Thursday, October 25, 2012

The Christian Exodus From Egypt For Copts, a persecuting dictator was preferable to the Islamist mob. By SAMUEL TADROS

Visit any Coptic church in the United States and you immediately recognize the newcomers. You see it in their eyes, hear it in their broken English, sense it in how they cling to the church in search of the familiar. They have come here escaping a place they used to call home, where their ancestors had lived for centuries. Waves of Copts have come here from Egypt before, to escape Gamal Abdel Nasser's nationalizations or the growing Islamist tide. Their country's transformation wasn't sudden, but every year brought more public Islamization. As the veil spread, Coptic women felt increasingly different, alien and marked. Verbal abuse came from schoolteachers, bystanders in the bus station who noticed the cross on a wrist, or commentators on state television. But life was generally bearable. Hosni Mubarak crushed the Islamist insurgency of the 1980s and '90s. He was no friend to the Copts, but neither was he foe. His police often turned a blind eye when Coptic homes and shops were attacked by mobs, and the courts never punished the perpetrators—but the president wasn't an Islamist. He even interfered sometimes to give permission to build a church, or to make Christmas a national holiday. To be sure, Copts were excluded from high government positions. There were no Coptic governors, intelligence officers, deans of schools, or CEOs of government companies. Until 2005, Copts needed presidential approval to build a new church or even build a bathroom in an existing one. Even with approval, state security often blocked construction, citing security concerns. Those concerns were often real. Mobs could mobilize against Copts with the slightest incitement—rumor of a romantic relationship between a Christian man and a Muslim woman, a church being built, reports of a Christian having insulted Islam. The details varied but the results didn't: homes burned, shops destroyed, Christians leaving villages, sometimes dead bodies. The police would arrive late and force a reconciliation session between perpetrators and victims during which everything would be forgiven and no one punished. What pained the Copts most was that the attackers were neighbors, co-workers and childhood friends. Then came last year's revolution. Copts were never enthusiastic about it, perhaps because centuries of persecution taught that the persecuting dictator was preferable to the mob. He could be bought off, persuaded to hold back or pressured by outside forces. With the mob you stood no chance. Some younger Copts were lured by the promise of a liberal Egypt, but the older generation knew better. The collapse of the police liberated the Islamists, who quickly dominated national politics but were even more powerful in the streets and villages. This is where the "Islamization of life" (as Muslim Brotherhood leader Khairat Al Shater called for) was becoming a reality. The Muslim Brotherhood aimed to assuage Coptic fears while speaking in English to American audiences. The reality was different. When Coptic homes and shops were looted in a village near Alexandria in January, Brotherhood parliamentarians and Salafis organized a reconciliation session that didn't punish the attackers but ordered the Copts to evacuate the village. Soon after, the Brotherhood's Sayed Askar denied that Copts face any problems in building churches, saying they have more churches than they need. Elections featured accusations that Copts backed the old regime. When attempts to build a non-Islamist coalition were led by businessman Naguib Sawiris, a Copt, the Brotherhood's website accused him and his co-religionists of treason. Westerners may debate how moderate Egypt's Islamists are, but for Copts the questioning is futile. Their options are limited. While Copts are the largest Christian community in the Middle East, they're too small to play a role in deciding the fate of the country. They are not geographically concentrated in one area that could become a safe zone. The only option is to leave, putting an end to 2,000 years of Christianity in Egypt. The sad truth is that not all will be able to flee. Those with money, English skills and the like will get out. Their poorer brethren will be left behind. What can be done to save them? Egypt receives $1.5 billion in U.S. aid each year, and Washington has various means to make Egypt's new leaders listen. Islamist attempts to enshrine second-class status for Copts in Egypt's new constitution should be stopped. Outsiders should also keep an eye on Muslim Brotherhood politicians who are planning to take control of Coptic Church finances. At a minimum, donors should demand that attacks on Copts be met with punishment as well as condemnation. Yet looking at the faces of the new immigrants in my Fairfax, Va., church, I cannot escape the feeling that it is too late. Perhaps the fate of the Copts was sealed long ago, in the middle of the last century, when the Jews were kicked out of Egypt. In the late 1940s, Brotherhood demonstrators chanted, in reference to the sabbath days of Jews and others: "Today is Saturday, tomorrow will be Sunday, oh Christians." And so it is. Mr. Tadros is a research fellow at the Hudson Institute's Center for Religious Freedom. He is currently writing a book about the Copts for the Hoover Institution. A version of this article appeared October 12, 2012, on page A11 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The Christian Exodus From Egypt.


E-mails prove Obama lied about "Innocence of Muslims" anti-Mohammed film provoking Benghazi attack

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show. The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks. The brief emails also show how U.S. diplomats described the attack, even as it was still under way, to Washington. U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the Benghazi assault, which President Barack Obama and other U.S. officials ultimately acknowledged was a "terrorist" attack carried out by militants with suspected links to al Qaeda affiliates or sympathizers. Administration spokesmen, including White House spokesman Jay Carney, citing an unclassified assessment prepared by the CIA, maintained for days that the attacks likely were a spontaneous protest against an anti-Muslim film.

Former General Petreus is now the head of the CIA. He is a terrorist appeaser. It is possible that he and Obama met and concocted this scheme to deflect the blame for the attack away from Islamic extremists and onto Middle Eastern Christians. As is discussed below, Hillary Clinton may have also been on it. She has literally sponsored a UN prospective law making questioning Islam an international crime. The goal is to create international laws that criminalize questioning Islam and shield Islam from honest debate and inquiry. It seems that Muslims know that Islam cannot survive critical examination. In my view-truth can stand on its own and will ultimately prevail. Americans have a habit-going back to George Washington, of hero-worshiping the general in command when our soldiers win a victory. The reason we won in Iraq was not due to Petreus's "counter-insurgency" plan-it was for two reasons-a. the Iraqis turned against the insurgeants because of their excessive brutality and their killing about 30,000 Iraqis, led the Iraqis to cooperate with America to defeat the insurgents and b. the surge. I was outraged when I read in Petreus's "Counter-Insurgency Manuel" recommended against using Assyrian Christians as interpreters since Muslims feel more comfortable with fellow Muslims as interpreters. Having been in Iraq-and have personally worked with them-I can say that our Assyrian translators were the best-and they were also more loyal. Many Muslim interpreters have had terrorist sympathies and have been security threats. The Counter-insurgency strategy is the terrorist appeasement strategy.

This is a great Bible study resource. It contains many resources including the Syriac-Aramaic Peshitta and the transliteration of the Aramaic portions of the Old Testament (as well as a transliteration of all the Hebrew and Greek in the Bible as well). Also, this on-line resource contains many translations-including translations from the Aramaic versions of the Bible.


Obama's terror policy is real problem

By K. T. McFarland

One of the most telling questions of the second town hall presidential debate was on Libya. An audience member said he and his buddies had gotten together and wanted to know, "Who was it who denied enhanced security in Libya, and why?" The president dodged the question with lots of references about how no one wants the answer to that question, or cares more than he does, but in the end he didn't answer the question. Now you have to ask WHY?
Okay, it's a cover up. But thanks to Secretary of State Clinton's willingness to take the blame, it's a coverup that's succeeded….so far. And for the Obama administration, that's good enough, as long as the "so far" extends to Election Day. The mainstream media, like an overindulgent parent, believes the Obama administration's excuses, and most people don't care what happens half a world away when they don't have jobs at home. Plus, as Secretary Clinton says, there is such a "fog of war" that we're not sure what happened, never mind that the fog was deliberately created by the Obama administration's own fog machine. Looks like the Obama administration has gotten away with it. But the real problem isn't the intelligence failures, or security lapses or even the cover up. It's the policy. Al Qaeda is NOT "on its heels," as President Obama claimed at the Democratic Convention just five days before the Benghazi attack. Al Qaeda is larger and stronger than ever, and has moved into whole new regions in North Africa and the Middle East. The Benghazi attack was only the beginning. Al Qaeda's trademark is to have an escalating series of attacks until they are stopped in their tracks. They watch to see our reaction after each attack and, if we fail to retaliate, they do something even bolder the next time. The Benghazi attack on September 11 was preceded by car bombs and assaults against British and American facilities in Benghazi throughout the summer. The September 11, 2001 attack on the Twin Towers in New York City was preceded by attacks on the USS Cole in Yemen, and US embassies in Africa the year before, and failed attack on the Twin Towers a decade before. Compare that to Ronald Reagan's reaction when Col. Qaddafi bombed a Berlin nightclub frequented by American servicemen in 1986. American soldiers were died and injured as a result. Reagan's reaction? He bombed Qaddafi's compound a week later. Qaddafi escaped injury, but he got the point. Don't mess with America. If you're Al Qaeda how are you looking at the Benghazi attack? From your point of view it was an unqualified success – the Americans are now fighting amongst themselves, they've set up a commission to study what happened, and while they're rattling a few sabers, they have yet to retaliate. If you're Al Qaeda you keep going. And what could be bigger and better than a dead American ambassador? Read more:

The Debate by Judith Miller (excerpt) Here are the facts. After the four Americans were killed in twin attacks four hours apart in Benghazi on Sept. 11, a grim anniversary on which American officials abroad should have been ordered to exercise vigilance and bolster security, Obama made a statement for the press and took no questions. Speaking of the attacks and the murders, he said that "we reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts." That sounds as if he, too, was blaming their killings on the anti-Muslim videotape that had ignited violent protests in neighboring Egypt. Then he went on to praise the Libyans for helping save others under attack and lauded the victim, U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. Three paragraphs later, he said he had been to a memorial to commemorate 9/11 and paid tribute to those who had died in Iraq and Afghanistan. And a paragraph later, he added: "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done." Was Obama's use of the term "acts of terror" referring to 9/11 and the other militant Islamic attacks that have plagued America for so long? Or was he referring to the murders in Benghazi as "acts of terror?" Fair-minded readers may disagree. Even CNN's own John King said that Obama's statement struck him as a "generic" comment about terror, and not specifically a decision to label the Libya attack a terrorist act. But Crowley, who covers politics, incidentally, not foreign policy or national security, had no doubt. The nanny moderator was sure that the president had called the Benghazi murders "acts of terror" -- journalism's equivalent of a replacement referee's worst call. Did Crowley understand that her intervention 70 minutes into a 100 minute debate was not only possibly inaccurate but also partisan in that it helped Obama? In a breathless interview with CNN about what can most charitably be called her gaffe, she claimed to have been even-handed, though she tried walking back her intervention by saying, after the damage was done, that Romney had been right "in the main." But, she added, she had not only told Romney that he was wrong about "act of terror," she then told him that he was right in having claimed that "it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out." In other words, it took the president 14 days to say that Benghazi was, well, an act of terror and not the result of a spontaneous riot over a videotape. At this point the audience might understandably have been thoroughly confused. But the president's supporters got the message: they clapped and cheered after Obama asked her to "say that a little louder." As a result, rather than hone in on the Obama administration's intelligence and/or policy failures in Libya and the Middle East, Romney looked rattled. He seemed halting and uncertain throughout the rest of the debate. He did not even ask the most obvious question: If Obama thought that the attack in Libya was an act of terror, why did he permit his U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to say on multiple Sunday talk shows four days later and his press spokesman to say on numerous occasions that the video, not terrorism, was to blame? The instant polls reflected the results of Crowley's intervention: 37 percent of those polled by CBS said Obama had won; 30 percent called the debate for Romney, and 33 percent felt it had ended in a tie. Most of the media have praised Crowley's performance. But her bias was patently obvious to conservatives. William Bigelow, writing for Breitbart.TV, noted that she had interrupted Obama 9 times. She interrupted Romney 28 times. Read more:

Why Team Obama used 'blame- the-video' tactic after Libya attack by Bill Siegel, foxnews, 21 October 2012

Perhaps the most under-examined aspect of the blame-the-video story spun by President Obama's administration following the Benghazi terror attacks is how easy the White House presumed it would be to sell. An acquiescent mainstream media has for years encouraged an arrogant administration to expect its full support, even it has been forced to acknowledge that the administration has erred, if not lied when it comes to the deadly attack in Libya. It is equally critical, however, that we the people begin to understand our contribution to this tragedy and how suggestible and easily exploitable we are. It is clear that the White House did not want to tell us the truth about the Benghazi assassinations -- that Al Qaeda is far from dead or "mission accomplished," that there were no protests before the attack, and that the State Department and intelligence agencies had quickly concluded it was a highly coordinated terrorist attack. Is the administration so incompetent that any peek inside would spell immediate disaster for Obama's reelection campaign? Could some analysts' suspicions that Ambassador Christopher Stevens had been assigned with originally arming the Libyan rebels and was on a doomed mission to retrieve such weapons be the underlying revelation that must be covered up at all costs -- "Fast and Furious" Libyan Style? These issues will hopefully soon be investigated. But of all the substitute explanations available, why the one which cites a barely viewed video? Certainly there are political objectives underlying the choice. The Muslim Brotherhood has allies situated into virtually all US government functions that involve Islam and the Islamic world, from Muslim "outreach" to law enforcement to policy development. I believe that much of Obama's domestic and Middle East policy can be characterized as aligned with the Brotherhood and its now institutionalized objectives. It should come as no surprise, then, that the Blame-the-Video tactic would be fully Brotherhood compliant. The Brotherhood, along with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (the largest Islamic body in the world), has for years sought to bring about a change in US free speech laws so as to criminalize speech that is blasphemous or otherwise critical of Islam or the Prophet Muhammad. Part of the strategy involves demonstrating that such speech is uniquely inciting to Muslims and certain to result in violence: the narrative of the "Fragile Muslim" requiring special treatment for Muslims and Islam. Incremental acceptance of the notion that insults to Islam "cause" violence will "evolve" into banning such speech on the theory that violence becomes, a priori, "imminent." Furthermore, UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18 sets out to enforce a ban on such speech by treaty rather than through our traditional domestic legislative process. That Hillary Clinton co-sponsored this resolution speaks volumes as to where the Obama administration sits. Nonetheless, the blame-the-video tactic would not exist without our willing collusion. It is natural, of course, for us to try to minimize escalation following an unprovoked violent attack. Yet more insidious, there is the tendency of much of the modern Western mindset to accept responsibility for the hatred and anger practiced throughout much of the Islamic world. Whether illegally occupying Muslim lands, supporting un-Islamic leaders in Muslim territories, violating Shariah laws in our own land, or insulting the Prophet in cartoons, films, and novels, the critical maneuver is to place the West as the "cause" of Muslim behavior. At core, there is a profound relationship between the West and the Islamic world that, albeit oversimplified, resembles that between an addict and its enablers. For the addict, the goal is to continue unacceptable behavior without end or restriction and much of his world view is centered upon victimhood; others cause him to be outraged and consequently violent. The addict will rant and rave for so long as he is allowed to get away with it rather than take responsibility for and change his behavior. The corollary to the addict's anger is the enabler's extreme fear -- fear of what the enraged addict might do if left unaddressed. With respect to our modern Islamic enemy, the threat posed is so terrifying that the Western mind does all it can to change its perceptions so as to blind itself to the true reality it faces. The most ubiquitous enabler technique to keep stability is to accept the narrative that he is responsible for the addict's behavior. The dirty secret is that if one is the cause, he can find a way to change the outcome. The dirty reality, however, is that the only way to change this threat is to eliminate it in total; something that even today remains politically unacceptable to much of the West. Obama must be fully familiar with this relationship as those he surrounds himself with are fully identified with it. The overwhelming tendency for the American mind to accept itself as cause for Islamic rage and violence is easily exploited. When the White House needed a true channel changer, it went right to what it knew best. Hopefully, the American mind is beginning to tire of the enabler role and is beginning to seek more accurate perceptions of what is truly going on.

Bill Siegel is the author of "The Control Factor -- Our Struggle to See the True Threat" published by Hamilton Books.

Willful blindness, today's refusal to come to grips with the Islamist threat to the West, is America's most profound national security vulnerability. Supremacist Islam's campaign has targeted the United States by violent jihad, a softer and more insidious march through our institutions, and lawfare salvos fired in American courts and international tribunals. Desperate to avoid offense to Islamist activists and their allies, we surrender to the politically correct narrative that the vital measures taken in our own defense are the cause of our peril. The Control Factor powerfully unfolds this process of self-delusion and the struggle to remove the scales we've placed over our eyes. Survival of the West's freedom culture — our commitment to critical inquiry based ordered liberty and human reason — hangs in the balance. America needs an "inner jihad," Siegel proposes, that permits us to come to terms with the three levels of jihad against us: Violent Jihad, Civilization Jihad and International Institutional Jihad. Think Al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Organization of Islamic Conference, respectively.The first part of the "inner jihad" is to admit that "we do not yet know how to fight this war within the context of our own values, morals and laws." This is the toughest step to take because it leads to more insecurity and therefore enhances the attractiveness of ideas that reassure us that we're in control. This step requires an admission of the disadvantages that the West has in this conflict.Americans need to learn about the enemy. Ignorance contributes to insecurity. The ability to cope with the reality increases as we feel less ignorant. As America becomes more educated on the topic, the better it can handle the Control Factor that leads to the misunderstandings and denials. Once the enemy is understood, the burden of responsibility must be placed on the aggressor, not the victim. Siegel suggests that "mirroring" should be used as part of this struggle. This entails responding to the enemy's behavior in somewhat similar fashion. Basically, Siegel is proposing a tit-for-tat strategy. If Iran and Pakistan support the Taliban, we should support their own internal enemies. If they cross Afghanistan's borders to kill U.S. soldiers, we should cross Afghanistan's borders to destroy their terrorist training camps and bomb factories. He also offers a good example over rhetoric. The Islamists lash out over cartoons depicting Mohammed and criticisms of their beliefs while assembling "Death to America" rallies and publishing anti-American cartoons. Our reaction is to ignore the rallies and vocally share the outrage over the Mohammed cartoons and desecration of Korans. Read more:

Charles Krauthammer: Obama contradicting himself.

After lying to the American people in the townhall style debate, Obama approached the questioner and told him why he lied about the nature of the terrorist attack. He told Romney that he called it a "terrorist attack" and then went over to the questioner quietly after the debate and admitted he didn't. After the debate, Candy Crowley also admitted that she was wrong about Obama describing the incident as a terrorist attack.

Obama says that the Fort Hood Terrorist attack was "workplace violence" and not terrorism. At first I thought that was another example of political correctness run amuck-but that designation is being used to hurt the soldiers-to deny them benefits and honor that is due them. Unlike Joe Biden, I believe that this is no laughing matter. As long as Obama is in office-Major Hassan will not see his day in court. I firmly believe that Obama is protected Major Hassan. Please watch this video and take action.

On November 5, 2009, after consultation with, and inspired by, al Qaeda terrorist leader Anwar al-Awlaki, Army Major Nidal Hasan attacked soldiers and civilians at Fort Hood, Texas. Hasan's attack, the most lethal terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11, left 14 Americans dead, more than 30 wounded by gunshots, and many more injured.
The U.S. government knew Hasan was a serious security risk who sought religious sanction from Awlaki for suicide attacks that killed innocents, yet the government was concerned more with protecting Hasan's career than with protecting the men and women who served with him. Evidence from a bipartisan Congressional investigation and an independent report commissioned by the FBI demonstrates that Hasan's attack was terrorism by any reasonable definition, including the one used by the Department of Defense (DoD). Yet DoD stubbornly maintains that the attack was merely 'workplace violence' to avoid responsibility for the government's role in enabling Hasan's attack and to protect the officials who closed their eyes to the threat. As a result, the victims continue to be denied the recognition and benefits they are rightfully due. Support the brave men and women of Fort Hood, and add your voice to this petition, to ask the Administration to stop the charade and recognize the shooting as the act of terrorism it was, to hold accountable the high level officials responsible for the policies that caused this attack to prevent future failures, and to provide the soldiers, victims and their families with appropriate recognition, including Purple
Hearts, and fair compensation for all of their injuries. The Fort Hood Heroes deserve justice, respect and dignity.

But, Pentagon announces that it will not label the Fort Hood attack an Act of Terrorism

Why? Supposedly because it will "jeopardize" the court marshal. This is baloney. Remember, Obama is the commander and chief and sets DOD policy. He put his people in command when he took office. The Pentagon also said that they have "medical and health benefits"-they do-but not the honor and benefits they are do as victims of a terrorist attack. Make no mistake-these decisions of the Pentagon are a grave insult to our brave heroes.

Election observations

When Obama is voted out of office he is likely going to congratulate Romney for running a good (or effective) campaign. But it isn't that Romney has run a good campaign. He hasn't. It's that Obama has run a bad presidency.

With Obama not having to face an electorate again, it is likely that he is going to come out/admit that he is a Muslim-or "convert" to Islam.

One of my predictions is that Obama will leave America once he is voted out of office-because he hates this country. There are rumors that Obama is looking to buy a home in Hawaii. Obama has said in a speech that he doesn't consider Hawaii to be legitimately a part of the United States of America.

I am afraid that after he is voted out of office, Obama is going to go and form alliances with Hugo Chavez, the Castros, Putin. Ahmadinijad, and stand with other enemies of America against the United States-after all, he did it before and during the time he was president. He may become a national security threat.

D o Democrats see Republicans/Conservatives as the enemy? Rush Limbaugh often says that Democrats don't see Al Qaida, Russia or any other foreign threat as the enemy-to them the enemy is conservative Americans. Now, I don't agree with liberals but it is difficult for me to view fellow Americans as the "enemy." But after much thought and observation, I think that unfortunately, Rush Limbaugh is correct-the left hate those who disagree with them-and do view American Republicans/Conservatives/Evangelical Christians as the "enemy."

Newsweek Magazine goes out of print Now, it is going completely on-line. It is true that print is dying, but, part of the reason that they went out of business is that Newsweek is a totally leftist publication. They would rather go out of print than moderate. Which brings us to the next issue…

Presidential debates blatantly favor democrats Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan had to debate two people at the same time-the democratic moderator and the democratic candidate. The Commission on Presidential Debates is going to have to do something about this problem-it is unacceptable. In the vice-presidential and second presidential debates, the democrat got about five more minutes more than the republican-and it was noticeable and blatant.

Polarization The "culture war" is waged against the right by liberals as much as vice-versa. We need some moderation and a movement to the center, mostly by the left, so our country can come together and heal.

Countz Cheerleaders fight for freedom of speech and religion

A judge stopped an East Texas school district on Thursday from barring cheerleaders from quoting Bible verses on banners at high school football games, saying the policy appears to violate their free speech rights. District Judge Steve Thomas granted an injunction requested by the Kountze High School cheerleaders allowing them to continue displaying religious-themed banners pending the outcome of a lawsuit set to go to trial next June 24, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said. Thomas previously granted a temporary restraining order allowing the practice to continue. School officials barred the cheerleaders from displaying banners with religious messages such as, "If God is for us, who can be against us," and "I can do all things through God who strengthens me" after the Freedom From Religion Foundation complained. The advocacy group says the messages violate the First Amendment clause barring the government -- or a publicly funded school district, in this case -- from establishing or endorsing a religion. Read more:

These girls are modern day Judas Maccabees-heroes in the Battle for religious freedom and freedom of speech. (Maccabee-Aramaic for "the hammer." See my book series on "The Hammer of God.")

No comments: