The Obama Regime, CAIR, and the Doctrine of Taqiyya

The Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which has been designated a terror organization by the United Arab Emirates, claims to support “freedom expression” but is asking Fox News to drop “Islamophobes like Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Brigitte Gabriel, and Zuhdi Jasser from its programming.

If that sounds strangely inconsistent, welcome to Taqiyya, the doctrine of tactical deception that is practiced by radical Islam and the Alinsky-trained radical left.

In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo slaughter,  the Executive Director of CAIR, Nihad Awad, sounded much like the president in his condemnation of the attack by perpetrators he characterized as “extremists who claim to be Muslim.”

Listen to this PC mealy-mouthed mush coming from this guy’s mouth and tell me how it differs from the mealy-mouthed mush you hear from any of the Obama Regime mouth pieces or the Dissembler in Chief himself on any given day.

“The world is a global village. We’re not living under one culture or one mindset. Diversity of opinions, diversity of cultures, diversity of religion is the nature and the reality of the world. We have to respect that. We cannot impose our value on any culture. We believe that we are dealing unfortunately on two extremes on both sides. We cannot allow ourselves to be victims of extremists — on both sides,”  Awad intoned at a press conference after the attacks.

There are only two sides, apparently – One side being Islam and the other — Kafir?  And the extremists on the Kafir side who assert their right to insult “the prophet of islam” are just as bad as the murderous barbarians who want to kill them for it? I’m not sure what he was trying to say there.

But – – “Freedom of expression is not alien to Islam,” Awad insisted, challenging the assembled to quote any verse in the Koran that prevents anyone from “speaking out their minds.”

Raises hand. Oooh! Pick me, Pick me!

Apostasy (the rejection of Islam) is the ultimate speaking of one’s mind. What does the Koran say about it?

In Islam, the rejection in part (i.e. apostasy via blasphemy in belief) of any of the individual pillars or principles of Islam, or discarding the faith as a whole, amounts to apostasy.[37]Under Islamic law, it is a crime punishable by death. This punishment was prescribed by Muhammad himself who had said “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.”[38] Apostasy was one of only three reasons given by him where killing a Muslim is permitted.[39] His wishes were followed by Caliph Abu Bakr, who had many apostates killed during the lengthy “Riddah (apostasy) wars” for their refusal to pay tithe. These people were not rejecting Islam as a whole but only refusing to abide by one of its five pillars (Zakat). This also attests to the fact apostasy was a serious crime within early Islam and was not some later innovation. In fact, it was one Qur’anic verse (the verse of the sword – Qur’an 9:5) which prompted Abu Bakr to fight. Various hadith record Muhammad’s command being followed by his companions, with atheists,[38] Christians,[40] and Jews[41] being put to death for leaving Islam.[42]

All four schools of Islamic jurisprudence are in agreement with the death sentence for males (who are of sound mind) guilty of Apostasy, with only slight variations on whether to allow the three days grace period.[43] The Hanafi school of Islamic jurisprudence believe female apostates are not to be killed, but beaten and put under confinement until death or repentance, while the remaining Shafi’i, Maliki, and Hanbali schools all agree the verdict for the female apostate is the same as for the male.[44]

Ask Abdullah bin Ubai if he had the freedom to speak his mind.

 The Qur’anic verse 5:33 calls for the murder, mutilation, or imprisonment, of those who make “Mischief” in the land, and Muhammad himself had asked his Muslim followers to kill several individuals who were guilty of blaspheming Islam and its Prophet. Muhammad asked Muslims to kill someone named ‘Abdullah bin Ubai (bin Salul) for making “evil” statements about him.[45] He asked Muslims to kill Abu `Afak for making negative remarks about him and Islam.[46] He asked Muslims to kill both Ka’b bin Ashraf[47]and Asma Bint Marwan[48] for writing inflammatory poetry about him and Muslims. Additionally, when Muhammad learned that one of his followers had stabbed and killed his slave women (other sources refer to her as a freed concubine: Umm walad, she was also the mother of a blind man) for making derogatory remarks about Muhammad, he declared that “no retaliation is payable for her blood.”[49] This has effectively set the precedent for all Muslims to follow with such retaliation. No higher authority than ones-self is needed for permission to kill blasphemers.

Thus “it is a criminal offense in Islam to speak ill of the faith, its Prophet Muhammad, and its holy Scriptures (Qur’an and Hadith).”

To do so is considered blasphemy, and blasphemy is punishable by death. If it happens to be a Muslim who is doing the criticizing, their actions would constitute apostasy, therefore they too would be liable for the death penalty. Contrary to what some may suggest, this is not the result of a latter-day innovation of Islam, but something that is deeply rooted within Islamic scripture and the Sunnah of Muhammad.”

It is not surprising that the Hamas/Muslim brotherhood linked CAIR would not be entirely up front with us about what Islamists believe. They are speaking the language of taqiiya. Muslims are permitted to lie to unbelievers in order to defeat them. This is a tactic that Obama has been using for six years to defeat his political opponents.

The terrorist group Hamas itself has condemned the Charlie Hebdo murders. 

A statement in French said Hamas “condemns the attack against Charlie Hebdo magazine and insists on the fact that differences of opinion and thought cannot justify murder.”

But a Hamas newspaper revealed what the terrorist organization really thinks when it called the attackers the “heroes of the France invasion.”

In keeping with its stated belief in “freedom of expression,” CAIR on Monday asked Fox News to drop some “Islamophobes” from its programming.

Jihad Watch flagged this  “American Muslim News Briefs” mailing from CAIR: 

“Fox News’ continued use of Islamophobes, such Steven Emerson and many others like him, only serves to harm the network’s reputation and to promote hostility toward Islam and ordinary American Muslims,” said CAIR Department to Monitor and Combat Islamophobia Director Corey Saylor.

He said Fox News continues to utilize the nation’s most notorious Islamophobes and Islamophobia enablers — like Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Brigitte Gabriel, and Zuhdi Jasser — as regular commentators on issues related to Islam and Muslims.

So Hamas-linked CAIR wants Fox not to feature Emerson, Geller, Hirsi Ali, Gabriel, Jasser or me — just five days after claiming, in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo jihad massacre, that it supported the freedom of speech. I wrote at that time: “Hamas-linked CAIR is an inveterate and committed enemy of the freedom of speech, tarring and smearing anyone and everyone who dares to utter a critical word about jihad terror as a ‘racist,’ ‘bigoted’ ‘Islamophobe’ and doing everything it can to make sure that such critics are denied platforms to speak and shunned by all decent people.” This new attempt to strong-arm Fox into dropping virtually every one of us who speaks the truth about the jihad threat just confirms that assessment.


Video: The Ultimate #GruberGate mashup

In two and a half minutes American Commitment lays bare the dishonesty, hypocrisy and corruption employed by the Democrat party. If only they were capable of embarrassment….


By the way, American Commitmen coined the term, “GruberGate” back in July:

Melissa Francis Slams CNBC’s “Glib and Sarcastic” Response To Her Accusation (Video)

Last Friday Fox Business Network anchor Melissa Francis made news with her allegation that  CNBC “silenced” her for questioning Obamacare.  Francis said executives  chastised her for being “disrespectful to the office of the president” for noting that the ObamaCare numbers don’t add up. She made the point  that the administration relied on people’s (read Democrats) “lack of economic understanding” to help pass ObamaCare and also the liberal media to help cover up the truth.”

On the Kelly File  Monday night, she expanded on her experience at CNBC  and commented on their disrespectful and glib response to her accusation.

Kelly read CNBC’s “nasty little shot” at Francis on the air: “That’s laughable, but we take notice because as the fastest growing network in primetime (Hm! Megyn sniffs) we’re always on the lookout for high quality comedy writers and actresses.”

(Melissa Francis was a child actress who is best known for her role as Cassandra (Cooper) Ingalls on Little House on the Prairie.)

“They don’t try to deny it – they just try to attack you personally,” Kelly declared.

“I guess,” Francis replied. “I thought their response was glib and sarcastic and they treat it like a joke and I don’t think it is a joke.”


The Conversation: Senator Chris Murphy, Jake Tapper and the Unsung Villains of GruberGate

Inside Jonathan Gruber’s ObamaCare For Dummies Comic Book


It didn’t take long for bloggers to get their hands on ObamaCare architect, advisor, consultant, some random guy named Jonathan Gruber’s comic book explaining ObamaCare, (written in simple language so ordinary, stupid Americans can understand it.)

Charles C. Johnson has a good write-up at Got News.

In 2012 Jonathan Gruber designed and published a propagandistic comic book to sell Obamacare to the stupid American voters, has learned.

While Gruber has said that the stupidity of the American voter was a political asset in passing Obamacare, Gruber nonetheless worked with left-wing groups to explain how the law worked.

Get a load of this:


Peter Suderman of Reason was one of the few bloggers who wrote about the book back in 2012, when it was released.

Health care is a giant fat person crushing Congress. Or at least that’s the picture readers get—quite literally—from reading Jonathan Gruber’s Health Care Reform: What It Is, Why It’s Necessary, How It Works, a desperate attempt to make the case for Obama­Care in graphic novel form.

Gruber, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, served as a chief architect of Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts health care reform, which provided the model for the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). He then worked as a paid consultant for the widely unpopular federal law. Gruber plays a central role in his own book, appearing as a nerdy-looking cartoon character who guides readers through an illustrated version of federal health policy basics with exciting lines like “the best and most comprehensive parts of the ACA are yet to come.”

Why deploy cartoon Gruber to battle cartoon villains such as a mummy who warns that Obama­Care won’t cover the uninsured and a lagoon creature who tries to scare people into thinking the law will cause insurance premiums to rise? Perhaps because at this point the law’s defenders are desperate enough to try anything to make it more popular. This is a far cry from the run-up to PPACA’s passage, when Democratic strategists convinced themselves that sagging public support would be turned around once people finally understood the law’s benefits.

Note that Gruber was still peddling the 2013 lie of the year to gullible Americans in his 2012 comic book:

image Video-Still-Keep-Your-Plan-740x413



Gruber collaborated with the Obama-centric Center for American Progress to produce this video using his work and comic books to sell Obamacare.

There’s much more at Got News.

Montage of Obama Saying He Takes The Constitution Seriously And Can’t Go Around Congress

There was a time in which King Obama at least PRETENDED he cared about the Constitution – first when George Bush was in office – of course. No video montage of Obama would be complete with out at least one example of gross hypocrisy. But even throughout the first few years of his presidency Bam insisted he was constrained by the Constitution from doing what he needed to do (to help the American people.)

Watch the Constitutional scholar tells audiences over and over again how seriously he takes the Constitution.

Video montage compiled by Fox News:



This week, Obama unilaterally decided to tell insurance companies that they could now allow sale of plans in the individual insurance market that Obamacare had prevented, forcing five million Americans off the health plans they liked. As Ken Klukowski ofBreitbart News has written, this is a violation of the Constitutional separation of powers:

Obama’s announcement is a flagrant and undeniable violation of his constitutional duty under the Take Care Clause. The provisions of Obamacare causing enormous trouble for insurance plans are mandatory, and only Congress can change those parts of the Affordable Care Act.

But President Obama has a history of violating the Constitutional balance of powers. As Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journal has noted, he has unilaterally suspended enforcement of immigration law; he has refused to prosecute drug law violators; he simply stopped defending federal laws he didn’t like, like the Defense of Marriage Act, in court; he issues waivers on Obamacare and the No Child Left Behind Act; Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency has attempted to regulate carbon emissions when Congress didn’t push through a global warming bill; he appointed members of the National Labor Relations Board in violation of law; his administration rammed through an auto bailout that screwed bondholders, as well as a slush fund from British Petroleum. Strassel writes, “Mr. Obama came to office promising to deliver a new kind of politics. He did—his own, unilateral governance.”

Andrew McCarthy, National Review: The Point of Impeachment:

I drew on Faithless Execution in last weekend’s column and in a follow-up Corner post, positing that, short of credibly threatening impeachment, Congress and the courts can neither compel a president to enforce the laws nor stop him from using his plenary pardon authority to grant a sweeping amnesty. That gets Obama two-thirds of the prize he is pursuing — namely, several million aliens whose illegal status has been purged, put on the path to inevitable voting rights that will give Democrats an invincible electoral majority.

As for the remaining third, Congress could, in theory, block the president from granting illegal immigrants legal status and other positive benefits (such as work permits) without impeaching him. To do thisin reality, though, Congress would have to use its power of the purse. Translation: It would take the credible threat of a government shutdown to check the president’s lawless conferral of benefits.

Alas, that constitutional parry has already been disavowed by GOP congressional leadership. If they persevere in this disavowal, it will be in defiance of their base (and against the sound tactical advice of Mark Krikorian). Yet such a signature display of preemptive surrender would come as no surprise given that, as previously argued here, their opposition to Obama’s imperious method of achieving his goal seems, shall we say, less than genuine. Moreover, the judiciary that Mr. Obama is stacking with Lawyer Left activists like himself can be relied on to twist the Constitution into mandating any benefits the president does not succeed in awarding.

Against this backdrop, I am gratified that Fox News’s Megyn Kelly and Charles Krauthammer have just given the topic of impeachment in the immigration context more of the serious consideration it deserves. Appearing on The Kelly File Thursday, Dr. Krauthammer asserted that the president’s anticipated amnesty decree for millions of illegal aliens “is an impeachable offense.”

He is plainly correct. As Faithless Execution elaborates, “high crimes and misdemeanors,” the Constitution’s trigger for impeachment, is a term of art for abuses of power that violate the president’s fiduciary obligations to the American people he serves, the constitutional system he takes an oath to preserve, and the laws whose faithful execution is his core duty. High crimes and misdemeanors are not — or at least, not necessarily — the same as “crimes” and “misdemeanors” prosecutable in the courts. Impeachment is a political remedy (i.e., the removal of political authority), not a legal one (i.e., the removal of liberty after criminal indictment and conviction). That is why Hamilton, in Federalist 65, described impeachable offenses as “political” in nature — as “proceed[ing] from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust.”

Jeanine Pirro: Hey Gruber – Americans Aren’t Stupid! (Video)

On Saturday night’s Justice with Judge Jeanine Pirro, the Fox host let-er-rip against Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber for bragging about the deceptions used to pass ObamaCare and insulting the intelligence of the American people.

“They think you’re stupid, that they can pull the wool over your eyes. They know more than you do. And that they know what’s good for you and it’s best to simply keep you in the dark. So, why lie to the American people? And make no mistake, we were lied to. Starting with ‘you can keep your health care plan and your doctor,’ to ‘this isn’t a tax, it’s just a penalty’” she said.

In reaction to the White House’s attempt to distance itself from Gruber, Pirro pointed out that “records confirm that Gruber spent time at the White House and Gruber himself says he met with the president twice, including in the Oval Office to discuss the law. Hey, Gruber, Americans aren’t stupid. We knew all along that Obamacare was nothing more than an attempt to socialize medicine and tax us to pay for this redistribution of wealth.”

She declared, “if they think that we can’t see that this is simply a transfer of wealth from those who have insurance to those who don’t, from the young and healthy to those who are old and sick, a transfer of wealth from legals to illegals, then they’re the ones who are stupid.”

“Yes, we were right all along,” she said triumphantly.  “We never liked ObamaCare from the get-go. True costs were hidden in a 1,700 page bill that we would only understand once it was passed.”

She concluded her opening statement by having some fun with Nancy Pelosi.

Her first guest was noted healthcare expert Avik Roy of Forbes and National Review. He said none of the Obama administration’s promises ever made any sense and most people figured that out.

He said that there’s absolutely no doubt that Jonathan Gruber was the central figure in the crafting of the bill.


Pirro’s next guest former NY Lt Governor and health care expert Betsy McCaughey came on lugging her dogeared copy of the ObamaCare law with her. “I am committed to repealing that law. Never mind what Avik Roy says,” she declared. “Those who say we can reform this law within the framework of this law, hasn’t read this law. It is rotten to the core.”

She predicted that the the Halbig decision (which is expected next summer) will be the end of the law because “four out of five people who sign up for this law get a subsidy.” She continued, “the subsidies are so big compared with the price, once the Supreme Court rules, their going to see the actual price of these ObamaCare “affordable” plans and it’s going to be 400% higher than it currently is.”

She predicted that “the exchange period that started today – it’s going to be the last one in history.”

From her lips to God’s ears.