by
John Myers
Last Friday, President Barack Obama worked to mend fences with Iran —
the greatest criminal nation on the planet. In his 15-minute phone
conversation with Iranian President Hasan Rouhani, Obama lost track of
the fact that Iran is a proponent of Islamic law and is a prime sponsor
of terrorism around the world.
Obama can’t see Iran’s true color: red, stained with the crimson
blood of Jews and Christians who won’t accept the Prophet Muhammad and
Islamic domination in the Mideast and beyond.
It is the sad truth that Obama buckled under Iranian pressure only
weeks after an Iranian official promised to slaughter Americans. Qassem
Soleimani, the head of Iran’s Quds Forces, told Iran’s Assembly of
Experts, a group that chooses the Supreme Leader, that Iran will provide
brutal support to save the Syrian regime.
According to
The Daily Caller, a former high official even
made threats against our President:
[I]n an unprecedented statement, a former Iranian
official has warned of mass abductions and brutal killings of American
citizens around the world and the rape and killing of one of Obama’s
daughters should the United States attack Syria.
Alireza Forghani, the former governor of southern Iran’s Kish
Province, threw down the gauntlet last week. Forghani is an analyst and
strategy specialist in the supreme leader’s camp and closely aligned
with Mehdi Taeb, who heads the regime’s Ammar Strategic Base, a radical
think thank (sic), and thus speaks with the blessing of the Islamic
regime.
“Hopefully Obama will be pigheaded enough to attack Syria, and then
we will see the … loss of U.S. interests [through terrorist attacks],”
he threatened. “In just 21 hours [after the attack on Syria], a family
member of every U.S. minister [department secretary], U.S. ambassadors,
U.S. military commanders around the world will be abducted. And then 18
hours later, videos of their amputation will be spread [around the
world].”
It reads like something from medieval times; yet it doesn’t seem to
bother the President, as he continually displays his Islamic loyalties.
Such is the leadership under Obama, who treats terrorists like
Republicans and Republicans like terrorists.
The Real Iran
Rouhani succeeded former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who
said Jews are “the most detested people in all humanity.” He also called
the extermination of 6 million Jews during World War II “a myth,”
claiming that Jews have played up Nazi atrocities during the Holocaust.
Iran produces only extremist leaders. During his State of the Union
address in 2002, President George W. Bush said Iran and its “terrorist
allies” are part of “an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of
the world.” For more than three decades, Iran has been the primary
sponsor of Hezbollah, which when translated into English is the “Party
of Allah.” Based in Lebanon, Hezbollah’s paramilitary wing is considered
one of the largest rebel armies for uniting Islam. And it has a large
following that wants to harm America.
A just-released Pew Research Survey shows that 62 percent of
Palestinians say suicide bombing is justified. Reported Pew: “[I]n some
countries, substantial minorities of Muslims say attacks on civilians
are at least sometimes justified to defend Islam from its enemies; in
the Palestinian territories, a majority of Muslims hold this view.”
Iran throws a lot of weight in the Muslim world and has done more to
advocate Islamic extremism than any other power in the world, both in
terms of money and ideology. But exactly what do Iran and its brand of
Islam stand for?
To get a bearing on just how crazy Revolutionary Iran is, consider
the words of its revolutionary and spiritual leader, Ayatollah Khomeini
as reportedly found in
Tahrir al-Vasileh:
A man can have sex with animals such as sheep, cows, camels and so
on. However he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He should
not sell the meat to the people in his own village, however selling the
meat to the next door village should be fine.
According to a post on
Patheos, Khomeini’s also wrote:
A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a
baby. However, he should not penetrate vaginally, but sodomising [sic]
the child is acceptable. If a man does penetrate and damage the child
then, he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This
girl will not count as one of his four permanent wives and the man will
not be eligible to marry the girl’s sister… It is better for a girl to
marry at such a time when she would begin menstruation at her husband’s
house, rather than her father’s home. Any father marrying his daughter
so young will have a permanent place in heaven.
The teachings of the Ayatollah are as powerful today as they were
when he spearheaded the revolution in 1979. His sick and hateful
ideology influences millions of people.
But nobody protests louder than Western Muslims and their liberal
apologists, who always want to paint Islam as a reasonable, peaceful
people. The propaganda was spewing about last week at the U.N. General
Assembly meeting. Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif declared that,
“Islam is a religion of peace, compassion and brotherhood.” I expect
that when Sharif got back to Pakistan, he was subjected to a lashing;
because he doesn’t seem schooled in the most important subject taught to
any Muslim: the Quran:
- “God’s curse be upon the infidels! Evil is that for which they have
bartered away their souls. To deny God’s own revelation, grudging that
He should reveal His bounty to whom He chooses from among His servants!
They have incurred God’s most inexorable wrath. An ignominious
punishment awaits the unbelievers.” Quran 2:89-2:90
- “Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from
which they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage.” Quran
2:190-2:191
- “Muhammad is God’s apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another.” Quran 48:29
Those are hardly the words of the New Testament. Of course, liberals
can argue these words are taken out of context (not sure what context it
would be OK to proclaim such things, but so be it). But before anyone
gets too defensive about Islam, take a look at what “good” Muslims have
done recently, specifically in Saudi Arabia.
The House of Saud has a 70-year relationship with the United States
and has been a major provider of petroleum to the free world. Without a
doubt, Saudi oil helped build modern Western societies; and the Kingdom
has been a stabilizing force in the Mideast. Yet Saudi Arabians do not
have the liberties we take for granted, and they live in a society we
would never tolerate. One incident that illustrates my point was a fire
at a girls’ school in Mecca on March 11, 2002.
As the smoke billowed and flames spread, students and teachers began
to run for the exits. There was just one problem; the school was
patrolled on the outside by the Saudi religious police who were
responsible for “educating” females in the Kingdom. The zealots had a
serious problem: The girls and women fleeing didn’t have the good sense
to cover themselves from head to toe before rushing out.
According to eyewitnesses some of the “holy ones” beat the girls to
force them back into the school so they could retrieve their full gowns,
some of which were probably already on fire. Then they blocked the
doors. Then firefighters arrived and began to help some of the students
and teachers escape. So what did the religious police do? They started
beating up the firefighters. The same treatment was given to parents who
arrived to help free their children from the flames. The teachers did
the best they could; but when it was all over, there were 15 dead and 50
others badly injured.
This happened just 11 years ago in a moderate Muslim country — at
least moderate when compared to Iran. None of that seems to concern
Obama, who appears to be all ears when it comes to opening diplomatic
relations with Tehran. The question we should all be asking ourselves
is: Why?
Perhaps King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia knows the answer. Abdullah was
one of the first to congratulate Obama on his election victory in the
autumn of 2008. A couple days later, the king was in New York for a U.N.
session. On Nov. 7 and within minutes of Abdullah’s arrival at Kennedy
airport, the President-elect phoned him.
Robert Lacey writes of that conversation in his book
Inside the Kingdom: Kings, Clerics, Modernists, Terrorists and the Struggle for Saudi Arabia:
The call went on for around seven minutes, and it
finished with Abdullah expressing the wish that the two leaders might
meet and talk face-to-face before too long — “Inshallah” (“If it be
God’s will”).
“Inshallah,” echoed Obama, making use of the pious Islamic expression with which he was obviously familiar.
Later the king recounted some details of the conversation to a group of Saudis who had assembled to welcome him to Manhattan.
“I clearly heard him say ‘Inshallah,’” mused Abdullah to the little gathering.
“God willing,” he added wryly, “we shall make a Muslim of him yet.”
In this writer’s opinion, Abdullah didn’t have to work very hard at it.
