Quote:
Hello Friends,

A few weeks ago I wrote about the Radical Muslim organization Islam4UK that was banned and outlawed by the UK courts.

The leader of this organization and extreme Radical Islamist Anjam Choudary was interviewed by the Iranian Press TV and said "Freedom and democracy are idols that must be destroyed and replaced with obedience to Allah".

Anjam at least is telling the truth about the goals of Radical Islam to dominate the world. Others obfuscate the truth with lies and the use of Taqiyya that Islam allows in any relations with the infidel and non believers.

Please note his plans for Buckingham Palace during the interview. Unfortunately it's not a youtube video and you'll have to click on the link to watch it but believe me it's an eye opener and well worth the time. You can see the video here.

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2388.htm

Shalom,

Peter

Transcript of the Video.

British Islamist Anjem Choudary: Freedom and Democracy Are Idols That Must Be Destroyed and Replaced with Obedience to Allah

Following are excerpts from an interview with Anjem Choudary, head of Islam4UK, which aired on Press TV on February 3, 2010. The interview was held in English. Anjem Choudary: Our main objectives are to invite the societies in which we live to think about Islam as an alternative way of life, to command good and forbid evil wherever we are, and ultimately, as well, to establish the shari'a on state level – which is the caliphate system of governance – in order to be a beacon again in the world, an example of how people should live their lives. [...] Interviewer: Let's talk about some of the statements coming out from your Islam4UK website. They were very incendiary, they've inflamed a big debate in the United Kingdom. One of the photos that you released showed, for example, the Buckingham Palace – the home of the British royal family – converted into a mosque. Is that your aim, and how did you expect the British public to react, by releasing photos like that? Anjem Choudary: One of our campaigns, in fact, was to invite Britain to adopt the shari'a as an alternative. Part and parcel of that was to give them an example of how Britain may look, had the shari'a been implemented. For example, under the shari'a, there is no monarchy system, so Buckingham Palace certainly would not be the home for the monarch who is in existence today, which is Queen Elizabeth II. Rather, we can have an alternative – not necessarily cast in stone – but one of the options, for example, is to have a masjid – which, in the past, used to be a hospital, a place of refuge, and had many other functions. As well, there will be no idolatry in Islam. Therefore, Nelson's Column would not exist, and we propose an alternative as, perhaps, a place where people could be called to prayer. But all of this process was on the one hand, to engage the British public's mind in Islam's alternative to man-made law, and on the other hand, to engage in a public discussion on what is the future for mankind. I do believe, and as Muslims, we do believe, that there is a clash between two civilizations today. One civilization is based upon Man – that believes that Man is sovereign, and they believe they have the right to legislate – and one civilization that believes that sovereignty and supremacy belongs to God. [...] The people in the past used to worship the idols which they used to make with their hands. Nowadays, people worship idols which are more intellectual – like democracy, liberalism, freedom, and so on. So these need to be destroyed as well, and replaced with worshipping and obeying Allah. [...] Interviewer: Two million people turned out on the streets of the UK several years ago, to protest British troops going to Iraq in the first place. Why not join with them? Anjem Choudary: No, because I don't believe that their call was correct. They were calling for socialist and Communist ideas, and many people are pacifists. We do believe, as Muslims, that every Muslim has a right to defend himself, his life, honor, and property. [...] Interviewer: The issues of freedom of speech are represented by many organizations around the UK. Who do you think that you represent in the United Kingdom? Who are you giving a voice to? Anjem Choudary: You know, I don't believe in the concept of freedom of expression. I don't believe in democracy. I don't believe in secularism or liberalism. I believe these are idols that the people are worshipping nowadays, taking them away from worshipping our lord, Allah. I believe that sovereignty and supremacy belongs to God, but I will function within the realms of their so-called "freedom," to expose their own fallacies. [...] Interviewer: The media has, however, said that you are living off benefits. If that's not correct, you can say that here. Anjem Choudary: No, it's irrelevant. Prime Minister Gordon Brown takes child benefit, and he takes child tax credit. So why can't I take the same thing? You know, the Prophet said... In his time... In the time of the Prophet, they used to have a tribal system, where they gave money to the Muslims. Omar Ibn Al-Khattab said, in fact, to the Prophet: "Oh prophet of Allah, they give us money, but we attack their system." The Prophet said: "To whom does the money belong? The wealth belongs to Allah. Take it, but don't lie, and don't cheat." I don't lie, I don't cheat. If I am given wealth, I will take it. It is allowed for me, it is halal for me Islamically. [...] Let's strip away Islam and the shari'a, and just talk about what we are calling for. We want a system providing the basic needs for the people. Gas, electricity, water, etcetera, will be free-of-charge, because they are resources and the Prophet said that we're partner in them. We want a system where people are not exploited. Industries like pornography, alcohol, gambling, and usury will be completely eradicated. We're calling for a system which treats human beings like human beings. I do believe that if the people wake up from the slumber and the darkness in which they are living, and they see the beauty, the perfection, and the justice of Islam – they will be drawn towards it. But we have many obstacles – the physical obstacles of the regimes, and the intellectual obstacles of the demonizing of Islam and the shari'a.

Quote:
Hello Friends,

Anne Coulter hits the nail on the head with her article on nuclear Iran and a short recap of recent history.

With the eager assistance of the lunatic left wing mainstream media Iran and Ahmadinejad laughed their way to nuclear capabilities or at least border line capabilities in 2010. Of course with the help of the security agencies declaration in 2007 that Iran ceased nuclear development in 2003. A spurious report that was denied by most major intelligence agencies in the world but was accepted by the US public and administration and pounced on by the MSM that simply wanted to bash Bush even more then they already were. That report is the laughingstock of recent times and shows either a desire to mislead the president or simply that they aren't worth much as intelligence gatherers.

MSM has a problem but lucky for them they have a very short memories and forgot their glee a few short years ago. Today they can blame B Hussein Obowma for his lack of action and outright stupidity in all aspects of his International policies and especially in regard to Iran. BUT, they won't.........at least not yet. There are signs of a few cracks and B Hussein is getting some criticism lately but far from what he deserves. In the meantime Ahmadinejad keeps on b*itch slapping B Hussein and laughing all the way to a nuclear Iran.

Thank God for alternative news sources!

Shalom,

Peter

Home | Ann Coulter | Ann Coulter

Ahmadinejad: 'Yep, I'm Nuclear'

by Ann Coulter

02/17/2010

	Print This
	Forward
	Feedback
	Facebook
	LinkedIn
	Digg This!
	Subscribe
Sponsored By:

end article header

The only man causing President Obama more headaches than Joe Biden these days is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (who, coincidentally, was right after Biden on Obama's short-list for V.P.).

Despite Obama's personal magnetism, the Iranian president persists in moving like gangbusters to build nuclear weapons, leading to Ahmadinejad's announcement last week that Iran is now a "nuclear state."

Gee, that's weird -- because I remember being told in December 2007 that all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies had concluded that Iran had ceased nuclear weapons development as of 2003.

t the time of that leak, many of us recalled that the U.S. has the worst intelligence-gathering operations in the world. The Czechs, the French, the Italians -- even the Iraqis (who were trained by the Soviets) -- all have better intelligence.

Burkina Faso has better intelligence -- and their director of intelligence is a witch doctor. The marketing division of Wal-Mart has more reliable intel than the U.S. government does.

After Watergate, the off-the-charts left-wing Congress gleefully set about dismantling this nation's intelligence operations on the theory that Watergate never would have happened if only there had been no CIA.

Ron Dellums, a typical Democrat of the time, who -- amazingly -- was a member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence and chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, famously declared in 1975: "We should totally dismantle every intelligence agency in this country piece by piece, brick by brick, nail by nail."

And so they did.

So now, our "spies" are prohibited from spying. The only job of a CIA officer these days is to read foreign newspapers and leak classified information to The New York Times. It's like a secret society of newspaper readers. The reason no one at the CIA saw 9/11 coming was that there wasn't anything about it in the Islamabad Post.

(On the plus side, at least we haven't had another break-in at the Watergate.)

CIA agents can't spy because that might require them to break laws in foreign countries. They are perfectly willing to break U.S. laws to leak to The New York Times, but not in order to acquire valuable intelligence.

So it was curious that after months of warnings from the Bush administration in 2007 that Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapons program, a National Intelligence Estimate on Iran was leaked, concluding that Iran had ceased its nuclear weapons program years earlier.

Republicans outside of the administration went ballistic over the suspicious timing and content of the Iran-Is-Peachy report. Even The New York Times, of all places, ran a column by two outside experts on Iran's nuclear programs that ridiculed the NIE's conclusion.

Gary Milhollin of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control and Valerie Lincy of Iranwatch.org cited Iran's operation of 3,000 gas centrifuges at its plant at Natanz, as well as a heavy-water reactor being built at Arak, neither of which had any peaceful energy purpose. (If only there were something plentiful in Iran that could be used for energy!)

Weirdly, our intelligence agencies missed those nuclear operations. They were too busy reading an article in the Tehran Tattler, "Iran Now Loves Israel."

Ahmadinejad was ecstatic, calling the NIE report "a declaration of the Iranian people's victory against the great powers."

The only people more triumphant than Ahmadinejad about the absurd conclusion of our vaunted "intelligence" agencies were liberals.

In Time magazine, Joe Klein gloated that the Iran report "appeared to shatter the last shreds of credibility of the White House's bomb-Iran brigade -- and especially that of Vice President Dick Cheney."

Liberal columnist Bill Press said, "No matter how badly Bush and Cheney wanted to carpet-bomb Iran, it's clear now that doing so would have been a tragic mistake."

Naturally, the most hysterical response came from MSNBC's Keith Olbermann. After donning his mother's housecoat, undergarments and fuzzy slippers, Keith brandished the NIE report, night after night, demanding that Bush apologize to the Iranians.

"Having accused Iran of doing something it had stopped doing more than four years ago," Olbermann thundered, "instead of apologizing or giving a diplomatic response of any kind, this president of the United States chuckled."

Olbermann ferociously defended innocent-as-a-lamb Mahmoud from aspersions cast by the Bush administration, asking: "Could Mr. Bush make it any more of a mess ... in response to Iran's anger at being in some respects, at least, either overrated or smeared, his response officially chuckling, how is that going to help anything?"

Bush had "smeared" Iran!

Olbermann's Ed McMahon, the ever-obliging Howard Fineman of Newsweek, agreed, saying that the leaked intelligence showed that Bush "has zero credibility."

Olbermann's even creepier sidekick, androgynous Newsweek reporter Richard Wolffe, also agreed, saying American credibility "has suffered another serious blow."

Poor Iran!

Olbermann's most macho guest, Rachel Maddow, demanded to know -- with delightful originality -- "what the president knew and when he knew it." This was on account of Bush's having disparaged the good name of a messianic, Holocaust-denying nutcase, despite the existence of a cheery report on Iran produced by our useless intelligence agencies.

Olbermann, who knows everything that's on the Daily Kos and nothing else, called those who doubted the NIE report "liars" and repeatedly demanded an investigation into when Bush knew about the NIE's laughable report.

Even if you weren't aware that the U.S. has the worst intelligence in the world, and even if you didn't notice that the leak was timed perfectly to embarrass Bush, wouldn't any normal person be suspicious of a report concluding Ahmadinejad was behaving like a prince?

Not liberals. Our intelligence agencies concluded Iran had suspended its nuclear program in 2003, so Bush owed Ahmadinejad an apology.

Feb. 11, 2010: Ahmadinejad announces that Iran is now a nuclear power.

Thanks, liberals!

Ann Coulter is Legal Affairs Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS and author of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors," "Slander," ""How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)," "Godless," "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans" and most recently, Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and their Assault on America.