The strange case of the Secret Service and the unhappy Cartagena hooker has taken an interesting new twist: investigators are looking into the possibility that one or more of the Colombian ladies of the night were underage. It is against U.S. law to travel abroad for the purpose of engaging in sex with minors. The probe is also reported to have widened to include White House staff.

In other news, in northern India a young Bollywood starlet was kidnapped for ransom by two of her colleagues. When the girl’s family failed to raise a sufficiently large payoff, the kidnappers strangled their victim and then beheaded her.

To see the headlines and the articles, open the full news post.

Thanks to C. Cantoni, Gaia, Insubria, JD, JP, McR, R, RR, Vlad Tepes, and all the other tipsters who sent these in.

Notice to tipsters: Please don’t submit extensive excerpts from articles that have been posted behind a subscription firewall, or are otherwise under copyright protection.

Commenters are advised to leave their comments at this post (rather than with the news articles) so that they are more easily accessible.

Caveat: Articles in the news feed are posted “as is”. Gates of Vienna cannot vouch for the authenticity or accuracy of the contents of any individual item posted here. We check each entry to make sure it is relatively interesting, not patently offensive, and at least superficially plausible. The link to the original is included with each item’s title. Further research and verification are left to the reader.

Nonie Darwish is an Egyptian-born apostate from Islam who now lives in the United States. She is the author of a recently-released book about the “Arab Spring” entitled The Devil We Don’t Know: The Dark Side of Revolutions in the Middle East.

In the following interview, Ms. Darwish discusses the new regimes in the Middle East and the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood. She describes the nature of Islam, the plight of women under shariah, and the danger to all Western nations of the presence of large Muslim minorities within their territory.

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for uploading this video:

The following article by Steven Simpson concerns the much-heralded emergence of “democracy” in the Middle East. It was originally published at Canada Free Press, and is reproduced here with the permission of the author.

Why the Arab Spring Will Descend Into an Islamic Ice Age

by Steven Simpson

The much vaunted and praised “Arab Spring,” which took the world by surprise in December 2010 is slowly but surely turning into an Arab winter, which will inexorably become an Arab Islamic Ice Age in the near future. Already, the icicles of pan-Islamism are beginning to form throughout the Maghreb (North Africa), and the West had best come to terms with the reality that the mantra of “free and fair elections” does not translate into Arabic as Western-style democracy.

Tunisia

Ironically, it is the birthplace of the “Arab Spring” — Tunisia — which is already in the midst of turning from Arab secular tyranny into Arab Islamist domination. The largest party in the Tunisian parliament is the “moderate” Islamist party known as Ennahda (Hizb an Nahda), meaning the “Renaissance Party.” When elections were held in October 2011, the party gained a plurality of 90 seats in the 217 member Constituent Assembly.

Ennahda was formed by Rashid Ghannouch i, who after 22 years in exile, returned to a hero’s welcome in January 2011, after the overthrow of Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. Mr. Ghannouchi, who has been described as a “moderate” by many political pundits, has already called for the “end of Israel.” He has compared his party with Turkey’s Islamist AKP (“Justice and Development Party”) led by the Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who has nearly turned Turkey into a de facto Islamic republic and brought relations with Israel to the brink of severance. Alas, the much hailed (and perhaps failed) “Jasmine Revolution” might well have paved the way for the beginning of Arab “Islamocracies.” That is, Islamic republics replacing secular pan-Arab socialist regimes, via “free and fair elections.”

Algeria

To the west of Tunisia is the People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria, which almost became the first Islamic republic in the Arab world back in 1991. At that time, the Islamic Salvation Front was on the verge of becoming the largest party in Parliament until the army stepped in, unleashing a savage and bloody nine-year civil war that has still left the country in chaos. Elections are coming there in May, and there is a good chance that the troika of Islamist parties will do quite well — once again — through “free and fair elections.”

Morocco

Then there is the Kingdom of Morocco. While currently led by the pro-Western moderate, King Mohammed VI, the Islamist phoenix has already risen. In the November 2011 elections, the Justice and Development Party won 107 seats in the 395 member Parliament. The new Prime Minister, Abdelilah Benkirane, is also the leader of the party. Of course, he too, is considered a “moderate.” But when one reads further, it becomes clear that the term “moderate Islamist” is nothing but an oxymoron.

Libya

Finally, there are Egypt and Libya. In Libya, the tyrannical forty-two year reign of the monstrous and murderous Muammar al-Qaddafi came to an ignoble and abrupt end with a bullet in his head in October 2011. Libya is presently governed by a coalition of various parties and tribes under the tutelage of the Libyan Interim National Council. On paper (or at least on the World Wide Web), it would appear that Libya is being run by a council of leaders who are looking forward to a democratic country with free elections. However, when one looks closer, the Council is led by a former Qaddafi crony, Mustafa Abdul Jalil, who turned against his patron in February 2011. His academic background includes graduating from the University of Libya where he studied (what else?) Shari’a. While Jalil may not be an open Islamist, there are many on the Council who are, most notably Abdel Hakim Belhaj who fought in Afghanistan against the Soviets and led the now defunct Libyan Islamic Fighting Group.

Indeed, the Libyan Draft Constitution proposes enshrining Shari’a as the basis for state law. While only a draft at this point, it appears to be a bad start for a “democratic” Libya. However, lest anyone shed tears for the departed Colonel Qaddafi, it should be remembered that Islamic law was also enshrined in Qaddafi’s constitution of 1969, and explicitly reaffirmed in the 1977 constitution.

Elections are scheduled to be held in June. But if the recent desecration of British graves of World War II veterans — and the tepid response of the National Council — is a foreshadowing of things to come, Libya appears either headed towards civil war, or an Islamic state. Libya is plagued (or blessed, depending on one’s viewpoint) with numerous Islamist groups, including its first Muslim Brotherhood branch, also called the Justice and Development Party.

Egypt

Finally, there is “the mother of the Arab world,” Egypt. It is in Egypt that the godfather of all Islamic supremacist groups — the Muslim Brotherhood — was spawned. al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun was formed in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna, and his theology was refined by Sayid Qutb. However, if one looks for reality and clarity (unlike the current American administration which foolishly engages the Brotherhood and views it as “moderate”), it will be seen that the Brotherhood is a violent fascist movement that seeks global Islamic domination. Indeed, it is the phalanx and aegis for all Islamist groups that have emerged throughout the Muslim world. Bluntly put, it is nothing short of an Islamic hydra, and an implacable enemy of the West, Israel, and all non-Muslims.

When Egyptians overthrew Hosni Mubarak in February 2011, the politicians and political pundits throughout the world marveled and prognosticated on how democracy was coming to Egypt. Apparently, the Egyptian people had other plans in mind. In parliamentary elections held in January 2012, Islamist parties won over 71% of the vote. It was a triumph for Islamists throughout Egypt and an ominous sign of an Islamic resurrection of monumental proportions. The old adage “As Egypt goes, so goes the Arab world” appears to be a prophecy looming on the horizon.

The final triumph for an Islamic Egypt will be the presidential election that is to be held in late May. Now, in 2012, it appears that the dreams of al-Banna and Qutb turning Egypt into an Islamic state will come to fruition. As of this writing, two Islamists have been banned from running. These are the Salafi candidate, Hazem Abu-Ismail, who was the front-runner, and the Brothers’ Khairat al-Shater of the “Freedom and Justice Party.” Both are appealing the verdict. The Brothers already have a backup candidate, Mohammed Mursi. Another former Brother, Abdel Moneim-Abul Fotouh is also running. Regardless, it seems a fait accompli that an Islamist will indeed win, thus solidifying and hermetically sealing Egypt’s fate as an Islamic state.

While this article does not cover the recrudescence of Islamist movements in the Mashriq (East), encompassing such blood soaked states as Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, and Bahrain, Islamism is coming there too. The message is crystal clear and perfectly simple: The adherents of Muhammad will not soon exchange him in for Washington, Jefferson, or Madison. The West should be prepared — metaphorically speaking — to start stockpiling on heavy winter clothing. An Islamic ice age is about to descend upon us. Be prepared.

Steven Simpson has a B.A. in Political Science with an emphasis on Middle Eastern studies, as well as a Master’s Degree in Library Science. In addition to Canada Free Press, Steven’s previous articles have appeared on the American Thinker, Pajamas Media, Front Page Magazine, and Hudson-NY.org.

Drawing on the work of Dr. Andrew Bostom, Anestos Canelides outlines the scriptural doctrines and religious traditions behind the Islamic practice of jihad.

Jihad: The Law of War
A Summary

by Anestos Canelides

The following essay was originally planned to discuss war under the law of Islam. With four schools of Sunni Islamic law, and then another four Shiite schools of law, it is a very complex topic. An entire book could be written about it. I don’t pretend to be a scholar on this subject, but it is still important to discuss, in summary, the motivation for Islamic war against the infidel.

In the mindset of the fundamentalist jihadi, holy war against the non-believer is a religious duty because of the universalism of his mission, which is to convert non-believers to Islam by force or persuasion. For the Islamist, persuasion is always the first choice, but if not then force becomes necessary.^[1]

Jihad is in fact regarded as a form of religious propaganda that is carried on by either persuasion or the sword, but jihad does not always mean war, since exertion in the path of Allah might come through peaceful means, as in the case of Indonesia. Muhammad warned his people against the sins of idolatry and invited them to worship Allah. “He who exerts himself (jihada) exerts only for his own soul, which expresses the Jihad in the terms of salvation of the soul rather than for Proselytization.”^[2]

The Koran says:

“9.25 — But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, And seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent (accept Islam) and establish regular charity then open the way for them; for God is forgiving, most merciful.”^[3]

Within the Muslim community or Ummah, legal war or jihad is an obligation or social duty (Fard Kifaya) There can be exemptions; when one group of Muslims carry out their duty out then it offers others exemption. ^[4] Exemptions also include: sickness, extreme youth, insanity, blindness, lameness, sex (females), the inability to obtain what is needed to participate and being in a state of servitude. ^[5]

But the Jihad becomes an obligatory or personal duty, for all Muslims, when they are enlisted or their country is invaded by an enemy. In this case it is obligatory for free men who have reached puberty and are endowed with reason and are able to fight. Holy war is not only considered an obligation but also a good and pious work.

Islamic Jurists have distinguished four ways in which a Muslim may fulfill his obligation: by his heart, his tongue, his hand, and by his sword that he may fulfill this duty. “The first is concerned with combating the devil in attempt to escape his persuasion to evil.” The first option was considered the greater jihad by their prophet. The second and third ways are fulfilled by supporting the right and correcting the wrong. The fourth is concerned with fighting the enemies of Allah, and believers are obligated to sacrifice their lives and wealth when fighting in the cause of their faith, in the prosecution of war. The fourth is called the lesser Jihad.

Abu Huraira relates, “the Prophet when asked what was the best of all works, replied; belief in God (and his Prophet) And then? Someone asked him — War for God’s cause, then a pious pilgrimage. Abu Sa’id reports also that the Prophet, when asked who was the best of all men, replied, “he who fights for God’s cause, personally and with his goods.”

The duty of the Ummah truly is Jihad, holy war, and not just any war, but a war to force the unbeliever to embrace universal Islamic doctrines, unless he is a Christian or a Jew. In this case, if the non-believers pay the so-called protection tax, they become a protected minority. This status applies even when they are not really a minority in numbers. This so-called protection tax did not always guarantee Christians or Jews that they would not face oppression, or in some cases forced conversion.

There is a deeply held conviction that the soul of every Muslim, without exemption, was created to fight on the path of God. Through this call of supreme authority they must, with joy, spread Islam and allow the word of God to have the final say. According to the Muslim jurist, holy war is a requirement. It is the law of God and is the part of worship offered to Allah, since the doctors of the law classify it in the category of ibadat or acts of adoration. Muhammad received the order to proclaim the faith of Allah or what has been commanded, and to debate with the Infidel. If the unfaithful were to reject the message and refuse to follow the path of Allah then the believers were ordered to attack them. ^[6]

Later the Muslim casuist (one who resolves moral issues) adopted an explanation that is found in a specialized treaty. War in itself is evil because it involves the destruction of the human body which was created by Allah. It also devastates entire regions, and to deny man any means of sustaining life is wrong and evil.

“The human body is the work of God, who fashioned it himself with clay taken from the earth: the country inhabited by man, and which he needs for food was granted to him by divine Providence. To deprive man of life and the means of sustaining it is to go against the will of God, to incur his reprobation and the malediction of his Prophet.”

If war is evil in Islam, then how did it become a good thing? Why did d it become incumbent on men? Since its purpose is the exaltation of the true faith though Muhammad, the Prophet of God, it is understood that holy war is a necessary evil as long as there are people on Earth who will not willingly embrace the faith of Muhammad.

“And so the casuist ended up with classifying holy war among the accidental acts of piety, and they rank it after faith, prayer, fasting, and pilgrimage, which are essentially acts of piety.” Because of such fanaticism it is little wonder that a few burnt Qur’ans were of more value than the deaths of 17 Afghan Muslims by an American soldier. Just imagine how little they value the life of any infidel who rejects the message of Muhammad! Even though man is a divine creation of God, by their own creed, unbelief by the infidel turns one into an enemy of Allah. It is their pious duty to convert or kill you.

It is a good thing that not all Muslims adhere to this belief, but there are some today who do. These are the ones we must be concerned with. These are the ones who believe holy war is a calling by Allah against all unbelief, in which they include truly moderate Muslims.

Clement Huart (1854-1926), a scholar on Arabic, Persian and Turkish languages, says, “In reality Muslims place [holy war] on the same footing as the other primordial duties of his religion. He is trained to do so by the custom of bloody sacrifices, consummated by his own hands at certain times of the year.” Islam is a faith with strict ritual and moral codes. With the promise of martyrdom and eternal life with 72 virgins, without facing God’s wrath, the extreme fundamentalist follows Allah’s path and declares holy war against all infidels.

Majid Khadduri, a professor of Middle Eastern Studies, states, “Thus the jihad (holy War) may be regarded as Islam’s instrument for carrying out its ultimate objective by turning all people into believers, if not in the Prophethood of Muhammad (as in the case of the dhimmis) at least in the belief in God.” It will not be until all are either subjected as dhimmi or become believers, in the path of God, and embrace Muhammad as Allah’s Prophet, that there will be universal peace. Until then there will be a permanent obligation upon the whole Muslim Ummah to fight the unbeliever.

Notes:

1.		Bostom, Andrew, The Legacy of Jihad, “Ibn Khaldun”, Prometheus Books, New York, 2005-		161
2.		Bostom, Andrew, The Legacy of Jihad, “The Law of War: jihad”, Prometheus Books, New York, 2005-307, 308, 310
3.		Bostom, Andrew, The Legacy of Jihad; “Jihad in the Qur’an”,, Prometheus Books, New York, 2005-125
4.		Bostom, Andrew, The Legacy of Jihad, “Ibn Qudama”, Prometheus Books, New York, 2005-162
5.		Bostom, Andrew, The Legacy of Jihad; “The Jihad or Holy War according to the Malikite School”,Prometheus Books, New York, 2005-252
6.		Bostom, Andrew, The Legacy of Jihad, “Clement Huart, The Law of War”, Prometheus Books, NY, 2005- 283

A special thanks to Dr. Andrew Bostom for creating such a powerful research tool entitled The Legacy of Jihad.

Previous posts by Anestos Canelides:

2010		May		29		The Last Empire
		Jun		18		The Muslim Devastation of India
		Aug		20		Are They Lying to Us?
		Sep		28		Devshirme: A Muslim Scourge on Christians
		Oct		6		AIFD: Friends of America and Freedom
		Dec		3		A 19th-Century Jihad on American Shipping
2011		May		29		Borders, Language and Culture
		Oct		18		The Jihad Against Dogs
				31		Slavery and Jihad
		Nov		15		Abuse of Power
		Dec		10		Islam is not a Pacifist Religion
				28		Those Evil Crusades
2012		Mar		25		Why Do We Tolerate Their Intolerance?
		Apr		6		History is the Fairest Instructor

The British Freedom Party has just made a special offer to all patriots who have served in the Armed Services, in recognition of their sacrifices for the same freedoms that BF champions.

The following announcement was posted today on the British Freedom website.

What Is British Freedom?

It’s not just a catch-phrase or the name of our party, it actually means a great deal.

Think about it:

• Why is Britain Free?
• What is Freedom?
• What is Britishness?

Freedom is the ability to think, say and do what comes naturally, without fear of persecution.

It’s democracy — true democracy.

It’s freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to fail and freedom to succeed.

So, where and how did we get these freedoms?

Well, that’s where the ‘Britain’ bit comes in. It came about because our ancestors fought and died for it. They stood for weeks or even months on end in hellish, waterlogged frozen trenches only to come out and face certain death in order to deliver us the Freedom that we sadly take for granted today.

That, in a nutshell, is British Freedom.

So, our question is this:

Why should those who gave — and still give — so much have to pay for the right to have a say in how the country they fought for, and their relatives died for, is run?

The simple and obvious answer is that they shouldn’t. For this reason the British Freedom Party will offer free lifetime membership to anyone who has served their country. This will include full voting rights and an exclusive ‘Armed Services Membership Card”.

Just because it requires no financial outlay, it is not “free”. The sacrifice and courage displayed by our servicemen is way beyond mere financial cost. Winston Churchill summed it up perfectly when he stated “Never in the field of human conflict has so much been owed by so many to so few.”

This is precisely why British Freedom stands foursquare behind our servicemen and women.

We will never surrender Britain’s ancient and bloodily-defended Freedoms to totalitarian political correctness, the hard-left, Islamic fundamentalists or the unelected European Commissars who are systematically dismantling our country, our culture, and our much fought for Freedoms piece by piece.

If we allow this to happen, then we will be guilty of a great betrayal — the betrayal of all those who sacrificed so much in order that we might live in Freedom and Liberty.

The next time you pause beside a war memorial and look at the countless names of the young men who died for you, your country, your culture and your freedom, you should ask yourself whether the Britain they died for is worth the same to you.

We are British. We are Free. We are British Freedom.

If you are a British subject, and a current or former member of the Armed Services, visit the British Freedom website and sign up for a free — or rather pre-paid — party membership.

The first week of the trial of Anders Behring Breivik is over — one down, nine to go! — and our Norwegian correspondent The Observer has some thoughts about the larger implications of what is happening in that courtroom in Oslo.

Like me, he sees the careful planning by the authorities going awry as the world listens in on the horrifically lucid thoughts of the Butcher of Utøya.

The Norwegian Straitjacket
By The Observer

Absolutely nothing has gone according to “plan” for the Norwegian authorities in this particular case. During the attack they failed miserably, and now they feel compelled to conduct a proper court case, because anything else would go against every grain of their ‘benign’ ideology.

As Mr. Gjems-Onstad said, the authorities in Norway have been so busy telling everyone else how to manage their internal affairs, and stressing how humane Norwegians are, that anything short of this type of response would be considered pure hypocrisy and a complete and utter loss of face. Their besserwisser attitude has become somewhat of a straitjacket, and it seems they don’t find it very comfortable.

One thing people should realize about the Norwegian authorities is that they are very concerned, almost to the point of obsessiveness, about what foreign political ‘dignitaries’ and governments think of them. They really have a desperate desire to be liked.

It’s an inferiority complex that stems from the fact that Norway was under foreign rule for such a long time. Norway only became an independent nation in 1905, an independence which we of course lost when we were hijacked by the EU-fanatics in our government.

Breivik has managed to scare the authorities to the bone. When you read about all the terrible ideas that have been hatched in his evil little brain, everything from blowing up gasoline tanker trucks in crowded squares to beheading the former prime-minister and killing the entire Norwegian Government, it really send chills down your spine.

I have mentioned previously that we’ll probably see copycats trying to emulate Breivik’s terrorist acts. The Norwegian Government is aware of this possibility, and it scares the hell out of them.

It’s worth remembering that the population of Norway is only five million. The population of Germany, France and England is ten to fifteen times greater than that, and that should in theory mean ten to fifteen potential Breivik copycats in each of these countries. Add the very dismal future prospects in some of these countries to the equation, accompanied by a tsunami of third-world immigrants hitting their shores, and you have a very volatile and tense situation at hand.

Also bear in mind the new regimes that are emerging in North Africa….

We have lived to see interesting times.

Previous posts about the trial of Anders Behring Breivik:

2012		Apr		11		Circus Breivik
				14		The Show Begins
				16		Fjordman: The Breivik Trial Begins
				17		Trial Without Limits
				17		Cracking Down on Christian Terrorism
				18		Breivik in Brief
				19		Norwegian News Roundup
				20		The Best Laid Plans of Mice and Multiculturalists

The debt crisis has forced the Greek government to raise taxes, and the real estate slump has made holding on to property cost-ineffective. More and more owners are putting their idyllic Greek islands up for sale to escape the tax burden. Some of the buyers are reportedly Middle Easterners, and include members of the royal family of Qatar.

In other news, France and Germany have agreed that they will shut their borders to immigrants for up to thirty days during migration emergencies. Some critics say that this action violates the Schengen Agreement.

To see the headlines and the articles, open the full news post.

Thanks to C. Cantoni, Caroline Glick, Erick Stakelbeck, Fjordman, Hermes, Insubria, JD, JP, Nick, and all the other tipsters who sent these in.

Notice to tipsters: Please don’t submit extensive excerpts from articles that have been posted behind a subscription firewall, or are otherwise under copyright protection.

Commenters are advised to leave their comments at this post (rather than with the news articles) so that they are more easily accessible.

Caveat: Articles in the news feed are posted “as is”. Gates of Vienna cannot vouch for the authenticity or accuracy of the contents of any individual item posted here. We check each entry to make sure it is relatively interesting, not patently offensive, and at least superficially plausible. The link to the original is included with each item’s title. Further research and verification are left to the reader.

During this heated presidential election season, at least one issue enjoys almost universal bipartisan agreement: There must be no public discussion of President Obama’s birth certificate (or lack thereof).

Democrats, Republicans, media people — virtually no major nationally-known public figure is willing to talk about whether the President really is a “natural born” American citizen.

I have been, and remain, an agnostic on the issue. The only thing I can say for certain is that the online documents presented so far by the Obama team are obvious fakes. Although I am an amateur in the field, my years of work with digital images have made it easy to determine that the two certificates released by Obama’s people have been digitally manipulated, if not fabricated from scratch.

What has always been more significant, however, is the cone of silence that descended on the eligibility issue four years ago and has remained in place ever since. All national discussion of the issue was shut down early, and shut down completely.

If you believe the rumors circulating among low-level media people, famous talk-show hosts and TV talking heads have been threatened into silence concerning the birth certificate. The truth is hard to determine, but both the rumors and the silence persist.

Diana West is one of the rare courageous exceptions among national commentators in her willingness to examine “birther” topics. Her post today concerns the near-unanimous silence on the issue, particularly among American conservatives.

Disowning Birth Certificates, Disowning Truth
by Diana West

Below is this week’s syndicated column: “Is Obama Disowning His Online Birth Certificate?” It takes in the shifting strategy of the Obama defense team in fending off challenges to Obama’s eligibility to appear on presidential primary ballots. Obama’s eligibility is a signal concern for the nation which should be the subject of informed, serious debate on the front pages, on news shows, and also, most important, in the Congress. Such debate is non-existent. Such concern is non-existent, too. It doesn’t seem to matter to the citizenry that a fraudster may be completing one term in the White House while seeking another.

I recently had the occasion to discuss the matter with a very famous American conservative.

Famous Conservative said to me: Tell me what columns of yours are getting a big response lately.

I had earlier written this column about the Georgia ballot challenge hearing in which President Obama ignored a subpoena for the certified copy of his birth certificate (among other documents). This column elicited a great response from readers, many of whom asked me the same question: why this important story wasn’t being covered in the media.

They’re really interested in this whole eligibility story, I said.

Famous Conservative: I’ll bet they are.

Me: Aren’t you?

FC: No.

Me: No? Why aren’t you?

FC: If this were happening back at the time of the election, maybe.

I told FC this is an election (ding-dong).

FC: Exactly. But this will alienate the people we need to defeat him at the polls.

I made some naïve-sounding comment (which I thoroughly subscribe to) about the seeking the truth regardless of the outcome, adding that the truth would likely alienate plenty of people from Obama, too.

Impasse.

New tack for Famous Conservative: If this were true, why hasn’t Rush or Hannity taken it on?

Me: They’re afraid.

FC: (Scoffs.)

Me: Look, Rush won’t talk about a lot of things: Islamization, for one. Sharia. Muslim Brotherhood, those kinds of things. He has a comfort zone.

FC: (Disbelief.)

Impasse.

FC: Well, maybe if some respected conservative journalist were to examine the story —

Me: (What am I, chopped liver?) Who, for instance?

FC: John Fund, Daniel Henniger …

Hey boys, have at it. But there’s a problem. According to the FC

(1)		the truth will alienate voters so we mustn’t seek the truth; and
(2)		it can’t be true anyway because otherwise Rush, Sean, John and Dan would be all over the story.

Of course, if FC’s conservative journalists subscribe to #1 or some variation thereon as partisans or Republicans, we’ll never get to #2. Meanwhile, across the journalistic aisle, the MSM has the another, equally heavy stake in preventing the truth from outing. They want Obama re-elected.

What’s wrong with this picture? Conservative logic, conservative morality.

Needless to say, I didn’t make any inroads with FC although FC’s spouse shares my concern in the subject, so that’s something.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

The column:

Almost exactly one year ago — with Donald Trump on top of presidential polls and author Jerome Corsi on top of Amazon’s best-seller list, both for asking where President Barack Obama’s “real” birth certificate was — Judith Corley, the president’s personal attorney, flew to Hawaii. She went there to pick up two certified copies of the president’s long-form birth certificate from the Hawaii Department of Health.

At least, that’s what then-White House Counsel Robert Bauer told us last April 27 at a White House press briefing called to unveil the new, certified document. Multiple copies were passed out to the press, while NBC’s Savannah Guthrie became the one witness I know of to touch the certified document. (She reported she “felt the raised seal.”) A computer image of this Obama long-form birth certificate appeared on the White House website, where now you and I can download it for ourselves as proof of the president’s bona fides.

Or is it?

It is this same Internet image that the Cold Case Posse, a group of lawyers and former law enforcement professionals assembled by Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff Joe Arpaio to vet Obama’s identity documents, has concluded is most likely a forgery. At its March 1 press conference, the posse further explained that it believed the online image originated as a computer file. In other words, a paper document did not exist before the image appeared on the White House website.

If the posse’s mind-blowing findings are correct, what is it that Judith Corley couriered back to Washington? And what is it that Savannah Guthrie touched?

I find such questions most intriguing — even if the rest of the media do not — particularly after last week’s court hearing into Obama’s eligibility to appear on the ballot in the New Jersey presidential primary. After literally dozens of such eligibility cases since 2008 (evidently, the media are waiting for a discernible story trend to emerge before they pounce), I can report, having watched a video of the New Jersey hearing online, that the president’s team is making progress. Only now it’s away from his long-form birth certificate.

The curious fact is, President Obama’s attorney, Alexandra Hill, couldn’t have been more adamant about not citing the online birth certificate as a means of proving the president’s identity in this recent challenge — and after everyone went to so much trouble to get it! Indeed, she called the Internet image “legally irrelevant,” arguing that New Jersey law doesn’t specifically call for a birth certificate to qualify a presidential candidate for the ballot.

Exactly how a presidential candidate demonstrates he is at least 35 years old and “natural born,” the constitutional requirement New Jersey upholds, Hill didn’t say, but Administrative Law Judge Jeff Masin found her arguments persuasive to the point of preventing an expert witness from offering testimony that the online image is a forgery.

Even though the Obama team entered no documentation of the president’s identity into the record — not even that “certified” birth document Obama’s personal lawyer traveled so far to retrieve — Judge Masin managed to find that the president was both born in Hawaii and “natural born.”

Neat, huh? But note the shift in legal tactics. If, in New Jersey, the online birth certificate was “legally irrelevant,” in January’s Georgia eligibility hearing, the president’s lawyer, Michael Jablonski, considered it legally decisive. Jablonski cited “the documents evidencing the birth of President Obama” that are available online to try to quash a subpoena that “commanded” Obama to come to court and bring “any and all birth records” with him (among other documents).

A golden opportunity to show off that certified, hand-couriered birth doc from Hawaii, and be done with it, no? No. When Administrative Law Judge Michael Malihi refused to quash the subpoena, Jablonski and Obama ignored it. They just didn’t show up. Not to worry: Flouted subpoena and all, and without any evidence from the Obama team, Judge Malihi found that the president was both born in Hawaii and “natural born,” too.

Amazing how that works, and no matter what the president’s lawyers do — so long as they don’t enter tangible evidence of the president’s identity into the court record.

As for that new birth certificate that came online last April? Since government and media have abdicated their responsibility to help determine whether it’s the real McCoy or a forgery, what else is there to do but wish it a happy first birthday?

In the old days, when a foreigner sought asylum in a Western country he was attempting to escape from a brutal dictatorship, usually a communist regime. A defector from a hockey team or a ballet troupe in an East Bloc country would typically slip his handlers in New York or London and be granted asylum in the host country.

But not anymore. “Asylum” is now what is granted to virtually any nondescript from the Third World who lands in a European country and destroys his identity documents upon arrival. If you’re from a Muslim hellhole, and can manage to get to Geneva or Stockholm, you are all but certain to be granted asylum privileges. At the very least, you can expect your case to drag on for years while various bureaucracies play ping-pong with your paperwork, during which time you can disappear into the undocumented underground among your ethnic fellows in their urban ghetto.

It would be better for all native Europeans if the “asylum” concept were abolished entirely. Since that isn’t in the cards, it ought to be applied fairly and equally for all new arrivals. No one will be surprised, however, to learn that Muslims are treated differently from non-Muslims, and that Christian converts from Islam receive especially unfavorable treatment.

Our Norwegian correspondent The Observer has translated a report about an apostate from Islam who was denied the sanctuary that so many adherents of his former religion are routinely granted.

The translator includes this note:

This article from Utrop (an immigrant newspaper) concerns an Afghan asylum seeker who converted to Christianity and was attacked as a result of his conversion by another Muslim at an asylum centre in southwestern Norway about a year ago.

The Afghan has now been ordered to leave the country. The reason given by the Norwegian authorities for the failed asylum application is that they don’t believe his conversion is sincere.

The translated article:

Christian convert ordered to leave Norway

The Afghan male who was attacked at an asylum centre in Jæren lost his bid to remain in Norway

By Aon R. Naqvi

Last summer several newspapers wrote about “Ali” the asylum seeker at Hå reception center in Jæren who received second degree burns to his neck and left shoulder after another resident threw boiling water on him.

“Two Muslim residents asked me why I didn’t fast during Ramadan. When I failed to answer them, they started discussing. One of them told me that he knew I was a former Muslim and that I had converted to Christianity. He told me that they had to perform Jihad,” the Afghan said after the attack.

Gulating Court of appeal has now reversed the original judgment against the Somali who carried out the attack due to lack of evidence proving that the perpetrator acted intentionally or negligently, the Christian internet site, Korsets Seier (KS.no) writes on their web site.

The long arm of the law

Ali, who does not wish to reveal his identity, won the first round in the courts. The offender was originally ordered to pay Nok 40,000 in damages and was given a suspended sentence.

“During the trial in the district court, the public prosecutor argued that it could not be proven that the attack was deliberate. However the two lay judges who formed the majority in the court found that the defendant had acted intentionally. The verdict was appealed by the attorney general and the defendant.”

The Irony of the law

“Ali’s” bid to stay in Norway was also rejected and the Afghan now has until Friday April 20 to leave the country.

“The Immigration Board of Appeals (UNE) doesn’t believe that Ali is a true Christian. They believe that the conversion was an attempt to secure a Norwegian residence permit. Neither the baptism at the Church in Bryne or ‘the alleged conversion’ is deemed to be sincere according to a unanimous verdict from the UNE,” writes Korsets Seier.

The decision was heavily criticized by the local Pastor, Håvard Sandve. The lawyers at the UNE have no understanding of what religion is and what it means to convert.

“They have ignored everything I told them about the man, and I have known him for a long time,” he tells Stavanger Aftenblad.

Feels betrayed

According to the man’s lawyer, Liss Byrkjedal, the Afghan feels let down. Byrkjedal is adamant that he has a firm and clear Christian conviction.

“I thought Norway was a country in which human rights were respected. They have denied my case and rejected my application for asylum. How am I supposed to fight them?” the Afghan asks KS.no

We reported last week on the proposal by an Islamic fundamentalist in Germany to distribute 25 million free German-language Korans to the non-Muslim populace.

Imagine that you’re one of the unwitting recipients of a free Koran, dropped with a clunk through your letter box early one morning. You take a quick look at the book. It’s boring, turgid, and incomprehensible. You don’t want it.

But how should you dispose of it? You’ve heard on the news about what happens to non-Muslims who burn the Koran, or throw it in the garbage, or flush it down the toilet. You don’t want to share their fate.

So what’s the solution? Bury it in the back yard? Hand it over to the police?

That’s what’s being discussed in Germany right now. Many thanks to Hermes for translating this article from yesterday’s Die Welt:

What to do with a Koran given as present?

The distribution of 25 million copies of the Koran in Germany was also criticised by Muslims. Many volumes will probably be thrown away, something intolerable for believers.

The distribution of the Koran by Salafists in various cities is a matter of discussion: 25 million copies of the Koran in German, about 360 truckloads of books, are what the extremist Muslims want to distribute among the populace.

This action is meeting criticism not only from politicians but also from many Muslims. The chairman of the Central Council of Muslims, Aiman Mazyek, said that the handing over of Korans is actually a good task. But he views the distribution of millions of exemplars critically because the “Word of God” is not a flyer that you distribute en masse. Moreover, he fears that some Korans could at worst be thrown away as waste paper.

The idea of the Koran landing into a waste bin is unbearable for most Muslims. Already in February, the burning of Korans by U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan led to protests and deadly riots: “The Koran is for the Muslims the direct word of God,” says Abdurrahim Kozali, Professor of Islamic law and religious practice from the Center for Intercultural Islamic Studies at the University of Osnabrueck. Therefore, the Muslims have always tried to handle the Koran with respect. According to Islamic law, the Koran should not be touched without ritual ablution or put on the floor.

To bury it like a corpse

If Arabic Korans are old and illegible, they should, in the opinion of most scholars, be wrapped in a cloth and buried as one would a dead body, says Kozali. It must be also made sure that the (burial) place is clean and that after the “funeral” nobody will enter the burial place anymore. According to Kozali, a minority of Islamic scholars say that the old Korans should not be buried, but burned.

They refer to the Caliph Osman (644-656) who, after having edited the official Koran, ordered the older versions to be burned. The Islamic theologian believes that rather than intending to distribute a standard Koran, he did so because he wanted to avoid debate and confusion over older versions. For this reason, the funeral of the Holy Book would preferably happen through incineration rather than by burying it.

“The Koran is for Muslims the epitome of holiness,” says Hartmut Bobzin, a professor of Islamic Studies at the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg. Therefore it is not surprising that the Koran enjoys special respect among Muslims. This reverential treatment towards a scripture by Islam comes from the Jewish tradition, scientists presume.

“God cannot be offended”

These rules and regulations towards the discarding of Korans refer, according to most Islamic scholars, only to Korans in Arabic. Because only these are the revealed word of God. Translations of the Qur’an are therefore “Transmission”. That’s why the versions of the Koran distributed by the Salafists have on their cover: “The noble Qur’an, the approximate interpretation in German language.”

In Judaism, the texts in which the Hebrew name of God appears are not thrown away. Instead, they are usually kept in the synagogues on a separate place, the “Genizah”. The burying of documents is the reason why significant archaeological treasures could be found in recent years. The famous Cairo Geniza of Kairo is an example to this. Ancient manuscripts of this kind regarding the Koran are kept in the Great Mosque of Sana’a in Yemen.

The Catholic Church also advises the burial of an illegible or corrupted Bible: According to a spokesman for the Catholic German Bishop Conference, it should be buried in consecrated ground, in a cemetery, for example. This process is, however, not canonically specified. The content of the book is what usually matters, and not the book itself.

John Frederick, chairman of the German Bible Society in Stuttgart and former bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Bavaria said that there are no rules for Protestants regarding the discarding of a Bible. “We believe that the Bible is God’s word which has been written by men. God cannot be offended if we treat the Bible with disrespect.” But other people’s feelings might be hurt.

The fix was in long ago in the Anders Behring Breivik trial.

There was no doubt the accused was guilty of slaughtering 77 people. He proudly proclaimed his responsibility for the murders from the moment he was captured last July.

The trial itself should have taken an hour or two. The judges could have pondered the evidence in a seemly fashion for another hour, and then issued their verdict. The accused could have then been sentenced to his statutory twenty-one years in one of Norway’s luxury spas prisons.

There was no need whatsoever for a ten-week trial. Providing a prominent podium for the Butcher of Utøya to explain himself serves no useful judicial purpose.

Therefore we can only assume that the Norwegian authorities had other reasons for bringing Circus Breivik to town. The show is being presented for political purposes, and — as if we hadn’t already noticed — those purposes prominently include the discrediting and destruction of any opposition to Multiculturalism in Norway.

Yet the circus may not be going as well as anticipated.

Day after day Mr. Breivik has been discussing forbidden topics, the shameful subjects on which there has been an enforced silence for the past two or three decades. This can’t possibly be the desired outcome, from the point of view of those who wish to impose their multicultural utopia on Europe.

With a live feed to the Norwegian public, media correspondents from all over the world, and a calm, lucid voice describing the cynical and destructive immigration policies of the European elites — citizens throughout the West are hearing opinions which they are not supposed to hear.

Part of the media coverage today zeroed in on Fjordman, as we all have been expecting. The methods employed by the “journalists” are crude and dishonest, but presumably effective.

Our Norwegian correspondent The Observer has prepared a summary of today’s shenanigans in Oslo:

This is the headline from today’s edition of VG:

“For Anders, Fjordman was number one.” — Breivik’s mother on her son’s idol

The title is quite vicious, because it attempts to establish a link between Fjordman and the atrocities carried out by Breivik. The article doesn’t accuse Fjordman of having contributed to the acts, but it’s quite clear that the aim is to get the readers to draw that conclusion.

Anders Behring Breivik claims that he wouldn’t have carried out the terror attacks on July 22 if FrP (the Progress Party) hadn’t been “demonised” by the media in the lead-up to the 2009 election.

From Dagbladet:

Is not allowed to distance himself from Breivik — steps down as leader of the NDL [Norwegian Defence League]

“I can’t be part of an organization which is being associated with Breivik,” says Ronny Alte.

I want to distance myself from Breivik, but Admin believe it’s the wrong thing to do, he says.

“Admin” is the board of the NDL.

Breivik considered hijacking a petrol tanker and detonating it with high explosives to create a “poor man’s atom bomb” with an explosive force of 0.1 or 0.2 megatons, he said.

The target of this weapon would have been the annual Labour Day parade or an annual conference of Norwegian journalists, which would have caused the deaths of “several thousand people”. Breivik described this gathering as a parade of Communists and said that “only 10%” of the casualties would have been “innocent.”

Further reinforcing Fjordman’s characterisation of Breivik as the Nordic Mohammed, the killer said, “We want to create a European version of al-Qaeda.”

Sources: The Telegraph, The Local

Previous posts about the trial of Anders Behring Breivik:

2012		Apr		11		Circus Breivik
				14		The Show Begins
				16		Fjordman: The Breivik Trial Begins
				17		Trial Without Limits
				17		Cracking Down on Christian Terrorism
				18		Breivik in Brief
				19		Norwegian News Roundup

The Danish historian and journalist Lars Hedegaard was acquitted today in the Danish Supreme Court. Seven justices voted to overturn, and none voted to uphold the earlier verdict.

The vote, led by Chief Justice Børge Dahl, acquitted the defendant of intended racism and hate speech.

“Denmark is still a free society,” said Mr. Hedegaard.

More details are expected later.

With the presidential election fast approaching, French Muslims are mobilizing to defeat incumbent President Nicolas Sarkozy. Muslim organizations report that their rank-and-file members are angry over the burka ban, restrictions on halal food, and other aggressions against the Muslim community in France.

In other news, the Taliban are making an online appeal for donations. They are attempting to make up a shortfall in their funding, and provide toll-free numbers and email addresses to make donating easier for jihad supporters.

To see the headlines and the articles, open the full news post.

Thanks to C. Cantoni, DS, Fjordman, Insubria, JD, JP, Nick, Russkiy, Steen, The Observer, TV, and all the other tipsters who sent these in.

Notice to tipsters: Please don’t submit extensive excerpts from articles that have been posted behind a subscription firewall, or are otherwise under copyright protection.

Commenters are advised to leave their comments at this post (rather than with the news articles) so that they are more easily accessible.

Caveat: Articles in the news feed are posted “as is”. Gates of Vienna cannot vouch for the authenticity or accuracy of the contents of any individual item posted here. We check each entry to make sure it is relatively interesting, not patently offensive, and at least superficially plausible. The link to the original is included with each item’s title. Further research and verification are left to the reader.

Two years ago an “Australian” named Zialloh Abrahimzadeh killed his estranged wife in front of 300 witnesses at the Adelaide Convention Centre. The issue between them was a quarrel over the financial settlement of their joint property in their native Iran. Mr. Abrahimzadeh took the opportunity to kill his wife during a Persian cultural festival at the convention center.

This case has a Mohammed Coefficient of 0%, but it still seems very culturally enriched. After all, Mr. Abrahimzadeh was reported to have said that “he would rather kill a family member than be dishonoured by them.”

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for uploading this news video from Adelaide Now:

Below are excerpts from the accompanying article from News.com.au:

I Am Also a Victim, Tyrannical Wife Murderer Zialloh Abrahimzadeh Tells His Son

IN a ranting letter to his son, murderous husband Zialloh Abrahimzadeh condemns those who “put wealth and materialism” before “integrity, principles and dignity”.

Yet Abrahimzadeh did exactly that when he murdered his wife, Zahra, in front of 300 shocked witnesses inside the Adelaide Convention Centre in March 2010.

He was, at the time, obsessed with the belief that she had blocked the sale of their Iranian home and denied him thousands of dollars.

Yesterday, Supreme Court judge John Sulan jailed Abrahimzadeh, 57, for at least 26 years.

He said there was no doubt the March 2010 crime was the deliberate act of an “autocratic” man who repeatedly abused his family.

He said the letter, sent by Abrahimzadeh to his son, Arman, showed his lack of remorse.

“It demonstrates how you are completely self-absorbed and fail to have any regret for the misery you have caused to your family,” Justice Sulan said.

In the letter, released to The Advertiser, Abrahimzadeh tells Arman he “deplores” enemies “who laid the foundation” for the murder.

“I condemn those who put wealth and materialism ahead of integrity, principles and dignity,” he says.

He blames Zahra and her family for driving him “towards insanity” by denying him three quarters of the equity in their former Iranian home. “How much do you think the body and mind of a human being can tolerate?” he says.

“How long can a human being live with fear and anxiety, and with no security?”

Abrahimzadeh fills 1½ pages with details of the family’s possessions, including televisions, jewels and gold. “I will not allow anybody to take what is rightfully ours,” he says.

“When someone is trying to destroy you in any possible way, you would defend yourself and sometimes this defence results in the destruction of the opposing party.”

He closes the letter by asking Arman “as an Eastern man” to judge him fairly.

“In any case, I am really sorry about what happened,” he says.

“I think I am also a victim of what happened.”

In sentencing, Justice Sulan said Zahra’s decision to divorce Abrahimzadeh also fuelled his murderous mentality.

He rejected Abrahimzadeh’s claim that, at the time of the stabbing, he was hallucinating about his youngest daughter, Anita, being attacked by “dark, ugly men”.

“That was, in my view, fanciful … I am satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that your act was premeditated and deliberate,” he said.

[…]

He also took into account incidents when Abrahimzadeh:

SLAPPED his wife and daughters on the face and shoulders.
THREW Zahra into a window.
BROKE a cordless telephone aerial across Atena’s throat.
WHIPPED Atena with a belt for an hour.
SMOTHERED Atena with a pillow.
DEMANDED Atena beg, on her knees, for his forgiveness.
BURNED Atena’s fingers for biting her nails.
VERBALLY abused Arman.
VOWED to kill his entire family by burning their house down while they were inside.
SAID he would rather kill a family member than be dishonoured by them.

Hat tip for the article: Russkiy.