After telling the story of Mohammed’s boast that he would make the mountain come to him, only to be forced to go to it, Francis Bacon observed, “If the mountains will not come to Mohammed, Mohammed will go to the mountain.”

Americans, Englishmen, Frenchmen and countless others went to the Muslim world hoping to turn it into another Boston, another London and another Paris. Instead, Boston, London and Paris are turning into another Kabul, another Islamabad and another Mogadishu. Mohammed has come to the mountain.

Five years ago, the sight of Muslim terrorists beheading British soldiers was a horror that could happen in Afghanistan or Iraq. Now it has happened in broad daylight in the capital of the United Kingdom.

In a decade, 600,000 white Londoners have fled the city. Those are the sorts of numbers you would expect from the Syrian civil war. Their place has been taken by the million Muslims occupying the city.

Woolwich Common, adjacent to the area where the attack took place, is described as an “inner-city multicultural neighborhood” which is to say that it is more ethnically diverse than the London average; it has more violent crimes than average and is among the 5% of poorest neighborhoods. Only 58% of its population was born in England and a quarter of its residents immigrated in that same dreadful decade.

Multiculturalism has enriched the area with the Woolwich Manz, a Somali Muslim gang whose antics have led residents to fear walking the streets at night. The Royal Borough of Greenwich’s Social Inclusion and Justice Division informs us that there are thousands of Somalis in the borough, most of whom live in Woolwich Common and Woolwich Riverside.

Gang wars over the lucrative drug business have broken out between the Woolwich Manz and other African gangs. Already in 2007, the London Evening Standard said that area residents were describing the Woolwich Common Estate as a “war zone” with stabbings and shootings and a new generation of child soldiers being recruited into the war. It was a little piece of Somalia in the United Kingdom.

The two men who butchered a British soldier are believed to be Somalis. Last year it was reported that dozens of Muslims in the UK were being trained to fight for Al Qaeda in Somalia. There were concerns over what those men would do once they returned to the United Kingdom.

Books by Daniel Greenfield

Al-Shabaab, the local Al Qaeda franchise, subsists on tens of thousands of pounds from the hundreds of thousands of Somali settlers living in the United Kingdom. In 2012, Al-Shabaab terrorists had threatened a terrorist attack against the UK, saying, “The nightmare that surreptitiously looms on British shores is bound to eclipse the horrors of 7/7 and 21/7 combined.”

Read more at FrontPageMag

The DOJ has issued guidelines that abridge the First Amendment rights of Christians within the DOJ who object to homosexual sexual activities.

The DOJ guidelines state that “Silence will be interpreted as disapproval” of homosexuality. DOJ staffers are expected to place “DOJ Pride” stickers or other pro-gay materials in their offices – to indicate that their office spaces are “safe” for homosexuals. It is also forbidden to use terms like “husband” or “wife” – which are offensive to gay employees.

The DOJ guidelines also state that employees must “… assume that LGBT employees and their allies are listening to what you’re saying (whether in a meeting or around the proverbial water cooler) and will read what you’re writing (whether in a casual email or in a formal document), and make sure the language you use is inclusive and respectful.”

Welcome to the Gay KGB at the Obama/Eric Holder Department of Justice.

Read more on this chilling environment at the DOJ: DOJ on ‘gays’: ‘Silence will be interpreted as disapproval’

The following is a guest commentary by Dr Mark Durie on the street killing by Muslims in London. Rev. Durie is a scholar of Islam and the author of The Third Choice: Islam, Dhimmitude and Freedom

May 22, 2013 — Today in Woolwich, England, a man reported to be a British soldier was cut down by two Anglo-African Muslims wielding knives and a machete.  One of the killers, speaking in a home-grown English accent, is heard on video to say:

… ayah in Sura at-Tauba, [Sura or Chapter 9 of the Koran] many, many ayah [verses] throughout the Koran that [say] we must fight them as they fight us, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. I apologize that women had to witness this today, but in our land women have to see the same. You people will never be safe. Remove your government, they don’t care about you.

(An earlier version of this post had a less accurate translation.)

Eyewitnesses said that the victim had been wearing a ‘Help for Heroes’ t-shirt.  Help for Heroes is a charity to help British soldiers wounded in current conflicts.

Eyewitnesses also reported that the killers attempted to behead the soldier, and that they asked bystanders to call the police, and moved towards the police as if to attack them, as soon as they appeared.

While some said the killers were crazed, the contrary seems to be the case.  They appear to have been acting in accordance with a theologically determined logic which can be understood on the basis of Islamic teachings.  In the midst of perpetrating this carnage, they found time, calmly and clearly, to explain their motivations on camera.

The killer captured on video was referencing passages from Islamic sacred texts. “We must fight them as they fight us” is a phrase found repeatedly in the Koran.  He specifically mentions Sura at-Tauba (chapter 9, i.e. verse 36) and ‘many, many’ other verses from the Koran, namely:

“fight the polytheists all together as they fight you all together”  (Sura 9:36)

“fight in the cause  of Allah those who fight you … And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for fitnah (oppression, persecution) is worse than slaughter; …  if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith. ” (Sura 2:190-9)

“Permission to fight (against disbelievers) is given to those(believers) who are fought against, because they have been wronged and surely, Allah is Able to give them (believers) victory” (Sura 22:39)

The Arabic word for ‘fight’ used in the Koran in these passages is qātilū which literally means fighting to kill.  (See here for an explanation of the meaning of Sura 2:190-91, a passage used by Muslim jurists to justify killing.)

The reference ‘an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth’ is also from the Koran (although ultimately borrowed from several passages in the Mosaic law):

And We prescribed for them therein: The life for the life, and the eye for the eye, and the nose for the nose, and the ear for the ear, and the tooth for the tooth, and for wounds retaliation. (Sura 5:45)

The Muslim killers here are invoking a religious ruling that it is permissible to fight and kill people who wage war against Muslims.  As Bin Ladin put it in his letter to the American people:

“It is commanded by our religion and intellect that the oppressed have a right to return the aggression. Do not await anything from us but Jihad, resistance and revenge.”

The belief which seems to underly the Woolwich attack is that because the British government is fighting a war against Muslims in Muslim lands, it is therefore legitimate for Muslims to wage jihad against the British.  British people, who voted the government into power, are also considered to be personally culpable, which is why they ‘will never be safe’ and are told to ‘remove your government’.

The killer’s language is strikingly reminiscent of Bin Ladin’s November 2002 letter to the American people, in which he not only spoke of ‘removal’ of governments (in Muslim lands), but also explained that it was legitimate to attack American civilians because they are the ones who voted their government into power:

“… the American people are the ones who choose their government by way of their own free will; a choice which stems from their agreement to its policies. … The American people have the ability and choice to refuse the policies of their Government and even to change it if they want. … the American army is part of the American people. … This is why the American people cannot be not innocent of all the crimes committed by the Americans and Jews against us. … Allah, the Almighty, legislated the permission and the option to take revenge. Thus, if we are attacked, then we have the right to attack back. …  whoever has killed our civilians, then we have the right to kill theirs.

The phrase ‘you people will never be safe’ is reminiscent of Muhammad’s instruction to his followers to invite non-Muslims to Islam by telling them aslim taslam “Accept Islam and you will be safe” (see here).  The implication is that non-Muslims are not safe because their blood and property can be taken until they convert.  Thus Muhammad said to his cousin Ali, on the eve of the attack against the Jews of Khaibar:

“Fight (qātilū) until they bear testimony to the fact that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is His Messenger [i.e. until they convert to Islam] and when they do that, then their blood and their riches are inviolable [safe] from your hands.” (Sahih Muslim. Book of the Merits of the Companions of the Holy Prophet 4:29:5917).

It seems  the killers desired martyrdom in accordance with their beliefs, because they asked bystanders to call the police and immediately moved to attack the police when they arrived on the scene.

This slaughter on the streets of Woolwich has all the hallmarks of a theologically motivated attack, and keys to understand it can be found in the Qur’an and the teachings of Muhammad.

Whether the views adopted by the killers are ‘legitimate’ interpretations of the Koran and Muhammad’s teachings may be disputed.  What cannot be disputed is the source where they found their inspiration.

Mark Durie is an Anglican vicar in Melbourne, Australia, author of The Third Choice, and an Associate Fellow at the Middle Eastern Forum.

Friend of Tamerlan Tsarnaev implicates himself and the Boston bombing suspect in a 2011 triple homicide just before he is shot dead by an FBI agent

• Ibragim Todashev, 27, reportedly turned violent during an FBI interview
  
• He had allegedly confessed to the FBI that he and Boston bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev had played a role in a triple slaying in the Boston area in 2011
• Initially, officers claimed that Todashev lunged at the agent with a knife, but they later backtracked and said he may not have had a knife
  
• Todashev, from Chechnya, was shot dead by the agent just after midnight Wednesday
• Todashev had met Tsarnaev while he was living in Boston and last spoke him about a week before the bombing
  

By Hayley Peterson
From the Daily Mail

A friend of Boston bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev implicated himself and Tsarnaev in a 2011 triple slaying

Ibragim Todashev

just before he was killed by an FBI agent early Wednesday, NBC and CBS News are reporting.

Authorities were pressuring Chechan immigrant Ibragim Todashev, 27, to make a full confession to the murders when he suddenly turned violent, according to CBS. An FBI agent responded by firing his weapon and killing Todashev.

The incident happened at Todashev’s Orlando apartment, not far from Universal Studios. Initially, authorities claimed that Todashev had lunged at the agent with a knife, but they later backtracked, saying it was no longer clear whether he was armed.

Law enforcement sources tell NBC that Todashev and Tsarnaev carried out the 2011 killings when a drug deal that turned violent. The suspects didn’t want the three victims to be able to identify them, so they slit their throats, according to the network.

Authorities had gone to Todashev’s home late Tuesday with evidence suggesting that Todashev, 26-year-old Tsarnaev, and Tsarnaev’s younger brother, Dzhokhar, were involved in the 2011 killings.

No suspects had been arrested in that case, in which three men were found in an apartment in Waltham, Mass. on the tenth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks with their throats cut and marijuana covering their bodies.

From Fox News

Two men wielding a machete and a cleaver hacked a man believed to be a soldier to death on a busy London street Wednesday while yelling “Allahu Akbar,” in an attack that was caught on video and left the nation shocked and horrified.

The victim, who some reports said may have been a soldier, was killed at the scene, and the attackers waited at the scene until police arrived and shot both. One attacker, his hands soaked in blood and still holding a machete, delivered an angry jihadist screed as stunned passersby watched, the dead man lying on the street, in the southeast London neighborhood of Woolwich.

“We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you. The only reason we have done this is because Muslims are dying every day,” he said in a video clip that was shown on the ITV website. “This British soldier is an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.

“I apologize that women have had to witness this today, but in our land our women have to see the same,” the killer continued. “You people will never be safe. Remove your government, they don’t care about you.”

Witnesses said the attackers shouted “Allahu Akbar,” Arabic for “God is Great,” during the bloody rampage, according to the BBC.

UK Telegraph reporting soldier was beheaded

UK Daily Mail version of story with video.

]]> http://www.religiousfreedomcoalition.org/2013/05/22/muslims-hack-soldier-to-death-screaming-allahu-akbar/feed/ 0 http://www.religiousfreedomcoalition.org/2013/05/22/legislators-troubled-about-violations-of-religious-liberty-in-military/ http://www.religiousfreedomcoalition.org/2013/05/22/legislators-troubled-about-violations-of-religious-liberty-in-military/#comments Wed, 22 May 2013 16:10:16 +0000 Editor2 http://www.religiousfreedomcoalition.org/?p=4724
[continue reading...]]]> Seventy-two Congressmen have sent a letter of concern to Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel over violations of religious liberty in the U.S. Armed Forces.

The letter outlines Section 533 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which is designed to protect freedom of religion and conscience for all men and women serving in the U.S. military – and it has special significance for military chaplains.

When signing the NDAA, Obama claimed that its protections were “unnecessary and ill-advised.” If Obama thinks it’s ill-advised, it must be an important protection.

The letter from Congress deals with the meeting that a Pentagon official held with atheist Mikey Weinstein of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. Weinstein wants to purge the military of any sharing of one’s faith.

Congressmen are requesting the “names of all organizations you are consulting in drafting regulations to comply with the NDAA and the date by which you expect to have the regulating protecting conscience protections, as called for under the law, finalized and implemented.”

Read more on this story at Breitbart.com.

The following is a guest editorial from Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA).

Some of our most cherished freedoms are contained in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In order, the amendment protects our rights to freedom of religion, freedom of speech and of the press, and the freedom of assembly.

Actions by the President’s administration are chipping away at each one of these freedoms in distinct ways. First, the new health care law attacks the freedom of religious conscience. Second, the Department of Justice has issued a questionable subpoena of Associated Press phone records. Finally, the Internal Revenue Service has discriminated against conservative groups trying to voice their objections to an expansive federal government.

The freedom of religion includes the protection to follow one’s conscience. Under the new health care law, the Affordable Care Act, the government is mandating that employers provide insurance that pays for all forms of contraception. This includes coverage of abortion-inducing drugs, contraception, and sterilization.

There is only a very narrow exception for houses of worship and seminaries. Basically, the government is telling employers that they either have to violate their conscientious objections to these services or drop health insurance all together and pay a fine.

Religious charities and schools don’t see their actions as separate from their faith. They are a natural outpouring of their calling to serve God. The federal government is seeking to dictate what is right and wrong and make them choose between their calling and their conscience.

This is a grievous assault on the freedom of religion. We shouldn’t force this choice on any employer.

Freedom of the press means that reporters should have a reasonable expectation to privacy. This week, we discovered that the Department of Justice issued a highly questionable subpoena for the phone records of the Associated Press. Records included reporters’ home phones and even a phone in the House of Representatives press gallery.

Such a blanket subpoena for press records is simply unheard of. Speaking this week on television, George W. Bush’s Attorney General Alberto Gonzales stated that under his watch the department had avoided subpoenaing the press in this manner.

The department has stated that these records were requested as part of an investigation into the leak of information on a CIA operation in Yemen to stop a potential airline bombing. However, the subpoena is extremely broad and may not have been properly approved. The Attorney General denied any knowledge of the subpoena even though the department’s regulations require his approval.

Such a breach of press freedom is chilling. Reporters across the country now have to wonder whether they too could find their sources compromised by government investigations.

Americans have the freedom to assemble for political purposes and unite together to petition the government. The third attack on the First Amendment is the IRS targeting of Tea Party and other conservative groups. For more than a year, the IRS simply refused to approve any group with “Tea Party” in their name for 501(c)(4) non-profit status. The IRS asked these groups for information that they were barred from requesting by law.

At the same time, progressive groups with the same mission but different politics were routinely approved. The acting Commissioner of the IRS has been fired, but the woman who directed the division during the period in question is now running the IRS office in charge of implementing the health care law. If the IRS can’t be trusted to fairly review non-profit applications, why are we going to give them power over health care?

The IRS singled out these groups after several prominent Senate Democrats made public appeals to investigate non-profit applications. The chief Senate tax writer, Max Baucus (D-MT), wrote a letter in September 2010, just months before the IRS issued guidance targeting these groups. Simply put, the IRS appeared to be doing the bidding of liberal politicians.

The President says he respects the First Amendment, but officials under his direction are finding shocking ways to restrict our rights. The Founding Fathers knew that the government would always be tempted to restrict our liberty in the name of the common good or national security. The President is supposed to protect our constitutional freedoms. We need him to clearly stand against these abuses.

The State Department under John Kerry has just issued a religious freedom report that denounces what it calls a “spike in anti-Islamic sentiment in Europe and Asia.” Only in Obama’s mind would this be considered bad.

The report also says that “Muslims also faced new restrictions in 2012 in countries ranging from Belgium, which banned face-covering religious attire in classrooms, to India, where schools in Mangalore restricted headscarves.”

Islamist expert Dr.Walid Phares points out that the State Department report “confuses religious persecution, which is to be condemned, with politicization of religions, which is a matter of debate and includes strategies of which the U.S. government should not be a part.”

Phares continues:

It has been noted over the past few years that U.S. foreign policy towards the Middle East, the Arab world, and Muslim-majority countries has come increasingly under the influence of pressure groups, identified also as “lobbies,” implementing the doctrinal and political agendas of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Iranian Khomeinist regime. The State Department has been made to believe that the Islamist agenda and the beliefs and values of all Muslims are one, which is a grave mistake.

***

If Washington espouses the agenda of Islamists, it becomes part of the industry of Islamophobia — that is, to create fear about religious persecution in order to support the political agenda of authoritarian Islamist factions.

Of course, that’s precisely what the Obama Administration has done since Barack Hussein Obama took office in January, 2009. Obama and his minions are more concerned about religious freedom for Islamists than for Christians or Jews in the U.S. or around the world.

Read Dr. Phares’ full commentary at Family Security Matters.

Lerner, according to an expose in The Weekly Standard, formerly worked for the Federal Election Commission and spearheaded an all-out attack on the Christian Coalition.

During her time with the FEC, this agency took eighty-one depositions – and the Christian Coalition was forced to spend thousands of dollars on legal fees to defend itself. The FEC forced the organization to provide tens of thousands of pages of documents – many of them containing sensitive information, including donor information. Each of the 49 state affiliates were also harassed. The coalition eventually produced 100,000 documents to the FEC.

In the end, the Christian Coalition was cleared of any wrong-doing, but the FEC had forced it to waste valuable time and money in defending itself.

In the current scandal against conservative pro-life groups, leaders were asked about the content of their prayers and asked about private religious activities.

Lerner is doing what she’s always done: Persecute Christians. She should be forced to testify before Congress and fired.

Read the rest of this outrageous story at The Weekly Standard.

He was basing his speech on an article published by The Daily Caller.

In his introductory statements, he noted:

An article that came out today, May 17, from The Daily Caller points out that the homeland security guidelines advised deference to pro-sharia Muslim supremacists.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, we are familiar with the fact that Homeland Security has had reports warning their employees about the dangers of people that may be involved in such heinous activity as being classified as evangelical Christians, or as being concerned about the Constitution and that people should be following the Constitution, and concerned about people who may have Tea Party in their name.

Thank goodness the IRS was not around to help the Founders when they founded the country or otherwise they probably would have shot the Boston Tea Party participants. They would have killed off over half of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and this country would have never gotten started, if this Homeland Security would have been around to be helpful, so called, to our Founders.

But in looking at the guidelines, this article says:

The Department of Homeland Security, which under Janet Napolitano has shown a keen interest in monitoring and warning about outspoken conservatives, takes a very different approach in monitoring political Islamists, according to a 2011 memo on protecting the free speech rights of pro-sharia Muslim supremacists. In a checklist obtained by The Daily Caller titled, “Countering Violent Extremism, Dos and Don’ts,” the DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties notifies local and national law enforcement officials that it is Obama administration policy to consider specifically Islamic criticism of the American system of government legitimate.

I must insert parenthetically, it is so interesting that people who believe the Constitution means exactly what it says are deemed by our Secretary Napolitano and her Homeland Security as being threats to the country because they believe what the Founders did. How dare they.

And someone who believes the teachings of Jesus Christ is somehow to be feared—wow—because they may go into all the world baptizing them, making disciples. They may end up being like Mother Teresa and helping the poor and needy. They may actually do things without the government telling them they can do that, like Mother Teresa, just going in and helping.

Well, you’ve got to watch those evangelical Christians, if they are true Christians, if you’re part of this Janet Napolitano Homeland Security Office.

The article points out this policy stands in stark contrast to the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis 2009 memo: “Right wing extremism, current economic and political climate fueling resurgence in radicalization and recruitment,” which warned of the dangers posed by pro-life advocates, critics of same-sex marriage, and groups concerned with abiding by the U.S. Constitution, among others.

The advice of the do’s and don’ts list is far more conciliatory. Don’t use training that equates radical thought, religious expression, freedom to protest, or other constitutionally protected activity, including disliking the U.S. Government without being violent, the manual’s authors write in a section on training being sensitive to constitutional values.

The manual, which was produced by an interagency working group from DHS and the National Counterterrorism Center advises:

Trainers who equate the desire for shari’a law with criminal activity violate basic tenets of the First Amendment.

And that is interesting. And it goes back to my point about how problematic it must have been for an FBI who’ve had their lexicon purged, where they can’t really talk effectively about jihad because that might offend some-one, even though it is critically important to know what someone believes about jihad.

Does an individual believe, as an Islamist, that jihad is just the internal changing of one’s self into being more Islamic?

Or is jihad actually a violent jihad that, as the 9/11 bombers and killer believed, you kill as many innocent people, especially Americans, especially Jews, as you possibly can.

Read the rest of Rep. Gohmert’s remarks in the Congressional Record beginning on page H2769.