Sderot Under Fire: A CASE IN POINT AS TO WHY THE TWO STATE SOLUTION WILL NOT WORK

Cross posted from Monkey in the Middle

By Noam Bedein

Early in September, 2008, I was invited to take part in a press conference in Oslo, the capitol of Norway. I had the honor of sitting with the Israeli Ambassador to Norway, distinguished representatives of the Norwegian media, and members of the Norwegian Parliament. I was there as the head of the Sderot Media Center. The title of the press conference was: ” Iran at Sderot’s Backdoor’

That afternoon in Oslo, for the first time in their lives, the Norwegian people learned about the rockets and “the rocket way of life” in Sderot. Sderot is the only town in the world, and the western Negev desert is the only region in the world, whose inhabitants have learned to live with the fact that Palestinian terrorist militias fire rockets at them and their homes every day. These people live with the fact that somebody is trying to kill them, and to kill their children, and to kill everyone they know.

The raw material for these weapons comes indirectly from Iran. Syria and Egypt facilitate its delivery to Gaza, where skilled engineers transform it into rockets and other weapons, and where terrorist squads fire these rockets at small Israeli towns. Thus did Hamas become a branch of the Iranian Islamic revolution in Gaza, just as Hezbollah had already become in Lebanon.

While some Norwegian Parliament members did show sympathy and said that they more clearly understood Sderot and Gaza, other members of the Norwegian parliament rationalized the Gaza rocket reality with the commonly held illusion that If Israel did not occupy the West Bank, and if the Palestinians had an independent state in the West bank and Gaza, there would be peace and security for all, and the Arabs would no longer have to fire rockets at Israel.

In other words- firing lethal missiles at Israeli civilians is justified because the Palestinians have no state, because Israel continues to occupy the West Bank.

The subtext: promoting the “two state solution” provides an excuse to justify on-going rocket fire at Israeli civilians, because people who think that way view the continuous rocket fire as a struggle for national liberation, and therefore for peace with Israel – after that liberation has been achieved.

The notion that the rockets’ purpose is to force an Israeli withdrawal from occupied territory, followed by a peaceful settlement, gives countries around the world an excuse to send aid to the Palestinian Authority – which already receives the largest amount of per capita financial assistance in human history.

Indeed, the Norwegian government gave one hundred million dollars to the PA last year, continuing to send this money even after it was demonstrated that much of it went to Hamas, an openly terrorist organization that rejects any thought of peace with, or recognition of, Israel. Money given to Hamas is money to create terror.

People who think they represent Israel and who claim that Israel must support the two-state solution thus legitimize Hamas and the whole Palestinian terror network by saying, in effect, that the Palestinians have a RIGHT to a sovereign state, and that they are merely fighting for that right when they kill Israeli civilians. If even Israel concedes that the Palestinians deserve a state, then Israel also concedes that the Palestinians have the right to fight to get it. The people of Sderot, the surrounding communities, and Israeli society in general pay for that interpretation of the two-state solution.

In fact, the ‘two state solution’ is mistakenly used by Israel ‘s advocates to justify Israel ‘s approach for peace – even under fire or as a political solution.-
When Israel’s advocates supporting a two state solution while Sderot and the Western Negev remain under constant missile threat – especially after Israel pulled out all Jewish communities and Israeli army bases from Gaza strip, on August 2005 – they simply ignore the fact that 7,000 missiles have been fired towards Israel from the de facto Palestinian state that has been spawned in Gaza over the past three years…

That is what a two-state solution really means – it means giving Israel ‘s enemies a convenient base from which to terrorize Israel ‘s civilian population. Sderot and the surrounding area have been part of Israel since 1948; Israel did not take Sderot during the Six Day War of 1967, in contrast to the West Bank and Gaza. If the Arabs really wanted a two state solution, and if they would then be satisfied with their part of the old Palestine Mandate, then they have no reason to attack Sderot, because Sderot is not and has never been part of the area that would become part of Palestine. That the Palestinians treat Sderot as occupied territory for them to “liberate” indicates that they do not want a two state solution as part of a final and peaceful settlement with Israel. They want a two state solution as a temporary phase until they can take the whole of Israel.

Let Hamas speak for itself. On 26 November, 2006, the day before the ceasefire before this one began – a ceasefire that lasted six months and saw more than three hundred rockets fired at Israel – Hamas issued this press statement: “We will not stop firing at the Zionist settlement Sderot, until the last citizen of Sderot leaves.”

The map of ” Palestine ” on sale at any PA office replaces Sderot with the name Najd, Ashkelon with al-Majdal, and Ashdod with Isdud. Compare that map with the “peace loving PA” by opening the PA’s web-site- http://www.palestineremembered.com/Gaza/Najd
” Najd- (Sderot)- Ethnically cleansed 24,649 days ago.”

Are those the words of people who want to recognize Israel and live in peace with a Jewish state?

When the Arabs speak of the right of the return, they are not referring to a desire to go back to the West Bank and Gaza, but rather to the Israel of 1948 – the Israel that existed before the Six Day War. Palestine Authority schoolbooks show no rights for Jews living in the land of Israel, and they make no mention of the history of Jews in land of Israel..

We must address these basic issues of the conflict. We must raise some new questions. These issues must be discussed, first for Israeli society itself, and then for the foreign press, foreign politicians, government officials from abroad, and world opinion itself.

People must know:
By what right was the State of Israel established?
What were the historical and legal rights of the Jewish people to the land of Israel ?
And why has the Palestinian refugee problem persisted in a way that no other refugee problem in the world has continued?

It is the responsibility of anyone who speaks for Israel to emphasize that during the late 1940’s more than forty million refugees around the world were resettled. Only one group continues to define itself as refugee – wallowing sixty years later in fifty-nine UNRWA refugee camps, financed by four hundred million dollars contributed by nations of the world to kid the Arabs into thinking they will one day return to Arab neighborhoods and Arab villages that have no existed for a couple of generations.

This Palestinian propaganda line of their “inalienable” right of return remains unexamined, even though most countries in the world accord it some form of recognition and blindly vote for annual UN resolutions that support this specious notion.

While millions of dollars are spent to find the best way to ‘entertain’ people with the Arab-Israeli conflict, the basic assumptions underlying the most commonly offered solution to that conflict are not being questioned. People are being fooled.

No nation in the world would tolerate even one rocket being fired at its people. But Israel is expected to accept not one rocket, but rockets as part of its daily life. We are even supposed to feel sorry for those who try to kill us, if the origin of their hate for us is that the Palestinian people have no state of their own.

The current “cease fire” with the Palestinian state regime in Gaza is scheduled to end on December 19. of this year. After that, everyone expects the Palestinians to resume their attacks on little Sderot – to “liberate” Palestine, they will tell us.

From Monkey in the Middle:

Again and again we hear from the Moonbats on the left that there aught to be a 2-state solution. The problem with that is the fact that neither Hamas or the PA want a 2-state solution. They want 1 state. A nation in which they control everything and all Jews in the nation are:

1. Dead
2. Displaced
3. Under the Dhimmitude.

This cannot be allowed to happen. Oslo is dead. The Bush initiative is dead. The idea of a 2-state solution is dead. And pretty soon, if things do not change, the Western Negev’s population will be again under daily attack.

You can help. Click on the logo below and donate to the Sderot Media Center. Your donation helps the people of Sderot and the Western Negev with counselling, food, clothing and just sometimes a shoulder to cry on.

Sderot Under Fire: A CASE IN POINT AS TO WHY THE TWO STATE SOLUTION WILL NOT WORK

Cross posted from Monkey in the Middle

By Noam Bedein

Early in September, 2008, I was invited to take part in a press conference in Oslo, the capitol of Norway. I had the honor of sitting with the Israeli Ambassador to Norway, distinguished representatives of the Norwegian media, and members of the Norwegian Parliament. I was there as the head of the Sderot Media Center. The title of the press conference was: ” Iran at Sderot’s Backdoor’

That afternoon in Oslo, for the first time in their lives, the Norwegian people learned about the rockets and “the rocket way of life” in Sderot. Sderot is the only town in the world, and the western Negev desert is the only region in the world, whose inhabitants have learned to live with the fact that Palestinian terrorist militias fire rockets at them and their homes every day. These people live with the fact that somebody is trying to kill them, and to kill their children, and to kill everyone they know.

The raw material for these weapons comes indirectly from Iran. Syria and Egypt facilitate its delivery to Gaza, where skilled engineers transform it into rockets and other weapons, and where terrorist squads fire these rockets at small Israeli towns. Thus did Hamas become a branch of the Iranian Islamic revolution in Gaza, just as Hezbollah had already become in Lebanon.

While some Norwegian Parliament members did show sympathy and said that they more clearly understood Sderot and Gaza, other members of the Norwegian parliament rationalized the Gaza rocket reality with the commonly held illusion that If Israel did not occupy the West Bank, and if the Palestinians had an independent state in the West bank and Gaza, there would be peace and security for all, and the Arabs would no longer have to fire rockets at Israel.

In other words- firing lethal missiles at Israeli civilians is justified because the Palestinians have no state, because Israel continues to occupy the West Bank.

The subtext: promoting the “two state solution” provides an excuse to justify on-going rocket fire at Israeli civilians, because people who think that way view the continuous rocket fire as a struggle for national liberation, and therefore for peace with Israel – after that liberation has been achieved.

The notion that the rockets’ purpose is to force an Israeli withdrawal from occupied territory, followed by a peaceful settlement, gives countries around the world an excuse to send aid to the Palestinian Authority – which already receives the largest amount of per capita financial assistance in human history.

Indeed, the Norwegian government gave one hundred million dollars to the PA last year, continuing to send this money even after it was demonstrated that much of it went to Hamas, an openly terrorist organization that rejects any thought of peace with, or recognition of, Israel. Money given to Hamas is money to create terror.

People who think they represent Israel and who claim that Israel must support the two-state solution thus legitimize Hamas and the whole Palestinian terror network by saying, in effect, that the Palestinians have a RIGHT to a sovereign state, and that they are merely fighting for that right when they kill Israeli civilians. If even Israel concedes that the Palestinians deserve a state, then Israel also concedes that the Palestinians have the right to fight to get it. The people of Sderot, the surrounding communities, and Israeli society in general pay for that interpretation of the two-state solution.

In fact, the ‘two state solution’ is mistakenly used by Israel ‘s advocates to justify Israel ‘s approach for peace – even under fire or as a political solution.-
When Israel’s advocates supporting a two state solution while Sderot and the Western Negev remain under constant missile threat – especially after Israel pulled out all Jewish communities and Israeli army bases from Gaza strip, on August 2005 – they simply ignore the fact that 7,000 missiles have been fired towards Israel from the de facto Palestinian state that has been spawned in Gaza over the past three years…

That is what a two-state solution really means – it means giving Israel ‘s enemies a convenient base from which to terrorize Israel ‘s civilian population. Sderot and the surrounding area have been part of Israel since 1948; Israel did not take Sderot during the Six Day War of 1967, in contrast to the West Bank and Gaza. If the Arabs really wanted a two state solution, and if they would then be satisfied with their part of the old Palestine Mandate, then they have no reason to attack Sderot, because Sderot is not and has never been part of the area that would become part of Palestine. That the Palestinians treat Sderot as occupied territory for them to “liberate” indicates that they do not want a two state solution as part of a final and peaceful settlement with Israel. They want a two state solution as a temporary phase until they can take the whole of Israel.

Let Hamas speak for itself. On 26 November, 2006, the day before the ceasefire before this one began – a ceasefire that lasted six months and saw more than three hundred rockets fired at Israel – Hamas issued this press statement: “We will not stop firing at the Zionist settlement Sderot, until the last citizen of Sderot leaves.”

The map of ” Palestine ” on sale at any PA office replaces Sderot with the name Najd, Ashkelon with al-Majdal, and Ashdod with Isdud. Compare that map with the “peace loving PA” by opening the PA’s web-site- http://www.palestineremembered.com/Gaza/Najd
” Najd- (Sderot)- Ethnically cleansed 24,649 days ago.”

Are those the words of people who want to recognize Israel and live in peace with a Jewish state?

When the Arabs speak of the right of the return, they are not referring to a desire to go back to the West Bank and Gaza, but rather to the Israel of 1948 – the Israel that existed before the Six Day War. Palestine Authority schoolbooks show no rights for Jews living in the land of Israel, and they make no mention of the history of Jews in land of Israel..

We must address these basic issues of the conflict. We must raise some new questions. These issues must be discussed, first for Israeli society itself, and then for the foreign press, foreign politicians, government officials from abroad, and world opinion itself.

People must know:
By what right was the State of Israel established?
What were the historical and legal rights of the Jewish people to the land of Israel ?
And why has the Palestinian refugee problem persisted in a way that no other refugee problem in the world has continued?

It is the responsibility of anyone who speaks for Israel to emphasize that during the late 1940’s more than forty million refugees around the world were resettled. Only one group continues to define itself as refugee – wallowing sixty years later in fifty-nine UNRWA refugee camps, financed by four hundred million dollars contributed by nations of the world to kid the Arabs into thinking they will one day return to Arab neighborhoods and Arab villages that have no existed for a couple of generations.

This Palestinian propaganda line of their “inalienable” right of return remains unexamined, even though most countries in the world accord it some form of recognition and blindly vote for annual UN resolutions that support this specious notion.

While millions of dollars are spent to find the best way to ‘entertain’ people with the Arab-Israeli conflict, the basic assumptions underlying the most commonly offered solution to that conflict are not being questioned. People are being fooled.

No nation in the world would tolerate even one rocket being fired at its people. But Israel is expected to accept not one rocket, but rockets as part of its daily life. We are even supposed to feel sorry for those who try to kill us, if the origin of their hate for us is that the Palestinian people have no state of their own.

The current “cease fire” with the Palestinian state regime in Gaza is scheduled to end on December 19. of this year. After that, everyone expects the Palestinians to resume their attacks on little Sderot – to “liberate” Palestine, they will tell us.

From Monkey in the Middle:

Again and again we hear from the Moonbats on the left that there aught to be a 2-state solution. The problem with that is the fact that neither Hamas or the PA want a 2-state solution. They want 1 state. A nation in which they control everything and all Jews in the nation are:

1. Dead
2. Displaced
3. Under the Dhimmitude.

This cannot be allowed to happen. Oslo is dead. The Bush initiative is dead. The idea of a 2-state solution is dead. And pretty soon, if things do not change, the Western Negev’s population will be again under daily attack.

You can help. Click on the logo below and donate to the Sderot Media Center. Your donation helps the people of Sderot and the Western Negev with counselling, food, clothing and just sometimes a shoulder to cry on.

Berg’s Simple Question


Below is a sample of a not untypical response which those of us who have been writing about this case have been receiving. Note particularly the smug condescending tone of the opening insult. The commenter has reluctantly agreed to descend from the rarefied atmosphere of his purported legal expertise to clarify these obtuse issues for us woefully uninformed laymen.

I think it might be helpful here to remind commenters such as the above mentioned that we are all of us laymen. For all of us there are innumerable subjects about which we may know little or nothing. To allow oneself to get puffed up over one’s accumulation of knowledge in one particular field of expertise lays one open to questions about one’s ignorance in all of those other areas. For most of the genuine experts I have had the pleasure of meeting or corresponding with, they have all seemed to share an easy familiarity with this concept of comparative ignorance. It is simply called humility. But for some, unfortunately, this character trait is noticeably absent. And for those of us who by force of circumstance must deal with these arrogant pomposities we must choose to either try to deflate them or if possible to just ignore them. Read the small sample below and you’ll quickly see what I mean.

“Ok, I will try to explain this as simply as I can because it’s obvious that none of you know a thing about how this works:
1) The order filed by Berg requesting certain items regarding Obama’s citizenship is a BLANK ORDER. It’s not signed by the court’s judge (Surrick). It’s common practice for attorneys to draft up orders in their favor so all the judge has to do is sign it if he/she grants the attorney’s wishes. However, the court already DENIED Berg’s first motion back in August [1], and Berg submitted another motion asking Obama and the DNC to submit documents by October 15th. This motion is moot because the judge has NOT signed it and will most likely dismiss it (again) for reasons I explained earlier (Berg lacks legal standing to sue …”

The now famous Berg v. Obama case to which this commenter refers is a perfect example of this problem. It is by definition a legal issue which calls for a certain degree of legal competence to comprehend the complexities involved. Yet we need not have a law degree to recognize these attacks for what they most certainly are. They are simply rebuttals. Not just professional dissenting opinions, but hot angry and impassioned denials. These respondents are not just interested in refuting the facts of this case; they are seeking to totally discredit and destroy the opposing advocate, whom they repeatedly characterize as an incompetent — or worse.

However, to this particular layman it seems — despite the labyrinth of legalise with which the liberal opposition has attempted to obscure the real issue involved here — that if the Obama supporters are resting their case on their desperate attempts to define Atty. Berg as a ‘nutcase’ they have little ground to stand on. His resume alone would preclude this assumption. Yet how often have we read this same line of defense — that Berg and his whole absurd case are inconsequential because he’s a nutcase?

Well, to me, this nutcase’s simple question — “If you are a natural born citizen, Mr. Obama, what are you hiding?” is simply overwhelming. And the silence is simply deafening.

Well, Mr. Obama — What are you hiding?

Berg’s Simple Question


Below is a sample of a not untypical response which those of us who have been writing about this case have been receiving. Note particularly the smug condescending tone of the opening insult. The commenter has reluctantly agreed to descend from the rarefied atmosphere of his purported legal expertise to clarify these obtuse issues for us woefully uninformed laymen.

I think it might be helpful here to remind commenters such as the above mentioned that we are all of us laymen. For all of us there are innumerable subjects about which we may know little or nothing. To allow oneself to get puffed up over one’s accumulation of knowledge in one particular field of expertise lays one open to questions about one’s ignorance in all of those other areas. For most of the genuine experts I have had the pleasure of meeting or corresponding with, they have all seemed to share an easy familiarity with this concept of comparative ignorance. It is simply called humility. But for some, unfortunately, this character trait is noticeably absent. And for those of us who by force of circumstance must deal with these arrogant pomposities we must choose to either try to deflate them or if possible to just ignore them. Read the small sample below and you’ll quickly see what I mean.

“Ok, I will try to explain this as simply as I can because it’s obvious that none of you know a thing about how this works:
1) The order filed by Berg requesting certain items regarding Obama’s citizenship is a BLANK ORDER. It’s not signed by the court’s judge (Surrick). It’s common practice for attorneys to draft up orders in their favor so all the judge has to do is sign it if he/she grants the attorney’s wishes. However, the court already DENIED Berg’s first motion back in August [1], and Berg submitted another motion asking Obama and the DNC to submit documents by October 15th. This motion is moot because the judge has NOT signed it and will most likely dismiss it (again) for reasons I explained earlier (Berg lacks legal standing to sue …”

The now famous Berg v. Obama case to which this commenter refers is a perfect example of this problem. It is by definition a legal issue which calls for a certain degree of legal competence to comprehend the complexities involved. Yet we need not have a law degree to recognize these attacks for what they most certainly are. They are simply rebuttals. Not just professional dissenting opinions, but hot angry and impassioned denials. These respondents are not just interested in refuting the facts of this case; they are seeking to totally discredit and destroy the opposing advocate, whom they repeatedly characterize as an incompetent — or worse.

However, to this particular layman it seems — despite the labyrinth of legalise with which the liberal opposition has attempted to obscure the real issue involved here — that if the Obama supporters are resting their case on their desperate attempts to define Atty. Berg as a ‘nutcase’ they have little ground to stand on. His resume alone would preclude this assumption. Yet how often have we read this same line of defense — that Berg and his whole absurd case are inconsequential because he’s a nutcase?

Well, to me, this nutcase’s simple question — “If you are a natural born citizen, Mr. Obama, what are you hiding?” is simply overwhelming. And the silence is simply deafening.

Well, Mr. Obama — What are you hiding?

Wednesday Hero

Sgt. Anton J. HiettSgt. Anton J. Hiett
25 years old from Mount Airy, North Carolina
391st Engineer Battalion, Army Reserve
March 12, 2006
U.S. Army

Misty Hiett, the widow of Sgt. Anton Hiett, said in an interview that he, Sgt. Hiett, asked to transfer to the 391st Engineering Battalion when it looked like his reserve unit would not be deployed.

Sgt. Hiett was a truck driver who joined the military right out of high school because he “wanted to go help out” during the current conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. After his transfer to the 391st, he was deployed to Afghanistan on April 22, 2005.

On March 12, 2006, Sgt. Hiett, and three fellow soldiers from the 391st, Staff Sgt. Joe Ray; Spc. Joshua Hill and Sgt. Kevin Akins, were killed when an IED detonated near their Humvee during combat operations west of Asadabad, Afghanistan. He left behind his wife and their then 2(now 4)-year-old daughter Kyra.

These brave men and women sacrifice so much in their lives so that others may enjoy the freedoms we get to enjoy everyday. For that, I am proud to call them Hero.
We Should Not Only Mourn These Men And Women Who Died, We Should Also Thank God That Such People Lived

This post is part of the Wednesday Hero Blogroll. For more information about Wednesday Hero, or if you would like to post it on your site, you can go here.
Wednesday Hero Logo<

Myth vs Fact

Myth Fact
Islam: Religion of peace. Malik’s Muwatta Book 21, Number 21.15.35:

Yahya related to me from Malik from Yahya ibn Said that Umar ibn al-Khattab said, “The nobility of the mumin is his taqwa. His deen is his noble descent. His manliness is his good character. Boldness and cowardice are but instincts which Allah places wherever He wills. The coward shrinks from defending even his father and mother, and the bold one fights for the sake of the combat not for the spoils. Being slain is but one way of meeting death, and the martyr is the one who gives himself, expectant of reward from Allah.”

Tafsir

Obama: Muslim or Christian; What’s the Difference?

Is he or ain’t he? Only Barack Hussein Obama knows for sure. Whats the difference?

If he is a genuine convert to Christianity, the threats he poses are limited to the consequences of his:

  • Communist ideology
  • alliances:
  • terrorists
  • Ayers
  • Khalidi
  • racists
    • Wright
  • racketeers
  • vote fraud practitioners
    • Acorn
  • inexperience
  • incompetence.
  • If his conversion from Islam to Christianity was a scam perpetrated for political expediency, then electing him is, in effect installing an enemy agent as Commander in Chief. Abysmal ignorance of the doctrines of Islam recorded in the Qur’an & Hadith prevents many members of the American Electorate from comprehending the adverse consequences of electing a Muslim to high office.

    22:41. Those (Muslim rulers) who, if We give them power in the land, (they) order for Iqamat-as-Salât. [i.e. to perform the five compulsory congregational Salât (prayers) (the males in mosques)], to pay the Zakât and they enjoin Al-Ma’rûf (i.e. Islâmic Monotheism and all that Islâm orders one to do), and forbid Al-Munkar (i.e. disbelief, polytheism and all that Islâm has forbidden) [i.e. they make the Qur’ân as the law of their country in all the spheres of life]. And with Allâh rests the end of (all) matters (of creatures).

    The phrases highlighted in red above basically mean that a Muslim who obtains power will impose Sharia. The translator’s comment, highlighted in purple, confirms that fact. Do you really want to give that power to the enemy? A Muslim President would pack the court system with Muslims & Dhimmis, life time appointments that can not be rescinded.

    24:55. Allâh has promised those among you who believe, and do righteous good deeds, that He will certainly grant them succession to (the present rulers) in the earth, as He granted it to those before them, and that He will grant them the authority to practise their religion, that which He has chosen for them (i.e. Islâm). And He will surely give them in exchange a safe security after their fear (provided) they (believers) worship Me and do not associate anything (in worship) with Me. But whoever disbelieved after this, they are the Fâsiqûn (rebellious, disobedient to Allâh).

    (And those who believe and do righteous good deeds,) meaning, their hearts were truthful and their limbs obedient with the righteous acts they were commanded, [The Reward of Righteous Believers]

    Righteous good deeds: code words for Jihad. What righteous acts were they commanded to perform? 8:39, 9:29. They intend to take power, by force or by stealth; why should we give it to them? Why should we yield our hard won liberties? How will we ever recover our hard won liberties when the enemy has taken control of our armed forces?

    12:40. “You do not worship besides Him but only names which you have named (forged), you and your fathers, for which Allâh has sent down no authority. The command (or the judgement) is for none but Allâh. He has commanded that you worship none but Him (i.e. His Monotheism), that is the (true) straight religion, but most men know not.

    Only Islam’s demon has the right to rule. Legislation contrary to his Qur’an or Moe’s sunnah is not allowed.

    33:36 It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allâh and His Messenger have decreed a matter that they should have any option in their decision. And whoever disobeys Allâh and His Messenger, he has indeed strayed in a plain error.

    Allah rules. His Messenger and his Caliphs decide and that is the end of the matter. That is not how our Constitution works. Why do you want to risk losing our Constitution? Why are you willing to risk imposition of Islamic theocratic tyranny?

    Under Islamic law, any child born to a Muslim father is Muslim. Renouncing Islam and converting to a real religion is a capital offense. Apostates must be killed if they do not recant & revert. Why then do Muslims; even Islamic terrorists, want Barack Hussein Obama to be elected? Why aren’t they issuing and attempting to carry out fatwas against him? Obviously, they believe that his conversion was a sham. Obviously, they believe that his policies will be favorable to them.

    They may be right. We can’t take that chance. If Barack Hussein Obama truly abandoned Islam and converted to Christianity, let him curse and condemn the damnable doctrines of Islam which sanctify & mandate aggressive conquest against Pagans & ‘people of the book’, genocide & terrorism.

    If he is a closet Muslim, he won’t abjure those doctrines because he believes them. In that case, we don’t want him. If he is a Christian, but unwilling to offend Muslims by telling the truth about their curse worthy doctrines & practices, then he has no salt or savor, and is unworthy of high office.

    In either case, Barack Hussein Obama must be rejected because he can not be trusted with the high office he seeks.