The Pink Camel in the Room

In the wake of the Obama administration shutting down multiple American embassies, the reasons behind the closures remain obscured. Vague references and unconfirmed reports of impending threats float on the airwaves and on the Internet. People with a tenuous grasp on international affairs in the past few decades find such actions inexplicable and confusing. Those who view such events through the prism of political correctness will not allow themselves to admit what is occurring and why. Those who have been paying close attention as well as delving into the heart of the problem do understand.

How ignorant or delusional must someone be in order to be unable to see the obvious cause of the embassy closures? One only need glance at most types of calendars or at any source of news. Ramabomb, the annual bloodbath used by Mohamadans as justification for violence against infidels, ended this week. As per Islamic tradition, the first several days and the closing days of this period include numerous incidents of jihad. Such acts of mayhem include attacking churches, synagogues and other locations not frequented by Mohamadans. Additionally, non-Mohamadans experience an upsurge in threats from and assaults by jihadis against them. Does anyone truly believe that the closures occurred in countries throughout the Islamic bloc and in a few others close to jihadist hotspots by mere coincidence?

No one should expect Barack Obama or anyone else in his service to hint at any correlation between the fear of imminent attacks and the end of Ramabomb. Every one of Obama’s secretaries and other appointed officials, both former and current, has refused to utter accurate terms such as “jihadi” “Islamist”, “Moslem” or any others acknowledging the direct connection between numerous recent acts of terrorism and Islam.  Janet Napolitano, the Secretary of Homeland Security, has refused to say the word “terrorism”. (Instead, she spouts a long-winded and deliberately obfuscatory euphemism reeking of politically correctness: “made-made disasters”.)  Nidal Malik Hasan’s waging of jihad received the label of “work-place violence” by the federal government.  (Hasan’s mass murder is classified as though his rampage consisted of a mere scuffle between employees bickering over petty office politics or someone’s lunch missing from the refrigerator.) Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton dismissed questions regarding the motivation and identities of the jihadis who stormed the American consulate in Benghazi with the flippant response, “What difference does it make?” Obama and his underlings refuse to follow a mandatory step when engaged in a war: identify the enemy.

President Obama and his Islamic-coddling crew’s have determined to claim credit for a lack of any jihadist attack on American soil during his tenure. That blew up in their faces (figuratively) and in the faces of multiples Americans (literally) at the Boston Marathon Massacre earlier this year. Failed attempts at jihad also happened on a flight into Detroit on Christmas of 2009 and at a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Oregon in the following November. Are Americans expected to believe that the death of Osama bin Laden ended all jihadist attacks on the United States? Does Obama’s cult of personality think that his perceived messianic aura has shielded the United States from another incident of jihadis murdering thousands of Americans on par with that of the eleventh of September 2001?

So where are the love and peace from Mohamadans toward Americans expected by Obamaniacs following the election of a man raised as a Mohamadan? Islamists protesting across the world demonstrate as much animosity toward Barrack Obama as they express toward any other American. Will anyone in the media point out one glaring reason for Islamists’ contempt for Obama: his admitted apostasy from Islam? More importantly, will anyone in the Obama administration ever admit that Islam serves as the motivation of those determined to kill Americans and destroy the Free World?

COPYRIGHT BY CHARLES KASTRIOT AUGUST 2013

Barbarians Inside the Gates

Useful idiots for Islam and other clueless types are scratching their heads in bewilderment at Chechen jihadis detonating bombs to kill American civilians. They ignorantly or willfully focus on their nationality and their youth instead of their ideology. Chechens have no more reason for hostility toward the United States than they do against Switzerland. Americans played no role in the Chechen war against Russia. In truth, the Tsarnaev Brothers plotted and carried out their murderous plot due to Islam.

In the past, apologists for Islam deflected the focus on the Islamic basis of terrorist acts such as the bombing of the World Trade Center during the 1990s and the destruction of it in 2001. Those unwilling to admit the Islamic motivation for such acts of war portrayed them as actions of foreigners against the United States. However, during the years since 2001, Mohamadans, those who naturalized as American citizen, those born in the United States and those who merely entered the country, have launched deadly attacks. No longer are jihadis a problem from outside of the borders. Instead, jihadis spring up from the hostile horde, which has already infiltrated the country.

The following are some examples of Mohamadans who had been allowed to reside in the United States or been granted American citizenship before engaging in acts of jihad within the United States:

-25 January 1993, Mir Aimal Kasi, a Pakistani who entered the country with forged documents and bought a fake green card during his mid-twenties, fatally shot two employees of the CIA and injured three others.

-26 February, 1993, Ramzi Yousef who had claimed political asylum in order to be admitted into the United States, detonated a bomb inside the World Trade Center in New York, killing six people and injuring more than one thousand others. 

-23 February, 1997, Ali Abu Kamal, a Philistine immigrant, ascended the Empire State Building then shot one visitor and wounded six others.

-4 July 2002, Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, a green-card-holder from Egypt, shot to death two employees at Los Angeles International Airport.

- 6 March, 2006, Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, who emigrated from Iran at the age of two, deliberately plowed his vehicle into a crowd at the University of North Carolina. He injured nine students.

- 12 February, 2007, Sulejman Talović, a Bosnian who arrived in the United States in 1998 and received permanent resident status seven years later, fatally shot five shoppers in a mall and injured four others.

- 1 May, 2010, Faisal Shahzad, who gained citizenship by marrying an American woman, attempted to use a car bomb to murder civilians in Times Square.

In all of these crimes, the jihadis justified their violence based on Islam. Some of them mentioned their sympathy for Philistines in mimicking Hezbollah’s, Hamas’ and other terrorist attacks on civilians. Many of these jihadis spouted Koranic exhortations toward hatred for Jews and Christians as their motivation. More recent jihadist attacks blamed American responses to previous terrorist attacks as the reason for further killing of American civilians.

These references do not include the jihadis spawned by Mohamdan infiltrators who later committed acts of jihad such as Nidal Malik Hasan or attempted to do so such as Naser Abdo. Neither do these include American born converts to Islam such as Michael Julius Ford, Hasan Karim Akbar and John Allen Muhammad who murdered fellow Americans to avenge perceived hostility to Islam. Nor do these include the numerous citizens of the United States, by birth or by naturalization, who have provided financing and other support for jihadist operations. Those include the Holy Land Foundation, the Global Relief Fund and the Benevolence International Foundation. Also not included are jihadis who entered into the United States on temporary visas in order to wage jihad such as the nineteen hijackers on 11 September 2001.

The solution to the influx of savages spouting an ideology hostile to the freedom and safety of all Americans is simple: ban any entry by Mohamadans into the United States. The basis for this move already exists in the Immigration and Naturalization Act. Those advocating any totalitarian ideology are ineligible for American citizenship as stated under Title III, Chapter 1, Act 313. Act 316 requires a favorable disposition by aliens toward the United States; obviously, those sympathizing with jihadis following the violent examples of the creator of Islam do not qualify. The act also bars those ineligible for citizenship from receiving resident status. Finally, since Islamists claim that the United States is at war with Islam, it is suicidally foolish to allow those adhering to Islam to enter into the country. Did the American authorities allow Nazis to immigrate or just visit the country while at war with their country?

This overdue defensive measure would end the invasion of savages who are too arrogant to work for “infidels” and too lazy to find any legal employment to support themselves. It is no coincidence that Tamerlan Tsarnaev was leeching off working Americans by means of welfare checks. Large numbers of other Mohamadans expect the people whom they despise to support them financially. Such expectation differs little from the jizya, protection money, which Jews and Christians had to pay their Mohamadan conquers for centuries to avoid being murdered or enslaved. Islamic scriptures give its adherents a sense of entitlement to the earnings of those not members of their totalitarian cult. The longer the gates remain open to infiltration by Islamic barbarians, the more will enter, resulting in more murder and mayhem directed against Americans.

COPYRIGHT BY CHARLES KASTRIOT APRIL 2013

Benghazi Does Make a Difference, Hillary

During Hillary Clinton’s much delayed appearance before a Congressional committee to answer questions about the jihadist attacks on the eleventh of September last year, she snapped, "Four Americans are dead. What difference does it make?"

Such a callous disregard for the search for the truth reveals Hillary Clinton’s desire to hide any incriminating evidence, which might sink her presidential aspirations in the coming years. Despite the fact that a suspect had no role in killing anyone, it is still a crime for him/her to hide evidence or otherwise obstruct the pursuit of justice. People involved with covering up homicides can and should face punishment for their complicity in concealing those crimes. Did Hillary Clinton not learn this at Yale Law School? Perhaps she believes that she holds an exception to laws concerning obstruction of justice just as her husband claimed the privilege to commit perjury.

Hillary, how about the need to root out nincompoops in the Department of State who deny the Islamic basis for terrorist attacks Americans? The appointment of a “Special Representative to Muslim Communities” indicates the pre-occupation with “outreach” to those who loathe American freedoms.  The coddling of Mohamadans with the “2012 hours Against Hate” campaign blinds them to the blatantly hateful and violent basis of Islam. Evidently, they cannot bother to read or listen to the invective, all of which is rooted in the Koran and other Islamic scriptures, spewed by Islamists at American society. Slavish adherence to multiculturalism will never overcome the reality of Islamic malignancy.

When the usefully idiotic bureaucrats rarely do acknowledge any connection between violence by Mohamadans committed against Americans, the blame falls on the Americans. An example of this “blame the victim” mentality occurred when the Egyptian-born Christian man who created a video critical of Mohamad, the inventor of Islam, faced condemnation for the coordinated assaults on American diplomatic personnel and installations on the anniversary of the jihadist attacks of the eleventh of September. After those acts of jihad, the dhimmis in the State Department spent 70,000 dollars on television commercials apologizing to Mohamadans whose turbans or burkas were in a bunch over someone criticizing the criminal who fabricated their totalitarian ideology. The State Department did disavow such linkage a month later yet the slander had already smeared this man for simply expressing his opinions. The incident also painted Americans as sniveling cowards who kowtow to savages’ demands to never have their beliefs questioned.

For Hillary to question the need for an inquiry demonstrates her incompetence. The impotent response to the attacks on an American consulate and an American embassy serves as glaring examples of Obama’s administration. Those murders of an ambassador and three others in the consulate and ransacking of diplomatic facilities qualify as acts of war by jihadis, both under international law and in common sense. In response, not one of those jihadis has been killed or captured by American forces. No one should expect anything else from members of an administration spouting Orwellian euphemisms such as “man-made disasters” instead of calling acts of jihad what they are: terrorism.

Underscoring the appalling ineptitude is the sale of F-16s to a regime run by Islamists. The Mooslum Brotherhood seized power in Egypt last year. Its members have dedicated their lives to imposing their totalitarian ideology on the entire world. Their leader, Mohamad Morsi, has already issued emergency decrees, which have granted him extraordinary levels of control, a favorite tactic of dictators in the past and in the present. Supplying those barbarians with such weaponry reeks of foolishness on par with the owner of a firearms store handing a loaded high-powered rifle to a known criminal with a long history of armed robberies.

Fortunately for American interests, Hillary Clinton will resign from her post this week. Sadly for cause of justice, she will not face any punishment for her negligence. That duty will fall to the voters in the United States should she dare to seek the presidency again. She clearly lacks the competence and courage for that solemn responsibility.

COPYRIGHT BY CHARLES KASTRIOT JANUARY 2013