Posts Tagged ‘barak Husein Obama’


Exclusive: Joseph Farah reveals what Barack Obama’s name really means
by Joseph Farah

“An Arab-backed imposter.”

Now that’s a nearly perfect description of who Barack Hussein Obama really is. What are the chances? I say nearly perfect only because I like to spell impostor with the O rather than the E. But both are acceptable.

Maybe you’ve seen this before.

It’s new to me. And I get all the Obama stuff. Believe me.

I’m stunned.

If you had any doubts about a higher power, this should resolve them. His true identity was locked away in an anagram all this time. It’s like the Bible codes, only funnier.

Somebody needs to tell Rudy Giuliani – stop apologizing! It’s true. He doesn’t like America, he detests it. That’s because, as his name reveals, he’s an Arab-backed imposter.

By the way, it’s not racist for me to make this known to the world, because I am an Arab – just not one of those backing him.

Experience more of Joseph Farah’s no-nonsense truth-telling in his books, audio and video products, featured in the WND Superstore

Just for the record, WND has been making the case that Obama is and always has been an “imposter.” He’s simply not constitutionally eligible for the presidency. But he not only fooled America once, he fooled us twice. You know what they say about that. Shame on us.

As for being Arab-backed:

Obama is the guy who famously said of the Muslim call to prayer, it’s “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.” He’s the only guy I know who ever said it!
The Arab fund-raising spigots were turned on for Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign when it was revealed in WND that the campaign was accepting credit card donations in untold amounts from an Arab money-laundering operation in the Palestinian Authority.
Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi raised money for that campaign, too. He has called Israel “an apartheid system in creation” and “racist.” He has made statements supportive of Palestinian terror.
Obama also famously bowed to the king of Saudi Arabia.
I could go on and on, but the fruits of Obama’s pro-Muslim, pro-Arab fanaticism are pretty obvious at this point. He has turned over the always-boiling cauldron of Muslim Arab hatred, and it is now spilling all over the Middle East and the world.

His friends in the Arab world must be cheering Obama’s snub of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the way he’s exporting his political machine to challenge him in retaining power in the Jewish state.

He’s an imposter, all right – and Arab-backed.

He’s even got an Arab name. Not a nice one like me, by the way. Do you know what my name means in Arabic?

In Arabic “Yusef” means “God increases in piety, power and influence.” But, to be honest, it’s really a Hebrew name meaning: “May God add/give increase.” Very similar meaning in both languages. And, as for “Farah,” it means “joy” in Arabic. So I guess you could say my name in Arabic means “God increases in piety, power, influence and joy.”

What does Barack Hussein Obama mean in Arabic?

Barack can have three possible meanings based on their usage: “Blessed” is one. Another is quite astonishing given his history with the Saudi king. It can mean “to make to kneel down.” The last meaning is to “to curse” or “blaspheme.” Take your pick there.

Hussein generally means “beautiful” or “handsome.”

Obama, an African name, oddly can also translate to “slightly bent,” reflective of that bow again.

So then I guess you could say Obama’s name unscrambled means either:

Blessed, handsome and slightly bent, or,
Bowing, handsome and slightly bent, or,
Blaspheming, handsome and slightly bent
The choices only get worse when considered in other languages, by the way.

Any way you slice it, however, the perfect anagram is “an Arab-backed imposter.”

How did it take us six years to learn this?

Media wishing to interview Joseph Farah, please contact


Salafism and Arab Democratization

By Kamran Bokhari | Oct. 2, 2012

The outbreak of the Arab Spring in 2011 brought significant attention to groups seeking to establish Islamic states — known as Islamists — in countries once ruled by secular autocrats. The bulk of this attention went to already established political groups such as the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, which caused consternation in the West when its Freedom and Justice Party won control of both Egypt’s parliament and its presidency.

Much less attention was paid to the Brotherhood’s principal Islamist competitors, members of the ultraconservative Salafist movement, despite their second-place finish in Egypt’s parliamentary elections. This changed in late September when certain Salafists played a key role in the unrest in reaction to an anti-Islamic video posted on the Internet.
Since then, Salafism has become the subject of much public discourse — though as is often the case with unfamiliar subjects, questions are vastly more numerous than answers. This is compounded by the rapidity of its rise from a relatively minor, apolitical movement to an influential Islamist phenomenon.

Origins and Goals of Salafism

Modern Salafism is based on an austere reinterpretation of Islam, calling for Muslims to return to the original teachings outlined in the Koran and the practices of the Prophet Mohammed as understood by the earliest generation, i.e., the Companions of the Prophet. From the Salafist perspective, non-Islamic thought has contaminated the message of “true” Islam for centuries, and this excess must be jettisoned from the Islamic way of life.

Salafists are a minority among the global Muslim population and even among Islamists. Unlike members of the Muslim Brotherhood, Salafists do not belong to a singular organization. Instead, the movement comprises a diffuse agglomeration of neighborhood preachers, societal groups and — only very recently — political parties, none of which are necessarily united in ideology.

In many ways, Salafism can be seen as a rejection of the political ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood. For most of the movement’s existence, it shunned politics — and thus Islamism — in favor of a focus on personal morality and individual piety, arguing that an Islamic state could not exist without Muslims first returning to the tenets of “true” Islam. This means Salafism also was at odds with the concept of jihadism — itself a violent offshoot of Salafism — as practiced by groups such as al Qaeda that sought to use force to manifest their Islamist ideology.

The Salafist movement could also afford to stay away from political activism in large part because it had a political backer in the government of Saudi Arabia. While many Salafists didn’t agree with some of Riyadh’s policies, its historical role as the birthplace of Salafism and role as the patron underwriting the global spread of Salafist thought kept the movement within the Saudi orbit.

This remained the case until the 1991 Gulf War, in which Saudi Arabia was forced to allow some 500,000 U.S. troops into the kingdom to protect itself from Baathist Iraq, after the latter’s brief occupation of Kuwait. The move caused an uproar over the religious legitimacy of allowing non-Muslim soldiers on what many consider to be holy grounds, and it also gave way to a wider debate about the political state of affairs of the Saudi kingdom. Prominent scholars began publicly calling for reform, which led to Salafists in general engaging in political discourse and, eventually, to the concept of Salafism as an Islamist philosophy.

Nevertheless, Salafists would not become a political force for another two decades, simply because it takes time for an apolitical religious movement to develop a political philosophy. At the same time, the Saudi leadership was rallying the country’s religious establishment to contain these newly politicized Salafists. The 9/11 attacks and subsequent U.S. actions against jihadism further advanced Salafist thought as the sect tried to hold on to its core values amid U.S.-led international pressure for reform, distinguish itself from jihadists and come up with a viable political alternative to the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Arab Spring

By the end of the 2000s, Salafism had spread across the Arab world, most notably to Egypt and Tunisia, expanding both the number of its adherents and its institutional scope, which now included social organizations engaged in charity, relief and community work. They stopped short of formal political groups, largely because of the autocratic regimes under which they lived, but they quietly developed the infrastructure for such groups. It was under these circumstances that the Salafists found themselves at the beginning of the Arab Spring.

The case of Egypt’s Salafists is the most telling. Like the Muslim Brotherhood, they were caught unprepared when the popular agitation largely led by liberal youth groups broke out and began to consume decades-old secular autocratic regimes. While they eventually were able to overshadow the largely non-Islamist forces that played a key role in forcing the ouster of then-President Hosni Mubarak, they lacked the political machine that the Brotherhood had developed over the course of some 80 years. The result was the rise of various Salafist forces haphazardly trying to assert themselves in a post-authoritarian Egypt.

Several Egyptian Salafist groups applied for licenses to form political parties. Two prominent parties — al-Nour and al-Asala — emerged along with a host of individuals, such as Hazem Salah Abu Ismail, who ran as an independent candidate for president. The two Salafist parties banded together with the newly formed political wing of the former jihadist group Gamaa al-Islamiya — the Building and Development Party — to form the Islamist Bloc. The alliance was able to garner more than a quarter of ballots cast in the parliamentary polls late last year, coming in second place behind the Brotherhood.

What was most important about these Salafists participating in mainstream politics is that they embraced the electoral process after decades of having denounced democracy as un-Islamic. In other words, they ultimately adopted the approach of the Muslim Brotherhood, which they had hitherto vehemently rejected. This transformation has been more a rushed affair stemming from expediency rather than a natural ideological evolution.

There is an expectation that radical forces joining the political mainstream could, over time, lead to their de-radicalization. That may be true in the case of states with strong democratic systems, but in most Arab countries — which are just now beginning their journey away from authoritarianism — the Salafist embrace of electoral politics is likely to delay and perhaps even disrupt the democratization process and destabilize Egypt and by extension the region.

Much of this chaos will stem from the fact that the move to accept democratic politics has led to further fragmentation of the Salafist landscape. Many Salafists still are not comfortable with democracy, and those who have cautiously adopted it are divided into many factions. The result is that no one Salafist entity can speak for the bulk of the sect.

What Lies Ahead

Clearly, the Salafists are bereft of any tradition of civil dissent. That said, they have exhibited a strong sense of urgency to exercise their nascent freedom and engage in political activism. The outcome of this was the rioting that took place in reaction to the anti-Islamic film.

The Salafists are not just suffering from arrested political development; they face an intellectual discrepancy. On one hand, they wish to be part of the new democratic order and a mainstream player. On the other, they subscribe to a radical agenda that dictates the imposition of their stern interpretation of Islamic law across the Arab and Muslim world.

Their envisioned order is not just a problem for secularists, Christians, Jews and other minorities but also for more moderate Islamists such as the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood lost its monopoly on Islamism close to four decades ago but back then it didn’t matter because the Brotherhood was an opposition movement. Now that the group has won political power in Egypt, the Salafists represent a threat to its political interests.

Some of the more politically savvy Salafists, especially the political parties, are willing to work with the Muslim Brotherhood toward the common goals of furthering the democratic transition and containing radical and militant tendencies. Ultimately, however, they seek to exploit the Brotherhood’s pragmatism in order to undermine the mainstream Islamist movement’s support among religious voters. Additionally, the Salafists are also trying to make use of their role as mediators between the Brotherhood-led government and the jihadists active in the Sinai region to enhance their bargaining power and lessen the Brotherhood’s.

Salafists — whether they operate through legal means or through raw street power — can be expected to create problems for Egypt’s new government led by President Mohammed Morsi, especially when it comes to foreign policy matters. A prime example is the recent case of the film-related violence, during which Morsi had a difficult time balancing the need to placate the masses at home and maintain a working relationship with the United States, upon which Egypt relies for its economic well-being. While the anger over the film is a passing phenomenon, the underlying dynamic persists.

There is also no shortage of issues for right-wing Islamists to exploit. U.S. imperatives in the region will continue to place the Morsi government in a tight spot and provide reasons for the Salafists to oppose Cairo’s policies. Even more volatile than the dealings between the Morsi administration and Washington will be Israeli-Egyptian relations.

So far, Morsi has managed to avoid dealing too directly with Israel. But the Egyptian president and the Brotherhood cannot avoid this for too long. They know that they will face situations where they could be caught between the need to maintain peaceful relations with Israel and deal with Salafists taking advantage of the widespread anti-Israeli sentiment among Egyptians. This is one of the reasons Morsi and his associates have been speaking of revising the peace treaty with Israel, which is an attempt to manage the inevitable backlash on the home front.

Egypt’s difficulties are particularly pronounced given the country’s status as the leader of the Arab world, but Salafists of various stripes are slowly emerging as political stakeholders across the region, especially in Libya, Tunisia, Yemen, Gaza, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria. Democratization by its very nature is a messy affair in any context, but in the case of the Arab spring, Salafist entities can be expected to complicate political transitions and undermine stability and security in the Middle East.

The major challenge to stability in the Arab world thus lies only partially in the transition to democracy from autocracy. Greater than that is the challenge mainstream Islamists face from a complex and divided Salafist movement.

Read more: Salafism and Arab Democratization | Stratfor

President Obama Is Working Hard to Get College Students Dependent on Government So They’ll Vote ‘Democratic’ Forever

President Obama is trying to buy the votes of Millennials. He’s doing this by promising to keep the interest rates on student loans at 3.4 percent. Without congressional action the rates on the loans will double to 6.8 percent in July.
Here’s what President Obama said to students at the University of North Carolina:
“College education is one of the best investments America can make for our future. . . . This is important for all of us. We can’t price most Americans out of a college education. We can’t make higher education a luxury. It’s an economic imperative. Every American should be able to afford it. So that’s why I’m here.”
If lower interest rates are good for the economy, then why aren’t lower taxes? Any college student worth his or her salt should be asking this question. But they aren’t. They are like most people who believe that government should do more – more for them at the expense of someone else.
It’s unfortunate that most college students rarely get a free market approach to economics. This is by design. Colleges are dependent on tax dollars. Even private colleges are subsidized by students who bring money they got from the government in the form of guaranteed government loans and grants.
There’s another part to the story that is often missed. The rising cost of college is the direct result of government subsidizing education. When the government started paying women who had children out of wedlock through various programs (Wic, EBT, and ADC), more women had children out of wedlock and more men left after the children were born because the government was taking care of the mother and her illegitimate children. Think of the film The Blind Side.
Women trapped in these programs have little choice but to continue to vote for the political party that promises to maintain the programs. Republicans capitulate by going along with the Democrats so they won’t be vilified by the press and the always aggressive liberals.
A similar thing happens with college students. Their debt after graduation — now at $1 trillion and more than all credit card debt — makes them dependent on the State.
With nearly half of all college graduates either employed or underemployed, they have a decision to make. Do they want to be wards of the State or free men and women under God? How they vote in November will make all the difference in the world — literally. Again, it’s not all about the presidency. The House and Senate are equally, maybe even more, important

Read more:


Author: Middle East power center could ‘lead to more commerce, trade’

A Muslim writer and political analyst who has been published in Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Yemen, Libya and Iran says that the concept of an Islamic regime – a caliphate – could have “broad appeal” to Occupy protesters now demanding economic “equalization” in the United States.

The comments from Sharique Naeem, whose perspective is outlined in his recent article, “Whither the Nation State?” came in an interview with author Joel Richardson, a recognized expert on the Middle East and biblical prophecy.

Richardson’s newest book, officially not released to bookstores until September, is available now, autographed by the author, for immediate shipping. It’s called “Mideast Beast: The Scriptural Case for an Islamic Antichrist.”

It is a sequel to the WND Books bestseller “The Islamic Antichrist,” which was featured on Glenn Beck’s program and has altered the eschatological views of many evangelical Christians since its release two years ago.

Said Naeem: “There is an indication here that if a caliphate is established in the Middle East, its economic system may have broad appeal with the Occupy movement. Also unlike the misconception or fear that is sometimes projected that a caliphate will lead to a standoff and complete disruption of links between West and Muslim world; the case may be entirely different, leading to genuine exchange of ideas, more commerce, trade and dialogue.”

Naeem also discuss when and where a caliphate will be established. He said the terms “rights” and “freedom” don’t carry the same meaning in a Muslim culture as they do in the West.

“As a system on the whole, the two (capitalism and the Islamic economic system) are poles part. However, this does not mean there will be no interaction between the two, i.e., caliphate and nations with capitalist economies,” he said.

He said the developing “democracy” movements in the Middle East aren’t well-supported, and “as we objectively evaluate the various news from the Muslim world, it becomes clear that all previous models are no longer valid.”

“For instance the videos coming from Syria that show how central Islam is to the revolution and the growing calls for Islamic law in post-revolution Arab states,” he said. “They most obvious trend is the rise of political Islam.”

The interview:

Joel Richardson: Allow me to begin by thanking you, Mr. Naeem, for agreeing to share your perspective. Do you believe the revolution spreading throughout the Islamic world will eventually result in the re-establishment of an Islamic caliphate?

Sharique Naeem: The developments are a significant step as it has shaken the political construct of the region. It’s historic to witness the way the masses have stood up to [call to] account and remove long-standing dictatorships. While in the immediate aftermath of some revolution[s], a move toward democracy has taken place. However the credibility … will erode fast, if it’s unable to address the core issues; and this would naturally create more acceptance of the idea of [a] caliphate. On the other hand, some revolutions, e.g. Syria, which has entered its 2nd year may, well conclude into a caliphate.

JR: How do you perceive the present Occupy Movement protests in the United States and the riots in various European nations as they relate to the revolutions in the Islamic world?

SN: Any concrete and comprehensive change requires people having the courage to stand up against the instrument and institute of existing oppression and carrying ideas for an alternative.

Today, much has been debated about the political oppression in dictatorships and relative “freedoms” under democracy. However, the debate concerning the economic oppression of capitalism is now increasingly coming to the center stage.

There is an interesting trend here to be observed. The revolutions against political oppression encouraged the people in the West to demonstrate against the economic oppression that they have witnessed. The Occupy Movement protests continue to expose and dent the credibility of the already fragile system of capitalism. And these demonstrations have the potential to further encourage the people in the Arab world to also seek an alternative system. This alternative of course, will most likely be the economic system that Islam offers.

Also on some levels, there are similarities in the yearning of the people on the streets of Cairo or New York. For example, both believe in the right to hold those in power to account, both openly and collectively. Both realize the economic hardships are the direct products of the existing system. Both feel that authority should not be manipulated by the exceptionally wealthy (corporations, banks or dictators). Both understand that a tiny minority has been benefiting for too long at the expense of the vast majority.

Needless to say, this does not mean that the Islamic revolutions and the Occupy Movement are on the same page. Some of the concepts have a very different understandings, e.g. rights, freedoms, outlook of society, sources of law, beliefs etc.

However, there is an indication here that if a caliphate is established in the Middle East, its economic system may have broad appeal with the Occupy Movement. Also unlike the misconception or fear that is sometimes projected that a caliphate will lead to a stand-off and complete disruption of links between West and Muslim world[s]; the case may be entirely different, leading to genuine exchange of ideas, more commerce, trade, and dialogue.

In my opinion, although the Occupy Movement will continue, it is unlikely to gain any real momentum similar to what has happened in the Arab world.

JR: Talk about the difference between economic freedom or what is most often referred to as capitalism and the Islamic economic system.

SN: The Islamic economic system and the economic system in capitalism are founded on different principles. Vocabulary like “Freedom,” “Values,” “Rights” etc. have different meanings to them within Islamic thought. As a system on the whole, the two (capitalism and the Islamic economic system) are poles part. However, this does not mean there will be no interaction between the two, i.e., caliphate and nations with capitalist economies.

JR: Would the economic structure of the caliphate relate closer to a Communist or a capitalist economic system?

SN: I would say neither; when looking at some of the details in isolation, one may get the impression that Islam is close to either of the two. However, any economic structure requires a comprehensive evaluation, to understand how its various components are linked with each other, and when this approach is applied to Islam’s economic system, one observes that it stands uniquely apart from both capitalism and Communism.

JR: Recent reports inform us that the eastern portion of Libya has declared independence from the rest of Libya. Similar divisions are reported in Yemen. If division and fragmentation continue in other transitionary Islamic nations, wouldn’t this point to the opposite of a developing Islamic unity rather than an emerging caliphate?

SN: These divisions may well be expected in the aftermath of fallen dictators. The history of the region needs to be evaluated to understand this trend. For centuries the political construct that unified these regions was the caliphate. It was the demise of caliphate that fragmented the region. The transition from caliphate to the model of nation-states was not the result of a struggle by the host population. Instead, foreign intervention, directly and indirectly, along with other factors has led to the fracture of the region. The Sykes Pecot agreement of 1916 is one such example. The nation-state model that took shape when the foreign intervention was rolled back required dictators to keep in place.

An important observation in this regard, is also noted by Samuel P. Huntington in his book ‘The Clash of Civilizations’ (1996) where he states:

“The structure of political loyalty among Arab and Muslims generally has been the opposite of that in the modern West. For the latter the nation state has been the apex of political loyalty.”

He further explains “Throughout Islam, the small group and the great faith, the tribe and the Ummah, have been the principal foci of loyalty and commitment. And the nation state has been less significant.” … “In the Arab world, existing states have legitimacy problems because they are for the most part the arbitrary, if not capricious, products of European Imperialism.”

In the scenario today, we again find foreign intervention to support and sustain the political model of democracy, as a replacement of the political model of dictatorship which was propped up decades earlier.

If the new “democracies” fail to fill the political void and address the grievances of the masses, the region is likely to witness two trends side by side: emboldened political expression on tribal, fragmented lines, and growing calls for transnational unity toward an Islamic caliphate. Either will essentially negate unity along the line of previously foreign-imposed nation-states.

JR: What would be your guess concerning a timeframe for the establishment of an actual caliphate?

SN: I think the events of the last year have given a new insight on how analysts evaluate geo-politics and the sustainability of political models. As we objectively evaluate the various news from the Muslim world, it becomes clear that all previous models are no longer valid. For instance the videos coming from Syria that show how central Islam is to the revolution and the growing calls for Islamic law in post-revolution Arab states. They most obvious trend is the rise of political Islam.

Sometime back there was a report in the United States by the National Intelligence Council (NIC) called, “Mapping the Global Future 2020”, which simulated a scenario for a caliphate in 2020. Another Harvard Law professor, suggested that within the next 10 years, a “caliphate” in the Middle East was far more likely to emerge than any form of liberal democracy. My guess is it will be quite sooner than 10 years.

JR: Do you think that it will be possible to reestablish a caliphate without a series of regional wars to bring resistor nations under its authority.

SN: Before the advent of the Arab spring (or “the Islamic Awakening” as some more properly refer to it), the regional domino effect of the emergence of a caliphate was only a hypothesis. However, the events in the Middle East have now added sound credibility to what was only a theory. The Islamic Awakening quickly revealed that the previous political setup reached its climax and is now negated. This had an immediate and profound domino effect, starting from Tunisia, then moving to Egypt, Libya, Syria and Yemen etc. The affirmation of a new political construct in any one place has the ability to spread quickly. If this political construct emanates from the ideology of the masses, then its historic significance is clear. It is able to show instant results in addressing some of the core issues of the people and exhibit the potential to solve other various standing issues. Whereas some friction can be expected, the caliphate may well be able to galvanize a significant portion of the region by channeling popular support from the masses, without the need of a series of regional wars.

JR: Is the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood is a sure sign of the coming caliphate?

SN: The popularity of various Islamic political parties reflect the sentiments of the Muslim populous and their desire to see a far more prominent role of Islam in the political domain.

The explicit reference to caliphate indicates the popularity of this idea amongst the Arabs. A similar reference was also made by the En-Nahda party in Tunisia.

It must be noted that the idea of a unified pan-Islamic state, the caliphate, is understood and accepted by virtually all.

We find that Islamic political parties engage in democratic process to acquire seats in parliaments in their own respective nations. And while they express support for each other, these political parties maintain their independent existence. There is no specific talk of unifying on one platform. However, when the idea of caliphate is expressed, the natural political unity it will lead to is clearly implied.

However, I do not think the Muslim Brotherhood will be able to materialize its ambitious statements concerning a caliphate, at least not through the democratic process. Their political maneuvers bear resemblance to the Islamic political parties in Pakistan, which at the time of election campaigns present radical aims in order to win over votes by appealing to the popular sentiments. But upon acquiring seats, they fail to deliver. Ironically this results in the vote base shifting toward liberal factions.

Like Pakistan, the de facto authority in Egypt rests with the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, and any democratic government will be under its umbrella.

Overall though, despite the ongoing difficulties expressed here, the resonance of the idea of caliphate is only likely to greatly increase within the political domain.

JR: What are the top three nations most likely to produce the leadership necessary to establish the caliphate?

SN: A number of countries may be speculated to be potential candidates giving rise to the caliphate. Some key factors that would be necessary for such a leadership are: the geo-strategic location of the country, the strength of its army, its population count, and the extent of its integration with neighboring nation states, etc. Such conditions would be necessary to muster internal as well as regional support.

Syria, where the revolution has entered its 2nd year, could perhaps provide that leadership. The news coming from Syria evidently shows the centrality of Islam as driving the revolution. Their objectives, which are evident from the revolutionary slogans, titles of Friday demonstrations, and speeches of defected soldiers etc. make the centrality of Islam there clear.

The status quo qualities of other revolutions have culminated into democracies with no real change at the grass roots level other than acquiring more rights of political expression and voting, which are too limited, as is evident from what the protestors continue to face in Cairo, as well as the ban in Libya on parties based on religion. This may well serve as a lesson to those spearheading the revolution in Syria, not to opt for another futile democracy.

Pakistan is another country where the emerging leadership could quickly garner support both internally and from Afghanistan. Its host population has already experienced the steep downsides of dictatorships and democracies multiple times, and hence this provides a stimulus for a new political system to fill the expectations of the masses. The “AfPak” (Afghanistan-Pakistan) region can potentially produce such a leadership.

The third option, in my opinion would be Yemen, Tunisia or Egypt.

JR: Elaborate a bit more on why you see Syria as a possible candidate to establish the coming caliphate?

SN: Syria, as I said, is one of the possible candidates. A number of reasons fortify its potential. Its proximity with the epicenter of Middle-East political friction gives it the leverage to garner support from masses in other Arab states, thereby minimizing any resistance once the state seeks to expand.

The duration and endurance with which it has braved already puts it in a position where people in other post-Arab spring states are looking up to its activists and eagerly awaiting its liberation from dictatorship.

Syria’s sizable military is an additional strength. And again, its emboldened masses and the dominant Islamic characteristics of their revolution goes in its favor.

JR: What are your thoughts concerning Bashar Assad? What do you predict will happen to him?

SR: Bashar’s crimes against humanity are clearly evident to all. His leadership and image have been irreparably damaged, not only among Muslims, but the whole world. Internally his power base is crumbling. Externally, while he has lost his stature, he still has some foreign support, upon whom he is relying to postpone his inevitable demise. If the events in Syria continue at this pace – which is quite likely – then it’s only a matter of time before he will have to face the daunting question of fleeing, resigning, or meeting the dreaded fate of Libya’s Col. Gadhafi.

JR: Is there any talk throughout the Islamic world suggesting that a Caliph could come out of Turkey?

SN: In the recent years, there has been a significant rise in the popularity of Turkish PM Erdogan, and many look to him as a role model of democratic leadership. However, he is far from being the sort of leader a caliphate would require. Turkish so-called “Islamic’” government had sen[t] around 1,800 soldiers to Afghanistan, a region 3000 kilometers away, as part of a foreign occupation. And yet its support to Syria has been cautiously maneuvered and direct military assistance is not found. The politics of Erdogan bear the same hallmark of confused politics that is found in other Muslim countries, i.e., trying to maintain an image that is both secular and Islamic at the same time. Erdogan’s current pursuit of economic prosperity and development of regional ties are not sufficient parameters for a political leader to acquire the leadership of a caliphate since this leadership would have to garner rapid support for an entirely different system and hence would require radical steps be taken right from its commencement.

JR: What is the general opinion in Pakistan concerning Turkey’s rise in recent years?

SN: In my opinion, Turkey’s rise in recent years is within the framework of the status quo. Its political rise is in a democratic framework, its regional ties aim for building cooperation between the nation states, and its foreign policy has often resonated with U.S. regional objectives. In Pakistan, Turkey’s presence has seen a noticeable increase, and some democratic politicians do look up to it as an example to be followed and partnered with.

Turkey’s current political leadership is sometimes projected as a model for other Muslim nation states in the current political setup. However on close observation, it becomes clear that Turkey’s so-called “Islamic” democratic government will only resort to the use of Islamic tenants so long as it does not harm its economic interests and secular image in the corridors of power in the West.

Having said that, Turkey also does have some key factors that give it the potential of caliphate leadership. However, this does not appear to be the aim of the current prime minister.

JR: Are you awaiting the Mahdi? Could a Mahdi emerge to lead the caliphate?

SN: Scholars in the Muslim world are generally on the same page with regard to the leadership and pivotal role that the Mahdi will play. However the absence of the Mahdi does not in any way undermine the need and practicality of establishing political unity now. Therefore a caliphate may well emerge before the coming of the Mahdi.

JR: The present “Arab Spring” is resulting in a widespread rise of persecution against Christians by Muslims. Would this persecution cease under a caliphate?

SN: The accounts of persecution of Christians that are reported in the news go to further expose the failure of the present political setup and rulers. The people at large have suffered from brute force and tyranny, and in the absence of a just political order, chaos and insecurity affects many.

It would be utterly wrong to link instances of persecution as a direct result of increasingly emboldened Arab masses participating in the Arab Islamic awakening and to extrapolate it so as to imply that an any future Islamic state would cause such persecution to increase. There have been many instances that showed solidarity between Christians and Muslims on the Arab streets while protesting against Mubarak for instance.

For surety, [a] caliphate would be at the forefront of protecting and providing security to its citizens, Muslims and Christians alike. And history has many examples that show the protection of Christians under the caliphate. Egypt’s vast Coptic Christian population which lived for centuries under the caliphate is just one such example.

JR: According to Islamic jurisprudence, is it mandatory for the caliph to engage the non-Islamic world for the purpose of expanding the authority of Islam globally?

SN: Scholars of Islamic jurisprudence unanimously agree that the caliphate is responsible to carry the message of Islam to the rest of the world. This implies that the caliphate will engage with the rest of the world. A caliphate would be responsible to present Islam comprehensively; its creed and its systems as a means of liberating humanity. It will engage in trade and commerce, establish treaties and alliances, and seek to remove oppression and protect humanity.

JR: I would to thank you once again Sharique for your willingness to share your views on these matters as we in the West make every effort to properly understand the perspective of Islamists such as yourself, particularly as it pertains to the powerful winds of change sweeping through the entire Islamic world. Your thoughtful and articulate answers have been most beneficial and are greatly appreciated. May the LORD shine His face upon you and reveal Himself to you through Jesus the Son. Many Blessings.

The Bloom is Off The Rose – Obama’s a Liar!!! – Caroline Kennedy, Daughter of JFK

When I saw this, I know I had to write something about it. The Kennedys removed from Camelot but still carrying a little weight in name have released information probably not of their own accord that they are not happy with Obama and here’s an except from a story first produced by THE BLAZE:

Despite endorsing Obama in 2008, JFK’s daughter Caroline now considers Obama a “liar,” according to a family source in Edward Klein’s new book on Obama called “The Amateur.”
Caroline’s past support for Obama, which was mirrored by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, caused a riff in the family. In fact, Klein writes of an incident where Bobby Kennedy Jr. got in his uncle Ted‘s face over Ted’s support for the president.
Some of the Kennedy’s diminishing support for the president is due to the Obamas snubbing several members of the Kennedy family on multiple occasions — one that sent Ethel Kennedy on a furniture-turning rant.
But despite the tension, both families know the Kennedys have no one else to support, and that “really pisses [Caroline] off.”
Back in 2008, Caroline Kennedy — the only surviving child of former President John F. Kennedy — delivered a rousing endorsement of Barack Obama. “I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them,” she wrote in the New York Times back then. “But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president — not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans.”

That was then, in the magical year of 2008 when everything went Obama’s way. He had the support of labor, unions, Wall Street, Hollywood, Banks, foreign countries and lest I not forget – the Kennedys.

If you believe the explosive new book on Obama by Edward Klein, “The Amateur,” that sentiment has given way to pure animosity. Klein then quotes a family member who notes the transformation:

“Through these [spies that the Kennedy family has in the Obama administration] and other people, Caroline heard back that there was a lot of nasty shit being said about the Kennedys by the president and Michelle,” the family member continued. “There were catty remarks about how badly the Kennedy women dressed, and how their houses were shabby and threadbare. Caroline got the impression that most of this negativity was coming from Michelle, who didn’t want the Kennedys to be part of the administration for fear that they would have too much influence over the president.”

That same family member continues in the book:

“Gradually, Caroline began to change her tune and side with Bobby and Kathleen [Kennedy Townsend] against the Obamas. Unlike Jackie, who was completely a-political, Caroline is a liberal with a capital L. When Obama didn’t raise taxes to balance the budget, Caroline marked him down. In her eyes, he‘s a mess because he doesn’t follow the liberal bible on politics. More important, Caroline discovered that the Obamas didn’t give a damn about her support. […]

Then comes the money quote:

“It really annoyed Caroline when comparisons were made by the media between Michelle and Jackie. Caroline had a word for such comparisons; she called them ‘odious.’ She really got annoyed. And when she began to fall out of love with the Obamas, love was replaced by outright scorn. Now she says things about Obama like, ‘I can’t stand to hear his voice any more. He’s a liar and worse.’” [Emphasis added]

Teddy Kennedy and his weight (literally) and Caroline ushered in Obama that frightening day and reminded democratic voters that they needed to fall in love with Obama instead of learning about his past. Now that Obama has a record to run on, he’s not that attractive and not only do the Kennedy’s now know it….regular America has woke up to that fact.

Jeffery Immelt Is Disgusted With the Socialist Obama

Charles Gasparino
Back when he agreed to advise the Obama administration on economics, General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt told friends that he thought it would be good for GE and good for the country. A life-long Republican, Immelt said he believed he could at the very least moderate the president’s distinctly anti-business instincts.
That was three years ago; these days Immelt is telling friends something quite different.
Sure, GE has managed to feast on federal subsidies, particularly the “green-energy” giveaways that are Obamanomics’ hallmark.
But Immelt doesn’t think he’s had anywhere near as much luck moderating the president’s fat-cat-bashing, left-leaning economic agenda of taxing businesses and entrepreneurs to pay for government bloat.

Fuming: Jeffrey Immelt (r.) is reportedly disgusted by Obama’s allegiance to growth-killing policies.

Friends describe Immelt as privately dismayed that, even after three years on the job, President Obama hasn’t moved to the center, but instead further left. The GE CEO, I’m told, is appalled by everything from the president’s class-warfare rhetoric to his continued belief that big government is the key to economic salvation.
Or, as one friend recently put it to me, “Jeff thought he could make a difference, and now realizes he couldn’t.”
Immelt’s conversion from public Obama supporter to a private detractor is important: It shows how even businessmen who feast off his subsidies worry about his overall economic agenda and its long-term impact on the economy.
Don’t expect Immelt to say anything publicly about the downside of president’s economic agenda anytime soon: He’s still serving as what is considered the top outside economic adviser to the White House. (A GE spokesman insists that the reports I’m sharing here about Immelt’s private criticism of Obama are “ludicrous.”)
GE has too much to lose for Immelt to publicly ’fess up to his disdain. The president now routinely talks up his desire to tax businesses that create jobs overseas, and GE overseas expansion is well-documented. Nor does the company want to put all its green subsidies at risk.
And of course the last thing Immelt or his shareholders need is for the president to turn his class-warfare fire on them, as he did to his erstwhile pals in the banking business.
Yet friends report that Immelt’s displeasure with the president’s economic policies is real and palpable in private settings.
Back in 2008, the GE boss gave both to GOP presidential nominee John McCain and, in the Democratic primaries, to Hillary Clinton; he’s said that he voted for McCain. But GE as a whole was one of candidate Obama’s top donors. As noted, Immelt joined the new president’s team, first as a member of Obama’s Economic Advisory Recovery Board and later as head of his Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.
Yet even as Immelt continues to dispense advice to the president, friends tell me, he’s privately rooting for Mitt Romney to win the Republican nomination and defeat Obama in the fall.
A GE spokesman says simply, “Mr. Immelt has not decided to support Gov. Romney.” OK — but the GE “community” sure has. In 2008, GE execs (who often take their giving cues from the guy at the top) gave over five times more to Obama than to McCain. This time around, GE executives have raised nearly twice as much for Romney as for Obama, and Romney isn’t even the nominee yet.
I’m told a clue to Immelt’s disenchantment with the president can be found in GE’s annual letter to shareholders, in which the CEO laments, “We live in a tough era in which the public discourse, in general, is negative . . . American companies, particularly big companies, are vilified,” when “we need to work together to find a better way.”
Sure doesn’t sound like an Obama booster to me.
Charles Gasparino is a Fox Business Network senior correspondent

Read more:

What Obama’s Church Preaches – black supremacist connection -Liberation Theology

Originally posted at Right Truth
Well, well, well, … In case you missed this little gem, Erik Rush as done a little digging into Barack Hussein Obama’s church, Trinity United Church of Christ . This may be more damning to Obama than his Muslim history:… afrocentric in the extreme would be a gross understatement. It’s not simply afrocentric, it’s African-centric. In fact, one could argue that this organization worships things African to a far greater degree than they do Christ, and gives the impression of being a separatist “church” in the same vein as do certain supremacist “white brethren” churches – or even Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam.
Shocking? An overstatement? An overreaction?
One can see for oneself on the Trinity United Church website, which is replete with confirmation of what I present here. What follows is an excerpt from their Mission Statement:
“We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian… Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain “true to our native land,” the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.
“Trinity United Church of Christ adopted the Black Value System written by the Manford Byrd Recognition Committee chaired by Vallmer Jordan in 1981. We believe in the following 12 precepts and covenantal statements. These Black Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Blacks are gathered. They must reflect on the following concepts:
1. Commitment to God
2. Commitment to the Black Community
3. Commitment to the Black Family
4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
6. Adherence to the Black Work Ethic
7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness”
9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black Community
10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions
11. Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System
12. Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System.”
Sound familiar? Of course it is, since it’s identical to the 12-point list … – the one from the theoretical white supremacist candidate’s church; the only difference is the substitution of the word “Black” for “White.”
That identical 12-point list Mr. Rush refers to was found at the beginning of his article:
How many Americans would vote for a presidential candidate who was the member of a church that professed the following credo?
1. Commitment to God
2. Commitment to the White Community
3. Commitment to the White Family
4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
6. Adherence to the White Work Ethic
7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness”
9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the White Community
10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions
11. Pledge allegiance to all White leadership who espouse and embrace the White Value System
12. Personal commitment to embracement of the White Value System.
The question is rhetorical, of course. The answer is that such a candidate wouldn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting elected dog catcher (apologies to America’s animal rescue and public safety personnel) let alone President, because that candidate would be instantly branded a racist, among the most vile and frightening of white supremacists.
You can read Mr. Rush’s entire article here or at The Reality Check, which is where the image is from. Pretty amazing stuff.
Could this be why there is a sudden rush of black voters leaving Hillary Clinton and casting their lot with Obama? A Washington Post/ABC Poll has Obama leading Clinton among black Democratic voters 44 to 30 . When Hillary gets wind of this information on The Trinity United Church of Christ, what will she do???
Revisiting Obama’s Liberation Theology Church
In March , I wrote an article expressing grave concerns about Obama’s Liberation Theology church and his controversial pastor, Jeremiah Wright. Last year few Americans, other than Theologians or graduates from left-leaning seminaries such as Brite Divinity School, even knew about Liberation Theology.

The following republished article exposed the truth about Jeremiah Wright’s church and quotes from the works of James H. Cone, one of the primary authors of Black Liberation Theology. Additionally provided are some important points about the grave dangers of Liberation Theology written in 1984 by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI).

Following is the text from Obama’s Marxist Liberation Theology Church :

The best lie is a little pig that’s always hidden between several fluffy layers of truth and covered with a lot of lipstick and charisma.