Noted Arab historian Dr. Mark Gabriel explains in his book Islam and Terrorism: What the Quran really teaches about Christianity, violence and the goals of Islamic Jihad (2002) that it is perfectly acceptable in Islam to practice deceit.  In the early years of Muhammad's attempts to spread his religion, he used soft and pleasant methods to entice people.  In the latter years, when Jews and Christians refused to submit to him, he advocated bloody jihad.

This is why certain passages of the Quran seem to advocate getting along with Jews and Christians, while other passages encourage Muslims to kill them.  In Arabic this is known as the principle of nasikh (in English to override).  What was taught in the latter years overrides that which was taught in earlier years.

Deception is also taught in Islam. Again to quote from Dr Gabriel:

Philosopher Ibn Taymiyah (1263-1328) wrote a book titled The Sword on the Neck of the Accuser of Muhammad. In it he described how Muslims should live in the weakened stage.

Believers when in a weakened stage in a non-Muslim country should forgive and be patient with people of the book [i.e., Jews and Christians] when they insult Allah and his prophet by any means.  Believers should lie to people of the book to protect their lives and religion.

In other words, it's OK to lie to non-Muslims to protect yourself when you are a minority in their country. (ibid pg 91)

What we have now is proof that Barak Obama is practicing such deceit.  In today's Israel News:

(IsraelNN.com) Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama is currently hiding his anti-Israel views in order to get elected, according to a well-known anti-Israel activist. The activist, Ali Abunimah, claimed to know Obama well and to have met him on numerous occasions at pro-Palestinian events in Chicago.

In an article he penned for the anti-Israeli website Electronic Intifada, Abunimah wrote:

"The last time I spoke to Obama was in the winter of 2004 at a gathering in Chicago’s Hyde Park neighborhood. He was in the midst of a primary campaign to secure the Democratic nomination for the United States Senate seat he now occupies. But at that time polls showed him trailing.

"As he came in from the cold and took off his coat, I went up to greet him. He responded warmly, and volunteered, 'Hey, I’m sorry I haven’t said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I’m hoping when things calm down I can be more up front.' He referred to my activism, including columns I was contributing to the The Chicago Tribune critical of Israeli and US policy [and said:] 'Keep up the good work!'" Source article

In these last days, Christians are commanded by Jesus not to be deceived by false messiahs:

Mat 24:4-5 NKJV
(4)  And Jesus answered and said to them: "Take heed that no one deceives you.
(5)  For many will come in My name, saying, "I am the Christ,' and will deceive many.

Don't be deceived.

I guess it's official now - Europe has surrendered to the Islamists.  A Dutch politician by the name of Geert Wilders wants to produce a 15 minute documentary on why the Koran should be banned as hate speech.  The movie has not been released to the public, yet it has already been threatened and banned.  The Dutch government has warned Wilders that it will bill him for extra security due to death threats from terrorists.

Can you imagine this scenario with any other subject matter?  Here's what the Council of Europe said:

“Freedom of expression should not be considered a license to offend,” said Maud de-Boer Buquicchio, deputy secretary general of the Council of Europe, a pan-European human rights watchdog.

Speech that does not offend doesn't need protection under the law.  It is precisely the speech that does offend that needs protection.  If we used those same guidelines to rule on all speech - then any commentary from homosexuals, atheists, liberals, Satan-worshippers, child molesters or Nazi enthusiasts would have to be banned as well - because they offend me.

Whether or not the Koran promotes hate speech is a valid topic for discussion among educated and civilized peoples.  If the Koran does not inspire hatred and violence, then Mr Wilders wouldn't need extra police protection because he wouldn't be threatened.  The mere fact that he is being threatened gives substance to his thesis.

Rather than trying to shut him down, the civilized nations of the world should rise up in support of his right to say what he wants to.  If we, as a free society, ban all speech that offends, then we have surrendered without a fight. 

Source article

In yesterday's American Congress for Truth blog New Documents Show Iran Still Working on Nukes, evidence is shown to the IAEA - International Atomic Energy Agency that proves that Iran is working toward building a nuclear weapon.

Reading through the article, which I highly recommend, evidence is presented that blasts the former NIE of the CIA to shreds. To wit:

…a videotape of a “mock-up chamber and internals” of the missile re-entry vehicle, as well as laboratory preparations to test them, which could only have been obtained from sources inside Iran.

He also showed an Iranian animation demonstrating how a Shahab-3 missile could be programmed to detonate at about 2,000 feet over a target. Heinonen noted that detonation at that altitude only made sense for a nuclear warhead.

Key to the clandestine programs was a private Iranian company called Kimia Maadan, which the Iranians acknowledged had been set up in May 2000 to work on a secret uranium mine at Gachine.

Kimia Maadan was run by Revolutionary Guards Brig. Gen. Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, one of a number of alleged nuclear weapons designers the IAEA has sought to interview, without success.

schematic drawings of the missile warhead

Flow sheets for a secret uranium conversion plant

Test reports on high voltage detonators

Production documents on an exploding bridgewire detonator

Procurement documents showing that Iran had purchased spark gaps, shock wave software, neutron sources, special steel parts, and radiation measurement equipment, all of which are relevant to nuclear weapons work

Documentation on Iranian training courses on neutron calculations, the effect of shock waves on metal, enrichment/isotope separation, and ballisic missiles

Information on the construction of what appeared to be a nuclear test site, with a 1,300 foot shaft connected to a monitoring station six miles away, which the Iranians claimed was used to test conventional explosives.

As I was thinking about this situation it occurred to me that if medicine were practiced the same way as international politics, a lot of people would be dead. Think about this: you find a lump under your arm and faithfully show it to your doctor. Your doctor says, let's wait and see if it grows. After a few months, you return to show the doctor and it has grown and gotten ugly. The doctor does a biopsy that indeed shows it to be cancer.

Your next logical question would be - when is the surgery? Any fool knows that cancer must be cut out especially when it sits on top of the skin.

I would like to know if our government and the leaders of the world are fools or not. The time has come for surgery. Instead of doing fifteen more tests to confirm that it is cancer - we should be scheduling an OR.

The Israelis Should Be Very, Very Nervous

World: Paul R. Hollrah

February 28, 2008

To read more...

An article in the February 5 edition of Investor’s Business Daily asks, “What happens when an Islamofascist state gets the bomb and the White House falls into the hands of a president who thinks such enemies can be defeated with diplomacy?”

The article goes on to speculate that, “If that person is either of the two front-runners for the Democratic nomination, it could spell unprecedented danger. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama seem committed to the magic powers of negotiating a deal with Iran’s fanatical mullahs...”

For example, Obama’s foreign policy advisor, Susan Rice of the Brookings Institution, has said,

“...the United States could dangle various incentives the Iranians might find attractive. For instance, in exchange for a full and verifiable halt to Iran’s nuclear program, as well as termination of its support for terrorism and anti-U.S. elements in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States could offer to lift U.S. sanctions, normalize relations, pay some Iranian claims against the United States, promote new trade and investment flows, allow Iranian membership in the World Trade Organization, guarantee access to civilian nuclear power, or provide regional security guarantees.”

Meanwhile, Clinton’s “experts,” Iranian-Americans Ray Takeyh and Vali Nasr (both born in Tehran), recommend,

“...engagement as a means of achieving a more pluralistic and responsible government in Tehran.” They have suggested that “to liberalize the theocratic state, the United States would do better to...embark on a policy of unconditional dialogue and sanctions relief. A reduced American threat would deprive the hard-liners of the conflict they need to justify their concentration of power.”

So what happens if the Iranians responded to a President Clinton or a President Obama with, “Okay, but only if the U.S. will also agree to cease and desist in the defense of Israel, pull all troops out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, end the NSA program of monitoring international telephone calls of Muslims with al Qaeda ties, and cease tracking the worldwide financial transactions of people of Arabic and Persian descent.”

In other words, Democrats would have us believe that, if we would only surrender unilaterally to Ahmadinejad, as he continues to enrich uranium, he might just conclude that he’s won and leave us alone...while he proceeds with plans to blow Israel off the map.

The idea of either of the two Democratic nominees making it into the White House is enough to keep me up at night. Obama's advisor, Susan Rice, seems to be in some parallel universe and hasn't a clue as to what Ahmadinejad has said publicly or what Iran is currently doing. That he would choose her as his foreign policy advisor speaks volumes about his intelligence.

Clinton's advisors at least recognize the need to change the current regime in Iran if hopes of peace and security in the Middle East can be achieved. Their views are idealistic and naive but are at least rooted in the reality that no dialogue with Ahmadinejad is possible.

Either view is lacking in the most basic understanding of what radical Islam is and why it is doing what it is doing. Both views assume that the radical Islamists are attacking the West because of Israel and both views are wrong. Radical Islam is attacking the West because it is the West. They will attack moderate Muslims who don't agree with their policy of terror. Anyone who disagrees with them is fair game in their pursuit of global jihad.

You cannot negotiate with such a mindset. This evil that is radical Islam sends mentally disabled women as suicide bombers prompting officials in Iraq to round up the homeless and beggars to protect them. This evil hides in hospitals and uses ambulances to send bombs into crowded markets. This evil treats women as property, thinks "honor killings" are ok, cuts off arms and legs as punishment and stones victims of rape. This evil cut off a journalist's head with a dull sword.

We have to understand what we are fighting against and from the comments above from the policy advisors to the Democrats - it's obvious they don't have a clue.

In today's Debka File, I found this article, reported no where else.

The resolution unanimously approved by the House Foreign Affairs Committee Thursday, Feb. 29, recognizes the “over 850,000 Jews put to flight from Arab countries” in 1948 as refugees, no less than their Palestinian counterparts, who they outnumber.

The US president is urged to ensure that when the Middle refugee issue is discussed in international forums, any reference to Palestinian refugees be matched by a similarly explicit reference to expelled Jewish populations. Source article

Why does this matter and what are they talking about?

JEWISH REFUGEES & DISPLACED ARAB PALESTINIANS
135 million refugees in the 20th century fled from Russia, India, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Greece and Muslim states like Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iraq, Algeria, Indonesia, Kuwait, Sudan, Morocco, Yemen, Syria, Egypt, Iran, Libya etc In 1945, as a result of Nazi Germany's defeat in WWII and the Potsdam Agreement, she lost 25% of her territory and 12 million Germans were expelled.
In 1948, Palestinian Arabs and four Arab members of the UN went to war - not only against Israel, but against the UN decision for a two-state solution in Palestine. Hundreds of thousands of Arab Palestinians fled Jewish Israel, mostly to former Palestine Mandate areas, and hundreds of thousands of Jews fled Arab states. Hundreds of thousands Arab Palestinians remained in Israel while all Jews where ethnically cleansed in territory conquered by the Arabs. Of the 135 million refugees in the 20th century 0.5% were Arab Palestinians; in reality many were not refugees but Internally Displaced Persons (IDP.

While Israel integrated Jewish refugees right away, Arab Palestinian IDP and their descendants are the world's only permanent "refugees". At any point during the past years, Arab governments could have helped the Arab Palestinian IDP settle down to a decent life. They could have created the infrastructure of an autonomous Palestine on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip that Jordan respectively Egypt controlled until 1967, or encouraged the resettlement of Palestinians in Jordan, which constitutes the lion's share of the original mandate of Palestine. Rather than fund the Palestine Liberation Organization to foment terror against Israel the Arab regimes could have endowed Palestinian schools of architecture, engineering, medicine and law. What Israel did for Arab Palestinians and Jewish refugees from Arab lands, Arabs could have done much more sumptuously for the Arab Palestinians displaced by the same conflict. Instead, Arab dictators cultivated generations of "refugees" and focused on what the Palestinian Arabs lost while attempting to destroy Israel. These "refugees" endured brutal oppression and unmitigated suffering at the hands of their host Arab dictators, and their own corrupt dictator Yasser Arafat. Palestinian leaders absconded with billions of dollars in international aid money and used the pilfered funds to enrich themselves and to raise terror militias. Source article

Basically, what we have in peace talk negotiations is the so-called "right of return" in which all Palestinian refugees would be allowed to move back to Israel and be given back their property. What the Foreign Affairs Committee did was to remind the President that much more history is attached to this issue than what is currently being reported in the media.