(** See positioning comment at bottom of page why this note is to Bill O'Reilly of FOX News.)
Bill O'Reilly of FOX News said again on February 18, 2015, that there was no proof that Obama was a Muslim, calling anyone who says that as being on the far-right. But it had been O'Reilly who was taken in by the vile Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) in 2010 on the far left, its former leader calling the Tea Party the Taliban of American politics.
At the time O'Reilly said he hadn't heard of the Oath Keepers, allowing the SPLC the high ground. The next day O'Reilly attacked the president of the Oath Keepers, calling it a right-wing group while giving no ideology tag to the SPLC.
The Oath Keepers' leader seemed disturbed why O'Reilly would go after his organization and not the SPLC. You should know that it was the Oath Keepers in 2014 that protected property during the Ferguson riots. Apparently with O'Reilly not knowing about the Oath Keepers, it would not be surprising that he might also miss reports of Obama being trained on the Koran for years.
And there was more.
Obama's original father had converted to Islam, changing his name to Hussein, later meeting Obama's mother in Hawaii. He would marry her and she would later give birth to Obama, her son being introduced into a home where the father followed the Muslim faith. In 2008 it would therefore BE NO accident that "candidate" Obama decades later would still be able to sing the Muslim Call to Prayer perfectly in front of an editor of the New York Times while calling himself a Christian. As a well-groomed community organizer, Obama knew it was important to gather as many votes as possible for the coming election. (Remember President Bill Clinton carrying that Bible around in front of the willing TV cameras? It's what Democrats do to deceive their enemy, and what the progressive media does to help.)
The New York Times, a leader that determines what progressive news stories should lead the day's news in America, would in turn protect Obama, the editor telling him if he wanted to be president not to sing that Muslim prayer in Alabama. Obama would take the editor's advice to heart and go on to place his Muslim faith in back of the news bus during the rest of the campaign, focusing instead on his being black.
Isn't it interesting the voters in 2008 elected Obama under the assumption that he would be their first black president. They had not realized Obama's passion would be to instead push his Muslim upbringing on America . . . to fundamentally transform the country. No one understood what that meant at the time.
But Obama did show pieces of his plan to Americans who took the time to listen and watch, such as in 2009 when he came into office and brought with him the Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR to purge the training programs of the FBI and other groups.
"Retired 4-Star U.S. Navy Admiral James A. 'Ace' Lyons, speaking at the National Press Club in January, says that under Obama’s guidance, the Obama Regime has been infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood terrorism front group, saying that the radical anti-freedom organization has penetrated every U.S. security agency. Admiral Lyons said that 'the transformation of America has been in full swing ever since 2008,' the year Obama was elected based upon his campaign promise to 'fundamentally transform America.'” - YouTube - February 2015
Obama at the same time would also make a move internationally through his famous 2009 Cairo speech. In that speech Obama demanded that the U.S. Office Of President of the United States should be used to protect Muslims from Islamophobia wherever it appeared in the world, adding that Muslims should be able to practice their religion as they see fit in Western countries.
Obama, by doing this, was protecting the practice of Sharia Law by Muslim citizens who had relocated to Western countries, countries that already had their own democratic laws on the books. But what was most troubling in our so-called free society was that Obama's politically-correct American progressive media went along with his demands, their multicultural, socialist managing editors obviously seeing America's Constitution in the way of Sharia Law put forth by their new deity in the White House.
Now you know why under Obama, African-Americans would not gain from a black president nor increase their earning power at the kitchen table. They would only be called upon when a radical crisis was needed to promote a socialist agenda to benefit Obama with minorities, mainly Hispanic and Illegals. Knowing that, an estimated 93% of black voters would still help put Obama back in office in 2012. You couldn't make this up if you wanted to.
Finally and most laughable, if that is possible, Obama claims that moderate Muslims are the answer against Islamic terrorists. Yet it is Obama himself who refuses to meet with American moderate Muslims. And it is Obama who tosses aside the warnings from moderate Muslims of the Emirates that CAIR and the Brotherhood are terrorist organizations.
Now To The Washington D.C. Leaders Elected In 2014:
Impeach Obama for aiding the enemy, never getting approval from Congress to release commando Islamic terrorists from Gitmo now available to murder Americans again. Impeach Obama while you can. - View Disturbing Content From Mueller Family Letter
Revelations
The Egyptian village wracked by grief for young men killed by militants - IndependentUK
"And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. - Rev. 20:4
The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.
The Islamic State, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), follows a distinctive variety of Islam whose beliefs about the path to the Day of Judgment matter to its strategy, and can help the West know its enemy and predict its behavior. Its rise to power is less like the triumph of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (a group whose leaders the Islamic State considers apostates) than like the realization of a dystopian alternate reality in which David Koresh or Jim Jones survived to wield absolute power over not just a few hundred people, but some 8 million.
We have misunderstood the nature of the Islamic State in at least two ways. First, we tend to see jihadism as monolithic, and to apply the logic of al‑Qaeda to an organization that has decisively eclipsed it. The Islamic State supporters I spoke with still refer to Osama bin Laden as “Sheikh Osama,” a title of honor. But jihadism has evolved since al-Qaeda’s heyday, from about 1998 to 2003, and many jihadists disdain the group’s priorities and current leadership.
Bin Laden viewed his terrorism as a prologue to a caliphate he did not expect to see in his lifetime. His organization was flexible, operating as a geographically diffuse network of autonomous cells. The Islamic State, by contrast, requires territory to remain legitimate, and a top-down structure to rule it. (Its bureaucracy is divided into civil and military arms, and its territory into provinces.)
We are misled in a second way, by a well-intentioned but dishonest campaign to deny the Islamic State’s medieval religious nature. Peter Bergen, who produced the first interview with bin Laden in 1997, titled his first book Holy War, Inc. in part to acknowledge bin Laden as a creature of the modern secular world. Bin Laden corporatized terror and franchised it out. He requested specific political concessions, such as the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Saudi Arabia. His foot soldiers navigated the modern world confidently. On Mohammad Atta’s last full day of life, he shopped at Walmart and ate dinner at Pizza Hut.
There is a temptation to rehearse this observation—that jihadists are modern secular people, with modern political concerns, wearing medieval religious disguise—and make it fit the Islamic State. In fact, much of what the group does looks nonsensical except in light of a sincere, carefully considered commitment to returning civilization to a seventh-century legal environment, and ultimately to bringing about the apocalypse.
The most-articulate spokesmen for that position are the Islamic State’s officials and supporters themselves. They refer derisively to “moderns.” In conversation, they insist that they will not—cannot—waver from governing precepts that were embedded in Islam by the Prophet Muhammad and his earliest followers. They often speak in codes and allusions that sound odd or old-fashioned to non-Muslims, but refer to specific traditions and texts of early Islam.
To take one example: In September, Sheikh Abu Muhammad al-Adnani, the Islamic State’s chief spokesman, called on Muslims in Western countries such as France and Canada to find an infidel and “smash his head with a rock,” poison him, run him over with a car, or “destroy his crops.” To Western ears, the biblical-sounding punishments—the stoning and crop destruction—juxtaposed strangely with his more modern-sounding call to vehicular homicide. (As if to show that he could terrorize by imagery alone, Adnani also referred to Secretary of State John Kerry as an “uncircumcised geezer.”)
But Adnani was not merely talking trash. His speech was laced with theological and legal discussion, and his exhortation to attack crops directly echoed orders from Muhammad to leave well water and crops alone—unless the armies of Islam were in a defensive position, in which case Muslims in the lands of kuffar, or infidels, should be unmerciful, and poison away.
The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam.
Virtually every major decision and law promulgated by the Islamic State adheres to what it calls, in its press and pronouncements, and on its billboards, license plates, stationery, and coins, “the Prophetic methodology,” which means following the prophecy and example of Muhammad, in punctilious detail. Muslims can reject the Islamic State; nearly all do. But pretending that it isn’t actually a religious, millenarian group, with theology that must be understood to be combatted, has already led the United States to underestimate it and back foolish schemes to counter it. We’ll need to get acquainted with the Islamic State’s intellectual genealogy if we are to react in a way that will not strengthen it, but instead help it self-immolate in its own excessive zeal." . . . TheAtlantic - Read More
** Note: My family grew up with Bill O'Reilly reporting the news in our home. I had stopped trusting the reporting of ABC, CBS, NBC national television evening news networks after I discovered they all blacked-out the murder of Jesse Dirkhising in the late 1990's, the network news executives seeming to believe the murdered 13-year old boy was the dirty one and not the ones who killed him. I then turned to FOX News for major news stories and never looked back
I later also stopped watching CNN, discovering that Saddam had allowed CNN to stay in Iraq while kicking out all other news agencies as long as CNN never reported the atrocities of local Iraqi citizens to their viewers. CNN also went on to broadcast a video in America that Iraqi terrorist gave to the network of a sniper killing of an American soldier, the translation from the terrorists saying, wait don't shoot until women and children are out of the way. A CNN crew was later reported to have told the family of a killed soldier, "Where it bleeds it leads."
However, over the next decade I would watch the FOX TV Entertainment Network take a hard left turn around 2008, mocking decency in America. For instance NewsCorp allowed a Sunday night cartoon to mock our Vietnam War Memorial as a Score Board. I began to question why anyone who really believed in fair and balanced reporting would want to work for FOX News, allowing those profits to then go to NewsCorp to produce more obscene cartoons mocking American families, which it did.
NewsCorp will say it's the viewer's choice. But there wasn't much to choose, content deliberately thrown into millions of homes viewers would either watch or turn off their sets. And a few Americans did actually do that. But they were mainly home schooling parents, a minority and a shadow of their former country. That content would turn into disgusting trash you can view here never allowed by former news leaders who thought it would desensitize an entire population to violence. And then came the 1960's.
As you can see 50 years later, those early news leaders were right. The genie is out of the bottle and you can't put it back unless America falls as Rome had done. Only then will there be a reset for a new ball game.-Webmaster
