British Prime Minister Makes Major Slip at D-Day Ceremony (00:48) Calls Omaha Beach, "Obama
Beach"
Dhimmitude Syndrome
Bat Ye'or
observes that
Obama was elected, by an overwhelming majority, on a program in which
America’s rapprochement with Islam stands pre-eminent. This is a
legitimate political aim in the quest for world peace. The questions
are: how to achieve it, and why there is no reciprocal effort from the
Muslim world represented by the Organization of the Islamic World (OIC). This body could express its regrets for over a millennium of jihad wars,
land expropriations, enslavements, and humiliations of the conquered
non-Muslim populations on three continents.
Obama’s Cairo
discourse fits perfectly into his agenda. It flatters Muslim
sensibilities and expresses the Muslim view of historical tolerance and
cultural superiority over infidel civilizations. When Obama mentioned
the "Isra" event, he referred to Muhammad’s ascension to heaven and his
return in one night on a winged mule named Buraq. There he greets two
Muslim prophets, Moses and Jesus/Isa, who are not the biblical figures. The image used here by the American president as a symbolic interfaith
reconciliation between the three faiths is a meeting between three
Muslim prophets and not the figureheads of the three monotheistic
religions. Besides, the Isra event is not recognized by non-Muslims, and
it didn’t happen in Jerusalem, as this name does not appear once in the
Koran.
Obama’s speech is similar to many such declarations by
European leaders. The question it raises is how much the West is ready
to forgo truth and its basic principles in its supplication for
obtaining peace with Islam. Clearly, the full
Islamization of the West
is the quickest way to obtain it. Obama’s political program in
connection with the Alliance of Civilizations conforms to an OIC
strategy that has already been accepted by the EU. In history, this
policy has a name: the dhimmitude syndrome.
Deciphering Obama in Cairo
Frank Gaffney
says, by and large, Obama's address yesterday in Cairo has been well
received in both the so-called "Muslim world" and by other audiences. Nobody may be happier with it, though, than the Muslim Brotherhood --
the global organization that seeks to impose authoritative Islam's theo-political-legal
program known as "Sharia" through stealthy means where violence ones
are not practicable. Egyptian Muslim Brothers were prominent among the
guests in the audience at Cairo University and Brotherhood-associated
organizations in America, like the Council on American Islamic Relations
(CAIR), have rapturously endorsed the speech.
The Brotherhood
has ample reason for its delight. Accordingly, Americans who love
freedom -- whether or not they recognize the threat Sharia represents
to it -- have abundant cause for concern about "The Speech," and what it
portends for U.S. policy and interests.
Right out of the box,
Obama mischaracterized what is causing a "time of tension between the
United States and Muslims around the world." He attributed the problem
first and foremost to "violent extremists [who] have exploited these
tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims." Obama never
mentioned -- not even once -- a central reality: The minority in
question, including the Muslim Brotherhood, subscribes to the
authoritative writings, teachings, traditions and institutions of their
faith, namely Sharia. It is the fact that their practice is thus
grounded that makes them, whatever their numbers (the exact percentage
is a matter of considerable debate), to use Obama's euphemistic term,
"potent."
Instead, Obama's address characterized the problem as a
"cycle of suspicion and discord," a turn of phrase redolent of the moral
equivalence so evident in the Mideast peace process with it "cycle of
violence." There was not one reference to terrorism, let alone Islamic
terrorism. Indeed, any connection between the two is treated as evidence
of some popular delusion. "The attacks of September 11, 2001 and the
continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against
civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile
not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. This has bred more fear and mistrust."
From an Israeli perspective, Pres. Barack
Obama’s speech today in Cairo was deeply disturbing. Both rhetorically
and programmatically, Obama’s speech was a renunciation of America’s
strategic alliance with Israel.
Rhetorically, Obama’s sugar
coated the pathologies of the Islamic world -- from the tyranny that
characterizes its regimes, to the misogyny, xenophobia, Jew hatred, and
general intolerance that characterizes its societies. In so doing he
made clear that his idea of pressing the restart button with the Islamic
world involves erasing the moral distinctions between the Islamic world
and the free world.
In contrast, Obama’s perverse
characterization of Israel -- of the sources of its legitimacy and of
its behavior — made clear that he shares the Arab world’s view that
there is something basically illegitimate about the Jewish state.
The White House
confirmed yesterday that Michelle, the two daughters, and his
mother-in-law will fly today to the City of Lights to join Obama, who
has scheduled meetings with French officials and will appear at a
ceremony today in Normandy marking the 65th anniversary of D-Day.
So, Michelle didn't accompany Obama to Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
Why?
Back
in April, Michelle
didn't accompany Obama to Turkey either. Why? She went
with him to London on the same trip.
Why doesn't Obama take the
wife to Muslim countries?
The excuse in April was that Michelle
Obama had always planned to go home to see her children. "She wanted to
be back home on Sunday night ahead of the kids' school," said a White
House spokesman.
Did
Michelle decide not to accompany Obama because she didn’t want to be
involved with the head scarf crowd? If she wore a head scarf she
would offend Americans, if she didn't she would offend Muslims.
Or did Michelle decide not to accompany Obama because she didn’t want to
go to a country where she would have been treated as a third-class
person?
Obama should tell us why Michelle never accompanies him
to a Muslim country. After all, he seems to really enjoy visiting
his brothers in Islam.
Obama’s Filing Against 9/11 Families
9/11
families were stunned this week to learn that Obama is asking
the Supreme Court NOT to review their effort to recover damages from the
government of Saudi Arabia and from several Saudi princes for funding
al Qaeda’s 9/11 attack on America. That the defendants did funnel vast
sums of money to al Qaeda was accepted as a given by the appellate
court, as was the fact that al Qaeda was known to be dedicated to and
engaged in violent attacks against America. So what was the Obama
administration’s reason for siding with the Saudis?
Solicitor
General Elena Kagan’s amicus brief to the Supreme Court had to admit
that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals erred in its grounds for
denying the suit against the Saudi princes. No, the fact that the
princes did not actually direct the al Qaeda attack on the United States
does not relieve them of liability for attacks that they funded. The
precedent on this is clear. As long as the defendant knew "that the
brunt of the injury" from his tortious act would be felt in America,
then:
… he must ‘reasonably anticipate being haled into court
there’ to answer for his actions. [Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 790.
Cited on Kagan’s p. 18.]
Nevertheless, said Kagan, she could
think of a way around the appellate court’s utter failure to get the
heart of the case. The families’ suit falls under the 1976 FSIA
law that establishes exceptions to the principle of sovereign immunity.
If you don't know the whole, disgraceful story of
the Flight 93 memorial, you need to visit this website.
Appeals Court Delays Eligibility Arguments
Arguments that had been expected to be
taking place before a federal appeals
court right about now on whether U.S.
citizens have a right to know that their
president is eligible for the office he
holds have been delayed.
Philip
Berg, the first lawyer to take the issue
of Barack Obama’s compliance with the U.S.
Constitution’s requirements for president
to court, says he’s been told by officials
with the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
that the oral arguments in his Berg vs.
Obama case, No. 088-4340, have been put
off.
"About two months ago I
received notice that the Third Circuit
would schedule 'oral argument' the last
week of May 2009 or the first week of June
2009," he said. Not hearing from the court
further, his office contacted the judges
and was told the earliest time the
arguments now could be held would be in
September or October.
"I am
totally disappointed that there has been
this delay," said Berg, who documents
progress on his three separate lawsuits at
his ObamaCrimes.com website.
"I am
determined to keep fighting lawfully
through our court system; I believe there
is a judge or justices that will grant us
discovery as it is essential … that the
truth be told," he said.
