A blog dedicated to investigating events as they occur in Judea and Samaria, in Israel and in the world, and as they relate to global powers and/or to the Israeli government, public figures, etc. It is dedicated to uncovering the truth behind the headlines; and in so doing, it strives to do its part in saving Judea and Samaria, and by extension, Israel and the Jewish People, from utter destruction at the hands of its many external and internal enemies.

Monday, June 22, 2009



Sent by A.M. Thank you.


What's in a word?  While it is true that a "rose by any other name would

smell as sweet," as a writer, I believe that using the correct words are

important. As George Orwell taught us, it is the difference between truth

and lie, freedom and slavery.

And so, for years I complained about the euphemisms used by leftist

journalists who couldnt bring themselves to write the words Islamic

terrorist when buses and Passover seders blew up, even though that is who

the perpetrators were.

They were called militants, or grieving brothers, or activists.  You name

it.  Now it seems that the U.S. government is following suit, because

fighting terror seems so politically incorrect these days.  A great article

from Susan M. Reyto, a lover of freedom, who survived horrific experiences

in Communist Hungary. Go to the link and leave a comment.

--  Naomi Ragen

Perilous Euphemisms

By: Susanne M. Reyto | Friday, June 19, 2009

Overseas contingency operation. Man caused disaster. Anti-Islamic


These are the currently required terms by our government, for Global War on

Terror, Terrorism, and Islamic terrorism. I am not only baffled by

these new phrases but have great difficulty remembering them, since the

words don't convey the facts.

The directive for using the proper terminology in official announcements

was not a casual request but part of an official memo from no less than

Janet Napolitano, our Secretary of Homeland Security. This deliberate

obscurantism is frightening.

Many of her contradictory pronouncements invite comparisons to the

manipulations of language in George Orwells 1984. According to her recent

comments on CNN, "Illegal immigration" is not a crime. Of course, anything

illegal is a crime by definition.

Secretary Napolitano now also avoids using the term terrorism, dropping the

terms terror and vulnerability from her prepared remarks delivered to

the House Homeland Security Committee. On another occasion when the

Secretary was asked why she does not talk about terror specifically, she

said terrorism fits into what she calls action directives issued by her

office. These appear to be internal memos, apparently preventing the public

from being properly informed.(The new lexicon could also include current

interpretation for serial killers and serial rapists as man-caused afflictions.)

An official memo from the National Counterterrorism Communication Center

directs the replacement of terrorists with vague words like extremists or

totalitarians. Officials are to refrain from using so-called harsh words

or Arabic words with Islamic consequence. Instead they are to use generic

terms without specific emphasis. Jihad is used by the radicals themselves;

why can't we use it? Going one step further, the government has drafted

official guidelines in the publication. Terminology to Define the

Terrorists: Recommendations from American Muslims, a guide for U.S.

Government Officials. In their infinite wisdom, the government asked

Muslims  many of whom may well adhere to the political ideology of

submission under Islam and Sharia Law  to assist with the publication.

Language is critical. It shapes our thinking and determines our action. The

enemys perilous intensions cannot be blurred. If we do not name them, we

cannot confront them. If we do not properly describe them we cannot defeat

them. These new expressions mislead the public and confuse our law

enforcement officers. The governments revised phrases minimize the reality

they are intended to convey. Under the Global War on Terror, terrorists

can be held indefinitely. B ut, if we refuse to actually call it war and

call our enemies detainees, they will be treated as regular criminals

benefiting from our legal system. To make matters worse, under the new

global justice initiative, President Obama through the Justice Department

has ordered FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high value detainees

captured and held in U.S. detention facilities in Afghanistan. It seems

that sensitivity to our enemy takes precedence over our security.

President Obama stated in his Cairo speech June 4, 2009, Violent extremists

have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims.

The president also characterized the terrorist attacks as a cycle of

suspicion and discord, rather than hatred and genocide. Small is also a

relative concept. Even if the percentage of radicals is small  10 percent

of 1.5 billion Muslims  the impact of 150 million hard core Islamists is

significant. Minimizing jihad against the West and particularly in America

is a grave mistake.

A vast majority of imams preach Islam's goal: world domination. While we

must not call all Muslims terrorists, violence is inherent in Islam, and the

radicals cite the Quran as the foundation for their actions. Prominent

imams preach that there will be no peace until everybody converts and Islam

rules.  Sheik Ibrahim Mudeiris declared in a sermon on PA TV on May 13, 2005,

"We have ruled the world before, and by Allah, the day will come when we

will rule the entire world again."

What part of this do we and our government not understand?

Evidently all of it, since the administration is requesting Congress change U.S.

law to permit aid to Hamas in the event that it becomes part of a unified

Palestinian government, although Hamas has a past, present and likely

future as a terrorist organization.

Murderous intentions are hardly confined to Palestine. Kuwaiti professor,

Abdullah Al-Nafisi on Al Jazeera TV declared on February 2 of this year,

"Four pounds of anthrax carried by a fighter through tunnels from Mexico

into the US, are guaranteed to kill 330,000 Americans within a single

hour."  The terrorism of 9/11 will be small change in comparison. Apparently

he has dismissed the war American fought to liberate Kuwait from its Arab


In fact, such hatred is not uncommon among Muslims within our own borders.

Dr. Salla Sultan, an Egyptian cleric living in the United States stated on

Al-Nas TV on December 28, 2008, America, which gave Israel everything it

needed in these [Gaza] battles, will suffer economic stagnation, ruin,

destruction and crime, which will surpass what is happening in Gaza. He

then vowed, the U.S. will suffer more deaths than all those killed in this

third Gaza holocaust. This will happen soon. These words were spoken in

America by a man who is trying to become a citizen. Does this not horrify

the public and our leaders? Is this the so-called religion of peace that we

are trying to appease?

Peace, according to Webster's Dictionary, means a state of calm and quiet or

freedom from disturbing thoughts or emotions. For Muslims this means

"cessation of resistance to Islam." Quran 8:38-40 says, O believer. Fight

them until there is no more oppression and until the whole Deen (Islamic

Way of Life) is for Allah alone.

According to this interpretation, Peace can exist when and only

when Islam rules politically and religiously and its principles are the laws

of the land. But, this sharia (Islamic) law is not compatible with our

Constitution, and with our entire way of life.

Words matter. The distorted use of language is a great danger within

America, and well beyond. Author Joe Queenan has joked that, following

Obama's move:

[T]he Taliban announced that it will no longer refer to its favorite method

of murder as beheadings, but will replace it with cephalic attrition.

Flaying, a barbarously exotic style of execution, will now be described as

unsolicited epidermal reconfigurations. Similarly, cutting off captives'

arms will now be referred to as appendage furloughing.

Jokes notwithstanding, the actions remain just as brutal, whether practiced

by jihadists abroad or terrorists at home. Linguistic mixed signals are

naive and reckless in international relations where strength of character

and decisiveness are essential. We must retain our moral integrity, our

precious language, and not compromise our freedom and liberty. Ronald

Reagan in 1984 stated, "We will always remember. We will always be proud. We

will always be prepared, so we may always be free."


And just as a reminder, in case you might be shocked by the title of this post, read the following article, found on ATLAS SHRUGS, but from FORBES Magazine, Feb. 2009:


Why members of the Islamic faith see him as one of the flock.

I know it's odd to say this. At first, I thought I was the only Muslim engaging in this folly, and I am reluctant to express it lest right-wing zealots try to use "Muslim" as a smear and cite my theory as proof of an Islamic traitor in the White House or some such nonsense.

That would be me, I guess. As if being a Muslim had no implications. Looking over the global landscape, it is patently obvious that Islam is of no consequence. /sarc off

Truth is hate speech.

But, since Election Day, I have been part of more and more conversations with Muslims in which it was either offhandedly agreed that Obama is Muslim or enthusiastically blurted out. In commenting on our new president, "I have to support my fellow Muslim brother," would slip out of my mouth before I had a chance to think twice.

Of the few Muslims I polled who said that Obama is not Muslim, even they conceded that he had ties to Islam. These realists said that, although not an avowed and practicing Muslim, Obama's exposure to Islam at a young age (both through his father and his stint in Indonesia) has given him a Muslim sensibility. In my book, that makes you a Muslim--maybe not a card-carrying one, but part of the flock for sure. One realist Muslim ventured that Obama worships at a Unitarian Church because it represents the middle ground between Christianity and Islam, incorporating the religious beliefs of the two faiths Obama feels connected to. Unitarianism could be Obama's way of still being a Muslim. (And let's not forget that the church Obama worshiped at for so many years had a minister who reminds most Muslims of their own raving, excitable ministers. Even if Obama really is Christian, he picked the most Muslim-esque minister out of the bunch to guide him.)

This is all part of Obama's plan to turn this country away from its Judeo-Christian foundation and pervert it into an Islamo-Christian nation. Don't Christians know they will be eaten whole once the changeover is complete? READ HISTORY.

The rationalistic, Western side of me knows that Obama has denied being Muslim, that his father was non-practicing, that he doesn't attend a mosque. Many Muslims simply say back, "my father's not a strict Muslim either, and I haven't been to a mosque in years." Obama even told The New York Timesadhan, the Islamic call to prayer, which the vast majority of Muslims, I would guess, do not know well enough to recite. he could recite the

I think many of us Muslims see Obama as Muslim, or at least of Muslim heritage, because his background epitomizes one of the major Muslim experiences--a diverse upbringing that eludes any easy classification as specifically one religion or one culture. So many of us Muslims around the world have Islam in common, but an altogether different culture from one another. Many Muslims share a culture with a Christian, Hindu or Buddhist community but not the same religion. When faced with such diversity, there are no hard and fast rules for Muslim identity.

What no Jews? Were Jews deliberately omitted from her taqiyya? We know how wonderfully Islam has treated the Christians, Hindus and Buddhists? READ HISTORY!

So it's the ummah after all. Ummah first - expansion of Islam.

The Qur'an speaks often of the umma, or the worldwide community of Muslims. In the early days of Islam, the Prophet Muhammad led the small umma. Every decision, every effort, everything was for the umma--people who were often unrelated by blood but had become related by choice as Muslims. In those early days, many Muslims had gone against the wishes of their own families in converting to Islam, pitting brother against sister, father against child. Perhaps that's why the concept of umma became so dear and is still echoed today--in my opinion, echoed more than that Western favorite jihad--in Muslim homes, whether those homes are in the United States or in Palestine.

Perhaps it is my--and most Muslims'-- loyalty to the umma that is behind our insistence on seeing Obama as Muslim. Islam survived and continues to survive because Muslims believe we have to respect and take care of each other, as members of the umma.

Survive? At 1.5 billion Muslims, you're not surviving, honey. That submit or die thing is very effective.

If we were to start excluding members, or revising our broad guidelines for admittance, the very essence of the community feeling that is important in Islam, that gives me and other Muslims comfort everyday, would be undercut.

Broad? I hardly call the punishment of death for apostasy "broad"... I smelleth the taqiyya!

So when Obama says he's not Muslim, my umma mentality says I know better. Once you have a Muslim parent, especially a dad, you're in. Whether you like it or not, Muslims all over the world see you as one of them.

We have always known.

No comments: