Tuesday, January 24, 2012

The Demise of the Free World

Obama: Free Government birth control beginning Aug 1, 2012

By de Andréa

The Obama administration announced Friday. Healthcare plans will be required to give free birth control starting Aug. 1, of this year.

The final regulation retains the approach federal health officials proposed last summer, despite the deluge of complaints from religious groups and congressional Republicans that has poured in since then.

“This decision was made after very careful consideration, including the important concerns some have raised about religious liberty,” Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a statement. “I believe this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to (‘important preventive’) services.”

Congressional Republicans slammed the decision as an assault on religious freedom.

“This ruling will force religious organizations to violate the fundamental tenets of their faith, or to stop offering health insurance coverage to their employees,” said the Republican Policy Committee. ”Time will tell whether those institutions choose the former or the latter course — but neither option should be necessary”.

So who benefits from this forced sterility? A little background may be in order…

The former self appointed world leader of the Jihadist movement was one of 52 children. Osama Bin Laden’s Father Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden fathered 52 children before he died; Osama himself fathered 27 children before he was killed by U.S. Special Forces in Pakistan.

So what does this have to do with President Obama’s free U.S. Government birth control? Well herein lays the dirty little secret as they say. You see, Barrack Hussein Obama is a Muslim (watch the video). He knows that Muslims don’t use birth control, not necessarily because is against their religion, as it is in Catholicism, but because this is a huge contributing factor to the agenda of Islam’s world conquest.

You see, while the demographics (watch the video) of the Christian and Jewish population… well… actually while all the population of the infidel is shrinking world wide, the Muslim population is exploding.

Why is that you ask? Birth control and abortion…incidentally this is also why Social Security is failing, but that’s another story. Free Abortion, free birth control.

Muslims will continue to have their 5 wives and 20 to 50 kids while the rest of us infidels will with one wife, have none to 2 kids. What better way to surreptitiously eliminate the opposition to Islam. And if in no other way, they will become the dominating force on the earth?

Think about it…

de Andréa

Monday, January 23, 2012

More Proof Obama Is A Muslim Jihadist

Obama supports and enables the Muslim Brotherhood; the result is the Muslim Brotherhood sees the weakness in our system.

By de Andréa

How I wish it weren’t so, but the facts are overwhelmingly clear. The Obama administration is, and has been systematically and surreptitiously getting cozy with the revived Ottoman Empire, The Muslim Brotherhood.

This is not only affecting our foreign policy in countries like Iran, Egypt, Libya and Syria it’s also affecting our domestic national security apparatus, and “Troubling” does not adequately define what is happening in America, Europe and the Middle East.

If you would like to know where the loyalties of so-called Moderate American Muslims are, click on this.

The video Muslims do not want you to see, Watch this!

Who is Obama? Is he even a citizen of the U.S. much less a legal president? Watch, listen and learn here!

Not only is Obama, as I’ve written for three years, favoring radical Islamist forces–Obama is anti-American, anti-Western, pro-terrorism, building dictatorships, and openly anti-Semitic and anti-Christian–and now even the establishment media is admitting it.

For the first time in U.S. history an American government, to the applause of the vast majority of the mass media, is backing an anti-American authoritarian supremacist movement. Here’s how the New York Times explains it:

“The Obama administration has begun to reverse decades of mistrust and hostility as it seeks to forge closer ties with an organization [the Muslim Brotherhood] ‘once viewed’ as irreconcilably opposed to United States interests.”

Any serious foreign policy analyst should see three red flags in this paragraph:

First, of course the U.S. government must deal with Egypt’s government, but that doesn’t mean it should publicly proclaim that is should play nice with the Brotherhood and give what amounts to an unconditional endorsement of it.

Indeed, Obama and media are using a cheap trick. They confuse the proper, and responsible policy of dealing with those in power while doing something quite beyond that: a self-destructive policy of rushing to insist that sworn enemies of freedom and the United States are really nice warm-fuzzy guys and there’s no problem with having them in power and endorsing their polices.

As I’ve written before, that if a dictatorship is elected, the Egyptian people have a right to do so but that doesn’t mean the West should endorse and enable it.

This is tantamount to President Roosevelt supporting the Nazi regime during the Second World War! That would be treasonous… So hasn’t Obama committed treason by supporting the Muslim Brotherhood the enemy of the free world not only in Libya and Egypt but in the United States?

Does anyone remember that Obama has been apologizing for all the bad regimes America supported in the past? Now Obama is using the exact same argument: claiming that we must be nice to them and support them because they are in power. What’s the difference between that and the historic relationship to the Mubarak regime? At least Mubarak supported U.S. interests. These people do not. They have openly supported murdering Americans, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In 1979 an Islamist revolution occurred in Iran. The United States quickly recognized that new regime, and tried to be buddies with it. How is that working out for us?

Second, why should the burden of reversing “decades of mistrust and hostility” be exclusively on the United States? Doesn’t the Brotherhood, which benefits from U.S. engagement, need to do that also or even beforehand? Why is there no conditionality here, no hint that the Obama Administration or New York Times understands how hostile the Brotherhood has been and continues to be? If the U.S. president won’t demand a quid pro quo (something in exchange for his concessions) who is going to look after U.S. interests while Obama is looking out for the interests of the nation of Islam?

Third, by saying the Brotherhood was “once viewed as irreconcilably opposed to United States interests” the author suggests this is no longer true. We know that Obama says the Brotherhood has changed. Yet there is no evidence in terms of deeds, ideology, or statement made in Arabic that the Brotherhood has done so.

The Muslim Brotherhood began Just 4 years after the demise of the original Islamic Ottoman Empire; it is obvious that it is nothing less than the revived Ottoman Empire under a new name. Incidentally the agenda of the Ottoman Empire was to conquer the earth for Allah; the agenda of the Brotherhood is the same. Leopards do not change their spots.

Obama has given away all U.S. leverage and assets beforehand, just as he did by announcing a year ago, during the revolution’s opening days, that he would be happy to accept a Muslim Brotherhood government. Well of course he would, he himself is an admitted Muslim, and all the baggage of Muslim ideology comes with the package. Was or ‘is’ there any such thing as a moderate Nazi? What would one look like? Do you think he would just moderately kill you and destroy your freedom? Do you think he would just be a moderate supremacist? A Muslim my friend is a Nazi on steroids.

So the Brotherhood’s moderation is assumed. The science is settled; the debate over, Ignorance prevails and deception abounds.

“The reversal also reflects Obama’s acceptance of the Brotherhood’s repeated assurances that its lawmakers want to build a modern democracy that will respect individual freedoms, free markets, and international commitments, including Egypt’s treaty with Israel.”

Wow, yes that’s it. Obama says he believes what the Brotherhood says and not what has been said by Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and others including many Coptic Egyptians. No one has bothered to look at the actual radical record of Brotherhood lawmakers in the last parliament! Obama has chosen his Muslim friends he’s on the wrong side; at least he is not on your side.

“And at the same time it underscores Washington’s increasing frustration with Egypt’s military rulers, who have sought to carve out permanent political powers for themselves and used deadly force against protesters seeking an end to their rule.”

This is nonsense. Of course, the military has used force, though rarely deadly force. But what evidence is there that the military wants “permanent political powers”? On two occasions it put forth some demands and then retreated within a few hours when pushed by the Muslim Brotherhood. Yet even when so-called moderates protested in the thousands the army ignored them.

Doesn’t this tell you something?

In fact, Obama has only criticized and pressured the army, not the Islamist Brotherhood. So here’s an understatement:

“…As the Brotherhood moves toward an expected showdown with the military…over who should control the interim government—the newly elected Parliament or the ruling military council—the administration’s public outreach to the Brotherhood could give the Islamic movement in Egypt important support. It could also confer greater international legitimacy on the Brotherhood.”

It only took a year to figure that out. Yes, the Brotherhood gains more support because of U.S. policy. Some Egyptians argue the Americans back the Brotherhood so they might as well join the winning side. Others argue that the Brotherhood has intimidated the Americans so they are heroes who should be supported.

In other words, Obama isn’t just observing, but is affecting events. Now, note how the Obama Administration avoids this issue:

“It would be `totally impractical’ not to engage the Brotherhood `because of U.S. security and regional interests in Europe,” a senior administration official said.

But we are not talking about holding talks, we’re talking about becoming apologists for Islamic terrorism, a position announced and defended in a detailed explanation by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. It is entirely predictable that as the revolutionary Islamists take anti-American and dictatorial stances, the Western media will underreport them and the Obama Administration will ignore them, if only to defend the mistaken ideas they hold and the Islamic political agenda Obama has staked out.

Notice the use of the word “engage.” Earlier, the Obama Administration spent much of its effort engaging Iran and Syria, claiming this was necessary. One thing about this president, and the complicit media, is that they never examine past failures when the precise same strategy is repeated (domestic example: “Stimulus” followed by “Jobs Bill.”)

How do we supposedly know the Brotherhood is moderate? Because that is what it tells the Western journalists and diplomats. But that’s not what it tells the Egyptian people or its own members: A State Department official said.…”They’ve been very specific about conveying a moderate message”…. Indeed, the State Department tells us that the Brotherhood has pledged to maintain “universal human rights” and previous Egyptian government commitments, presumably the peace treaty with Israel. But alas the Islamic ideology teaches deception. In Arabic, It’s called the “Doctrine of Taqiyyah”. It fundamentally means, lie, lie to the infidel, and lie through your teeth.

But of course, the Brotherhood would never lie to the U.S. officials in secret, easily deniable and non-binding chats that run totally contrary to the policies its leaders have advocated every day for decades (including the same week as this New York Times article appeared) and that fit its ideology. The fact that they doubt Obama would do anything about it if they trampled those commitments also makes them less likely to keep such promises.

The fact that Senator John Kerry is leading this effort is even scarier. He has been wrong about every Middle Eastern issue, notably his failed engagement policy with Syria and Iran. Might Kerry learn something from this experience about how radical forces can lie to you and manipulate you into supporting their repressive regimes? Not!

Will anyone in the mass media compare Kerry’s positions on engaging Iran and Syria with his making the same mistake now by engaging the Arab Islamists in Egypt? Again; not!

So the public won’t hear people say: Hey, hasn’t this policy already failed twice under this administration?

Kerry’s foolishness is endless. He told the reporter, “The Brotherhood’s leaders said they were eager to work with the United States and other Western countries, especially in economic areas.” Oh, they want American money, Sharia compliant money. If that doesn’t prove they’re moderate what does? And I’ve got a Golden Bridge for sale…cheap.

And here’s an interesting twist, the kind of thing that makes the New York Times the kind of newspaper it is:

“The administration’s willingness to engage with the Brotherhood could open President Obama to new attacks by Republicans who are already accusing him letting Islamists take over a pivotal ally. Some analysts, though, said the overtures amounted to a tacit admission that the United States should have begun such outreach to the region’s Islamist opposition long ago.”

Did you catch that?

First, the Republicans will criticize Obama without any basis and, second, the real mistake was that the United States (Bush?) should have engaged Islamists even sooner!

So the idea that Obama is wrong about the Brotherhood is dismissed as a mere partisanship. Thus, there need be no actual discussion of whether this charge is true! The Times readers are conditioned to reject anything associated with Republicans. The idea that Obama let (I prefer the words “helped,” cheered,” and “declared harmless”) Islamists take over a pivotal ally is now officially banished. And if you hear someone say otherwise, know that he is a Republican trying to sabotage Obama so ignore that person. Immediately put hands over ears to avoid truth.

Shadi Hamid, director of research at the Brookings Doha Center in Qatar, is the person quoted as arguing that the United States missed chances to build ties to so-called “moderate Islamists” earlier. Should America apologize for keeping the Brotherhood waiting? And what about the effort to build ties with “moderate terrorist Islamists” like Hizballah, the Iran regime, and Syria’s government which is not Islamist but is just ‘allied with the Islamist bloc’?

But here’s Hamid’s really interesting point: “Now the Brotherhood knows it is in a stronger position and it is almost as if the U.S. is chasing them and they are sitting pretty.” Yes, that’s it. Islam views Obama’s policy not as one of friendship but of weakness. Thus, they will make no concession—except patience and mouthing soothing words in English—in the pursuit of their radical, Hate-American agenda.

THE BOTTOM LINE: Ignorance begets deception, deception begets enablement, and enablement begets destruction…

Think long and hard about reelecting Barrack Hussein Obama, a self-described Muslim terrorist for president in November. Yes click on the hyperlink and listen to him tell you himself.

de Andréa

Sunday, January 15, 2012

The Future of America

In less than a generation, the US will ask itself: Who lost Europe?' Then in another generation, the US will ask how did we lose America? Moreover in the next 50 years the road to this demise will be a treacherous one.

By de Andréa

If you would like a quick easy lesson on the future of your children then this article is tailored just for you.

I have written over 600 articles and numerous essays and books on the subject of Islamic supremacy but I did not write this one. It is copy of a speech by Geert Wilders, who is a member of the Dutch Parliament in the European country of the Netherlands.Geert Wilders, is Chairman, of the Party for Freedom, in the Dutch Parliament. This speech was given at the Four Seasons Hotel in New York City, addressing an Alliance of Patriots and announcing the Facing Jihad Conference in Jerusalem.

He begins with…

Dear friends, thank you so much for inviting me.

I come to America with a mission. All is not well in the old world. There is a tremendous danger looming, and it is very difficult to be optimistic. We might be in the final stages of the Islamization of Europe. This not only is a clear and present danger to the future of Europe, it is a threat to America and the sheer survival of the West itself. The United States as the last bastion of Western civilization is facing an Islamic Europe.

First I will describe the situation on the ground in Europe. Then, I will say a few things about Islam. To close I will tell you about a meeting in Jerusalem.

The Europe that you know, is gone.

You have probably seen the landmarks. But in all of these cities, sometimes a few blocks away from your tourist destination, there is another world. It is the world of the parallel society created by Muslim mass-migration.

All throughout Europe a new reality has risen: entire Muslim neighborhoods exist, where very few indigenous people reside or are even seen. And if they are, they might regret it. This goes for the police as well. It's the world of head scarves, where women walk around in figureless tents, with baby strollers and a group of children. Their husbands, (or more accurately) slaveholders, walk three steps ahead.

With mosques on many street corners, the shops have signs that you and I cannot read. You will be hard-pressed to find any economic activity. These are Muslim ghettos controlled by Muslims. These are Muslim neighborhoods, and they are mushrooming in every city across Europe. These are the building-blocks for territorial control of increasingly larger and larger portions of Europe, surreptitiously growing street by street, neighborhood by neighborhood, city by city.

There are now thousands of mosques throughout Europe. With larger congregations than there are in Christian churches. And in every European city there are plans to build super-mosques that will dwarf every church and every public building in the region. Clearly, the signal is: Islam rules.

Many European cities are already more than one-quarter Muslim: just take Amsterdam, Marseille and Malmo in Sweden. In most cities the majority of the under-18 population is Muslim. Paris is now surrounded by a ring of Muslim neighborhoods. Mohammed is the most popular name among boys.

In elementary schools in Amsterdam the word farm can no longer be mentioned, because that would also mean mentioning the pig, and that would be an insult to Muslims.

Many state schools in Belgium and Denmark serve only halal food (Sharia approved food) to all pupils. In once-tolerant Amsterdam gays are beaten up exclusively by Muslims. Non-Muslim women routinely hear 'whore, whore'. Satellite dishes are not pointed to local TV stations, but to stations in the ‘East’, the country of origin.

In France school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire and Diderot; the same is true the history of the Holocaust, it can no longer be taught because of Muslim sensitivity.

In England Sharia courts are now ‘officially’ part of the British legal system. Many neighborhoods in France and England are no-go areas for Infidels and women without head scarves. Last week a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims in Brussels, because he was drinking during the Ramadan.

’Jews’ are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for the worst wave of anti-Semitism since World War II. French is now commonly spoken on the streets of Tel Aviv and Netanya, Israel . I could go on forever with stories like this. Stories about the current Islamization of Europe.

A total of fifty-four million Muslims now live in Europe. San Diego University recently calculated that a staggering 25 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim in less than 12 years. Bernhard Lewis has predicted a Muslim majority before the end of this century.

Now, these are just numbers. And the numbers would not be threatening if the Muslim-immigrants had a strong desire to assimilate. But there are no signs of that. The Pew Research Center reported that the majority of French Muslims see their loyalty to Islam as greater than their loyalty to France. More than one-third of French Muslims do not object to suicide attacks. The British Centre for Social Cohesion reported that one-third of British Muslim students are in favor of a worldwide Caliphate. Muslims demand what they call 'respect'. And this is how we give them respect. We have Muslim official state holidays.

The Christian-Democratic attorney general is willing to accept Sharia in the Netherlands if there is a Muslim majority. We have cabinet members with passports from Morocco and Turkey.

Muslim demands are supported by unlawful behavior, ranging from petty crimes and random violence, for example against ambulance workers and bus drivers, to riots. Paris has seen its uprising in the low-income suburbs, the banlieus. I call the perpetrators 'settlers', because that is what they are. They do not come to integrate into our societies; they come to integrate our society into their Dar-al-Islam. Therefore, they are settlers.

Much of this street violence I mentioned is directed exclusively against non-Muslims, forcing many native people to leave their neighborhoods, their cities, and their countries. Moreover, Muslims are now a powerful swing vote not to be ignored.

The second thing you need to know is the importance of Mohammed the prophet. His behavior is an example to all Muslims and cannot be criticized. Now, if Mohammed had been a man of peace, let us say like Ghandi and Mother Theresa wrapped in one, there would be no problem. But Mohammed was a warlord, a mass murderer, a pedophile, and had several marriages - at the same time. Islamic tradition recorded in the hadith, tells us how he fought in battles, how he had his enemies murdered and had prisoners of war executed. Mohammed himself slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza. If it is good for Islam, it is good. If it is bad for Islam, it is bad.

Let no one fool you about Islam being a religion. It has an evil god, and a here-after of eternal death, and there will be no virgins. But in its essence Islam is also a political ideology, a theology, a system that lays down detailed rules for society and the life of every person. Islam wants to dictate every aspect of your life. Islam means 'submission'. Islam is not compatible with freedom or democracy, because what it strives for is the demands of Sharia. If you want to compare Islam to anything, compare it to Nazism, Communism, or National-Socialism, these are all totalitarian supremacist ideologies.

Now you know why Winston Churchill called Islam 'the most retrograde force in the world', and why he compared Mein Kampf to the Quran, they are cut from the same bolt of cloth. The public has wholeheartedly accepted the deception of the Palestinian narrative, and portrays Israel as the aggressor and the intruder. I have lived in this country and visited it dozens of times. I support Israel. First, because it is the Jewish homeland after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz, second because it is a democracy, and third because Israel is our first line of defense against this oppressive tyranny.

This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islam's territorial advance. Israel is facing the front lines of jihad, like Kashmir, Kosovo, the Philippines, Southern Thailand, and Darfur in Sudan, Lebanon, and Aceh in Indonesia. Israel is simply in the way. The same way West-Berlin was during the Cold War.

The war against Israel is not a war against Israel. It is a war against the West; it is a war against the world. It is jihad. Israel is simply receiving the blows that are meant for all of us. If there would have been no Israel, Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for global conquest. Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the army and lay awake at night, parents in Europe and America can at least temporarily sleep well and dream, unaware of the dangers looming just down the road.

Many in Europe argue in favor of abandoning Israel in order to address the grievances and appease the demands our Muslim minorities. But if Israel were, God forbid, to go down, it would not bring any solace to the West It would not mean our Muslim minorities would all of a sudden change their behavior, and accept our values. On the contrary, the end of Israel would give enormous encouragement to the forces of Islam. They would, and rightly so, see the demise of Israel as proof that the West is weak, and doomed. The end of Israel would not mean the end of our problems with Islam, but only the beginning. It would mean the start of the final battle for world domination. If they can get Israel, they can get everything.

So-called journalists volunteer to label any and all critics of Islamization as 'right-wing extremists' or 'racists'. In my country, the Netherlands, 60 percent of the population now sees the mass immigration of Muslims as the number one policy mistake since World War II. And another 60 percent sees Islam as the biggest threat. Yet there is a greater danger than terrorist attacks, the scenario of America as the last man standing. The lights may go out in Europe faster than you can imagine. An Islamic Europe means a Europe without freedom and democracy, an economic wasteland, an intellectual nightmare, and a loss of military might for America- as its allies will turn into enemies, enemies with atomic bombs. With an Islamic Europe, it would be up to America alone to preserve the heritage of Rome, Athens, and Jerusalem.

Dear friends, liberty is the most precious of gifts. My generation never had to fight for this freedom, it was offered to us on a silver platter, by people who fought for it with their lives. All throughout Europe, American cemeteries remind us of the young boys who never made it home, and whose memory we cherish. My generation does not own this freedom; we are merely its custodians. We can only hand over this hard won liberty to Europe’s children in the same state in which it was offered to us. We cannot strike a deal with mullahs and imams. Future generations would never forgive us. We cannot squander our liberties. We simply do not have the right to do so. We have to take the necessary action now to stop this Islamic supremacism from destroying the free world.

Geert Wilders

THE BOTTOM LINE: As the title suggests and as I said in the beginning, this ‘is’ the future of America and in less than a generation, the US will ask itself: Who lost Europe?' Then in another generation, the US will ask, how did we lose America? Moreover, the next 50 years this road to our demise will be a treacherous one. In Europe --- it ‘is’, and it will be, there is no going back or undoing it without a bloody war. But in America, we still have a chance to turn this inevitability around. That is… if in fact, we do… turn it around.

I have written many articles about Mr. Geert Wilders. He has been outspoken enough to be prosecuted for speaking the truth, he has even spent time in jail for exposing the agenda of Islam in Europe.

Question: Why do you think Muslims leave their own countries and migrate to the west? Well… I can assure you, it isn’t for the cheese.

The world your children will inherit will be a vastly different one than the one you inherited. Watch a video of the changing demographics of the world, and then please take the time to send the link to every free person that you know; it is so very important. The lives of your children and your children’s children depend on it.

de Andréa