Right Truth

Exiled cleric who taught UK knifeman praises 'courage'

This is an amazing interview with Omar Bakri, founder of banned British Islamist group Al Muhajiroun,  in Tripoli, northern Lebanon, where he has lived since being banished from Britain in 2005, according to the article.  Bakri said he knew suspect Michael Adebolajo from his lectures a decade ago and he said he is still in daily contact with students in Britain.

"When I saw the footage I recognized the face immediately," Bakri told Reuters. "I used to know him. A quiet man, very shy, asking lots of questions about Islam."

"What surprised me (is) the quiet man, the man who is very shy, decided to carry out an attack against a British soldier in the middle of the day in the middle of a street in the UK. In east London. It's incredible.

"When I saw that, honestly I was very surprised - standing firm, courageous, brave. Not running away. Rather, he said why he carried (it out) and he wanted the whole world to hear it."

The attack has been vociferously condemned by Muslim organizations across Britain.

Adebolajo, 28, a British-born convert from a Christian Nigerian immigrant family, went by the nickname Mujahid - warrior - after taking up Islam as a teenager in a suburb on the northeast outskirts of London.  [snip]

Bakri said his organization Al Muhajiroun had nothing to do with the attack because members had not seen Adebolajo since 2005. However, Anjem Choudary, who took over the leadership of Al Muhajiroun when Bakri was exiled from Britain, has told Reuters Adebolajo attended the group's events until about two years ago.

"Maybe Michael, in the eyes of many people in Britain, Muslim and non-Muslim, they don't condone what he did. They condemn it. But in the eyes of Muslims around the world they don't see him the same way. The Muslims in this country, they are so happy, proud of him. They see him as a freedom fighter attacking a military target."

Read it all here.

 

 

Obama signals retreat in the fight against terrorism

Via Powerline:

President Obama delivered an address today at the National Defense University called “The Future of our Fight Against Terrorism.” Actually, part of the speech was about the past, including much self-congratulation and some shots at President Bush.

This part of the speech is revisionist rubbish. As Max Boot explains:

Obama said, for example, that after he came into office, “we unequivocally banned torture, affirmed our commitment to civilian courts, worked to align our policies with the rule of law, and expanded our consultations with Congress.” Umm, actually all of that happened in Bush’s second term.

He also took a swipe at the admittedly imperfect terminology favored by Bush (deliberately and understandably formulated to avoid any mention of our actual enemy—Islamist extremists), saying “we must define our effort not as a boundless ‘global war on terror’ — but rather as a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America.” Actually, that’s exactly what GWOT meant when used by the Bush administration: “a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle” terrorist networks. Even Obama’s closing line—“That’s who the American people are. Determined, and not to be messed with”—sounds as if it could easily have been delivered in a Texas twang.

As for the future of the fight against terrorism, Obama declared: “We must define the nature and scope of this struggle, or else it will define us.”

This is dangerous rubbish. The fight against terrorism is defined by what terrorists attempt to accomplish. Thus, as much as we’d like to, we cannot “define the nature and scope of this struggle.” If we wish to fight terrorism successfully, we must be prepared to combat it in all of its forms, with special focus on the terrorists’ methods of choice, which are always evolving.

Obama contended that “the scale of [the threat we face today] closely resembles the types of attacks we faced before 9/11.” He implied, therefore, that our approach to terrorism should more closely resemble those used in the pre-9/11 world.

This is fallacious rubbish. We know those tactics didn’t work.

(continue reading at Powerline)

 

Good Deeds, Not Belief In Christ, Required For Salvation Says New Pope - UPDATE

Pope Francis made some ears perk up today during his homily by saying that even atheists have salvation through their good deeds.

In a story he told of a Catholic having a conversation with a priest, the Pope made clear that salvation is found through good deeds, not belief in Christ.

The above is from Addicting Info, hat tip to sweet hubby.  The Guardian has an article too.  This is a truly disturbing turn of events coming from the new Pope of the Catholic church.  

The Bible seems clear to me and to most Christians, that our salvation is by faith in Jesus Christ and not by any efforts or good works on our part.  It is a free gift from God that we can never be worthy of by any act of our own.

Ephesians 2:8-9

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith -- and is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God -- not by works, so that no one can boast.

Ephesians 2:7-10 (in Context) Ephesians 2 (Whole Chapter)

Do I believe that non-believers can be good people, that they can do good works.   Yes.  But that won't save them, only placing their faith in Jesus Christ and accepting him as their Lord will save them.

What say you?

UPDATE:

R.J. Godlewski sends this link to an article that quotes a little more of what the Pope said.

If all the Pope is saying is "'that “doing good” is a principle that provides a meeting ground between Christians and non-Christians – even atheists"', I have no problem with that.  Every human has the potential for good or for evil, to do good deeds or not.  And yes, Christ died for all, for every human, and offers salvation through his sacrifice as a free gift.  But as humans we must accept that gift, we must accept him.  That is what I believe and that is what Christianity is based on. 

But that is not all that the Pope said.

The question presented to the Pope seems to be whether groups other than Catholics have the capacity to do good, whether an atheist can do good.  Well, of course the answer is "yes", anyone can do good.  This is a different argument from whether other groups are saved.

The Pope said that even atheists have salvation through their good deeds.  The Pope may be the leader of the Catholic church, but in my opinion salvation is not through good deeds, but through faith in the One who provides that salvation - Jesus. 

Perhaps the Pope will clarify his comments.  I am a Protestant, not Catholic, so I am not clear on what the Catholic church's doctrine is on salvation by works vs salvation by grace.  Perhaps he needs to clarify his remarks.

The argument about faith vs works is as old as time. 

 

Report: Obama To Restart Gitmo Transfers, Will Lift Restriction On Sending Detainees To Yemen…

This may please Obama supporters, but many nations do not want these terrorists back in their country and even if they are returned, as Weasle Zippers says:  "The recidivism rate is already through the roof and we’re going to start sending known jihadis to al Qaeda-infested Yemen?"

Via The Hill:

The Obama administration plans to restart transfers of detainees out of Guantánamo Bay as part of President Obama’s efforts to close the prison, The Wall Street Journal reports.

The president is planning to lift the restrictions on sending detainees to Yemen in the coming weeks, the Journal reports, citing unidentified U.S. officials.

A White House official would not confirm the report that the administration will lift the Yemen restrictions.

In a speech at National Defense University on Thursday, Obama will lay out his case for closing Guantánamo, which he has said it no longer necessary and hurts U.S. interests abroad.

Keep reading…

 

Report: FBI Says Tamerlan Tsarnaev Participated In Gruesome 2011 Triple-Murder…

Via Weasle Zippers:

Via CNN:

Deceased Boston Marathon bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev participated in a 2011 gruesome triple homicide outside Boston along with a Chechen killed early Wednesday during a confrontation with the FBI and Massachusetts State Police in Orlando, Florida, a federal law enforcement official told CNN.

Ibragim Todashev, who died during the interview with authorities, not only confessed to his direct role in slashing the throats of three people in Waltham, Massachusetts, but also fingered Tsarnaev in the deaths, the official said Wednesday.

Todashev was being questioned about the slayings and his acquaintance with Tsarnaev.

Todashev attacked an FBI agent, who shot him dead, a federal law enforcement official with direct knowledge of the case told CNN.

The unsolved triple murder received renewed interest after it was learned that Tsarnaev had been a good friend of one of the Waltham victims.

Todashev told investigators the men were killed during a drug ripoff because he and Tsarnaev were afraid they would be able to identify them and tell police what happened, according to a law enforcement source.

So far, no link has been found between Todashev and the Boston Marathon bombings. However, the FBI is looking into the many connections between Todashev and Tsarnaev, whose radicalization allegedly led to the Boston bombings.

 

Soldier hacked to death on London street

Two Muslim men attacked a serving British soldier on London street in the middle of the day and hacked him to death with what is described as cleavers.  The government is treating the attack as a suspected act of terrorism.  I would think so since one of the attackers is seen on video saying "We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you."  Witnesses say the killers shouted  Allahu Akbar [God is Great].

CNN affiliate ITN aired a video showing a man with bloody hands and holding a meat cleaver, who says, "We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you."

The man, who is black and appears to have a London accent, carries on: "The only reasons we killed this man this is because Muslims are dying daily. This British soldier is an eye for an eye a tooth for tooth.

"We apologize that women had to see this today but in our lands our women have to see the same. You people will never be safe. Remove your government. They don't care about you."  [snip]

 

Commander Simon Letchworth told reporters in Woolwich that local officers had responded when an assault was reported at 2:20 p.m. Wednesday and a firearms unit was called to the scene. British police do not usually carry firearms.

"Two men, who we believe from early reports to have been carrying weapons, were shot by police," he said. "They have both been taken to separate London hospitals and are receiving treatment for their injuries."

'They were hacking at this poor guy'

Eyewitnesses have given gruesome details of the killing.  (CNN)

 

Why did it take the police 20 minutes to arrive on scene?  One witness expressed concern and thought perhaps it took so long because they had to find armed police.  Apparently armed police are hard to find in London?  Terrorists would have shot and hacked a lot of other people in 20 minutes.

 

From the FreeBeacon:

“A number of weapons were reportedly being used in the attack, and this included reports of a firearm,” police said in a statement.

 

UK: After brutal jihad attack, Muslim attackers "stood around, waving knives and a gun, and asked people to take pictures of them 'as if they wanted to be on TV or something'"

William A. Jacobson:   Beheading of British soldier in South London reminiscent of Syrian bloodletting: 

A very up close and personal bloodletting and then triumphal braggadocio.

Like the Syrian rebel fighter who ate his enemy’s heart on video. And the very personal violence visited on captives from both sides.

 

The UK is overrun with immigrants from Muslim countries who have no plan to integrate or become part of the Western society.  Many do not contribute to the society in any way, live on welfare benefits and continue their hatred of those who support them.

Sound familiar?  Remember the Boston marathon bombers???

All this while Washington is set to pass a sweeping immigration bill here in the United States that would, in spite of what we were told by Marco Rubio and others, give welfare benefits to illegals.

 

IRS Hearings

The second day of hearings concerning the IRS scandal can be followed live here.  Reading through the comments is always interesting.  They show the depth of ignorance by some voters.  I would call them uninformed, however that would be incorrect.  They have information, but unfortunately for everyone, that information is completely wrong.  They spout the lies that those who blindly follow Barack Obama and his mouthpieces give them.  It truly makes them look foolish.

Apparently the Obama administration has seen this for themselves -- how foolish their attempts have been to explain away all these scandals.  Jay Carney doesn't seem the least bit embarrassed.  The big Drudge headline today is "Administration Clams Up".  But that won't last long.  They can't seem to help themselves.

And what of the Republicans?  What kind of job are they doing?  Aside from a small handful of Republicans who truly want to get to the bottom of these scandals, remove and punish those responsible, and support the Constitution -- the Republicans keep going along to get along.  Daniel Greenfield writes in his latest article, Partisan Nation:

There is nothing American about the new partisan politics. They are purely Post-American, a breath of hot air from the coming system that will have no rules except power and no law except force. And this game is one in which the lack of a binding ideology is fatal.

To assume that your opponents have any decency, as the Republicans habitually do, is to be left behind in Politics 1.0. In Politics 2.0, the utter lack of decency is proof of integrity. To truly believe, you must have no ethics. To truly care about people, the environment, little children in the ghetto, polar bears, recycled rubber shoes, corporate welfare and LGBT workplaces, you must not have any standards when it comes to what you do.

In Partisan Nation, you would use the IRS against your enemies because it's there. And what else is it good for except reminding you that the taxpayers don't have enough money to cover a new light rail system across the country or free bikes for all? In Partisan Nation, trust doesn't matter because the default assumption is that everyone can be lied to non-stop or barraged with so much propaganda that they will do what they are supposed to. In Partisan Nation, America doesn't matter, winning does.  (read it all here)

While there is much truth in what Greenfield says, apparently winning doesn't really matter to the Republicans.  If it did they would not force a candidate like Mitt Romney on Americans, because they should have known he could not win, just like John McCain before him. 

If the Republicans really wanted to win, they would listen to the 68% of Americans who want these scandals investigated thoroughly, who want those responsible not shuffled from one desk to another, but brought to justice and punished so things like the IRS, AP, Benghazi scandals, and on and on, do not happen again.

If the Republicans really want to win, they need to forget about crossing the isle and stand up for Conservative values against all odds.  They would investigate these scandals right up to the top, whether that means Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or any body else.

If Republicans really wanted to win, they would quit eating their own, eating their young, because this is precisely what the Democrats want.  We have new politicians that come to office full of patriotism, willing to work hard, willing to stand up for what is right, and not only do they find themselves fighting against the Left, they are attacked by the old guard in their own party.  Eventually too many are beaten down and become part of the old machine. 

The Democrats must be rolling with laughter.

Related:

IRS’s own probe ended months before election, hidden; Meanwhile, IG Report Intentionally Delayed?

 

Ex-IRS Cincinnati official says ‘low-level’ employees not allowed to go rogue

Number Of IRS Employees Formally Reprimanded For Conservative Targeting Scandal: Zero…

DOJ Attorney Investigating Fox News Reporter A Big Obama Donor…

Democratic Congresswoman: It’s “Un-American” To Not Sign People Up For Obamacare…

CNBC: Lois Lerner Pleading The Fifth Is Worst Possible Outcome For The White House…

 

 

Five Benghazi suspects identified, but ...

Via Breitbart:

U.S. officials say they have identified five men they believe might be behind the attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, last year. The officials say they have enough evidence to justify seizing them by military force as suspected terrorists _ but not enough proof to try them in a U.S. civilian court as the Obama administration prefers.

So the officials say the men remain at large while the FBI gathers more evidence.(continue at Breitbart)

Be sure to read the comments.

 

New Benghazi Whistleblowers Coming Forward

Via Roger L. Simon, PJMedia:

[snip]

The former diplomats inform PJM the new revelations concentrate in two areas — what Ambassador Chris Stevens was actually doing in Benghazi and the pressure put on General Carter Ham, then in command of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) and therefore responsible for Libya, not to act to protect jeopardized U.S. personnel.

Stevens’ mission in Benghazi, they will say, was to buy back Stinger missiles from al-Qaeda groups issued to them by the State Department, not by the CIA. Such a mission would usually be a CIA effort, but the intelligence agency had opposed the idea because of the high risk involved in arming “insurgents” with powerful weapons that endanger civilian aircraft.

Hillary Clinton still wanted to proceed because, in part, as one of the diplomats said, she wanted “to overthrow Gaddafi on the cheap.”

This left Stevens in the position of having to clean up the scandalous enterprise when it became clear that the “insurgents” actually were al-Qaeda – indeed, in the view of one of the diplomats, the same group that attacked the consulate and ended up killing Stevens.  [snip]

 

Regarding General Ham, military contacts of the diplomats tell them that AFRICOM had Special Ops “assets in place that could have come to the aid of the Benghazi consulate immediately (not in six hours).”

Ham was told by the White House not to send the aid to the trapped men, but Ham decided to disobey and did so anyway, whereupon the White House “called his deputy and had the deputy threaten to relieve Ham of his command.”

(continue reading at PJMedia)

The above information and more included in the article has been mentioned before and suspected by many, but this will be the first time to have such information in official questioning and on the record -- if the PJMedia report is accurate.

 No matter what comes out, I don't believe anything will ever stick to Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.  They are the most Teflon politicians I have ever witnessed.

 

New Poll: Gosnell Trial Shifted Public Opinion Toward Pro-Life

Via Jeff Dunetz, The Lid:

The good news is that those who saw media reports of the Gosnell trial lean more pro-life than before, the bad news is that thanks to media bias not many people saw a media report.

According to an Investors Business Daily/TIPP poll only 24% of total adults saw news coverage of the trial of Kermit Gosnell but 42% of those who saw news stories regarding the trial of the Abortionist say they now lean more toward pro-life views than pro-choice views.

"The media's downplaying of this story was clearly reflected in the poll results," according to Raghavan Mayur, president of TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence, which conducted the survey.

Those who did see or read media reports of the trial were far likelier to be affected in the pro-life direction. Only 14% said that because of the trial, they now lean more toward pro-choice views.

Those whose view was not changed one way or the other by the Gosnell trial totaled a sizable 41% — almost as many as those affected in the pro-life direction.

Interestingly the poll showed very little difference between Men (43%) and Women (40%) shifting toward pro life.

A majority of those with some college — 57% — lean more toward pro-life because of the trial, while 33% of those holding a degree swerved in that direction.

Perhaps some of the future investigations will will receive more coverage, for example Houston abortionist Douglas Karpen 

Houston doctor Douglas Karpen is accused by four former employees of delivering live fetuses during third-trimester abortions and killing them by either snipping their spinal cord, stabbing a surgical instrument into their heads or 'twisting their heads off their necks with his own bare hands'.

Other times the fetus was so big he would have to pull it out of the womb in pieces, Karpen's ex-assistant, Deborah Edge, said in an Operation Rescue video, which has prompted a criminal investigation into the doctor.

'Sometimes he couldn't get the fetus out... he would yank pieces – piece by piece – when they were oversize,' Edge explained.

Karpen and others like him are being investigated. Sadly there are many more Like Karpen and  Gosnell to help sway public opinion.

(posted with permission, see other fine articles by Jeff here)