A 20-Year Plan To Overthrow The U.S. Government

Monday

ORTHODOX MUSLIMS cannot wage all out war on the U.S. and expect to win. But they have a religious obligation to participate in jihad in some way in order to eventually subjugate all countries under Islamic law, including the U.S. There are more devious ways to conquer than straightforward war, however. In the excerpt below, from an article by Anis Shorrosh, author of Islam Revealed, shares what he sees as the "Islamists' 20-year plan" to conquer the U.S. As you will see, many of these things are already being done.

1. Terminate America's freedom of speech by replacing it with statewide and nationwide hate-crime bills.

2. Wage a war of words using black leaders like Louis Farrakhan, Rev. Jesse Jackson and other visible religious personalities who promote Islam as the religion of African-Americans while insisting Christianity is for whites only. What they fail to tell African-Americans is that it was Arab Muslims who captured them and sold them as slaves. In fact, the Arabic word for black and slave is the same, ''Abed.''

3. Engage the American public in dialogues, discussions, debates in colleges, universities, public libraries, radio, TV, churches and mosques on the virtues of Islam. Proclaim how it is historically another religion like Judaism and Christianity with the same monotheistic faith.

4. Nominate Muslim sympathizers to political office to bring about favorable legislation toward Islam and support potential sympathizers by block voting.

5. Take control of as much of Hollywood, the press, TV, radio and the Internet as possible by buying the related corporations or a controlling stock.

6. Yield to the fear of the imminent shut-off of the lifeblood of America – black gold. America’s economy depends on oil and 41 percent of it comes from the Middle East.

7. Yell ''foul, out-of-context, personal interpretation, hate crime, Zionist, un- American, inaccurate interpretation of the Quran'' anytime Islam is criticized or the Quran is analyzed in the public arena.

8. Encourage Muslims to penetrate the White House, specifically with Islamists who can articulate a marvelous and peaceful picture of Islam. Acquire government positions and get membership in local school boards. Train Muslims as medical doctors to dominate the medical field, research and pharmaceutical companies. (Ever notice how numerous Muslim doctors in America are, when their countries need them more desperately than America?) Take over the computer industry. Establish Middle Eastern restaurants throughout the U.S. to connect planners of Islamization in a discreet way.

9. Accelerate Islamic demographic growth via:

* Massive immigration (100,000 annually since 1961).

* Use no birth control whatsoever – every baby of Muslim parents is automatically a Muslim and cannot choose another religion later.

* Muslim men must marry American women and Islamize them (10,000 annually). Then divorce them and remarry every five years – since one can't legally marry four at one time. This is a legal solution in America.

* Convert angry, alienated black inmates and turn them into militants (so far 2,000 released inmates have joined al-Qaida worldwide). Only a few ''sleeper cells'' have been captured in Afghanistan and on American soil.

10. Reading, writing, arithmetic and research through the American educational system, mosques and student centers (now 1,500) should be sprinkled with dislike of Jews, evangelical Christians and democracy. There are currently 300 exclusively Muslim schools in the U.S. which teach loyalty to the Quran, not the U.S. Constitution. In January of 2002, Saudi Arabia’s Embassy in Washington mailed 4,500 packets of the Quran and videos promoting Islam to America's high schools – free of charge. Saudi Arabia would not allow the U.S. to reciprocate.

11. Provide very sizable monetary Muslim grants to colleges and universities in America to establish ''Centers for Islamic studies'' with Muslim directors to promote Islam in higher-education institutions.

12. Let the entire world know through propaganda, speeches, seminars, local and national media that terrorists have hijacked Islam, when in truth, Islam hijacked the terrorists.

13. Appeal to the historically compassionate and sensitive Americans for sympathy and tolerance towards Muslims in America who are portrayed as mainly immigrants from oppressed countries.

14. Nullify America's sense of security by manipulating the intelligence community with misinformation. Periodically terrorize Americans with reports of impending attacks on bridges, tunnels, water supplies, airports, apartment buildings and malls.

15. Form riots and demonstrations in the prison system demanding Islamic Sharia as the way of life, not America's justice system.

16. Open numerous charities throughout the U.S., but use the funds to support Islamic terrorism with American dollars.

17. Raise interest in Islam on America's campuses by insisting freshman take at least one course on Islam.

18. Unify the numerous Muslim lobbies in Washington, mosques, Islamic student centers, educational organizations, magazines and papers by Internet and an annual convention to coordinate plans, propagate the faith and engender news in the media.

19. Send intimidating messages and messengers to the outspoken individuals who are critical of Islam and seek to eliminate them by hook or crook.

20. Applaud Muslims as loyal citizens of the U.S. by spotlighting their voting record as the highest percentage of all minority and ethic groups in America.

Shorrosh is a member of the Oxford Society of Scholars, has traveled in 76 countries, and is a lecturer and producer of TV documentaries. Islam Revealed is a bestseller now in its eighth printing. His forthcoming 10th book, from which the 20-point plan is abridged, is titled ''Islam: A Threat or a Challenge.''

Read more...

Critique of Pure Islam

Wednesday

WHEN SOMEONE says that some of the passages of the Quran are violent, and that Islam itself is political, what do you call that? It's an important question. Strangely enough, I've heard it called "racist," which seems very odd. Islam is not a race.

I've also heard it called "Islamophobia," which is also strange, because it is not a phobia.

It is religious criticism. But it's more than that, because Islam is not merely a religion. Islam is also a political system with political goals. So instead of racism or Islamophobia, we could call it religious or political criticism.

But if you call it that, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with it. In a free society, it is a perfectly legitimate activity to criticize religious doctrines and political systems. It's perfectly all right, for example, to point out that the Catholic church frowns upon birth control, or that communism and free enterprise are incompatible.

So when someone explains the political ideology contained in the Quran, it is a completely legitimate activity, and anyone who calls it racism or Islamophobia either doesn't understand what they're saying, or, more likely, they are trying to censor the person. That kind of censorship is out of line in a free society.

The fact that exponents of pure Islam will not tolerate criticism of Islam is one of the main criticisms of Islam. The fact that the Quran itself is adamant about disallowing any criticism of the Quran (and calls for a death sentence for doing so) is one of the most legitimate things to criticize about the Quran.

If someone doesn't hire a Muslim simply because the applicant is a Muslim, that is discrimination, and that's a different issue. If someone beats up a Muslim because he's a Muslim, that is a hate crime and is illegal, immoral, and should be punished.

But criticism of Islamic doctrine? It can and should be done.


Where it gets tricky is immigration laws. There has to be some selection. If you have a Muslim applying for immigration, what do you do? The person himself may not be in favor of following the violent instructions in the Quran, but how do we know? Because he is a Muslim, and because the Quran contains political goals and ideas, he is more likely to be subversive and ascribe to doctrines that we would consider treasonous than the average applicant.

What do we do about that?
If anybody has some answers, let's hear it (in comments). This is, I believe, one of the most important issues that arises out of the study of the Quran and the Sunnah.

One possibility, of course, is to stop Muslim immigration.

It is also possible to give an immigration applicant a lie-detector test and ask about their intentions within our country. In the U.S. they have to learn a little about the country and swear an oath of alleigance, but under taqiyya, a Muslim with the intention of helping to overthrow the government would be allowed by Islamic doctrine to swear the oath without intending to keep it, so that requirement is not enough.

Another possibility is to allow Muslims in, but really crack down on preaching jihad within the country. Most countries have laws against sedition or treason, but so far as I know, no country has enforced those laws against Muslims preaching in mosques. But once the precedent was set, it would be a straightforward matter. (Read more about the relationship between sedition and Sharia here.)

Are there better ideas? Let's compile them here in the comments for easy reading by voters and politicians. We need a solution. It would be foolish for democratic countries to keep importing people who want to overthrow their government. Not all Muslims do, of course. But pure Islam, straight from the Quran and the Sunnah, is very clear about the obligation to wage jihad and establish universal Sharia law. That means overthrowing democratic governments.

The longer we ignore this issue, the bigger the problem will be when we finally tackle it.

The immigration issue is open for discussion. But the freedom to openly discuss and criticize Islamic doctrine is not an issue at all. We have the right to freely discuss it. Period.

Read more...

How a Tolerant Country Can Avoid Being a Doormat for Intolerant Countries

Friday

TOLERANCE AND mutual respect for different cultures and religions is great as long as it is mutual. When it's not mutual, then tolerance becomes a self-destructive doctrine. When it is not mutual, one side gives and the other side takes. In normal parlance, it is called being a doormat.

Islamic supremacism is religiously-sanctioned intolerance, and many in the West tolerate the intolerance out of a blind multiculturalism. But multiculturalism (respect for other cultures) need not be blind. The addition of one simple distinction is all that is needed.

When I was younger, I lacked the same distinction in my own personal life. I had read the book, How to Win Friends & Influence People by Dale Carnegie, when I was very young, and it had a profound effect on the way I treated people. And for the most part, the effect was good.

The basic approach to Carnegie's book is to give to people, to trust them, to see the best in them, etc. When you do this, people will respond positively, and they'll give back to you and trust you and they'll want to fulfill your trust, etc. This approach has worked great for almost everybody I've ever met, because most people reciprocate. It becomes a mutual thing.

But several times in my life I ran into people who only took advantage of my kindness or generosity. They took, and sometimes not only did they not reciprocate, but sometimes they've even responded to my kindness by stabbing me in the back. They weren't interested in cooperating. They didn't care about good long-term relations.

With those people, I had to figure out a different way of dealing with them. I had to make an extra distinction. My tolerance and goodwill were blind. I did it with everyone indiscriminately, and that's just stupid.

A few years ago, a biography of Dale Carnegie came out, and I found out that Carnegie left out a chapter in his book. He didn't get the chapter to the publisher on time so the book was published without it.

The missing chapter was about what to do with uncooperative, selfish, self-serving people. A small percentage of the population doesn't have normal human empathy. The way you deal with these people must be different or you're just being foolish.

A very similar thing is happening with orthodox Islam and multiculturalism. There is nothing wrong with the multicultural doctrine. Nothing at all. It's wonderful, in fact. One of the reasons democracies are so much more enjoyable countries to live in than non-democratic countries is because we are so tolerant of each other.

But the multiculturalism doctrine is incomplete. It is a great strategy for most people and most cultures and most religions. But it is disastrous when you stick with it blindly.

All that's missing is the added distinction of mutuality. We can simply amend the doctrine to something like this: We respect all religions and cultures who do us the honor of respecting ours as well. All others will be treated with less generosity.

Another characteristic of both selfish people and Islamic supremacists is the use of deception. They pretend to be thoughtful and kind. They pretend to be peaceful, tolerant, and cooperative. They try to fool their victims into keeping their guard down. They pretend in order to gain an advantage.

Over time, most of us have learned to pay attention to what people do and see if it matches what they say. Most of us who have lived long enough to see our 30s do not automatically trust everyone. We give people a chance to earn our trust. That's a sensible way to live.

Orthodox Muslims often try to fool non-Muslims in the same way selfish people do. They mimic peaceful religious people. They try to act as if they believe what we believe (see the principle of religious deception), and this makes it more difficult to determine whether or not these are cooperators or back-stabbers. But we can apply the same principles we use in our personal lives. We can watch what they do and see if it matches what they say. We don't have to automatically trust. Let them earn our trust.

On the DVD, Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West, you can literally watch what they do. You can see Muslim leaders saying one thing to the western media, appearing to be moderate, peaceful, reasonable Muslims, and then you see the same person saying another thing entirely to their own people in Arabic.

If we didn't automatically trust, we could see they are intolerant, uncooperative, and even bloodthirsty, and not the cooperative people they pretend to be.

If we pay attention, we will see some Muslims are not mutually respectful. In fact, they actively exploit our well-ingrained respect for other cultures, and use it against us, considering it a weakness they can exploit.

For years, the Wahhabi Muslims in Saudi Arabia have been spending their oil-enriched billions building mosques all over the western democracies. They then preach hatred of the West in those mosques, and we have been allowing this.

Within Saudi Arabia, no churches or synagogues are allowed to be built.

The western democracies, in other words, are being doormats. We are giving and allowing, respecting and tolerating, and the Islamic supremacists are taking, expressing intolerance, and stabbing us in the back. Being a doormat is not a successful long-term strategy.


TIT FOR TAT

In the 1970's the political scientist Robert Axelrod created a computer "world" using the famous Prisoner's Dilemma as a game computer programs could play against each other. He wanted to find out which computer program would succeed the best.

The Prisoner's Dilemma is a hypothetical situation used to test whether someone will cooperate or compete, and how well the strategies work in the long run.

The game is played by two people. If one cooperates and the other competes, the one who cooperated will lose and the competitive one (the selfish one) will win.
If they both compete, they both lose, but not as badly.

If they both cooperate, they both win. That's how the game is set up.

If you were one of the prisoners, what would you do? That's the dilemma. How much can you count on the cooperative nature of the other person?

The game is often played repeatedly with the same two people, each of them choosing to cooperate or take advantage of the other through successive rounds of the game.

The Prisoner's Dilemma game is designed to parallel real life. If two people in real life cooperate with each other, it very often works to their mutual advantage. But if one person cooperates and the other takes advantage, it often works out very well for the selfish one and very poorly for the cooperative one.

On the other hand, if you go around preempting people — trying to take advantage of them before they take advantage of you — you will miss out on the advantages of cooperation, people will resent you, and you might get people working against you.

What is the best long-term strategy? This is the dilemma we are faced with every day, personally as well as culturally.

Robert Axelrod, the man who created the computer world, invited computer programmers to create a program to play the Prisoner's Dilemma with other programs. The question is, which program would succeed the best?

In a game that resembles the real dilemma we all face, what strategy is the most effective?

The program that proved the best was named TIT FOR TAT. It was designed by Anatol Rapoport and it was one of the simplest programs submitted. For the first interaction, it would cooperate. After that, it would repay in kind whatever the other did. That was the whole strategy.

If the other cooperated, TIT FOR TAT benefited. So did the other. If the other took advantage, TIT FOR TAT cut its losses immediately.

As the game went on, TIT FOR TAT gained more (and lost less) than any other program. In The Moral Animal, Robert Wright wrote, "More than the steadily mean, more than the steadily nice, and more than various 'clever' programs whose elaborate rules made them hard for other programs to read, the straightforwardly conditional TIT FOR TAT was, in the long run, self-serving."

And it's the most fair to everyone involved.

I suggest we in the West use the same program when dealing with other countries and other cultures. We should begin with tolerance and cooperation, and then be as tolerant and cooperative as the other is from that point on.

We would be fools to tolerate intolerance even if that intolerance is hiding behind a cloak of religion. An intolerant culture should be the exception to the principle of universal multicultural tolerance.

For example, if orthodox Islam does not tolerate other religions, it should not be tolerated itself.

Tolerance and cooperation are definitely the best way to go, but only if the other side is tolerant and cooperative also. If they prove to be otherwise, intolerance and competitively cutting our losses is a sane response.

Read more...

Congressman Allen West Co-Sponsors the Open Fuel Standard Act

Wednesday

The courageous, straight-talking Republican from Florida has co-sponsored the Open Fuel Standard Act. If anyone understands the threat to our national security posed by our continued funding of Wahhabism, it is Congressman Allen West. His understanding of radical Islam is unsurpassed among elected officials.

He understands fully that it is the tremendous wealth of the Saudis that allow them to fund and therefore control
ninety percent of the Islamic institutions of the world, to build thousands of mosques, to build madrasses that provide free daily meals to poor Muslim boys so they'll attend and then teach them to hate non-Muslims, to invest in news outlets that promote hatred against the United States, to financially support terrorist training centers, and to pay for the financial support of the families of suicide bombers.

Congressman Allen West fully understands that the Wahhabis are able to do all this
because of the tremendous amount of money we give them because so far we have been unwilling to break their monopoly on the transportation sector. And he sees that the Open Fuel Standard would effectively end oil's monopoly and greatly weaken OPEC's power over America's economy and the Wahhabis' influence over the Islamic world.

If Congressman Allen West is your representative, please give him an enthusiastic thank you. And if you know any fans of Rep. West, please let them know he has signed on as a co-sponsor of one of the most important bills to be introduced into the House:
The Open Fuel Standard Act of 2011.

Join Rep. West on Facebook here.

Join him on Twitter here.

Read more...

In This War Against Radical Islam, There Are No Non-Combatants

Friday

IN AN ARTICLE entitled, The Other September 11th, you'll find a good description of what happened in Vienna September 11th, 1683.

Islamic warriors had invaded and defeated Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, and Serbia. They plowed their way through Austria to Vienna, and were besieging the city.


But on September 11th, 40,000 soldiers arrived from Poland to save Vienna. That was the beginning of the end of the Islamic military conquest of Europe.

That's why Osama bin Laden chose September 11th to strike his blow against the free world.

But that's not why I'm mentioning this article. The author, Baron Bodissey, quotes Owen Johnson, and I'd like to quote him here too:

In this war there are no noncombatants. Not only are we all military targets in the eyes of our enemies, but we all take part in the fighting. Every opinion we form and express, every conclusion and argument we make, and particularly every vote we cast, influences our enemy and affects our collective will. We need to be aware of this.

That's exactly right. You and I can (and should) fight in this war. We must. How? Start here.

Read more...

Legislative Action Alert from ACT! for America

The grassroots national security organization, ACT! for America, sent out a recent message about the Open Fuel Standard legislation. Here is the message they sent to their subscribers:

BRIGITTE GABRIEL CAPTIVATES CAPITOL HILL: EDUCATES ABOUT OPEC’S CHOKEHOLD ON OIL AND TERROR FINANCING

Last week,
ACT! for America President, Brigitte Gabriel, and Director of Government Relations, Lisa Piraneo, were up on Capitol Hill for various meetings and events designed to educate our federal legislators about the connection between OPEC’s price fixing of world oil prices and how that threatens our national security.

In addition to a full day’s worth of meetings with Members of Congress from both sides of the political aisle, Brigitte participated in an important roundtable discussion about this issue for Hill staff, as well as a press conference with Congressmen John Shimkus (R-IL), and Eliot Engel (D-NY), sponsors of
H.R. 1687, the Open Fuel Standard Act.



NASCAR driver Kenny Wallace and President Ronald Reagan’s National Security Advisor, Robert McFarlane, joined Brigitte and Lisa during their day on the Hill. In each of the meetings, Brigitte’s passionate words about the connection between OPEC’s manipulation of the world’s oil market pricing — and its ties to terror financing — captivated the Members of Congress and their staff.

In particular, Brigitte and coalition members spoke with Members of Congress about support for the Open Fuel Standard (OFS) Act (H.R. 1687 in the House and S. 1603 in the Senate) as a commonsense first step in breaking OPEC’s chokehold on oil prices.

Immediate progress has come out of these meetings. Already, one Member of Congress who was a part of the OFS meetings last week — Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN/5th) has “seen the light” and signed on to the legislation as a cosponsor. He joins the growing group of Congressional cosponsors this vital legislation has already attracted.

Contrary to what some believe, Canada does not supply the largest share of America’s imported oil. OPEC does. Even if we could purchase largely from our own domestic supplies and our northern neighbor, it will not destroy OPEC’s monopoly on the worldwide price of oil, nor will it decrease the terrorism that is funded through OPEC oil funds.

Why? Oil is fungible. Fungibility is the property of a
good or a commodity whose individual units are capable of mutual substitution, such as crude oil, wheat, precious metals or currencies. For example, if someone lends another person a $10 bill, it does not matter if they are given back the same $10 bill or a different one since currency is fungible. If someone lends another person their car, however, they would not expect to be given back a different car, even of the same make and model, as cars are not fungible.

As long as OPEC controls enough of the worldwide oil market (and they certainly do), when they want the price to rise, they simply cut back slightly on their supply. Only a 2-3% drop in supply will typically create a dramatic rise in price.

Therefore, even if the U.S. and Canadian markets are able to generate a 10 to 15% increase in the overall supply of world oil, OPEC would simply cut back their portion of the supply accordingly for a net zero result in order to maintain the level of current pricing.

The fact is domestic oil suppliers have shown little stomach for increasing supply. Why? They like the prices OPEC’s strategy generates! This is why Governor Palin had to file suit in Alaska just to get movement on additional drilling and production. U.S. oil companies have a tendency for sitting on inventory, especially if it is likely that future pricing will be higher.

The only factor that will fundamentally reduce the price of oil is the wholesale introduction of other competing transportation fuels. This alone will finally force OPEC to its knees —
and deliver a massive blow to worldwide Islamic terrorism.

To be clear, this is not about supporting ethanol, methanol, or any other specific alternative transportation fuel source. The beauty of the OFS Act is that it doesn’t support ONE particular transportation fuel — it only opens up the market to competition and finally allows the AMERICAN CONSUMER to choose from a variety of fuels for their cars and trucks. Additionally, there are no subsidies tied to the OFS legislation and there is absolutely NO COST to the Federal Government/taxpayers. New cars would cost approximately $100 more for the alcohol fuel capability, but the resulting projected fuel cost savings would be approximately $1,000 per year per car!



***ACTION ITEM***

Please do your part today to break OPEC’s chokehold on the price of oil — and their funding of terrorism. Contact your Members of Congress through our Capwiz site and ask that they cosponsor this important legislation. We’ve made it easy to do by pre-writing the correspondence. Click HERE to reach our Capwiz site and click on the two Open Fuel Standard Act alerts (one for Representatives and one for Senators) to send your message to the Hill today.

With your support, in as little as seven years we can make our nation and our world safer for our children and our grandchildren by taking the teeth out of OPEC and providing Americans a CHOICE when they fuel their vehicles. Brazil has already reached this point. We can be next. But Congress won’t act unless they hear from you.

Read more...

Copyright

All writing on CitizenWarrior.com is copyright © CitizenWarrior.com 2001-2099, all rights reserved.

Article Spotlight

One of the most unusual articles on CitizenWarrior.com is Pleasantville and Islamic Supremacism.

It illustrates the Islamic Supremacist vision by showing the similarity between what happened in the movie, Pleasantville, and what devout fundamentalist Muslims are trying to create in Islamic states like Syria, Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia (and ultimately everywhere in the world).

Click here to read the article.


Citizen Warrior Heroes

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Visit the blog: Citizen Warrior Heroes.

No More Concessions to Islam

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Visit the blog: Concessions to Islam.

  © Free Blogger Templates Columnus by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP