Feb. 24, 2013 7:07pm 

A woman holds a Beretta pistol at a gun buyback event at the Bridgeport Police Department’s Community Services Division on December 22, 2012 in Bridgeport, Connecticut.

Beretta USA is threatening to leave Maryland over new gun control proposals, the Washington Post reports, and they would take hundreds of jobs along with them.

“Why expand in a place where the people who built the gun couldn’t buy it?” Jeffrey Reh, general counsel for Beretta, asked.

The Washington Post explains:

Beretta, the nearly 500-year-old family-owned company that made one of James Bond’s firearms, has already invested more than $1 million in the [civilian version of a machine gun designed for special operations forces] and has planned to expand its plant further in Prince George’s County to ramp up production.

But under an assault-weapons ban that advanced late last week in the Maryland General Assembly, experts say the gun would be illegal in the state where it is produced.

Now Beretta is weighing whether the rifle line, and perhaps the company itself, should stay in a place increasingly hostile toward its products. Its iconic 9mm pistol — carried by every U.S. soldier and scores of police departments — would also be banned with its high capacity, 13-bullet magazine.

[...]

In testimony this month in Annapolis, Reh, who oversees the plant, warned lawmakers to consider carefully the company’s future. Reh pointed to the last time Maryland ratcheted up gun restrictions in the 1990s: Beretta responded by moving its warehouse operation to Virginia.

 

 

“I think they thought we were bluffing” in the 1990s, Reh said. “But Berettas don’t bluff.”  ​[Emphasis added]

Lawmakers are justifiably concerned that Beretta– which won a contract in 1985 to produce the standard sidearm for all U.S. military personnel and has shipped more than half a million guns to the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines, according to the Washington Post– will leave its well-known home in Maryland.

“I think they’re going to move,” Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. (D-Calvert) commented. “They sell guns across the world and in every state in the union — to places a lot more friendly to the company than this state.”

Opponents to gun control legislation in Maryland hold a rally in Annapolis, Md. on Wednesday, Feb. 6, 2013. (Photo: AP)

The Washington Post continues:

“We literally are part of the arsenal of democracy,” said Reh, sweeping his hand toward the production floor, where on a recent afternoon more than 1,000 of the military version of the pistol sat in various stages of assembly. “That’s why we consider this so insulting.”

To fulfill the contract, Beretta expanded the plant by the length of a football field, installed an underground shooting range and hired 500 people. By 1990, during the peak of the first Gulf War, the company was the second-largest employer in Southern Maryland and had a supply chain of contractors that employed hundreds more.

[...]

The assault-weapons ban isn’t the only part of the governor’s bill Beretta dislikes.

In Maryland, gun manufacturers are required to register as firearms dealers, which some saycould expose the company to lawsuits for selling and shipping weapons as dealers do. The Senate Judiciary Committee, which passed the governor’s bill 7 to 4 late Thursday, spelled out an exemption for Beretta and a handful of other smaller manufacturers in the state.

But the company said it is still not clear how it would handle warranty and repair issues for its many lines of guns, which are also serviced in Accokeek. The bill does not specify if the company could charge to fix guns that would be deemed illegal for sale, or if it could legally ship them back to their owners. Lawmakers said intermediary gun dealers would likely have to facilitate the transactions.  ​[Emphasis added]

Some lawmakers are expressing confidence that they can strike a deal with Beretta, keeping the jobs the company provides while also enacting stricter gun control measures.  And if possible, Beretta likely doesn’t want to relocate at their own expense.

But according to the Washington Post, the company’s Italian “patriarch” Ugo Gussalli Beretta expressed a lack of confidence in the state.

“All I can tell you is, there always seems to be a problem with Maryland,” he reportedly said.

Feb 8, 2013 9:00 AM

Contrary to what you might expect from all the news about gun violence, accidental deaths from guns in the home are relatively uncommon, and have actually gone down slightly in recent years, according to a new study. But other deadly accidents at home, including poisonings, falls, and burns, are far more common, and on the rise. The good news: some simple measures can help prevent most of them.

The study, published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, looked at data from 2000 to 2008. More than 30,000 people die from accidents in the home each year, the study found. The three leading causes of accidental deaths were poisonings (43 percent), falls (34 percent), and fire or burn injuries (9 percent). Firearm mishaps accounted for just 1 percent of all accidental deaths in the home.

Poisoning, mostly from unintentional drug overdoses, and falls were the most common causes among adults. Suffocation and drowning were the deadliest accidents for children.

The good news is that accidents at home are highly predictable and preventable. The researchers point to key safety interventions you can implement in your home, such as limiting access to prescription medications, supervising children, and having smoke alarms that work.

As the authors of this study conclude: “Although injury statistics can guide practice and research, a more powerful force is the people behind the statistics whose lives can be spared and disabilities prevented through the application of effective injury prevention strategies at home.”

See our advice on:
Preventing falls
Smoke alarms
Fire extinguishers
Dangerous baby products to avoid
Drowning hazards

Source: Fatal Unintentional Injuries in the Home in the U.S.: 2000-2008 [American Journal of Preventive Medicine]

 

                                                                                                                         magruder44@aol.com
Leonard Magruder – Founder/President                                                    v-v-a-r.org
Former professor of psychology – Suffolk College, N.Y..                         wmdterror.com
Director of Counseling and Research – Univ. of N.D.(ret.)                       1-785-312-9303

 

TO CONGRESS

 

STOP BRENNAN – SHOW THE FILM

 

The full 7 page article can be seen at wmdterror.com – forum – terrorism and wmd.
——————-
Here is what we wrote about Brennan in our last article, “The Administration’s Cowardice”, posted on wmdterror.com on Feb. 21, 2013
 
“NATIONAL EMERGENCY – THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT KNOW WHO THE ENEMY IS !
 
From, “The Washington Times”, by Jon Ward and Eli Lake:
“It’s official. The U.S. is no longer engaged in a “war on terrorism”. Neither is it fighting “jihadists” or in a “global war.” President Obama’s top homeland security and counter-terrorism official, John Brennan, took all three terms off the table of acceptable words inside the White House during a speech Thursday at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Brennan said the only terminology the administration is using is that the U.S. is, “at war with al-Qaeda” and its violent extremist allies. Mr. Brennan’s speech was aimed at outlining ways in which the Obama administration intends to undermine the “upstream” factors that create an environment in which terrorists are bred, increasing aid to foreign governments for building up their militaries and social and democratic institutions .
Mr. Brennan said that to say the U.S. is fighting “jihadists” is wrongheaded because it is using “a legitimate term, ‘jihad’ meaning to purify oneself to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal, ” which, “risks giving these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately seek but in no way deserve. Worse, it risks reinforcing the idea the United States is somehow at war with Islam itself.”
 
These three phrases show that the White House, and Brennan, have no idea who the enemy is:
 
“an environment in which terrorists are bred.” It is not the environment, it is the Koran .
“Jihad meaning to purify oneself to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal.” “Jihad” means military action to expand Islam.
“risks reinforcing the idea that the United States is somehow at war with Islam itself.” Islam is definitely at war with the U.S.
—————-
In the final analysis this ignorance goes back to Obama, as seen in this exchange, plus comments, from our article of Feb. 21, 2013:
 
“Immediately after 9/11 academic elites sent out the message that the attack was due to a small band of fanatics who had “hijacked a great and peaceful religion.” Early after Obama’s first election Bill O’Reilly interviewed him, his first question being, “Who is the enemy?” Said Obama, “al-Qaeda, the Taliban, a whole host of networks that are bent on attacking America, who have a distorted ideology, who have perverted the faith of Islam. ”
 
There is the problem. Obama’s very limited understanding of the root cause of terrorism. He believes the threat involves only al-Qaeda and that with the end of bin Laden the threat is over. That is why he lied about Benghazi. To protect that view. The real root cause is Islam itself.
 
They want us to believe al-Qaeda ended with bin Laden – Gingrich
Obama lacks an understanding of the threat – Bolton
The cover-up is clear -Giuliani
They are unwilling to identify the threat -Rumsfeld
 
Said Fawaz A. Gerges in a very important book just out on this subject, “Obama and the Middle East,” “During his speech Obama did not mention the words “terrorism” or “war on terror”. He addressed the causes that fuel and sustain extremism rather than treating it as an inherent characteristic of Islam.”
 
This apparent inability to face the fact that terrorism is an “inherent characteristic of Islam” is what makes the re-election of Obama extremely dangerous for the American people. -Rommy once said on Newsmax that Obama’s views on terrorism are “frightingly naive.” Reporters should have asked him to explain what he meant by that. They also should have asked both candidates these questions:
 
How would you respond to a nuclear attack on the U.S.?
There are many who argue that the Koran is the root cause of international terrorism. Do you agree ?
Many people want America to meet Islamic threats with a threat of catastrophic retaliation. Would you consider this?
 
Of course that never happened. The cover-up remained intact.”
————–
The tension in this country between those who understand that Islam constitutes a lethal danger and those who call it a “religion of peace” is reaching an explosive level. In Vietnam the tension between those who supported the war and those who were lying about it back home, had a fatal influence on the outcome of that war. As Johnson told Westmoreland  shortly after the Tet Offensive, that to pursue the war more aggressively was politically unfeasible, that he had “no choice but to try to calm the protestors lest they precipitate an abject American pull-out.” (“America in Vietnam,” Lewy).That must not happen in this case as the situation includes the possibility of a nuclear attack on American soil, infinitely more dangerous. This divide over Brennan may be the occasion we have all been working toward, to raise to national awareness the true nature of Islam, by some senator reading from the floor of the Senate the following verses or “suras”, just a few out of hundreds, straight from the Koran:
 
9.5            Slay the idolaters wherever you find them…lie in ambush everywhere for them.
22.9          Garments of fire have been prepared for the unbelievers. Scalding water shall be poured upon their heads, melting their skins and that which is in their  bellies. They shall be lashed with rods of iron.
47.4          When you meet the unbelievers in battle strike off their heads.
98.6          The unbelievers among the People of the Book, Christian and Jews, and the pagans shall burn forever in the fire of Hell. They are the vilest of creatures.
5.60          God has cursed the Jews, transforming them into apes and swine and those who serve the devil.
5.33          Those who make war against Allah and his Apostle shall be put to death or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides.
2.216        Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you may dislike it.
8.12          I will instill terror into the hearts of the Infidels, strike off the heads then, and strike off from them every fingertip.
 
In our last article, “The Administration’s Cowardice”, we urged people to get a copy of the documentary, “Islam: What the West Needs to Know,”  and have it shown on Public Access TV, which is free, in their hometown. This is the best film, fully documented with quotes from the Koran, that we have on the dangers of Islam. Narrated by four top experts on Islam whose books were among those ordered removed by Obama from the FBI library at Quantico, it is the perfect antidote to the iron curtain of ignorance represented by Kerry, Hagel, and Brennan.
A few years ago Senator Kyle sponsored a showing to Congress of the Dutch film, “Fitna”, clearly documenting the connection between the Koran and terrorism..  We urge Congress to get this new documentary by Gregory M. Davis  and show it to all members. There is no greater tragedy for our nation than not understanding the nature of the enemy we face.

 

We must stop Brennan, and we must expose Obama’s misunderstanding of Islam or we could lose everything.

 

STOP BRENNAN ! 
by Leonard Magruder

 

PROFESSOR RESIGNS FOR VETS
THE COMPASS  – May 11. 1981

 

“On Thursday a rally was held in front of the Babylon Student Center, organized by Leonard Magruder, Assistant Professor of Psychology and his students for the purpose of honoring Vietnam veterans. Magruder began the rally by announcing he had resigned. In a letter to the college president he said he was doing this, “To protest the damage done to the Vietnam veteran by the erroneous views of liberals in the university and the media in the 60’s and their perpetuation of those views.”

 

From an interview with me later that month:
“Over the past year 300 of my students in 10 sections of Psychology and Sociology were assigned the task of studying the Vietnam War to answer two questions that had been asked of President Carter by Vietnam Veterans of America: Why had they been sent to war, and what lessons had the nation learned from the experience ?
At the end of this exercise, after giving the students their grades to insure objectivity, I asked them to vote on whether the war was justified. 85% said that it was, a legitimate struggle for freedom for others.
Puzzled as to why the students of this generation could see the truth so clearly, whereas those of the 60’s could not, the students concluded that faculties, to serve their own ideological purposes, had misinformed their students, who in turn used the misinformation to serve their own purposes. Some of the students admitted that had they been in college at the time and were subject to the draft, they would have viewed this issue differently.”

 

A Manifesto which I  took to the Reagan White House later that month ended as follows:

 

“The major lesson of Vietnam, the students concluded, was that American foreign policy would henceforth have to take into consideration that left-liberals in our universities and media, hostile towards traditional American values, have created within our society a large and dangerous bloc lacking in the intellectual and moral foundations necessary to defend freedom. The liberal media and university robbed the United States government and the American people of the ability to make critical judgments about their most vital security interests in a time of war.”

 

This is happening again, and this time includes the government.

 

Diana West, our favorite columnist, lays it out. The ongoing  issue – Is Islam a religion of peace ?
Wednesday, February 27, 2013

 

Andrew C. McCarthy, who successfully prosecuted Abdel Rahman, the “blind sheikh” who masterminded the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, poignantly reflects on how it is that two decades of jihad have failed to prod the West into acknowledging and confronting the specifically Islamic brand of war, part-violence, part-subversion, that is leading to our demise as a civilization through the strangulating imposition, both de facto and de jure, of Islamic law in the West.(Note: McCarthy is the author of “Willful Blindness.)
Andy draws a line between that long-ago demonic attempt to kill thousands in the heart of New York City on February 26, 1993 — insistently, deceptively and self-deceptively portrayed as “wanton” violence devoid of doctrine — with the near-assassination of Lars Hedegaard, a Danish newspaper editor, on a quiet street in Copenhagen three weeks ago. This recent event — a strike at a man whose career as a writer and free-speaker stands in defiance of Islamic law — is another bead on the string linking Pim Fortyn (assassinated 2002), Theo van Gogh (assassinated 2004), Hirsi Ali, Geert Wilders, Kurt Westergaard, Lars Vilks, and many others “marked for death” by Islam for failing to fall silent about Islam’s threat to our liberty, as Islamic law (sharia) demands.
To our great detriment — and to our greater shame — the United States government has effectively bowed to these demands by joining with the Islamic bloc (OIC) to help criminalize criticism of Islam.

 

The Islamic doctrine behind these barbaric if Islamically correct death sentences is as wished-away today as it was 20 years ago, when the Blind Sheikh brought jihad to Manhattan. People actually seem to believe that if they ignore it, it may not go away exactly, but it won’t hurt them. The fact is, however, it already has hurt them, warping them, robbing them, transforming them into denizens of a post-liberty society, where a Hedegaard, a Wilders, is an outlier, a voice of one crying in a wilderness of smart sets, polite people, and other degraded dhimmi. It is this mass of Westerners whose willful blindness, as Andy would say, has become a coerced silence. It reads like science fiction, but that is the reality a frank assessment of the past two decades shows us. Andy writes:

 

Despite serial atrocities, thousands of deaths, and a decade of war, we are today more willfully blind to the reason we were attacked than we were back in 1993 — back when our ignorance might have been excused by our homeland’s seeming invulnerability to the scourge of jihadist terror. Regardless of our reluctance to see it, mainstream Islam — the dynamic Islam of the Middle East, unadulterated by incentives to moderate, while settling in non-Muslim lands — is aggressively hegemonic. As proclaimed by another iconic supremacist, Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna, “It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated.”

 

And to dominate for a very specific reason. Supremacists are not the irrational savages we have been so desperate for two decades to portray them as. Whether the jihad terrorizes by explosives, suffocates by the systematic subjugation of women and persecution of religious minorities in Islamic countries, or infiltrates by stealthily using liberty to undermine liberty in the West, the mission is always coherent and always the same: the imposition of sharia.
To date, the sharia mission has been stupendously successful. It took two attempts, but the WTC is no more. Free speech about Islam in America is no longer anything defineable as “free.” Europe is a vast colony in thrall to sharia under the threatening press of Islamic populations. Hedegaard, Wilders and the rest, in the land of their fathers, must live the rest of their lives protected by state security.

 

The barbarians are not at the gate anymore. “

 

It is not as if there is not sufficient evidence that Islam is indeed a religion of violence. I think of three items, the recent debate at NewYork University, and two scientific studies based on content analysis of the Koran.

 

From two of our recent articles posted on wmdterror.com:

 

It’s been a decade of silence. Broken only once at NYU in a debate that revealed the truth. Here is what happens when a university finally does allow one of the boycotted experts on Islam, like Steve Emerson or Robert Spencer, in this case Ayaan Hersi Ali, to be heard..
Prior to the debate, “Religion of Peace ? ” the audience of 800 at NYU was polled as to what they thought about the issue, and results showed 41 percent were for ‘peaceful’, 25 percent were for ‘violent’ 34 percent were ‘undecided’. After the debate, poll results revealed a dramatic change from the results at the beginning of the night — 36 percent were now for ‘peaceful’, 55 percent were for ‘violent’ and 9 percent were undecided.
 
Let’s look at this reversal carefully:
Before the debate: 25% violent, 34 % undecided
After the debate: 55% violent, 9% percent undecided.

 

But we really don’t have to guess about this.We recently reported on two studies based on a standard tool of the social sciences, content analysis, which adds up, quantifies, reduces to numbers and percentages the ideas expressed in any given text, in this case the Koran, the sacred scriptures of Islam..

 

(1) Linguist Tina Magaard of Denmark has a Ph.D. in Textual Analysis and Intercultural Communication from the Sorbonne in Paris, and has spent three years on content analysis comparing the original texts of ten major religions. Says Magaard:
“The texts in Islam distinguish themselves from the texts of other religions by encouraging violence and aggression against people with other religious beliefs. There are also straightforward calls for terror. It is indisputable that the texts encourage terror and violence”.

 

(2) Another such analysis has been reported on by Moorthy Muthuswamy in his new book “Defeating Political Islam: The New Cold War: ”
“Let me refer to a content analysis done by Bill Warner that stands out, and conclusively defines what we are up against: 61% of the Koran talks ill of unbelievers or calls for their violent conquest and subjugation, but only 2.6 % of it talks about the overall good of humanity. This statistical analysis forms the basis not just for countering but even for comprehensively discrediting the often quoted description of Islam as a “religion of peace.” In fact, an appropriate and statistically acceptable characterization is that Islam doctrines overwhelmingly preach dislike, hatred, and conquest of unbelievers and that this material constitutes the majority of the content in the Koran.”
—————-

 

And now we have another empirically based study: (abridged)

 

Shari’a and Violence in American Mosques
by Mordechai Kedar and David Yerushalmi
Middle East Quarterly – Summer 2011

 

The survey’s findings were that 51 percent of mosques in the U.S. had texts that either advocated the use of violence in the pursuit of a Shari’a-based political order or advocated violent jihad as a duty that should be of paramount importance to a Muslim; 30 percent had only texts that were moderately supportive of violence, 19 percent had no violent texts at all.

 

Mosques that contained written materials in the severe category were the best attended, followed by those with only moderate-rated materials, trailed in turn by those lacking such texts.These materials explicitly praised acts of terror against the West; praised symbols or role models of violent jihad; promoted the use of force, terror, war, and violence to implement the Shari’a; emphasized the inferiority of non-Muslim life; promoted hatred and intolerance toward non-Muslims ; and endorsed inflammatory materials with anti-U.S. views. The overwhelming majority of mosques surveyed promoted literature supportive of violent jihad. 

 

To show how the Obama administration tries to suppress all this, in our recent article “FBI and the Koran ,” posted on wmdterror.com on Oct 27, 2011, we summed up that growing issue as follows

 

” What has happened is that the FBI, seeking to put together a comprehensive library of books on Islam managed to include a significant number of those authors who document the Median or violent verses of the Koran as the true root cause of terrorism. This is the first time the work of these authors has ever been mentioned either by the mainstream media or on campus or any institution, including the church.
Deputy U.S. Attorney General James Cole confirmed on Wednesday that the Obama administration was pulling back all training materials used for the law enforcement and national security communities, in order to eliminate all references to Islam.
Dwight C. Holton, the U.S. Attorney in Oregon said he had spoken with Holder directly about the issue of the terror training materials.
“I want to be perfectly clear about this: training materials that portray Islam as a religion of violence or with a tendency towards violence are wrong, they are offensive, and they are contrary to everything that this president, this attorney general and Department of Justice stands for.”

 

Contrary to the hope of erasing this material from the memory of agents, the growing tension between this new knowledge and what they were previously taught is certain to lead to a protest by the agents against the governments effort to keep this critical knowledge from the American people, and when that happens someone is certain to start calling for the impeachment of President Obama. It is very clear that our entire national security emphasis must shift from some imaginary group that has “hijacked a religion of peace” to the religion itself, Islam. Unless we “know the enemy “, (Habeck) we have no hope of winning the war on terror.

 

From an article just in, being widely distributed throughout America, calling for action on Brennan:

 

ALERT: STOP JOHN BRENNAN
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2013

 

Senate members must block John Brennan’s confirmation as CIA Director on March 5. Take Action – Fax the Senate!

 

With Hagel’s confirmation behind us, it’s high-time to take action against the next bad nominee: John O. Brennan as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Senate GOP members agree that John Brennan, Obama’s counterterrorism advisor, is not the man to take lead of the CIA – already a number are preparing to do the right thing and block his confirmation.There is a great issue that is being overlooked.
John Brennan’s intimate relationship with Islam. This is not only fact, but also a major red-flag, considering that he is votes away from becoming – borrowing the words of CIA.gov – “the principal adviser to the President for intelligence matters related to the national security.”
Brennan has come to the defense, and even praised, Islam and its most radical tenets throughout his government and non-government career at home and abroad.

 

On February 13, 2010, for example, Mr. Brennan delivered a speech at the Islamic Center at New York University – at an event sponsored by the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) – where he overtly applauded Islam and his personal experience with the religion while he was a college student.In his address he calls Islam a system of “goodness and beauty” and a religion of “peace, and tolerance, and diversity.” In other words, he spouts out the typical liberal propaganda. On May 26, 2010, acting as Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security, Brennan openly came to the defense of Islam and one of its most radical tenets – jihad.

 

“We do not describe our enemy as “jihadists” or “Islamists” because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women, and children.”
Brennan’s belief that jihad is a “legitimate” tenet of Islam that is not associated with violence is flat-out wrong.

 

The “Middle East Quarterly” correctly notes:
“To speak of jihad exclusively as a means of purifying oneself or one’s community reveals either ignorance or deliberate obfuscation on Brennan’s part. Jihad through war against unbelievers is rooted in the Koran and the Hadith (reports on the sayings and acts of Muhammad). Historian Michael Bonner in his authoritative study of jihad, “Jihad in Islamic History”, as well as other writers, has shown that throughout history there has been an inordinate emphasis on armed jihad, in the context of invasions and conquests and, in our day, terrorism.”
No Director of the CIA has any business whatsoever in covering-up for radical Islam or any of its principles – especially those that inspire and encourage violent acts of terror.
——————-
Here is what we wrote about Brennan in our last article, “The Administration’s Cowardice”, posted on wmdterror.com on Feb. 21, 2013

 

“NATIONAL EMERGENCY – THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT KNOW WHO THE ENEMY IS !

 

From, “The Washington Times”, by Jon Ward and Eli Lake:
“It’s official. The U.S. is no longer engaged in a “war on terrorism”. Neither is it fighting “jihadists” or in a “global war.” President Obama’s top homeland security and counter-terrorism official, John Brennan, took all three terms off the table of acceptable words inside the White House during a speech Thursday at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Brennan said the only terminology the administration is using is that the U.S. is, “at war with al-Qaeda” and its violent extremist allies. Mr. Brennan’s speech was aimed at outlining ways in which the Obama administration intends to undermine the “upstream” factors that create an environment in which terrorists are bred, increasing aid to foreign governments for building up their militaries and social and democratic institutions .
Mr. Brennan said that to say the U.S. is fighting “jihadists” is wrongheaded because it is using “a legitimate term, ‘jihad’ meaning to purify oneself to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal, ” which, “risks giving these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately seek but in no way deserve. Worse, it risks reinforcing the idea the United States is somehow at war with Islam itself.”

 

These three phrases show that the White House, and Brennan, have no idea who the enemy is:

 

“an environment in which terrorists are bred.” It is not the environment, it is the Koran .
“Jihad meaning to purify oneself to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal.” “Jihad” means military action to expand Islam.
“risks reinforcing the idea that the United States is somehow at war with Islam itself.” Islam is definitely at war with the U.S.
—————-
In the final analysis this ignorance goes back to Obama, as seen in this exchange, plus comments, from our article of Feb. 21, 2013:

 

“Immediately after 9/11 academic elites sent out the message that the attack was due to a small band of fanatics who had “hijacked a great and peaceful religion.” Early after Obama’s first election Bill O’Reilly interviewed him, his first question being, “Who is the enemy?” Said Obama, “al-Qaeda, the Taliban, a whole host of networks that are bent on attacking America, who have a distorted ideology, who have perverted the faith of Islam. “

 

There is the problem. Obama’s very limited understanding of the root cause of terrorism. He believes the threat involves only al-Qaeda and that with the end of bin Laden the threat is over. That is why he lied about Benghazi. To protect that view. The real root cause is Islam itself.

 

They want us to believe al-Qaeda ended with bin Laden – Gingrich
Obama lacks an understanding of the threat – Bolton
The cover-up is clear -Giuliani
They are unwilling to identify the threat -Rumsfeld

 

Said Fawaz A. Gerges in a very important book just out on this subject, “Obama and the Middle East,” “During his speech Obama did not mention the words “terrorism” or “war on terror”. He addressed the causes that fuel and sustain extremism rather than treating it as an inherent characteristic of Islam.”

 

This apparent inability to face the fact that terrorism is an “inherent characteristic of Islam” is what makes the re-election of Obama extremely dangerous for the American people. -Rommy once said on Newsmax that Obama’s views on terrorism are “frightingly naive.” Reporters should have asked him to explain what he meant by that. They also should have asked both candidates these questions:

 

How would you respond to a nuclear attack on the U.S.?
There are many who argue that the Koran is the root cause of international terrorism. Do you agree ?
Many people want America to meet Islamic threats with a threat of catastrophic retaliation. Would you consider this?

 

Of course that never happened. The cover-up remained intact.”
————–
The tension in this country between those who understand that Islam constitutes a lethal danger and those who call it a “religion of peace” is reaching an explosive level. In Vietnam the tension between those who supported the war and those who were lying about it back home, had a fatal influence on the outcome of that war. As Johnson told Westmoreland  shortly after the Tet Offesnsive, that to pursue the war more aggressively was politically unfeasible, that he had “no choice but to try to calm the protestors lest they precipitate an abject American pull-out.” (“America in Vietnam,” Lewy).That must not happen in this case as the situation includes the possibility of a nuclear attack on American soil, infinitely more dangerous. This divide over Brennan may be the occasion we have all been working toward, to raise to national awareness the true nature of Islam, by some senator reading from the floor of the Senate the following verses or “suras”, just a few out of hundreds, straight fom the Koran:

 

9.5             Slay the idolaters wherever you find them…lie in ambush everywhere for them.
22.9          Garments of fire have been prepared for the unbelievers. Scalding water shall be poured upon their heads, melting their skins and that which is in their bellies. They shall be lashed with rods of iron.
47.4          When you meet the unbelievers in battle strike off their heads.
98.6          The unbelievers among the People of the Book, Christian and Jews, and the pagans shall burn forever in the fire of Hell. They are the vilest of creatures.
5.60          God has cursed the Jews, transforming them into apes and swine and those who serve the devil.
5.33          Those who make war against Allah and his Apostle shall be put to death or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides.
2.216        Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you may dislike it.
8.12           I will instill terror into the hearts of the Infidels, strike off the heads then, and strike off from them every fingertip.

 

In our last article, “The Administration’s Cowardice”, we urged people to get a copy of the documentary, “Islam;What the West Needs to Know,”  and have it shown on Public Access TV, which is free, in their hometown.This is the best film, fully documented with quotes from the Koran, that we have on the dangers of Islam. Here is a description:

 

“Virtually every major Western leader has over the past several years expressed the view that Islam is a peaceful religion and that those who commit violence in its name are fanatics who misinterpret its tenets. This claim, while widely circulated, rarely attracts serious public examination. Now the question is finally being asked, “Is Islam itself violent ? ”
Through an examination of the Koran, other Islamic texts, and the example of the prophet Muhammad, this documentary establishes, through a sober and methodical presentation, that the violence against non-Muslims is and has always been an integral aspect of Islam. “Jihad”, translated as “struggle” as represented in the Koran and the life of Muhammad, means nothing less than organized warfare against unbelievers.
Relying primarily on Islam’s own sources, this documentary demonstrates that Islam is a violent, expansionary ideology that seeks the destruction or subjugation of other faiths, cultures, and systems of government. The documentary consists of original interviews, citations from Islamic texts, computer animated maps, footage of Western leaders, and Islamic television broadcasts. It features interviews with noted experts on Islam including Robert Spencer, Serge Trikovic, Bat Ye’or, Abdullah Al-Araby, and former terrorist Walid Shoebat.”

 

Thousands of people read this article. But to our knowledge, nobody lifted a finger to get the film shown. So we will now make it more simple.We referred, above, to the work of Bill Warner as reported by M.S.Muthuswamy.
Warner holds a PhD in physics and math. He has been a university professor, businessman, and applied physicist. He has had a life-long interest in religion and its effects on history. He has studied the source texts of the major religions for decades.
Dr. Warner founded the Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI) and is its director. He has produced a dozen books, including a Koran, a biography of Mohammed and a summary of the political traditions of Mohammed. He also developed the first self-study course on Political Islam. He has given talks nationally and internationally about Islamic political doctrine. In this 45 minute lecture , using advanced slide technology, he covers 1400 years  of Islamic history, and the major themes of its doctrines. An excellent, totally accurate, education in Islam for the average person.

 

 

Just as excellent as a teaching tool on the subject of Islam is this video, by the noted counter-terrorist expert Walid Shoebat, “Three Stages of Jihad.”

 

 

Now here’s a guy in England who makes it simple – with attitude:
 
http://dotsub.com/view/72457cbc-fe18-4053-ae3f-6c7639cf4e79

 

I will be 85 in August. I can’t do this forever. I want to see the end of terrorism. Pass this article along to others, or at least one or more of the three videos.
We must stop Brennan, and we must expose Obama’s misunderstanding of Islam or we could lose everything.

 

Thousands read the article and did not lift a finger.

 

Will you push a few computer keys to help your country ?

 

magruder44@aol.com
v-v-a-r.org
wmdterror.com
1-785-312-9303

 

V.V.A.R. honors all, past and present, who have served on our National Board of Advisors
Mr. Richard Kitson – President, Vietnam Veterans of America – Suffolk Chapter (New York)
Mr. Dennis Garbosky – founder, Vietnam War Historical Society (New York)
Mr. Ray Gallagher – past Commander, American Legion – Toronto (Canada)
Col. Stanley Horton – former Director, V.V.Leadership- Houston (Texas)
Mr. John Lowe – Commander, Native American Veterans Association (Kansas)
Lt. Col. Chuck Allen (ret.) – founder, “National Vietnam Veterans Review” (North Carolina)
Mr. Stephen Markley – former Director, V.V.Leadership – Minnesota (Kansas)
Dr. William Beausay – Academic Consultant – psychology (Ohio)
Annette R. Hall -Co-author, “I Served” and Executive Producer of the documentry, “Silent Victory” (Washington).
Mr. Steve Hawkins – President, Committee on the Crisis in Education (Kansas)
Mr. Michael Capel – Editor, Campus Report, -AIA (Washington
Mr. William Street – history – Vietnam War (Hawaii)
Mr. Dan M. Steinruck – Virginia State Director for Point Man Ministries (Virginia)
Dr. Richard G. Stevens – Professor of Political Science Emeritus -Institute of World Politics (Washington, D.C.)
Mr. Bernie Russo – President, VVA Chapter #484, Editor, VVA Newspaper- Conn. Edition (Connecticut)
Mr. Joseph P. Larson – Consultant – Computer Science (Kansas)
Mr. Bill Laurie – Academic Consultant – History of Vietnam War (Arizona)
Rev. Lloyd Snodgrass – Academic Consultant -Theology (Kansas)
Mr. Roger Young – Co-Editor, “Northwest Veterans Newsletter”, and military consultant – (Washington)
Beverly Haire – Consultant – POW/MIA issues (Florida)
Mr. David Horowitz – President, Center for the Study of Popular Culture (California)
Mr. Jack O’Brian – President, Vietnam Veterans of America – Long Island Chapter (New York)

 

From Letters:
“Your activities indeed, indeed, sound very worthwhile.” – Edwin Feulner – President – The Heritage Foundation
“Very best wishes for success in your important work.” – Former President George Bush
“I salute your aims… my best wishes in this.” – Charlton Heston – actor, producer
“Very best wishes for your important work.” Christopher Demuth – President – American Enterprise Institute
“Academic reform is necessary, and no one has more moral authority to demand that they clean up their act than those who have put their lives on the line for this country – Thomas Sowell – Hoover Institution
“Your concerns regarding the academic climate on our nation’s college campuses will be provided to the Legion’s National Committee on Education.” – The American Legion
“I never miss an opportunity to thank Vietnam veterans for serving their country. …best wishes for great success.” – H. Norman Schwarzkopf – General, U.S.Army (ret.)
“Thanks for all your efforts on behalf of Vietnam veterans.”- Micheal Clodfelter – Vietnam combat veteran and author of “Vietnam in Military Statistics : A Study of the Indochina Wars, 1772-1991.”
“You have done an exhaustive bit of research and I congratulate you.” – General William C. Westmoreland
“Its comforting to know that folks like you are in the trenches taking a stand in mainstream America. Keep up the good work.” – Karl Day – Editor – Washington Watch
“…has greatest respect for veterans and takes this very seriously.”- Office of Kweisi Mfume -President – NAACP
“Many of your aims have been the subject of articles in VFW Magazine. Good luck with your project.” – Richard Kolb – Editor-in-Chief – VFW Magazine
“With the help of people like you we can achieve a real breakthrough in academic freedom.”- Reed Irvine – Chairman – Accuracy in Academia ·
“Best of luck with your enterprise” – William F. Buckley Jr.- National Review.
“I share your objectives” – James Buchanan, Nobel Laureate – George Mason University 

 

 “Throughout history, it has been the inaction of those who could have acted, the indifference of those who should have known better, the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered most, that has made it possible for evil to triumph.”
Emperor Haile Selassie
 

 

THE ADMINISTRATION’S COWARDICE
by Leonard Magruder
 
Earlier this week…Pulitzer Prize winner Charles Krauthammer debated Time Magazine Editor at Large Fareed Zakaria  in the John Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies Munk debate on Iran.
 
Krauthammer argued that the world could not tolerate a nuclear Iran and said that western powers ought to use every means at their disposal to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Zakaria argued that containment was the best policy, similar to our policy regarding Russia during the Cold War.
 
Here, essentially, is what each said:
 
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER:
The  idea that some technique like deterrence, because it worked in one context, will therefore always work, is mindless.
I would say to my friend Fareed, “Wake up.” Wake up to the reality that Israel-Iran is not the U.S.-Soviet Union. Wake up to the fact that the nature of the regime is completely different, that the regime in Iran, unlike the atheistic regime in the Soviet Union, has an apocalyptic, millennialist idea of history and sees itself as the instrument of that idea. Wake up to the idea that for Iran, martyrdom is the royal road to heaven.
Wake up to the idea that for the jihadists that we are fighting around the world, in the words of al-Qaeda, “You love life, we love death.” Try deterring that.  Russia was engaged in an ideological contest with the United States; it never sought to wipe it off the map. Iran believes that the existence of Israel is a crime against humanity and an illness that it has to cure.
The Iranians themselves, the  mullahs, have told us what they intend in a nuclear exchange.  President Rafsanjani said that application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel, but in the Muslim world the same thing would just produce damages. In other words, Israel would forever and instantly be wiped off the map, whereas the Ummah, the Muslim nation of 1.8 billion people, would endure with some damage, but would endure.
And remember the stakes — we are assured by the other side that deterrence will work. They don’t know, and we don’t know, if deterrence will work. But imagine the risks if they are wrong. Six millions Jews are dead, the eradication of Israel, hyper-proliferation in the Middle East, and Iranian domination of the Middle East and of the oil economy of the world. Do any of you want to live with that?
 
FAREED ZAKARIA:
What I say to Charles is, “Come home, Charles Krauthammer.” Come home to the sad, necessary task of building a powerful containment and deterrence strategy against Iran. Of course, nobody wants an Iran with nuclear weapons. Of course, one wishes to place every obstacle in their way and put as much pressure as is possible on them to desist.And of course, we want to have precisely the same strategy we had in the Cold War, of detaining and deterring them so that eventually we create circumstances where the young people of Iran can take their country back. And that is the course we are trying to move on. But there is no fantasy solution out there that says, we cannot tolerate this and we are going to go to war instead, and we are going to pre-emptively strike another country in the Middle East, and they will love us for it and they will embrace us, and all of a sudden the problems of the Middle East will go away..
So I say, come home Charles Krauthammer, come home to the reason and history and logic. Don’t give in just because these guys are different, and they’re brown and they’re coloured. Don’t believe that because of that, we have to have fantastic solutions.
 
The implications of what Krauthammer said are perhaps more clearly seen in this column he wrote on July 2, 2010 titled -
 
TERRORIST TIES TO ISLAM CAN’T BE IGNORED
 
“Holder’s avoidance of the obvious continues the absurd and embarrassing refusal of the Obama administration to acknowledge who out there is trying to kill Americans and why.  In fact, it has banned from its official vocabulary the terms jihadist, Islamist, and Islamic terrorism. Instead, Obama’s National Security Strategy insists on calling the enemy  – “a loose network of violent extremists.” But this is utterly meaningless. These are people professing a powerful ideology rooted in a radical interpretation on Islam , in whose name they propagandize, proselytize, terrorize and kill.
Why is this important ? Because the first rule of war is to know your enemy.  Islamist fundamentalism is the common denominator linking all the great terror attacks  of this century – from 9/11 to Mumbai, from Fort Hood to Times Square, from London to Madrid to Bali.  The one thing that united them was the jihadist vision in whose name they acted There is a final reason why the administration’s cowardice about identifying those trying to kill us cannot be allowed to pass. It is demoralizing. It trivializes the war between jihadi barbarism and Western decency, and diminishes the memory of those who have died fighting it.”
 
(A note on the meaning of the term “jihadist.” From “Understanding Jihad”, by David Cook.”Warfare with spiritual significance ,” is the primary and root meaning of the term as it has been defined by classical Muslim jurists and legal scholars and as it was practiced by Muslims during the premodern period. This meaning is sustained in the standard definition given in the “Encyclopedia of Islam,” “In law, according to general doctrine and in historical tradition, the jihad consists of military action with the object of the expansion of Islam.” This terse summary of Muslim law and history is the standard, scholarly one. “
The idea that jihad means spiritual exertion has never been the primary meaning. That is largely Muslim propaganda.)
 
Or maybe you would rather hear jihad explained by Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran, the father of the Islamic revolution and godfather of terrorism, and the reason why the Parliament of Iran always opens a session with “Death to America.”  Here he is quoting directly from the Koran in what is practically a definitive definition of jihad: 
 
“Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males to prepare themselves for the conquest of other countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. Those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world. Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those who say this are witless. Islam says: Kill the unbelievers… Islam says kill the non-Muslims, put them to the sword and scatter their armies. There are hundreds of other Koranic psalms and hadiths, sayings of the Prophet, urging Muslims to value war and to fight. So does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit on those foolish souls who make such a claim. “
-Taheri, Amir. Holy Terror, pgs. 226-227
 
A problem with Fareed’s view of Islam can be argued as seen in this excerpt from, “Defeating Political Islam, ” by Moorthy Muthswamy:
 
“It is illustrative to analyze the views of a Muslim who was born and bred in India but was  educated in the West and who makes a living specializing in foreign affairs, Fareed Zakaria. In an interview Zakaria notes that the Indian Muslim faces discrimination and exclusion. Given the nature of the jihad being waged on India, with a growing and significant suport base among the Indian Muslim polulace and the unfortunate fate of non-Muslims in every Muslim majority area of South Asia,  it would be surprising if Indian Muslims did not face discrimination and  exclusion. Muslims are simply feared and distrusted in this part of the world. Political power for Muslims in South Asia has invariably turned into state-sponsored jihad on non-Muslims. What is also notable is Zakaria’s convenient neglect of non-Muslim ethnic cleansing in the Pakistan part of Kashmir and Muslim’s widespread support for jihad directed at the Indian state. Zakaria’s apparent inability to identify political Islam’s influence in making Muslims advocates of conflict extends to his analysis of Iraq. He blames America for the chaos in Iraq saying, “We gave them a civil war,” when all America did  – at an enormous cost to itself – was to try to help Iraqis build a democratic nation. For all his writings on Islamic terrorism, Zakaria either doesn’t understand or chooses not to understand the extent of Islam’s manipulation of Muslims and the grave danger it poses to civilization.”
 
The real issue in this debate would seem to reduce to the old one of whether an Islamic nation is dangerous. Krauthammer says yes. We should take preemptive action. Zakaria says no. It is rational and can be contained.
The motion was, “Be it resolved the world cannot tolerate an Iran with nuclear weapons capability.” In a poll before the debate the audience strongly supported the motion, 60% pro, 24% con. Zakaria was able to sway the audience somewhat, as the poll after the debate was 58% pro, 42% com. But the prevailing view still seems to be that Islam is not a religion of peace.
 
Compare this to the one other time that any debate on this issue occured, at NYU on Oct. 6, 2010. From the  NYU Daily Student Newspaper:
 
“Audience Rejects the Motion that Islam is a Religion of Peace
 
Hundreds of people (800) poured into the Skirball Center last night to take part in a debate on one of the more controversial issues facing the country today — the growing militarism of Islam. The motion for the debate: “Is Islam a religion of peace?” The debate, moderated by ABC News’ John Donavan, featured four panelists, two speaking for the motion that Islam is peaceful and two speaking against that position.
Prior to the debate, the audience was polled as to what they thought about the issue, and results showed 41 percent were for ‘peaceful’, 25 percent were for ‘violent’ 34 percent were undecided. After the debate, poll results revealed a drastic change from the results at the beginning of the night — 36 percent were now for ‘peaceful’, 55 percent were for ‘violent’ and 9 percent were undecided.”
 
Let’s look at this reversal carefully:
 
Before the debate: 25% violent, 34 % undecided
After the debate: 55% violent, 9% percent undecided.
 
The real significance of these two debates is that they are the only two events since 9/11 that have escaped the effort by media and academia to keep this issue from surfacing. And both audiences decided against the prevailing teaching by university and media that Islam is a religion of peace. Considering the importance of this issue to national security, such debates should be encouraged at universities everywhere until the issue is clearly resolved and national security policy reflects that resolution.
——————
 
But Muthuswamy said something else. In commenting on certain scholars of terrorism at American think tanks, such as the Brookings Institution, he wrote:
 
“Almost none of these scholars appear to have adequately understood the dynamics of Islam that is very intolerant in South Asia – the massive non-Muslim ethnic cleansing being conducted in every Muslim majority area of South Asia. From what I can tell, almost all American scholars specializing in this area have yet to realize this or understand its implications . By missing out on this crucial pattern of behavioral dynamics of Islam  it seems these scholars have undermined their ability to provide solid policy-making advice to the U.S. government and others.”
 
And so without this solid policy-making advice from academia, and the consequent ignorance being spread by the media, the propaganda arm of the university, what you have is total ignorance in this country of the true danger of Islam and so it is that the following  then happened, as reported in our article of Oct. 27, 2011:
 
“What has happened is that the FBI, seeking to put together a comprehensive library of books on Islam managed to include a significant number of those authors who document the Median or violent verses of the Koran as the true root cause of terrorism. This is the first time the work of these authors has ever been mentioned either by the mainstream media or on campus or any institution, including the church. But now that the FBI knows that the great majority of Muslims go by the abrogated or violent interpretation of the Koran, and that this is the true root cause of terrorism, it is morally and legally obligated to make this increasingly known to the public and especially impressed upon those in the Obama administration, whose ignorance on this matter has long been the subject of our articles on terrorism.
Deputy U.S. Attorney General James Cole confirmed on Wednesday that the Obama administration was pulling back all training materials used for the law enforcement and national security communities, in order to eliminate all references to Islam. Some believe the Obama administration’s Justice Department may go even further. “The Attorney General has announced what sounds like reprogramming if they find people who have actually received training” that Islamist groups find objectionable, Center for Security Policy president Frank Gaffney told The Daily Caller. (In other words, erase from memory anyone who has been exposed to the truth.)
Dwight C. Holton, the U.S. Attorney in Oregon said he had spoken with Holder directly about the issue of the terror training materials.
“I want to be perfectly clear about this: training materials that portray Islam as a religion of violence or with a tendency towards violence are wrong, they are offensive, and they are contrary to everything that this president, this attorney general and Department of Justice stands for.”
 
If you Google “FBI Islam” you can find a montage of some of the books that Obama ordered removed from the FBI library at Quantico. Here are six that are shown:
 
Onward Muslim Soldiers – Robert Spencer
Militant Islam Reaches America – Daniel Pipes
Muhammad’s Monsters – essays, various authors
Jihad and Genocide – Richard L.Rubenstein
Islamikaze- Raphael Israeli
From Munhammad to bin Laden – David Bukay
 
This is from one essay in the Bukay book, “Sacred Visions and Religious Terror:The Case of Islam,” in which Charles Selengut breaks the Muslim world into three divisions:
 
modernism, that is, the moderates, very few in number
traditionalism, that is, Islam but without violence,
and by far the largest group, militant Islam. Of this he writes:
 
“These seek to change reality, to make it conform to religious expectations and dogma.They see modernists and traditionalists as faithless and weak-minded in their willingness to compromise their essential beliefs and goals. Militant Islam rejects modernism as theological surrender and apostasy.The militant are the pure believers, impatient with waiting and zealous to do battle for God. God spoke and his truth is literal. Any other response is blasphemous.
Muslim theology has not undergone liberalization, as has Christianity, Islam has remained an essentially literalist Koranic tradition and deviations from the texts receive no legitimization or support from the virtuoso class of leading clerics. The militant response in its demand to engage in jihad, to make the literal texts come true, to fulfill the precise demands of scripture is not sectarian or ideosyncratic as many Western observers imagine, but central to the inner life of Islam. The Islamic injunction to establish a universal Islamic society, to reclaim Muslims lands and to establish Sharia as the state law is the Muslim obligation. The texts, the oral histories, and world view passed on within the closed Muslim world of Islam schools, mosques, and universities do not permit abandonment of the classical traditions.
 
Two 20th-century thinkers, the Indian Muslim Maulana Mawdudi and the Egyptian Sayid Qubt gave new life to the core Islamic goals,and in doing so ignited a transformation of Islam. The enemies of Islam are not only those who wage war against Muslims, or deny Muslims their religious, political, or civil rights, but the entire world of jahiliyah , unbelievers or “infidels”, whose very existence should not and cannot be tolerated by Islam. Islam has in this view a universal liberating and humanizing message for all humanity and it is inevitable that other religions and systems will not recognize the truth of the Islamic message. Consequently those other powers must be “destroyed” and the leaders “annihilated”.
Western observers and diplomats are often shocked and scandalized by the growing legitimization of violence in the Islamic world. Muslims see things differently.What, to observers, appears to be violence and terror is from an Islamic perspective, an obligatory and ethical response to paganism, infidelity, or apostasy. “
 
The problem is that all this puts the Islamic world at total odds with the rest of the world. Obama does not want you reading anything about that. Nor does the Muslim world.
 
At an April 2005 meeting of the UN Human Rights Commission, its 51 Islamic members, the Organization of Islamic Conference, (OIC) refused to condemn those who kill in the name of religion, and in fact said that criticism of Muslim terrorists amounted to “defamation of religion.”
 
There it is, for the whole world to see. The right to murder in the name of God.
 
And then this, the nomination to head the CIA of a man, John Brennan, with a baby’s view of the nature of Islam, reflecting Obama’s ignorance, as reported in our article of  Aug. 21, 2009. The way in which Obama will increase vulnerability to an attack is clearly seen in the following:
 
“NATIONAL EMERGENCY – THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT KNOW WHO THE ENEMY IS !
 
From, “The Washington Times”, by Jon Ward and Eli Lake:
 
“It’s official. The U.S. is no longer engaged in a “war on terrorism”. Neither is it fighting “jihadists” or in a “global war.” President Obama’s top homeland security and counter-terrorism official, John Brennan, took all three terms off the table of acceptable words inside the White House during a speech Thursday at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Brennan said the only terminology the administration is using is that the U.S. is, “at war with al-Qaeda” and its violent extremist allies. Mr. Brennan’s speech was aimed at outlining ways in which the Obama administration intends to undermine the “upstream” factors that create an environment in which terrorists are bred, increasing aid to foreign governments for building up their militaries and social and democratic institutions .
Mr. Brennan said that to say the U.S. is fighting “jihadists” is wrongheaded because it is using “a legitimate term, ‘jihad’ meaning to purify oneself to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal, ” which, “risks giving these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately seek but in no way deserve. Worse, it risks reinforcing the idea the United States is somehow at war with Islam itself.”
 
These three phrases show that the White House has no idea who the enemy is:
 
“an environment in which terrorists are bred.” It is not the environment, it is the Koran .
“Jihad meaning to purify oneself to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal.” “Jihad” means military action to expand Islam.
“risks reinforcing the idea that the United States is somehow at war with Islam itself.” Islam is definitely at war with the U.S.
 
He wouldn’t be the first cabinet member forced to parrot the president’s ignorance:
 
“Eyeing Obama Administration, Defense Secretary stops talking about “Islamist” terrorism “- Jihad Watch”, Oct. 25, 2008:
 
“Hoping President Obama might let him keep his job, Gates toes the PC line and opts to ignore the one single explanation of their own motives and goals that the terrorists have offered to us – Islam. Defense Secretary Robert Gates last week referred to Islamist terrorism by the politically-correct term “violent extremism” during a speech to the U.S. Institute of Peace. The use of the non-Islamist terminology highlights the ongoing debate in government over the use of terms like jihad and Islamic extremism in public discussions of terrorism.”
A U.S. Central Command Red Team of experts stated recently that honest reports require labeling the terrorists as Islamic and jihadist since the roots of the violence lie in Islamic law. “The fact is, our enemies cite the source of Islam as the foundation for their global jihad.”
Remember, Obama once told Bill O ‘Reilly that “terrorists have perverted the faith of Islam.” Here we see that that view has intimidated the Secretary of Defense into essentially misrepresenting the enemy, even as the U.S .Central Command says that the root of the violence lies in Islam.
 
Usually the American electorate accepts the outcome of a presidential race and moves on. But this time as Americans increasingly see the truth about Islam, and see that Obama’s “naivete” (Romney) is placing their lives at risk, there will be various and growing forms of protest. Tensions over this will grow rapidly, especially as demoralization grows in the armed forces, and media and academic attempts to shore up the myth that Islam is “peaceful” grow more hysterical. That is what the growing threat of a nuclear attack, on a nation paralyzed by the delusions of its own government, will do.
As Obama forces his administration to hide the truth about the enemy, the nation will move closer to that moment William Bennett once warned about, “accommodation, appeasement, and surrender.”
 
Said Fawaz A. Gerges in a very important book just out on this subject, “Obama and the Middle East,” “During his speech Obama did not mention the words “terrorism” or “war on terror”. He addressed the causes that fuel and sustain extremism rather than treating it as an inherent characteristic of Islam.”
 
This inability to face the fact that terrorism is an “inherent characteristic of Islam” is what makes the re-election of Obama extremely dangerous for the American people. Romny once said on Newsmax that Obama’s views on terrorism are “frightningly naive.” Why don’t reporters, even at this late date, ask Romny to explain what he meant by that. And why did they never ask the candidates at the time any obvious questions like these::
 
How would you respond to a nuclear attack on the U.S.?
There are many who argue that the Koran is the root cause of international terrorism. Do you agree ?
Many people want America to meet Islamic threats with a threat of catastrophic retaliation. Would you consider this?
 
The cover-up of these issues by the media was complete.
 
————–
 
Now that he is president, what Obama should do is immediately announce to the world that there is something wrong, something sub-moral and a threat to humanity about Islam. That it poses a threat to the entire non-Muslim world, and therefore he is issuing a warning to the Muslim world that an attack on America will be met with catastrophic retaliation against Islam. This is the only possible response to a religion that say it intends to dominate the world, through violence, if necessary. Once that shield is put in place against the deadly irrationality at the heart of the Koran, the second phase must take place, the discrediting  and even eliminating , of Islam. In the final analysis the only answer to Islam, because it contains a built-in and permanent thrust to dominate the world, through violence if necessary, is total eradication. The world can no longer live with a religion whose mission is to murder, or enslave, those who won’t convert to Islam, and now have access  to the  weapons of mass destruction that could make that possible.
.
And the world’s dream of an effective “moderate” counter-movement is a fantasy. For the simple reason that the Islam of “jihad” can always trump moderates with quotes direct from the Koran. Contextual reinterpretation is not acceptable to the vast majority of Islamic scholars, who also hold to the principle of “abrogation,” the rule that says the more violent verses of the later Koran of the bloody Medina period nullify the more peaceful verses of the earlier Meccan period.
—————–
 
This is from our article posted on wmdterror.com Sept. 12, 2012, “Islam/Film.” in which we proposed a way to show America Obama’s dangerous ignorance,
 
“We recently distributed 14 copies of “Islam:What the West Needs to Know” to various media, military, and education leaders in this Kansas community.The film, produced by Gregory M. Davis is the best of a number of new films documenting the Koran as the root cause of terrorism. The Mayor could have shown it to the City Commissioners. Reporters at the Lawrence Journal -World could have written articles about it. The TV station could have shown it to our citizens. The R.O.T.C. unit at K.U. could have shown it to its prospective officers, The student Senate could have shown it to the student body. But the fog of multiculturalism and “political correctness” has everyone paralyzed. And it gets worse. The article about the film went out to hundreds of veterans groups, to a large number of members of Congress, to many chapters of “Act for America”, to newspaper editors and journalists all over America, and by Congress.org went out to most of the major newspapers of America, urging all to get the film shown .. It even went out to the major newspapers of England by PressBox..Plus thousands of persons on our own distribution lists. Yet nobody lifted a finger to help Americans understand the worst crisis, because of the nuclear aspect, that this country has ever faced.
 
Following, from the jacket, is a description of the film:
“Virtually every major Western leader has over the past several years expressed the view that Islam is a peaceful religion and that those who commit violence in its name are fanatics who misinterpret its tenets. This claim, while widely circulated, rarely attracts serious public examination. Now the question is finally being asked, “Is Islam itself violent ? ”
Through an examination of the Koran, other Islamic texts, and the example of the prophet Muhammad, this documentary establishes, through a sober and methodical presentation, that the violence against non-Muslims is and has always been an integral aspect of Islam. “Jihad”, translated as “struggle” as represented in the Koran and the life of Muhammad, means nothing less than organized warfare against unbelievers.
Relying primarily on Islam’s own sources, this documentary demonstrates that Islam is a violent, expansionary ideology that seeks the destruction or subjugation of other faiths, cultures, and systems of government. The documentary consists of original interviews, citations from Islamic texts, computer animated maps, footage of Western leaders, and Islamic television broadcasts. It features interviews with noted experts on Islam including Robert Spencer, Serge Trikovic, Bat Ye’or, Abdullah Al-Araby, and former terrorist Walid Shoebat.”
 
A few years ago Senator Kyle sponsored a showing to Congress of the Dutch film, “Fitna”, clearly documenting the connection between the Koran and terrorism.. We faxed this article to a significant number of members of Congress, in particular Rep. Peter King who is conducting an investigation into terrorism. We urged him to show this film to Congress and then get it to the mainstream media to show all America as background to the November election.We even suggested that maybe Donald Trump, with his vast connections and resources, might sponsor the film on national TV. Nothing came of any of this.
Who else  to turn to?
If university, media, and administration all run from the responsibility to educate the nation regarding the danger of Islam, someone must do it.
 
Maybe anti-Islam, Koran burning Pastor Terry Jones?
 
I know. If you Google the name you get “inflammatory”, “nuts”, “dangerous” etc.. But Diana West, one of our most brilliant commentators , has another take:
 
“About the public space: It’s extremely hard to get a word in there – hard to stand out against the static, hard to punch through the murk of propaganda and appeasement that serves as an excuse for news and policy. Punching through becomes the work of activists, lightning rods, so-called “zealots,” people whom it is all too easy for glass-encased, college-pedigreed elites to dismiss as “nuts,” and worse.
Today, the strongest collective compulsion which serves the Islamic goal of destroying the West — is to prohibit criticism of Islam. Pastor Jones, in putting the Koran on mock trial, in symbolically burning a copy of it, in punching through the static by attracting the malignant attention and amplification of Boss-Taliban (Karzai), by serving as only the latest excuse (Cartoon Rage, Pope Rage, Fitna Rage, Teddy Bear Rage….) for an Islamic bloodletting to remind infidels what happens when we don’t kiss the ring, boldly rejects and defies this. His advent is what you might call a virtuoso piece of “performance art” in progress, showcasing the indomitable nature of the truly free human spirit. I salute him.”
 
That is why people are now resorting to more drastic methods like Pastor Terry Jones. Here is the kind of thing he does:
 
” (Reuters) – A Detroit prosecutor has filed a petition in district court to stop a Florida fundamentalist Christian preacher, (Pastor Terry Jones) who recently caused riots in Afghanistan after he burned a Koran, from holding a rally outside a large Michigan mosque. Prosecutors argue that the planned gathering by Jones could incite a riot, citing hundreds of email death threats against the preacher. Jones told a Detroit television station that he still plans to go ahead with the rally. “
 
This way of doing things is going to happen increasingly, because people are getting desperate as more and more they realize that they have been betrayed by the left/liberal coalition of media and campus and are taking matters into their own hands.
What I like about Jones is that he gets it done. And if you read what he says about Islam, don’t kid yourself. He is right on target. That is why I have written him the following letter:
 
“Dear Pastor Terry
 
You were the only person to acknowledge a recent article of mine widely distributed calling for more openness about Islam. Separately, I am sending you my latest article in which I call upon recipients to get a copy of the documentary “Islam:What the West Needs to Know” and get it shown on Pubic Access TV in their home town, maybe setting off  a movement throughout America educating people as to the extreme 
danger they face from Islam. But nobody wrote back that they had done so. Now I have followed your career and know that there is one thing you do, and that is act on what you believe, often in spite of scathing criticism. So I am hopeful that you will consider this project and do what you can to show this film to the people of Florida. If so let me know and I will spread the word.You would first, of course, need permission from the producers to show the film publicly. If you send me an address I’ll send you a copy of the film. For someone who is supposed to be “nuts” to start the ball rolling with a film as scholarly, objective, and sophisticated as this one, ignored by all of our elite, would certainly be a coup. The nation would be stunned..”
 
No pastor, of course, would miss the issue: :
 
The Bible:
Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, pray for them that despitefully use you. (Matt.5:44); Resist not evil. (Matt.5:39); If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to them the other. Matt.5:39); If anyone takes your coat then give them your shirt. (Matt.5:40); if someone makes you carry something one mile, carry it two. (Matt. 5:41); Forgive and you shall be forgiven. (Matt. 6:14); Judge not that ye be not judged. (Matt.7:1-2); Blessed are the peacemakers. (Matt. 5:9); Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy. (Matt. 5:7); Treat others the same way you want them to treat you. (Luke 6:27-36); Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the sick, whatever you do to the very least you have done unto me. (Matt. 25:40)
 
The Koran:
Infidels are your sworn enemies. (Sura 4:101); Be ruthless to the infidels. (Sura 48:29); Make war on the infidels who dwell around you. (Sura 9:123, 66:9); Fight those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day. (Sura 9:29); Strike off the heads of infidels in battle. (Sura 47:40); If someone stops believing in Allah, kill him. (a l-Bukhari 9:84-57); Take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends.(Sura205:510); Never be a helper to the disbelievers. (Sura 28:86); Kill the disbelievers wherever you find them. (Sura 2:191); Those who make war upon Allah… have their hands and feet of alternate sides cut off. (Sura 5:330); No Muslim should be killed for killing an infidel. (al-Bukhari 1:3:111)
 
He might do it.
Pastor Jones is no coward.
 
magruder44@aol.com
v-v-a-r.org
wmdterror.com
1-785-312-9303