Libyan ship heading for Gaza sponsored (in part) by... Barack Obama?

lol, what a joke! There is no Islamic "Empire."

What there is is a plethora of Islamic termite mounds, as 1400 years of polygamy, child brides' and oppression of Muslim girls/women have resulted in Muslims out-breeding the civilized peoples' of the world.

"Empire" - Ha-Ha! You need to see a shrink for those delusions of grandeur!

Oh, and Gazans - go back to where you belong, Jordan and Syria. Here's some photos of the "starving" Fakestinians:

http://www.paltoday.ps/arabic/News-64161.html

No clothes, shoes, or toys, either.

Break that Blockade.

But what if the blockade blocks the unblockers?

I suppose the unblockers could send more ships to be blocked...After all, it looks like Rasool Obama is financing this right along with his second adopted father...Big Daddy Gadd...so there's plenty of money. Not Rasool's personal money of course, it's US taxpayers money...This is the result of a huge mistake that happened decades ago when the US public agreed to let the government have access to its money...but that's another story...
In the meantime the never ending saga of Rasool Obama continues...The man without a past rushes into the future...not really watching where he is going, with impaired hazard awareness...Glancing this way and that way (shifty eyed)...uttering fine sounding phrases...and about to step off a cliff...I mentioned him before...Percival, the Pure Fool...If you want to know what he looks like, his picture is on the card of that name in the 'Rider Tarot Deck'...

No, he's not clueless. He's evil.

Philistines upon you, America!

Philistines upon you, America!

Yeah, those Philistines are pretty tough, but fortunately America has quite a few Samsons just off stage...In the old days it took only one Samson to push the pillars and bring the temple down on the evil doers head...But in modern days it will take more than one Samson to do it...While not an American, Geert Wilders is Samson, so Is Spencer, Geller, Kumar, Sultan, Sina...Lots and lots of Samsons, National and international...All ready to topple Allah's ziggurat...Allah will try to confound their language as he did previously, so that they will not understand each other...Allah is behind times, confounding the language won't work because we now have spell checkers...Well some of us do anyway....

Hugh,
Your point about the New York Times is spot on, however, the New York Times is not the only mainstream media outlet with this issue. It seems all of them, even the beloved Fox news at times, suffer from 'islam is good derangement syndrome'.

It appears that almost all mainstream media outlets are guilty of either the omission of facts, or completely ignoring issues regarding islamic goals of supremacy and jihad against, well, pretty much everyone.

On the surface, the blind eye of the mainstream media makes no sense when one looks at what the they claim to be most concerned about. Freedom and equality for all is the mantra of the day within the press, yet most reporters don't seem to realize who the real enemies of freedom are.

It is mind boggling that liberal reporters actually view islam with anything but contempt. The liberal press, champions of the homosexual community, would be crucified for their view points in any of the islamic hell holes. The liberal press, champions of trans-gender and trans-sexual people, would be crucified for their view points if they were expressed within any of the crapistans. The liberal press, champions of women's rights would never get away with their beliefs in the middle east. With women viewed as baby factories it makes one wonder how far their views on abortion would get them in any of the 57 United States (that's sarcasm folks).

The question then becomes "why would the liberal press climb into bed with islam?".

I think I know some of the reasons to the above question and it is a multi-faceted answer.

First, the liberal press hates capitalism above all else. What are the greatest symbols of capitalism today? banks. Who runs the banks? Jews. Who is at war with the Jews? muslims. Therefore via the enemy of my enemy is my friend mantra, muslims are good.

The idiotic liberal press has bought into the notion of the so called palestinians are an oppressed people facade. History means nothing and is irrelevant. The fact that Israel is a capitalistic nation is enough for the liberals in the press to bite hook line and sinker the notion that the arabs in Gaza are oppressed. Capitalism is bad, anything battling capitalism is oppressed and is therefore good.

Another prime factor in the press's mental masturbation of islam is plain old fear. What reporter in their right mind would want to end up like Theo Van Gogh or Kurt Westergaard?

The liberals have thrown their poster children under the bus, yet those people are to ideologically blind to see it. In reality it seems to me the best friend of many of the lefts special interests groups is the Libertarian party but the liberal press and the democrats have been very good at buffaloing them into thinking they are their supporters when the reality is they just want their vote.

In my book they are not mutually exclusive. One can have an evil ideology and be clueless as to what a lead zeppelin it will fly like!!

That's a great analogy! It really is. It's so simple and logical you may rest assured you will NEVER see it used in the lame stream media!! Certainly not in any Absolutely Pathetic story.........er, I mean AP story.

God Bless America and Israel

Yes, AI, even Fox News doesn't get it. I remember a couple of months ago when both Charles Krauthammer and Bill Kristol on Fox denounced Geert Wilders as a bigot. Krauthammer went on to make that phantom distinction between Islam and Islamism. Now, what's so disturbing here is that these weren't New York Times editorial types opining, but rather ordinarily very sensible and informed conservatives. Long way to go. This makes me understand all the more how Churchill must have felt in the 1930s when he was in the political wilderness and almost no one was listening to him about the impending storm, including folks who should have known better----just like today. Yep, long way to go.

Wellington,
Good to see you comment on my post. You are a very well informed and thinking person and I appreciate your reply. I have an answer for the Kristols and Krauthammers of the world and the answers are simple.

The conservatives who continue to bury their head in the sand in regard to islam have a few issues at the minimum that I will address.

1. To speak the truth would mean heaps of ridicule from their colleagues. At this moment they're simply conservatives, a lower form of human life in the eyes of liberals to be sure, but journalists none the less. If the Kristols and Krauthammers of the world were to speak the truth they would instantly be branded racists and worst. Their credibility would be forever tarnished in the eyes of those less informed than we are, and in essence they could probably kiss their careers goodbye. As it stands now they fly under the radar of the hard core leftists and the likes of dis-honest ibe and cair.

2. They really aren't as well informed as they should be in subjects and topics like islamic and Israeli/palestinian history.

3. Like many people who are not liberals there is a certain fear factor involved. A person notices a lump somewhere and they avoid going to the doctor in hopes the problem will disappear, and fear of what the doctor is going to tell them. In their mind they know there is something else going on but they cannot accept it. Bury your head in the sand and hope for the best is not a strategy for life, but many do. The same goes for islam. The thought that there are 1+ billion muslims supremacist is much harder to accept than 10 million or so.

There are many topics which I can agree with Kristol and Krauthammer. I think unlike the liberal pundits they are still patriotic and believe in what America has always stood for. This obama to libya charity treason should be on Kristols and Krauthammers radar none the less, regardless of their failure to see islam for what it is.

As far as the anointed one goes I don't believe this is a jizya payment, this is definitely zakat.

Annemarie,
I believe all is being done that can be done really. Taking part in the political process is huge. it is my opinion things will never really change until islam really over steps its bounds. Yes I would say that 9/11 was n over step, and it has awakened many people. I believe 9/11 was small potatoes compared to whats coming and when it does there will be a much larger awakening. Unfortunately it will take a large attack to awake most of the masses.

Whats really sad is there will still be many people who will blame America and the west. Make no mistake about it, the blame America first crowd are just as much the enemy as islam is.

Kristol and, to a lesser extent, Krauthammer make part of their living courtesy of Rupert Murdoch. I expect more of Krauthammer but Kristol always seems to have a boilerplate argument.
In any case, wasn't it Bush who made overtures to Gaddhafi? Why was it okay for Bush but not for Obama? Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
I'm not saying I approve of what Obama is doing but Buah opened the door.

I agree with all three of your points, AI, though I think a day of reckoning is not far off when good people who ordinarily can be counted on will have to just realize, and state that they realize, that Islam is a Total Belief System as Hugh has described it and that there is only one Islam and that all that varies is the "enthusiasm" which Muslims possess to fullfil Islamic dictates that are deeply inimical to true freedom, real tolerance and equality under the law. I also dream of the day when a tough and enlightened President will give a new Evil Empire speech with Islam the subject of derision. Ah, won't the Lefties go nuts then, never mind the Mohammedans? Of course, that day may never come but it should.

As for your last statement about zakat instead of jizya, I'm not sure, though you could be right. I sometimes catch myself wondering if the key to understanding Obama is that it's not that he's this or that but that there just isn't much there there in the first place, kind of like the Rex character in Evelyn Waugh's Brideshead Revisited, who was clever in tactical political and related ways but who had a great emptiness inside him, almost as though part of his humanity had never formed at all.

I agree with Annemarie that the message must be got out to the people. Not only to Americans but the entire west. We are sleeping while the trojan horses infiltrate.

The message must be simple, it must be convincing, it must not be abrasive. A long complicated message will be lost. It needs a slogan, like Yes We Can and something that appeals to the heart of most people. Something to do with your personal freedoms and how they are in threat.

Perhaps we need to recruit Obama's campaign manager? or someone having those skills.

We also need alliances. We need not to be fighting with each other and be abusive in our message, that will be rejected.

Ex-muslims are among the most potent of our allies. People like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Maryam Namazie. Her organisation has a wonderful report on Sharia law in Britain. www.onelawforall.org.uk

I do agree with AmericanInfidel that 9/11 will be small potatoes compared to whats coming. But these guys are wiser now, they will not attack prematurely. I read the talk one of them gave about being careful not to do that.

I do agree even after that attack some (maybe many) people will justify it (Its not Islams fault - poor old Islam has been misrepresented).

Thus we have to warn people now. And we need a professional campaign manager.

Wellington I agree there will come a day that the west will speak the truth about islam, that we will have a President in America with the intestinal fortitude to call a spade a spade. What worries me is what will be the cause of the awakening and the eventual election of said president.

PMK,
I think its wrong to excuse anyone for an action because another performed an action prior to the formers action (damn that made my eyes cross). Bush was, as someone elsewhere said,liberal lite. I had high hopes for GWB but was let down every step of the way. Bush was just as guilty, in regard to islam, as anyone else. I think a lot of his judgment was clouded by ignorance of history, even more so by money and his business dealings with the saudis.

A little OT re this particular story. One way all JW readers can take part in this battle is to become keyboard warriors themselves. This will require occasionally venturing out from behind the safe and comfortable walls of Castle JW and directly assaulting the enemy in their online strongholds. There are any number of online sites where the Leftist PCMC anti-Judeochristian pro-Palestinian agenda is being pushed. If you want your voice to be heard, jump into the comment stream following these articles using factual and non-emotional argumentation as Annemarie discusses. You'll need to wear a flame suit, but just think of this as official battle dress.

I regularly comment on stories touching on Islam over at the Huffington Post, where the number of reader comments garnered by a story typically exceeds those about the same story posted on JW by at least a factor of ten. There are a few actual Muslims who weigh in, but the comments are mostly of a juvenile tu-quoque sort that strongly pushes the moral equivalence argument that Christianity and Judaism are just as bad as Islam (or even worse, as on Hesperado's PCMC scale). Most of the commenters are abysmally ignorant about Islam, its history, history in general, in fact. They are quite keen to find reasons to excuse outrageous Muslim actions on the grounds that it's not the religion that's the problem, it's tribal customs and other familiar Leftist canards. (Besides, what about Timothy McVeigh! argghhh.)

There is a small cadre of knowledgeable commenters on HuffPo who regularly take on the authors of stories such as the recent one describing how wonderful the 9/11 mosque in NYC will be, and who then follow up by countering the flurry of attacks from readers who take offense at the criticism. A recent example was the silly story on HuggPo about how friendly the Founding Fathers, especially Jefferson, Adams and Franklin, were to Islam. A number of commenters who were familiar with both history and Islam went to work to expose readers to the real story behind why Jefferson had a Qur'an, and what his war with the Barbary Pirates was about. This was the U.S.'s first war with Islam.

Agree with you about Brigitte Gabriel's ACT! for America.

Also, people should seriously consider making monetary contributions to our front line fighters, such as Robert Spencer (JihadWatch), Brigitte Gabriel (ACT), Pamela Geller (Atlas Shrugs), David Horowitz (Freedom Foundation), and others.

It could probably be legally maintained, Eastview, that this charity is not religiously based (de facto of course it is but de jure most likely not and that would be the out). But I too would be interested in what Cornelius and others think of this.

One other thing we can do is tell people we personally know. make sure family and friends are well informed. arm yourself to the teeth with facts and use those facts to bring attention to what the hell is going on in the world today.

I have converted a few PC/MC believers over to a more sane thought process by systematically destroying the notions they had about PC/MC society. I was nice and would strike up general conversations about recent events. I would get their opinions and then implant questions into their minds. You never go on attack in a personal way, make the discussion non personal. Do not attack their belief system or they will dig in their heals and fight you every step of the way, to admit they were wrong will make them feel foolish. Let them come to the right conclusions themselves. Minds don't change over night. It takes time and patience to dispel the PC/MC poison from ones mind.

No offense Kim but I think your criticism is a little over the top. Actually Annemarie makes a valid point. Seems to me she wants to be a part of the solution not a part of the problem. To attack a potential ally because you found one sentence in a post offensive isn't very good idea. Maybe what he said struck a little to close to home.

Feel free to attack me now if you wish it won't bother me at all, I am used to it :)

Kim just have a look at my next comment on Annemarie's comment. I agree with what she says.

We need to get our message across to the wider public. We need need to stop fighting with allies. We need to get our message accepted.

The message is very dramatic and is about a very real danger that we all face to our freedoms. No doubt you feel strongly about it, but if our message is clothed in "extremist" language then it will not be accepted by the moderate, and often uncaring, majority.

I stressed that we need to keep our message simple, get people interested and we need a professional campaign manager, someone like Obama's very effective election manager.

Of course I knew I'd get a reply like yours. Yet, here's an example of Indian Tiger's comments on the "ideological war" thread:

"All of the non-muslim world has man made laws and has soundly rejected your crappy allah and mo. So, why are these green slimy morons in infidel lands? Why don't you morons rot in your sharia shitlands like porkistan, shitty arabia, or iraq? What's the need to be in our lands and spread your filth?"

Guess that's a "little too close to home," eh? No offense.

Bravo Indian Tiger. You are right.

I'm not here to argue with you Kim. I will guarantee you no one here has stronger feelings about islam than I do. I realize this stuff with Islam is angering. I also realize a lot of whats written is written in anger. To be honest I had another account and was permanently banned from this forum with that account. After consideration I realized my way was the wrong way.

I promise you this: with every person you convince with vitriol, I will convince 10 doing things my way. So tell me, is the plan to just say mean things so you feel better, or is the plan to do whats necessary long term to win in the arena of ideas? My opinion is the latter, yours is the former, and that is your right.

Notice while I may or may not agree with the wording of the post you quoted, I did not go out of my way to be critical of someone who is an ally, which was my point to begin with and you obviously totally missed it.

Of course we shouldn't be critical of our allies. Such as Indian Tiger. You can describe his comment as "vitriol," I describe it as "fighting back against the enemy."

I love Indian Tiger's posts - he doesn't mince words! Oh, and Eleanor, too - she's a fiery tiger!

Notice "annemarie" hasn't returned. I guess he/she just flew in, dropped a little bomb, and then flew out.

Personal attacks against Islam/Koran/Muhammed/Muslims? Yes, yes, yes, yes. That's called "fighting back."

Indian Tiger again:

"All of the non-muslim world has man-made laws and has soundly rejected your crappy allah and mo. So, why are these green slimy morons in infidel lands? Why don't you morons rot in your sharia shitlands like porkistan, shitty arabia, or iraq? What's the need to be in our lands and spread your filth?"

Exactly.

Wellington

you wrote, re. President Obama, that "I sometimes catch myself wondering if the key to understanding Obama is that it's not that he's this or that but that there just isn't much there there in the first place, kind of like the Rex character in Evelyn Waugh's Brideshead Revisited, who was clever in tactical political and related ways but who had a great emptiness inside him, almost as though part of his humanity had never formed at all."

You might be onto something.

Your words reminded me of a poster here some time ago - I think it was before Obama was elected - who used an eerie Native American/ First Nations term to describe him. She (I think it was a she) - might have been Ice Star, or Solstice Witch, or someone else entirely - called Obama "a skin-walker".

You have hit several nails squarely on their heads.

If someone in the real-world media speaks out against islam and doesn't qualify their comments with "radical," "fringe" or "hijacked," he/she will be immediately jumped upon before he/she can finish expressing their thoughts.

This country was founded on Christian beliefs, not one, but many different denominations. The Christian way, and the Constitutional way is to allow freedom of thought, belief and religion. The formers never imagined what is happening today.

If a mosque is found to have weapons cached inside, the government will do something about that site, but not act against the "religion" as a whole.

For all of these reasons, and more, those reporters and commentators as appear on and/or work for FOX would be drummed out of the news business if they even suggested what is discussed here.

Before the last presidential election, I and a few others voiced concerns about what would happen if this man won. We were writing on a "community" website. All who voiced concerns of any kind were immediately attacked and called racist. When things we foretold began to be reality, again we were attacked if we pointed to these things.

There were some in the days before WWII who were alarmed about what was happening, but they were attacked by those who wished to see things differently. If those men mentioned above were to say anything remotely close to what we are saying and of what this site warns, they would be out of their jobs as men "out of their minds" and "full of racial prejudice." Even though it has nothing to do with "race," and everything to do with truth, justice and freedom.

Hadn't seen this info about Chavez and the Gaza flotilla before, thanks for pointing it out. Would you have a link with more details? Thanks.

Yes, Rich (and others), this is exactly my point. From my own personal experience in discussing ANY issue, whenever you bring attacks into an argument, you've lost your listener. Isn't the goal to gain more listeners? To gain more allies? NOT to speak with political correctness, but speak the truth with respect and charity? Never backing down, but sticking your ground focusing on the facts. This is my impression of Mr. Spencer, which is why I read this blog. And this is why I originally left a comment; in hopes that Mr. Spencer can give me some help in spreading the truth about Islam. Of course, I intend to read his newest book...but maybe there's a PDF download of major talking points? Mr. Spencer?

Good point about financially backing Spencer, etc. And I'll check out Act for America.

"Let them come to the right conclusions themselves."

You are so right. It's definitely in my own circle that I'm most often going to have the opportunity to discuss this. And you have a good point, that I need to frame it so that they can see their errors themselves; check-mate.

Hi Eastview!

I started seeing all of this not too long after Hugo Chavez said that he'd PERSONALLY be on board one of the Gaza "humanitarian" flotilla ships that would run the Israeli blockade. I'll keep looking for more Venezuelan Marine deployment info.

Hugo Chavez is an arrogant, pompous windbag, but I would put anything past him!

TYPO:
I WOULDN'T put amnything past him (Hugo Chavez)!!!