and his party "racist" and "fascist", they have to support these accusations with real evidence, not demagoguery.

Romney Erases Obama Lead among Women

According to a new Associated Press-GfK poll, Romney has erased Obama's previous 16-point advantage among women voters. The poll shows the two candidates still neck and neck, with Romney favoured by 47 percent of the electorate and Obama by 45 percent, a result within the poll's margin of sampling error which is 3-4 points.

Among women, the percentage is identical for both: 47-47, a victory for Romney who was lagging by 16 points a month ago.

Columnist Ann Coulter sums up the current post-debates and immediately pre-election situation rather well:

It must be very stressful [for liberals] seeing Obama go down in the polls even following the debates he allegedly won.

With the economy in the toilet and the Islamic world on fire, when Obama appears in person it’s even worse than if he were sleeping. That’s why – contrary to popular belief – the first debate was Obama’s best performance.

Perhaps if liberals hadn’t coddled Obama his entire life, giving him college acceptance letters, standing ovations and Nobel Peace prizes just for showing up, he would have been more prepared to debate someone a little more challenging than John McCain.

Double Standard of UK Police Wanting EDL Banned

In a video that has now been removed from YouTube, UK-based Muslim preacher Abu Basir al-Tartusi could be seen on a balcony surrounded by Kalashnikov-waving rebels after apparently capturing a hilltop village in Syria.

At a time when a UK-based Muslim preacher is leading an armed gang of more than 100 Islamist fighters in Syria, the House of Lords was told that Muslim women in Britain live in fear because of the spread of unofficial and unregulated sharia courts enforcing Islamic law, poppy sellers will receive protection from Royal British Legion body guards for the first time ever for fear of the repetition of last year's attacks from Muslims, and Woolwich Crown Court heard that a British Al-Qaeda gang planned "another 9/11" to attack the UK with up to 8 suicide bombs by hitting crowded public places to cause “mass death” and “carnage in the name of Allah” because the 7/7 terrorists killing 52 innocent people had not done enough damage, the British police ask Home Secretary Theresa May to ban peaceful marches by the English Defence League (EDL), one of the few organizations who have the courage to protest against the Islamization of Britain (via Christian Defence League).

And all the events described above became news just in the last 4 days. I haven't mentioned the scarce attention that the UK police have dedicated to the decade-long problem of Muslim paedophiles' grooming of young white girls for sex.

Notice that the police have not asked for demonstrations by Muslims or far-left groups to be banned.

Where are the loyalties of the British police? What are their priorities? Protecting the public or enforcing the politically correct ideology of the multiculturalist agenda?

You decide.

How the Media Construct Myths

Sometimes we wonder how it is possible that the public believes so easily what the media and the elites tell them, about Islam and its threat for instance.

I've gained an insight into this by watching the second presidential debate on the TV, after which the media have on the whole immediately screamed victory for Obama because the biased CNN moderator Candy Crowley has wrongly taken the President's side on the question of how he (mis)handled the Benghazi consulate assault, although she later backtracked.

I distinctly heard Candy Crowley say “He did call it an act of terror. It did as well take two weeks... so Governor Romney is right" or something to that effect, but for a while I thought I had imagined this because no-one seemed to have noticed it.

When even Crowley herself explicitly confirmed and repeated that sentence: “I did turn around right after that and say ‘but you are totally correct that they spent two weeks telling us this was about a tape' ...he [Romney] was right in the main I just think he picked the wrong word”, I believed that the question was now settled, that the media could be economical with the truth but not go as far as telling an outright lie.

I must have been naïve, because the next day many media outlets were repeating that Romney got it wrong.

Day by day the evidence is mounting that Obama knew within 24 hours that this was a jihad attack but kept saying it was because of the Muhammad video to cover the failure of his Middle East policies. Even during the same debate he pointed out that he kept his promise of getting Osama bin Laden, as if to imply that al-Qaeda had been defeated.

In fact “former CIA Director Porter Goss told Fox News that, especially in North Africa, Al Qaeda is "much stronger" and "spreading out" throughout the region.”

It is clearer to me now how myths are created by press and broadcasting networks. A little bit at a time, like Chinese whispers: something gets reported in the media with a little subtraction or addition of "facts", then gets repeated with more changes, and so on. In the end, all these misrepresentations accumulate and become an avalanche.

They start by a small distortion here, followed by a minor alteration of the facts there. Gradually. So, unless you have been a very, very attentive reader, listener or viewer - or, more likely, somebody who has followed a particular event or subject for a length of time - you won't realize that what started as A, by slow and stealth transformations, has become B, non-A.

For example, newspapers have been using the expression "anti-Muslim" for the AFDI's subway ads, rather than "anti-jihad". That is intended to subtly instil doubts in readers' minds.

The media add a single piece of the puzzle a day to their complete picture of fabrications. They don't tell you abruptly and overnight that the Muslim Brotherhood is a nice, peace-loving, tolerant organization; no, they insinuate one day that they have renounced violence, they imply the week after that they have changed their radical positions of yore and in a few months, lo and behold, what was a dangerous Islamist association has been transformed into an ally of the West and upholder of freedom and democracy, in a sleight of hand worthy of the best prestidigitator.

What I think happened is that Obama or some-one in his team, easily predicting that during the presidential debate Romney would criticize Obama on his dealing of the Benghazi consulate attack, counted on the fact that Romney had not read the transcript of the speech given by the President in the Rose Garden the day after the assault, because it did not matter, that speech's exact wording is less important than the entire message sent by the President, which was that the attack was a consequence of the Innocence of Muslims film.

So the Obama camp tried and, with the help of the media, succeeded in spinning this story as if Obama in the Rose Garden had actually called the Benghazi assault "acts of terror", whereas in fact he hadn't. He did use the expression "acts of terror" in a general sense, as a conclusion towards the end of the speech, without a specific reference to the incident occurred the previous day in Libya.

He said: "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for."

But when he was talking about that incident specifically, he called it "this type of senseless violence", "brutal acts", and "this attack": no mention of terrorism. "Senseless violence" indeed clearly refers to the reactions to the Muhammad film, since terrorism is violence with a planned objective. That the President did not attribute it to an act of terror is the right interpretation to give to his words in light of his insistence in the following two weeks in blaming the eruption of violence in the Muslim world, from Libya to Pakistan, on the YouTube movie.

As I said, I don't think that all this matters so much per se. What is important is the whole message, posture and policies.

But this is a useful lesson to learn in how the media exercise their deception.

The good news is that people are less and less accepting of this state of affairs. UK newspapers’ sales have been falling for quite some time, and The Guardian/Observer in particular have seen their readership decline, reporting last August an annual loss of around £54m, to the point that both newspapers (The Observer is The Guardian’s Sunday sister paper) are now “seriously discussing” an end to their print edition.

Obama Totalitarian Socialism's Early Signs

I knew that Obama was bad news even before he was elected President.

Four years ago, in 2008, during his first presidential campaign, my blog Of Human and Non-Human Animals was shut down by Blogger.

Not knowing why, I made several searches on Google until I found out that the same thing had recently happened to many other blogs. All these blogs had in common was that they had in any way been critical of Obama.

In a forum I found a very clear and detailed explanation of how the Obama campaign volunteers, many of whom "young, inexperienced, with little knowledge of the Internet" and, I would add, not particularly smart, had gone around the web looking for any minimal sign of dissent with their political star and tried to damage the sites containing these "heresies".

If the site was a Blogger blog, like mine, they flagged it to Blogger.

So I remembered that on this blog of mine, which was all about animal issues - its tagline is "Why giving animals a fair deal is good for humans too" -, I had posted an article entitled Candidates on Animal Rights.

In it I compared the policies of Obama and John McCain on animal issues, and found both of them seriously wanting.

I cannot know for sure, but all the available evidence, including the fact that my blog, like many others which had suffered the same fate, was then reinstated, points to my blog having been shut down for that reason.

This incident to me seemed a shocking display of censorship and curtail of free speech, especially in view of the fact that I hadn't even singled out Obama in my criticism, but had been even-handed with both of the then presidential candidates.

It immediately gave me a sense of bad things to come from Barack Hussein if elected as President of the USA, and this prediction turned out to be accurate.

Incidentally, when it comes to Obama there is always a double standard.

I remember four years ago he was treated by the media as a champion of the animal cause just because he had promised his kids a dog if elected to the White House.

Romney made an excellent joke last night, at the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner organized by the Catholic Archdiocese of New York to benefit needy children, when he said:

I've already seen early reports from tonight's dinner. Headline: Obama embraced by Catholics, Romney dines with rich people.

AFDI Ads Put Anti-Jihad on the UK Media’s Agenda

Jihad Watch has published my article AFDI Ads Put Anti-Jihad on the UK Media’s Agenda:

Pamela Geller’s subway ads have achieved the very important objective of making anti-jihad reach the headlines in the UK.

Even though the coverage was, as was to be expected, mostly unsympathetic to the ads, it’s not often that an ordinary person in Britain turns the TV on and hears the word “jihad” and even less “anti-jihad”, unless in connection with terrorist activities. Counterjihad posters in US main cities’ subways are a revolutionary novelty.

So I think that even if the media reports can distort and give the wrong impression about the campaign, the very fact that the general public learns about it has the positive effect of letting people know that there is a resistance to Islamic violence and arrogance, and a response to anti-Israel ads.

There are many in Britain who don’t believe the propaganda by the political classes and the media. The idea that the BBC, for example, is strongly politically biased is becoming increasingly popular, so we can expect that lots of people will take what it says with a pinch of salt.

The BBC covered the judge ruling in favour of the ads in the New York subway with “Pro-Israel 'Defeat Jihad' ads to hit New York subway”, clearly and predictably sympathetic with the MTA and CAIR point of view:

"Pro-Israel adverts that equate jihad with savagery are to appear in 10 of New York's subway stations next week, after officials failed to block them.
…Aaron Donovan, spokesman for New York's Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), told the BBC they had no choice but to run the ad.

"'Our hands are tied,' he said. 'The MTA is subject to a court-ordered injunction that prohibits application of the MTA's existing no-demeaning ad standard.

"'That standard restricted publication of ads that demean people on the basis of their race, sex, religion, national origin or other group classification. The judge recognised our intention but found our attempt to be constitutionally deficient.'"

What “race, sex, religion, national origin or other group classification” is jihad? It is linked to a particular religion, yes, which is why we should be free to criticize Islam. But the ads don’t demean people for being Muslim, but just for embracing arms and killing other people. Who could object to “demeaning” murderers and terrorists?

Paradoxically, it is those like the MTA spokesman and the others who keep telling us how the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, who in practice, when they hear “jihad”, have the knee-jerk reaction of thinking “Muslims”.

Sky News similarly headlined: “Anti-Jihad Adverts To Run In New York Subway”:

"The controversial leader of the group behind the adverts says she believes that America is at risk from some Muslims.

"The head of a group that has won its fight to run controversial adverts in New York subway stations referring to some Muslims as 'savage' has told Sky News that she will fight 'to the death' for the right to offend people.

"Ms Geller told Sky News that she was unconcerned the adverts might make the subway network a target for violence.

"She said: 'Were there similar ads on the London buses and trains on 7/7? You know
there weren't.

"'I will not abridge my freedoms so as not to offend savages.

"'I won't take responsibility for other people being violent.

"'I live in America and in America we have the first amendment.'

"Ms Geller, who is a prominent supporter of Israel, stressed that she was not referring to all Muslims as savages, only those who engaged in what she characterises as ‘Jihad’.

"She believes that America is under threat from some Muslims who wish to impose Sharia law on the country, and her group has launched similar campaigns before."


She believes that. And so believes everybody who has taken the time to look at the evidence as objectively as possible. That reference to “some Muslims” is ambiguous because it seems to imply, again, that Pamela Geller targets Muslims, although, for some unknown reason, not all of them.

Reporting on this without any attempt to explain the reasons behind someone’s actions is in itself deceiving. Telling that Geller “believes that America is under threat from some Muslims who wish to impose Sharia law on the country” to an audience that has never been informed about what Islam preaches, how its history unfolded, what its effects globally today are, and what Sharia law involves, is implicitly portraying her as a conspiracy theorist.

Russia Today, another news channel that broadcasts in Britain, reported on the Washington court ruling:

"Judge Collyer openly described the posters as ‘hate speech’, but said the message was protected under the First Amendment as ‘core political speech’ and did not accept the Metro’s argument that it incited violence and constitutes ‘a gamble with public safety’.
AFDI, whose poster has been condemned by over 200 public organizations, had to fight a similar legal battle in New York, again winning the right to place the ads."


The word “hate” is another of those over-used and abused words, like “racism”. The politically correct and those protected by them never hate, they are just righteously angry (against injustice, presumably). Anti-jihadists who write ads hate, but Muslims violently rioting are just angry (even rightly so, because someone provoked them with – how dared they! - a film). The English Defence League staging a peaceful demonstration in Walthamstow is hate, but the far-left extremists and Muslims who pelted them with bottles and bricks only showed their anger against these “bigots”.

Hate has obviously come to mean the thought crime of not thinking politically correctly.

In the press, both The Daily Mail and The Guardian have run several articles on the subject.

They both reported, among other things, on the Mona Eltahawy incident. The MailOnline had an interview with Pamela Hall in which she talked about her plans to sue Eltahawy for the damages she caused to her clothing and equipment during her 'defense of free speech'.

The Guardian, in Comment in Free, asked its readers, “Mona Eltahawy and the anti-Muslim subway ads: is hers the right approach?”. The comments to the post are mostly answering no, drawing a distinction between exercising the freedom of speech and vandalism, and concluding that Eltahawy’s action was damaging public property and therefore illegal. This is one of the ever increasing number of cases in which the people who comment on liberal media’s articles reveal themselves to be much less on the left than the paper itself.

A commenter noticed the “anti-Muslim” in the headline, and wrote: “Strictly speaking, these ads are anti-violent-Jihad rather than anti-Muslim. That is, unless you believe that all Muslims automatically support violent Jihad. But, as we are told here so often, only a tiny, tiny minority of Muslims -- who misunderstand their Religion of Peace -- support violent Jihad. It is these people who are described in the ads as savages.”

In US Politics the Right still Exists

I am not American but I like to follow US politics.

It’s refreshing to see that there is a real difference between the two party candidates on many important issues, whereas here in the UK where I live there is no genuine, mainstream right-of-centre alternative commanding a large number of votes.

The British Conservative Party leader and Prime Minister, David Cameron, has sold out numerous conservative values.

His party did not receive enough votes at the last general election in 2010 to form a majority government on its own and, rather than having a minority government, the Tories are ruling in a coalition with the left-leaning Liberal Democrats.

This necessarily involves compromises, but it’s the type of compromises that Cameron chooses that represents the problem.

The Lib Dems wanted to reform the House of Lords so that unelected members would not make up the whole of it, but would only be a minority. Cameron faced an internal opposition to the reform from within his party and anyway, in the case of a reform, his privilege to appoint peers who the electorate would never vote for, like his Muslim friend Baroness Warsi, would be diminished. In 2007, Warsi was appointed Shadow Minister for Community Cohesion (I wonder what “community” is most in need of a minister to guarantee its cohesion with the others in the UK – hint: Warsi is a Muslim of Pakistani extraction). Since she had not been elected by anyone, to take up that post she had to be created a life peer as Baroness Warsi.

So, as an exchange of favours, Cameron dropped the House of Lords reform and renounced something unimportant to him, namely the freedom of religion enabling the Anglican clergy not to marry homosexual couples in Church, as his Lib Dem partners requested.

Romney does not seem to be like that.

Romney Beat Obama and Crowley on Libya. Crowley Video

This are the exact words of Candy Crowley during that infamous TV second presidential debate:

"CROWLEY: He -- he did call it an act of terror. It did as well take -- it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that."

Her wording is confused and ambiguous, but to me it sounds like she was so anxious to save Obama's face when the discussion reached the hot-potato topic of the President's farcical - and tragic - treatment of the Libyan consulate assault, that she rushed to confirm that Obama did call it a terror attack before adding, as an afterthought, "it did as well take two weeks", which was the whole point of Romney's statement.

The media did not carefully listen to her words, they just picked up her attitude which was clearly on Obama's side as if that meant anything more than a bias on her part, as if instead that solved the issue in Obama's favor.

At first I doubted if I had heard correctly, since nobody else seemed to have heard or paid attention to those crucial words: "it did as well take two weeks or so".

When I saw the above video in which Crowley herself confirmed what she had actually said, I realized that I was right the first time around.

All this post-debate obsession with who won and who lost, as if this were a football or boxing match, is missing some of the most important points.

Being in England, I watched the presidential debate on Sky News, left-leaning as nearly all British mainstream media. The minute the debate ended Sky News jumped to the conclusion that Obama had won, among other things because - and this is hard to believe but true - the moderator Candy Crowley of CNN confirmed Obama's lie that the President had called the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi an act of terror the day after it occurred, whereas the truth is what Romney said, i.e. that Obama's first response to the attack and murders had been to blame them on 'spontaneous' protests against the Youtube Muhammad video and it took him several days to admit the truth.

Do these mean scoring points, a moderator wrongly taking a candidate's side on a point of fact, like a referee determing the result of a soccer match with a wrong decision, really matter more to our deranged media than the substance of what the debaters, potential future US Presidents, said? This is not a game.

I do not fault Romney with anything in the Benghazi violence part of the debate, except that he could have attacked Obama's policies in the Middle East much more forcefully than he did, explaining that Muslim-raised Barack Hussein's support for the 'Arab Spring' was in fact aiding and abetting the very wintery rise of Islamists like the Muslim Brotherood and strengthening of Al Qaeda in North Africa, the very same people behind the Benghazi attack.

I realize, however, that the time he was given may have been too limited for him to do that in full.

How Close Abortion and Infanticide Can Be

The video above shows a CNN report on Obama's opposition, in 2001 when he was an Illinois state Senator, to the Illinois state's Born Alive Infants Protection Act, a bill to give legal protection to live babies surviving abortions, so that they would not be thrown away and left to die.

Obama voted against Born Alive and was the only senator to speak against it on the senate floor for 2 consecutive years.

The federal version of Born Alive was approved unanimously 98-0 by the US Senate. It passed overwhelmingly, approved from left to right, in the US House of Representatives. President Bush signed it into law on August 5, 2002.

As chairman of the Illionois Senate Health & Human Services Committee, Obama stopped a bill with identical wording of the federal law from being introduced in Illinois in 2003.

The reason Obama had given for voting against the Illinois state's Born Alive Infant Protection Act was that this bill was different from the similar federal law that was passed, in that it was open to being interpreted as making all abortions illegal and did not protect Roe v. Wade.

The video report shows a debate on the issue between Democrat James Carville and conservative Bill Bennett.

As you can easily see in the video, only Bennett has a valid argument: the federal law and the Illinois bill are identical, so this is not about Roe v. Wade, this is not about abortion. It looks like one of Obama's many falsities.

Carville has no arguments at all, valid or not. All he does is using ad hominem attacks against Santorum, thinking that his socialist peers will find him funny, and against the nurse who supported the bill.

Imagine for a moment if this happened in a court of law: Bennett's statement would have been accepted, Carville's would have been rejected as argumentative.

It's easy to see why the best brains belong to the right end of the political spectrum. Since socialism of various shapes and forms is the current dominant ideological orthodoxy of the West, it takes more intellect - as well as guts - to challenge it than to go along with it.

Time To Give Pakistan the South-African Treatment

Jihad Watch has published my article "Time To Give Pakistan the South-African Treatment":

It may seem an unlikely possibility, now that the Islamic world is demanding sharia, in the shape of anti-blasphemy laws, to be imposed all over the globe and Muslim Baroness Warsi, newly-appointed Minister for Faith (i.e. Islam) in the UK government, has signed during the UN recent meetings a surreal agreement between the UK, that old -- and now former -- defender of democratic freedoms, and the OIC (Organisation of Islamic Cooperation) pledging that the UK and the OIC will "work together on issues of peace, stability and religious freedom", but sometimes attack is the best form of defence.

South Africa was isolated by the international community due to its apartheid policy, which put pressure on Pretoria and played a role in ending the apartheid. The British Commonwealth, of which the country was part, turned out to be particularly important in this process.

During the apartheid, the British felt particularly responsible for what they believed to be South African discriminatory policies because of the strong ties the UK had with that country through the Commonwealth, the international organization that comprises almost exclusively Britain’s former colonies.

In 1958 the African National Congress made an appeal for international solidarity. The Christians and other non-Muslim minorities in Pakistan may be too demoralized and terrorized to even ask for outside help.

I am not here making comparisons between Pakistan and South Africa, which since the end of the apartheid seems to have deteriorated.

The only leaf I am taking out of the South African book is the way international repudiation of a regime or treatment considered as odiously unfair can be an effective weapon against it.

Pakistan, another member of the British Commonwealth, has already been suspended from the Commonwealth twice: in 1999 after Musharraf seized power in a coup, and in 2007, because of its imposition of emergency rule, until “full restoration of fundamental rights and the rule of law“, for its "serious violation of the Commonwealth’s fundamental political values.

Isn’t Pakistan’s treatment of its Christians “a serious violation of the Commonwealth’s fundamental political values”?

Let's see.

The Constitution of Pakistan (PART III, Chapter 1) says: “A person shall not be qualified for election as President unless he is a Muslim of not less than forty-five years of age and is qualified to be elected as member of the National Assembly.”

In addition, the Constitution (PART VII, Chapter 3A) rules that non-Muslims cannot be judges in the Federal Shariat Court, which has the power to abrogate any law considered un-Islamic.

At least since the 1990s, we have started to learn how Pakistani Christians suffer the worst forms of discrimination only because of their religion.

The infamous Pakistani blasphemy law mandates that anyone who offends the Quran must be punished, even with the death sentence.

A 1998 United Nations document on “Prevention of Discrimination against and the Protection of Minorities”, mostly concerned with Pakistan, says: “The use of an accusation of “blasphemy” -- an ill-defined term which can be expanded to mean anything that any accuser dislikes -- merits serious attention. Some accusations of “blasphemy” can be ill-disguised death threats - as was the case in 1994 regarding the United Nations Special Rapporteur for the Sudan, Mr. Gáspár Biró - and when they are not, they can be considered as sufficiently dangerous to lead to kowtowing, and even censorship at the United Nations”.

Since 1994, Amnesty International has been calling for a change in that law because it is used as a tool against religious minorities:

AI is concerned that a number of people facing charges of blasphemy, or convicted on such charges have been detained solely for their real or imputed religious beliefs. Most of those charged with blasphemy belong to the Ahamdiyya community but Christians have increasingly been accused of blasphemy, among them a 13-year-old boy accused of writing blasphemous words on the walls of a mosque despite being totally illiterate. The following case histories are supplied: Anwar Masih, a Christian prisoner; Arshad Javed, reportedly mentally ill, sentenced to death; Gul Masih, a Christian, sentenced to death; Tahir Iqbal, a convert to Christianity, died in jail while on trial; Sawar Masih Bhatti, a Christian prisoner; Dr Akhtar Hameed Khan, Muslim social activist; Chand Barkat, a Christian acquitted of blasphemy but continuously harassed; Hafiz Farooq Sajjad, stoned to death; Salamat Masih, Manzoor Masih and Rehmat Masih, three Christians.”

In 1996, another Christian, Ayub Masih, was incarcerated in solitary confinement for two years, convicted of blasphemy and sentenced to death in 1998 due to a neighbour’s accusations that he supported Salman Rushdie, author of The Satanic Verses. Eventually his lawyer proved that the accuser had used the conviction to force Masih's family out of their land and take control of the property.

It is supposed to be in connection with this episode that the Pakistani Catholic Bishop John Joseph killed himself in 1998 to protest the blasphemy laws, for the repeal of which he had been campaigning. Before his death, Bishop Joseph had publicly declared that the charges against Ayub Masih were false, and fabricated to force 15 Christian families to drop a local land dispute with Muslim villagers.

Since then the story has just been a repetition of many similar cases, so much so that even homosexual and human rights activist Peter Tatchell – not exactly a friend of the Church – has condemned persecution of Christians in Pakistan, and the Pakistan United Christian Welfare Association has demanded a separate province in Pakistan to protect the country’s around 2.8 million Christians from persecution.

One of the most recent horrors is that of the 11-year-old Christian girl threatened to be burnt alive by a Muslim mob for another false “blasphemy” accusation, while her family and several other Christian families were driven out of their homes in terror.

And Hindus are also an oppressed minority in Pakistan.

The UK’s National Secular Society, whose president Terry Sanderson said: “There is certainly a need for some kind of inter-religious understanding among OIC member states, a number of which suppress Christianity and other religions in a brutal and merciless fashion”, may also be in favour of pressure brought on Pakistan, which is certainly one of the most serious offenders among the OIC’s member states Mr. Sanderson is referring to.

Other campaigns of international political, financial, economic, cultural and sporting sanctions against Pakistan should also be conducted, as they were against South Africa.

South Africa’s bans from sporting events were employed as an effective instrument of pressure, and so could be banning Pakistan from Commonwealth Games, Cricket World Cup, and the like.

Obama Was Born and Raised a Muslim

If anyone in the USA, for some extraordinary reason, is still in doubt about whom to choose for President, I recommend two things. The first is an empiricist approach: you have tried one candidate and he failed, you haven't tried the other. In experimental science it would be reasonable to choose the not-yet-tried possibility.

The second thing is, if you haven't already done so, to read "Obama's Muslim Childhood" by Daniel Pipes.

The discovery that Obama has been wearing for over 30 years a ring with the first part of the Islamic declaration of faith, the Shahada, “There is no god except Allah”, will make sense to you if you read it, because you'll realize how important Islam has been in the President's life. WND's Jerome R. Corsi, who has written several books on Obama, explains:

The Shahada is the first of the Five Pillars of Islam, expressing the two fundamental beliefs that make a person a Muslim: There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is Allah’s prophet.

Sincere recitation of the Shahada is the sole requirement for becoming a Muslim, as it expresses a person’s rejection of all other gods.

Egyptian-born Islamic scholar Mark A. Gabriel, Ph.D., examined photographs of Obama’s ring at WND’s request and concluded that the first half of the Shahada is inscribed on it.

“There can be no doubt that someone wearing the inscription ‘There is no god except Allah’ has a very close connection to Islamic beliefs, the Islamic religion and Islamic society to which this statement is so strongly attached,” Gabriel told WND.

Let's go back to Pipes' long and very well-researched article. After observing that the incumbent accuses his rival Romney of hiding some of his biographical details, it says: "A focus on openness and honesty are likely to hurt Obama far more than Romney. Obama remains the mystery candidate with an autobiography full of gaps and even fabrications".

A list of Obama's clashes with the truth and inaccuracies about himself - like "He lied about never having been a member and candidate of the 1990s Chicago socialist New Party", or his claim that he was born in Kenya - follows, before Pipes gets to the main topic of his essay, which is Obama and his campaign's lies about Obama's Muslim childhood.

The President, repeatedly although in a contradictory fashion, has denied having ever been a Muslim.

Pipes, through a painstaking fact-finding work, shows that Obama was born and raised as a Muslim, and while in Indonesia he went to Koranic classes "studying 'how to pray and how to read the Koran,' but also actually praying in the Friday communal service right on the school grounds", attended the local mosque, wore sarongs, garments that in Indonesian culture only Muslims wear, and took part in advanced Islamic religious lessons which included the difficult task of reciting the Koran in Arabic. None of this was inevitable, because in Indonesia ""Muslim students were taught by a Muslim teacher, and Christian students were taught by a Christian teacher".

In summary, the record points to Obama having been born a Muslim to a non-practicing Muslim father and having lived for four years in a fully Muslim milieu under the auspices of his Muslim Indonesian stepfather. For these reasons, those who knew Obama in Indonesia considered him a Muslim.

"My Muslim Faith"

In addition, several statements by Obama in recent years point to his Muslim childhood.

(1) Robert Gibbs, campaign communications director for Obama's first presidential race, asserted in Jan. 2007: "Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian who attends the United Church of Christ in Chicago." But he backtracked in Mar. 2007, asserting that "Obama has never been a practicing Muslim." By focusing on the practice as a child, the campaign is raising a non-issue for Muslims (like Jews) do not consider practice central to religious identity. Gibbs added, according to a paraphrase by Watson, that "as a child, Obama had spent time in the neighborhood's Islamic center." Clearly, "the neighborhood's Islamic center" is a euphemism for "mosque"; spending time there again points to Obama's being a Muslim.

Particularly crucial is the section of the article concerning how Obama interacts with - I was temped to say "fellow" - Muslims, acting as if they were indeed his coreligionists. He acts and tells them things that a Christian, as he says he is, would never do and say, like talking about Jesus as a dead prophet.

When addressing Muslim audiences, Obama uses specifically Muslim phrases that recall his Muslim identity. He addressed audiences both in Cairo (in June 2009) and Jakarta (in Nov. 2010) with "as-salaamu alaykum," a greeting that he, who went to Koran class, knows is reserved for one Muslim addressing another.

Obama, in addition, has an exaggerated sense of the importance of Islam and Muslims, to the point that he hugely "overestimates both the number and the role of Muslims in the United States," which "smacks of an Islamist mentality".

So it's not surprising that

Muslims cannot shake the sense that, under his proclaimed Christian identity, Obama truly is one of them.

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the prime minister of Turkey, has referred to Hussein as a "Muslim" name. Muslim discussions of Obama sometimes mention his middle name as a code, with no further comment needed. A conversation in Beirut, quoted in the Christian Science Monitor, captures the puzzlement. "He has to be good for Arabs because he is a Muslim," observed a grocer. "He's not a Muslim, he's a Christian," replied a customer. No, said the grocer, "He can't be a Christian. His middle name is Hussein." The name is proof positive.

The American Muslim writer Asma Gull Hasan wrote in "My Muslim President Obama":

I know President Obama is not Muslim, but I am tempted nevertheless to think that he is, as are most Muslims I know. In a very unscientific oral poll, ranging from family members to Muslim acquaintances, many of us feel … that we have our first American Muslim president in Barack Hussein Obama. … since Election Day, I have been part of more and more conversations with Muslims in which it was either offhandedly agreed that Obama is Muslim or enthusiastically blurted out. In commenting on our new president, "I have to support my fellow Muslim brother," would slip out of my mouth before I had a chance to think twice. "Well, I know he's not really Muslim," I would quickly add. But if the person I was talking to was Muslim, they would say, "yes he is."

Obama's middle name Hussein is again considered one of the reasons.

In conclusion, available evidence suggests that Obama was born and raised a Muslim and retained a Muslim identity until his late 20s. Child to a line of Muslim males, given a Muslim name, registered as a Muslim in two Indonesian schools, he read Koran in religion class, still recites the Islamic declaration of faith, and speaks to Muslim audiences like a fellow believer. Between his non-practicing Muslim father, his Muslim stepfather, and his four years of living in a Muslim milieu, he was both seen by others and saw himself as a Muslim.

This is not to say that he was a practicing Muslim or that he remains a Muslim today, much less an Islamist, nor that his Muslim background significantly influences his political outlook (which, in fact, is typical of an American leftist). Nor is there a problem about his converting from Islam to Christianity. The issue is Obama's having specifically and repeatedly lied about his Muslim identity. More than any other single deception, Obama's treatment of his own religious background exposes his moral failings.

Questions about Obama's Truthfulness

Yet, these failings remain largely unknown to the American electorate. Consider the contrast of his case and that of James Frey, the author of A Million Little Pieces. Both Frey and Obama wrote inaccurate memoirs that Oprah Winfrey endorsed and rose to #1 on the non-fiction bestseller list. When Frey's literary deceptions about his own drug taking and criminality became apparent, Winfrey tore viciously into him, a library reclassified his book as fiction, and the publisher offered a refund to customers who felt deceived.

In contrast, Obama's falsehoods are blithely excused; Arnold Rampersad, professor of English at Stanford University who teaches autobiography, admiringly called Dreams "so full of clever tricks—inventions for literary effect—that I was taken aback, even astonished. But make no mistake, these are simply the tricks that art trades in, and out of these tricks is supposed to come our realization of truth." Gerald Early, professor of English literature and African-American studies at Washington University in St. Louis, goes further: "It really doesn't matter if he made up stuff. … I don't think it much matters whether Barack Obama has told the absolute truth in Dreams From My Father. What's important is how he wanted to construct his life."

How odd that a lowlife's story about his sordid activities inspires high moral standards while the U.S. president's autobiography gets a pass. Tricky Dick, move over for Bogus Barry.

Obama has a disproportionate desire to appeal to, as well as appease as we saw in the case of the Muhammed film, Muslims. The head of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Charles F. Bolden, Jr., explained that Obama "wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering." Which incidentally is not even remotely as great as Obama seems to believe. But that's for another post.

It's up to Americans to decide if they want to re-elect a President who lies in matters of personal identity, especially religion, which has obvious, major ethical implications. In comparison, as Pipes points out, Romney's "prior tax returns, the date he stopped working for Bain Capital, and the non-public records from his service heading the Salt Lake City Olympics and as governor of Massachusetts" are of little importance.

And it's up to Americans to decide if they want to re-elect a President who has Muslim background and sympathies, in a world where the West's need to distance itself from the Islamic world, to reaffirm its values of democratic freedoms against a Muslim world that tries ever more aggressively to impose its Sharia's blasphemy laws on it, to recognize with dispassionate eyes potential enemies emerging from the "Arab Spring", and to deal with a nuclearizing Iran, increases by the day.

There is a saying: "Once a Catholic, always a Catholic". I was brought up a Catholic and I know that, although I consider myself now an atheist Christian, as Oriana Fallaci described herself, so, not believing in God, I am not a Catholic any more, family upbringing and childhood impressions remain with you all your life. I suspect the same applies to Obama, and all the above rich and detailed information confirms it.

If I were American, I know what I would do.