Carter Cannot Curb His Lame Tongue!

---
Jimmy is up to his old ways but then leopards are not likely to change their spots. (See 1 below.)
---
Obama's game plan wearing thin but he has yet to wear out his dependent constituents and probably never will because they are always in need and he always has something more to give them.  (See 2 below.)
---
Listen up!!!!

I recently posted notes from a talk by Brigette Gabriel warning that similar events would eventually visit our shores. Yesterday, Gabriel sent me an e mail telling about a Muslim, in New Jersey, who had been arrested for allegedly beheading two Christian Coptics and also cutting off their hands.  He was arrested driving the white Mercedes of one of the victims.  I mistakenly deleted the article and have not been able to retrieve it or would have posted.  I entitled it 'a heady situation' in New Jersey.

None of the major newspapers have carried the story.

The article she sent had his picture. (See 3 below.)
---
Could not happen to a more deserving recipient - Nasrallah has cancer! (See 4  below.)
---
Will Hillary suck all the air out for the Democrats?  (See 5 below.)
---
Dick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)'Grieved' that U.S. now approaching 'zero influence'

By Garth Kant

Jimmy Carter knows who to blame for the world’s troubles: the United States.

Speaking Sunday in San Francisco, the former president told the Commonwealth Club, “Our country is now looked upon as the foremost war-like nation on earth, and there is almost a complete dearth now of commitment of America to negotiate differences with others.”

It’s just the latest slam on the U.S. He’s also blasted staunch allies Britain and Israel, while offering words of support for America-haters Iran, Hamas, Saddam Hussein and North Korea.

This time, Carter even scorched the Obama administration for its handling of the Mideast.

“The United States has, you might say, zero influence either in Jerusalem or among the Palestinians, and I’m very grieved about that.”

Carter also faulted Obama for being too tough on American enemies that are pursuing nuclear capabilities. Carter thinks the U.S would have more influence if it promised to drop sanctions against Iran and North Korea.

And he believes talk is the answer.

“Not a single day of talks with North Korea since President Obama has been in office,” he said.

Carter’s own talk hasn’t always had the intended result. The deal he brokered with North Korea in 1994 to dismantle its nuclear weapons program in return for oil and two nuclear reactors fell through in 2002.

Yet the former president continued to defend the communist regime. He excused a North Korean attack on a South Korean island in 2010, saying it was simply “designed to remind the world that they deserve respect in negotiations that will shape their future.”

Since leaving office, Carter repeatedly has expressed sympathy for America’s enemies and degraded U.S. allies.

In 2007, he wrote a book comparing Israel to South Africa during apartheid.

“Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid” blamed Israel for the impasse with Palestinians, saying they would give up terrorism if only Israel would take certain political steps.

“It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel.”

Carter also expressed sympathy to North Korea upon the death of dictator Kim Jong-il in 2011. The Korean Central News Agency reported Carter sent a note of condolence to Kim’s son and successor.

Read “Jimmy Carter: The Liberal Left and World Chaos,” and see Mike Evans’ take on the architect of the “failed U.S. strategy in the Middle East.”

The note read: “Jimmy Carter extended condolences to Kim Jong-un and the Korean people over the demise of leader Kim Jong-il. He wished Kim Jong-un every success as he assumes his new responsibility of leadership, looking forward to another visit to [North Korea] in the future.”

In 2007, he slammed the relationship between British Prime Minister Tony Blair and President George W. Bush, calling it “abominable … loyal, blind, apparently subservient.”

“I think that the almost undeviating support by Great Britain for the ill-advised policies of President Bush in Iraq have been a major tragedy for the world,” he said.

Carter had even stronger words for President George W. Bush.

“I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history,” he said.

As WND reported in 2005, Carter hob-knobbed with an unregistered agent of Saddam Hussein, Samir Vincent, inviting him into his home, and giving him a guided tour of the Carter Center in Atlanta.

Vincent helped Iraq evade compliance with the U.N.-approved “Oil for Food” program, which funneled billions of dollars into Saddam’s military.

While wining and dining the Iraqi agent, Carter blasted U.S. foreign policy in Iraq and the economic sanctions that had been imposed against Saddam because of his repeated refusals to comply with U.N. sanctions.

Carter later emerged as one of the leading figures to oppose Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Carter also expressed support for the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, which advocates for the destruction of Israel .

In 2006, he made a personal promise to ambassadors from Egypt, Pakistan and Cuba that he would fight to undermine U.S. opposition to a new U.N. Human Rights Commission panel. The U.S. opposed the new panel because it would continue to allow known human-rights abusers to serve on the commission.

“My hope is that when the vote is taken … the other members will outvote the United States,” he said.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2)

Obama's Game Playing Is Wearing Thin

• 
 
• David Limbaugh 

President Obama told a meeting of the National Governors Association: "At some point, we've got to do some governing. And certainly, what we can't do is keep careening from manufactured crisis to manufactured crisis." Really?

Yes, really. He added, referring to the sequestration: "These cuts do not have to happen. Congress can turn them off anytime with just a little bit of compromise."

Obama has repeatedly demonstrated that he does not consider himself bound by a duty of good faith to square with the American people. He has shown that he is unafraid to utter the most egregious distortions and exaggerations; he has no fear of being called on them.

Just consider the few assertions I've cited. "At some point, we've got to do some governing." Does he mean that at some point, he needs to quit using every possible opportunity to play golf on the public's dime, that he should stop treating the people's White House as a platform for permanently campaigning, that he intends to forgo his Alinskyite tactics of bullying and demonizing in lieu of dealing with issues on the merits, that he aims to quit flouting his legal obligation to present a budget and that he will begin to exercise leadership over his party and pressure its leaders in the Senate to pass a budget? I didn't think so.

How about his statement that we can't keep careening from manufactured crisis to manufactured crisis? Does he mean that he is finally going to renounce his policy, first divulged by his former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, not to let a crisis go to waste, that he regrets having painted a false picture of crisis about the nation's uninsured to force Obamacare through Congress, that he is sorry that he used the 2008 financial collapse as an excuse to enact recklessly irresponsible bills to spend more borrowed money under the guise of stimulating the economy, that he is sorry he leapt on the Sandy Hook shootings to begin a frantic manufactured-crisis-driven crusade to ratchet up his effort to severely restrict the rights of gun owners, that he plans to repent for falsely laying the blame for our disgracefully unbalanced budgets on the "rich," who are already contributing more than their fair share, that he is going to square with the American people about the shameless hyperbole and corruption in his environmental agenda and cease and desist from his dishonest fear-mongering about carbon emissions to advance that agenda, that he is sorry for exaggerating the effects of the Gulf oil spill in order to justify breaching his promises to remove restrictions on offshore drilling and that he is going to quit pretending that America's infrastructure is in a crisis state of repair in order to fuel his case for ever-greater government control and the creation of public-sector jobs? I didn't think so.

Indeed, if Obama is so weary of crisis governance, of which he is the peerless master, then why is he using these very same speeches to manufacture a phony crisis over the sequestration? We are talking about very small-percentage cuts here, mostly in the rate of spending increases.

If Obama were interested in changing his MO from crisis-mongering to governance -- instead of doubling down on his effort to expand the scope, reach and control of the federal government at any cost, literally -- then he would quit characterizing every single activity of the enormously wasteful federal government as an essential service.

Private-sector businesses don't enjoy the luxury of simply injecting public funds into their ailing enterprises to avoid cutting expenditures they can't afford. Are private-sector businesses and employees that much less important to Obama than public-sector services and employees? Silly question.

In his ongoing crisis-stoking, Obama never laments the real economic destruction his own policies have already caused. When he does deign to acknowledge economic difficulties, he callously understates the dismal conditions we're experiencing -- and the hardship people are already enduring as a result of his ideological intransigence against cutting spending and reforming entitlements.

But what makes Obama's oratorical flurry against crisis governance an even more insulting farce is that we do have a real, wholly unmanufactured crisis looming that will affect far more than a limited number of government jobs and programs. At the risk of breaking an already broken record, I'd like to point out again that we are going bankrupt because Obama won't agree to spending cuts and entitlement reform.

It is time that he quit playing games and insulting our intelligence by blaming Republicans for the sequestration he authored and for allegedly refusing to compromise when they are the ones who have compromised. They have done so on taxes, whereas he has refused to compromise on spending and entitlements. You make a deal with Obama, and he moves the goal posts.

Seriously, how can Obama continue this charade with a straight face? How long will the public tolerate it?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Speech Geert Wilders, Melbourne, Australia, Tuesday February 19

Dear friends,

Finally, I am here.

I am very happy to be in your beautiful and magnificent country, Australia.

400 years ago, the Dutch were the first Europeans to discover Australia. They named this land after their own and called it New Holland. So, here I am today, a visitor from the Netherlands, with a message from the old Holland to the New Holland.

I am here to tell you how Islam is changing the Netherlands and Western Europe beyond recognition. We are in the process of losing our culture, our identity, our freedom.

I am also here to warn Australia about the true nature of Islam. It is not just a religion as many people mistakenly think; it is primarily a dangerous totalitarian ideology.

I am here to warn you that what is happening in my native country might soon happen in Australia too, if you fail to be vigilant.

And I am here to advice you on how to turn the tide of Islamization. Inform people. Confront them with the truth. Don’t be afraid to speak. Use your right of free speech.

Because if you do not use it, you will lose it. And find and elect politicians who are not afraid to speak the truth about Islam.

Before I start, allow me to thank the Q Society for inviting me to your country. Thank you Debbie, Andrew, Ralf, and all the other volunteers for making this visit possible. Debbie never booked so many conference rooms in her life as in the past few weeks, and never had so many cancellations. Debbie, you are my hero. You have had a very hard time. But I bet you think twice about ever inviting me to Australia again.

The Q Society and its volunteers embody the courage for which Australians are known in Europe.

We, Europeans, owe our freedom in part to the thousands of young and brave Australians who fought, and died, at Passiondale and at Gallipoli.

These Australians – your fathers and grandfathers – persevered against all odds.

And so did the Q Society, despite the efforts of the governing establishment to discourage my visit.

First, Chris Bowen, the then federal minister of Immigration, had me wait five long weeks for a visa, forcing us to postpone my visit from October to February.

Then, the minister implicitly warned people to stay away from my speeches by writing a newspaper article in the Australian saying that I was a fringe figure from the far-right.

Western Australia’s premier Colin Bartnett went as far as to tell the media that I am “not welcome” in his state. I wonder how many public figures in the world have already been told that they are not welcome in Western Australia. Trying to find this out, I googled the words “not welcome in Western Australia.” Guess what? Only two items popped up: “Geert Wilders” and “US nuclear base.”

Private enterprises followed the example by boycotting my visit, declining the booking of venues, turning down adds, and refusing banking services.

But the Q Society did not give up.

Thank you also to La Mirage here in Melbourne, where we are gathered today, for making this evening possible.

So, here I am, with a message that your political leaders do not want you to hear.

But first, let me tell you who I am and how I live.

I am an elected politician from one of the oldest democracies in the world. I am the leader of the Party for Freedom, the largest Dutch opposition party. We have almost 1 million voters in a country that is known for its tolerance. I am not a fringe figure; I am not far-right either. Political opponents brought me to court, accusing me of hate speech and discrimination. But the court in Amsterdam after an ordeal that lasted 2 years cleared me of all charges.

Earlier, I have spoken in the premises of the United States Congress, the British House of Lords, the Danish Parliament and other government premises. I participated in conferences in the U.S. and Canada, Germany, Italy, and elsewhere, with people none of which belong to the far-right.

For the past 9 years I have been living under round the clock police protection. Wherever I go, plainclothes policemen go with me. I live in a government safe house, bulletproof and safer than the National Bank. I wish I had their money. 

Earlier my wife and I have even lived in army barracks and prison cells just to be safe from assassins.

Why do I need this protection? I am not a president or king, I am a simple parliamentarian.

I have been marked for death. I was placed under police protection in November 2004 when the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh was slaughtered in broad daylight because he had criticized Islam. A few hours later, the police found a letter written by van Gogh’s assassin threatening to kill me and my colleague Ayaan Hirsi Ali as well. We, too, had been critical of Islam, especially through our work in parliament.

Ayaan has since left for America, but I continue to candidly express my views about Islam in the Dutch Parliament and in the public debate around the world.

But it is not I who am important here. What is at stake is the defense of our freedom.

Only two weeks ago, a good friend of mine, Lars Hedegaard, a journalist from Denmark, survived an assassination attempt. A foreigner tried to shoot him through the head. Why? For the simple reason that Lars is critical of Islam.

Europe has become a dangerous place for those who criticize Islam. So many people rooted in a culture entirely different from our own Judeo-Christian and humanist tradition have entered Europe that now Europe’s identity and its culture are in danger.

Australian tourists visiting our major European cities today can still see the postcard views of the Eiffel tower, Buckingham Palace and the Amsterdam canals, but if they are not careful and walk too far, they risk entering a dangerous Islamic ghetto.

Islam has creating a parallel society within our cities. Shortly before her death in 2006, the well-known Italian author Oriana Fallaci wrote: “In each one of our cities, there is a second city, a state within the state, a government within the government. A Muslim city, a city ruled by the Koran.” – end of quote.

The Islamic presence is changing the outlook and the character of Europe. In some urban neighbourhoods, Islamic regulations are already being enforced. Women’s rights are being trampled. We are confronted with headscarves and burqa’s, polygamy, female genital mutilation, honor-killings.

Five years ago, Michael Nazir-Ali, the Anglican bishop of Rochester, England, who is himself of Muslim descent, already warned for Islamic no-go zones. “Those of a different faith or race may find it difficult to live or work there because of hostility to them and even the risk of violence,” he said.

Last month, a group called Muslim Patrol posted a video on Youtube showing how they control an entire neighborhood of the British capital London. They intimidate people, force women to cover up, harass gays, confiscate alcohol, and forbid non-Muslims to walk past the local mosque.

Two years ago, a high ranking German police officer admitted that no-go zones outside police authority are proliferating all over Germany. We can witness this phenomenon all over Europe.

I used to live in Kanaleneiland, a suburb of Utrecht which, during the 20 years that I lived there, transformed into a very dangerous neighborhood for non-Muslims. I have been robbed. On several occasions I had to run for safety.

The same transformation has happened in parts of Amsterdam, Rotterdam and other cities, in the Netherlands, as well as in cities in Belgium, Germany, Britain, France, Spain, Italy, Sweden and other countries.

In August 2011, a Dutch newspaper sent its war correspondent – yes, you heard right, its war correspondent – to the Dutch city of Helmond to investigate reports that Islamic thugs were harassing local residents. His article detailed terrible abuses suffered by the non-Muslim population, including the sexual harassment of young girls. The locals complained that the police are afraid of the thugs.

In France, the authorities have drawn up a list of 751 so-called “sensible urban areas.” These are the lost territories of the French Republic, even though a staggering 5 million people, or 8 percent of the total French population, live in them.

In Brussels, the capital of the European Union, 25 percent of the population is Muslim. The city has several predominantly Islamic districts. Police officers entering these neighborhoods have been shot at with Kalashnikovs. Three years ago, the police union acknowledged that there are boroughs in Brussels which – I quote – “officers do not dare enter in uniforms.” End of quote.

In my own country, Moroccans are the largest ethnic group among Islamic immigrants. Almost every week there are incidents with Moroccan youths. In the Netherlands, 65 percent of all the Moroccan boys between 12 and 23 years have have already been arrested at least once by the police.

The list of violent incidents involving Moroccans, whether occurring in our streets, our schools, our shopping malls or on our sports fields, is endless. But the victims are almost never Moroccans or Muslims.

I am not exaggerating. I tell it like it is.

Two years ago, Germany’s Family Minister Kristina Schröder advocated – I quote – “an open debate about racist Muslims.” End of quote.

Last September, Jean-Francois Copé, the former French Budget Minister under president Sarkozy, also pointed out that – I quote “racism is growing in our cities.”

Copé, too, was referring to the surge of Islamic violence against ethnic Frenchmen.

Islam has brought us jihad: intimidation, violence.

Then there is the phenomenon of nonviolent jihad. The rise of Islam also means the rise of Islamic sharia law in our judicial systems. In Europe, we have sharia wills, sharia schools, sharia banks. The introduction of elements of sharia law in our societies creates a system of legal apartheid. Sharia law systematically discriminates between groups of people.

Britain now has official sharia courts. One of these courts settled the inheritance of a man whose estate had to be divided between his children. It gave the sons twice as much as the daughters, in accordance with the Koranic pronouncement that a woman is only worth half a man. This is a disgrace. In our civilization, men and women used to be treated as equals before the law. In contemporary Europe, this is no longer the case.

Sharia law also affects our fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of speech. Sharia law forbids criticism of Islam. This is considered blasphemy. The penalty is death.

That is why I have been marked for death. That is why people like me and Lars Hedegaard are in so much trouble; that is why three years ago a man with an axe tried to chop the cartoonist Kurt Westergaard to pieces; that is why we, and Salman Rushdie and others are living in hiding. Because if you criticize Islam, you pay a very high price.

This brings me to the second major topic of my speech. The nature of Islam.

Is it not strange that we, who are not Muslims, are punished by Islam for breaking Islamic rules? Religious rules do not apply to people who do not belong to a specific religion, do they? Indeed, a religion – every religion – should be voluntary. Yet, Islam imposes its rules on everyone.

Why does sharia law alter our Western secular legal system in such a dramatic fashion? The answer is that rather than a religion, Islam is a totalitarian political ideology which aims to impose its legal system on the whole society.

Islam is an ideology because it is political rather than religious: Islam is an ideology because it aims for an Islamic state and wants to impose Islamic Sharia law on all of us.

Islam is totalitarian because it is not voluntary. It orders that people who leave Islam must be killed.

Contrary to all the other religions – real religions – Islam also lays obligations on non-members.

Your fellow Australian, the theologian Mark Durie has said – I quote: “Islam classically demands a political realization, and specifically one in which Islam rules over all other religions, ideologies and competing political visions. Islam is not unique in having a political vision or speaking to politics, but it is unique in demanding that it alone must rule the political sphere.” – end of quote.

We can see what Islam has in store for us if we watch the fate of the Christians in the Islamic world, such as the Copts in Egypt, the Maronites in Lebanon, the Assyrians in Iraq, and Christians anywhere in the Islamic and Arab world. The cause of their suffering is Islam. Indeed, the only place in the Middle East where Christians are safe to be Christians is Israel. Israel is also the only democracy in the Middle East, a beacon of light in an area of total darkness. We should all support Israel.

My friends, I always make a distinction between Muslims and Islam. Most Muslims are moderate, but the ideology of Islam is dangerous. The moderates are the captives of a totalitarian system. If only they could liberate themselves from the Islamic culture of fatalism and apathy, then the most beautiful things could happen to them and the whole world.

I have traveled the Islamic world extensively. I have visited countries such as Turkey, Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Indonesia. I was overwhelmed by the kindness, friendliness and helpfulness of many people there. They are often good people, but they are the captives of Islam. These people are not free; they live under the yoke of Islamic sharia law. If they leave Islam, they sign their own death verdict.

Thirty years ago, I traveled from Israel to Egypt. This trip made a huge impression on me. Israel and Egypt are neighbours, with the same climate, the same natural riches, similar resources, the same potential. And yet Egypt is poor, while Israel is wealthy.

Freedom is the key to prosperity; and Islam deprives people of it.

However, as long as Islam remains dominant, there can be no real freedom.

Just look at what is happening in the Arab countries. The so-called Arab Spring quickly degraded into a freezing Arab Winter. The situation of women and non-Muslims, such as Christians, worsened dramatically.

In Islamic countries, democracy does not lead to freedom. Islam keeps people entrapped in a mental prison. A survey by the American Pew Center found that even though 59 percent of Egyptians prefer democracy to any other form of government, 84 percent want the death penalty for apostates.

Despite the presence of many moderate Muslims, the growing Islamic presence in Europe is causing huge problems. Europe’s Islamic lobby is increasingly assertive.

It has successfully pressured European politicians into implementing pro-Islamic policies, institutionalizing sharia practices, adopting anti-Israeli positions, and restricting freedom of speech under the pretext that telling the truth about Islam is a hate speech crime.

In the Netherlands, we have prison cells with arrows on the floor directing towards Mecca; prisons where only halal food is served; Islamic lawyers who do not have to rise when the judge enters the courtroom; schools that close on Islamic holidays; works of art that are removed from public buildings because they might offend Islam; separate swimming hours, separate theatre performances, separate courses for men and women; nurses in homes for the elderly who are exempt for treating men because Islam forbids women to touch men; etcetera.

Islamic and pro-Islamic groups drag people to court simply because they exercise their legal right of freedom of speech. 

This is called legal jihad. People like myself, Lars Hedegaard in Denmark, and countless others from Canada to Austria have been subjected to endless time, energy and money consuming trials for speaking the truth.

To understand the nature of Islam, one also has to understand its founder, Muhammad, the author of the Koran. It is uncomfortable for people to speak about it, but we must because he is the example of 1.5 billion people. According to Islam, Muhammad is the perfect man whose life must be imitated. The consequences are horrendous and can be witnessed on a daily basis.

Islam presents Muhammad as the role model to 1.5 billion people. Fortunately, the majority of them do not follow this example. The fact that Islam presents him as the model man obliges us, however, to talk about his character and the things he did.

Islamic texts such as the Sira, Muhammad’s biography, and the Hadiths, the descriptions of Muhammad’s life from testimonies of his contemporaries, show that he was the savage leader of a gang of robbers from Medina. Without scruples they looted, raped and murdered.

The sources describe orgies of savagery where hundreds of people’s throats were cut, hands and feet chopped off, eyes cut out, entire tribes massacred. An example is the extinction of the Jews in Medina in 627. Muhammad himself participated in chopping off their heads. The women and children were sold as slaves. As you know, Muhammad married the 6 year old girl Aisha whom consummated when she was 9 years old. In our countries today, such a pedophile would be sent to jail for a very long time.

Islamic violence does not spring from social and political grievances, as politically-correct sources claim. Islamic violence springs directly from Islam and Muhammad’s example.

Because Muhammad lied and cheated in order to advance Islam, some followers feel entitled to do the same. Islam even has a word for this kind of lying. It is called taqqiya.

Because Muhammad spread Islam through acts of terror, some of his followers do the same.

Because Muhammad established an Islamic state, some of his followers see it as their duty to do the same.

Because Muhammad had his critics and the critics of his Islamic state murdered, some of his followers regard it as their duty to kill everyone who speaks his mind about Muhammad and Islam.

It is no coincidence that all the Islamic states in the world demand that freedom of speech be curtailed and that criticism of Islam and its prophet be forbidden. And yet, it is our duty to speak out and tell the truth.

Anyone who voices criticism of Islam and Muhammad is in grave personal danger. And whoever attempts to escape from the influence of Islam and Muhammad risk the death penalty. We cannot continue to accept this state of affairs. A public debate about the true nature and character of Muhammad is badly needed how uncomfortable it might be to some people.

Understanding Islam and Muhammad, also learns us important lessons about our present situation. That is the third major topic I want to address: the lessons for Australia.

It is important that you realize that in our present days Islam is spreading predominantly through the method of immigration from Islamic countries. Muhammad himself conquered Medina through the method of immigration. Or Hijra as it is called in Islam.

Hijra is an instrument of jihad. It is an instrument that Islam uses to dominate the free world.

So, in order to stop Islamization, we should stop as we try to do in the Netherland where my party sees it as its first priority to stop immigration from Islamic countries. Enough is enough.

I realize that this may be a difficult message in a country such as Australia. Your country was built on immigration. Over one in four of Australia’s 22 million inhabitants were born overseas.

They came to Australia from many countries and continents. They were welcomed because they contributed. They have strengthened Australia.

Dutch immigrants, like countless immigrants from other countries, have helped to turn Australia into what it is today. Australia is home to over 300,000 people of Dutch descent.

These Dutchmen never caused any problems because they did not bring along an ideology which prohibits friendship with non-Dutchmen, which commands them to hate non-Dutchmen, and to submit or kill non-Dutchmen.

My countrymen did not come to impose their own culture upon the non-Dutch Australians; they assimilated into Australian society and, in doing so, they enriched it.

Today, Europe, too, is confronted with millions of immigrants. Unfortunately, many of these immigrants are not strengthening nor enriching our societies, because many of them refuse to assimilate and they create a parallel society within our nations. A very large number of these immigrants have moved to Europe from Islamic countries. Europe is in the middle of an Islamization process, driven by immigration from North Africa, Turkey, the Middle East and other parts of the Islamic world, such as Somalia.

The Islamic countries belong to the Organization of the Islamic Conference. It is the largest voting bloc and the biggest Israel haters in the United Nations. In 1990, it adopted the Cairo Declaration on human rights in Islam, in which human rights is bound by Sharia law. It also calls for the death penalty for people who leave Islam or insult Islam, Muhammad or the Koran.

There is a second priority which we have in our party platform. This is to counter Sharia or Islamic law in our own country.

Let me explain. When people move to another country, they integrate, they blend in, they assimilate. That is the natural order of things.

When immigrants from Islamic countries settle in Western countries, they move from an unfree society to a free society. People always prefer freedom over tyranny. That is human nature.

In the normal order of things, immigration from Islamic countries would weaken Islam.

Their contact with Western freedoms, would lead Islamic people to abandon Islam. However, through the creation of a Sharia-based parallel society – we see it happen all over Europe, be careful that it does not happen in Australia – Islam manages to continue its control over its captives.

Islamic societies – including Islamic enclaves in the West—exert tight social control that is indicative of the totalitarian character of Islam.

My friends, I am here to warn Australia. Learn from the European lesson. The more Islam you get into your society, the less civilized it becomes and the less free.

How did the Europeans get into their present situation? It is partly our own fault because we have foolishly adopted the ideology of cultural relativism. Cultural relativism is far worse than multiculturalism. Cultural relativism is the biggest political disease that we face in our countries today.

I am proud to say – I do not care whether people like it or not – that our culture which is based on Judeo-Christian and humanist values such as liberty, democracy and tolerance, is far better than the Islamic culture. I am proud of it.

We should not close our eyes to the fact that all over Europe and Australia, new mosques and Islamic centers are under construction. In any major city in Europe you will encounter halal shops and women in headscarves and burkas.

Two years ago, there was the case of Carnita Matthews, the Islamic convert in a burka, who escaped a jail sentence in New South Wales because the authorities could not prove that she was the person in a burka making a false statement to the police.

Open the pages of our newspapers and you will read horrific stories of women being trampled, female genital mutilation and honor killings in our own back yards.

We have to speak out, because it is the only tool we have got. We stand for our convictions, but we never use violence. We abhor violence. The reason why we reject Islam is exactly Islam’s violent nature. We believe in democracy.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)Reports: Nasrallah flown to Iran for cancer treatment
By Roi Kais

Turkish news agency quotes sources 'close to Hezbollah' as saying terror group leader was admitted to private hospital in Beirut and later flown to Tehran; Lebanese website says he has cancer.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5)Dems 2016: Will Hillary Clinton clear the field?

By JONATHAN MARTIN 

The ranks of Democratic governors are filled with ambitious politicians boasting records that would probably play well with primary voters in 2016.

But even as they eye a move from the statehouse to the White House, there’s broad recognition among the chief executives that the next generation of Democrats may have to wait longer than four more years to take their place as President Barack Obama’s heir.

Nowhere is The Hillary Factor felt more acutely, and painfully, than in the same elite club of policy innovators and budget balancers that vaulted her husband onto the national political scene in the 1980s.

(Also on POLITICO: GOP 2016 - Governors vs. D.C. insiders)

Among the Democratic governors who descended on Washington this weekend for the National Governors Association winter meeting, the only difference of opinion when it came to Secretary Clinton was whether she would clear the 2016 field entirely or merely loom colossus-like over the race until, and upon entering, the campaign.

Or, as Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper put it with a bit more brevity when asked about Clinton’s impact on the campaign, “You should be asking Martin O’Malley.”

O’Malley is the second-term Maryland governor who has been perhaps the most open about his 2016 ambitions, but whose prospects are largely out of his hands as long as Clinton looms on the horizon. Count New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, Delaware Gov. Jack Markell, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin and Hickenlooper himself on that same roster of accomplished Democratic governors who are younger than the 65-year-old Clinton but could find themselves stuck in their state capitals for another decade-plus should she be elected president.

It’s an unprecedented scenario, noted some of the governors: a first lady-turned-senator-turned-presidential candidate-turned Secretary of State with 100-percent name ID and deep popularity who would, oh yes, make history as the nation’s first female president.

Even the most impressive health care delivery reforms and far-reaching gun control restrictions pale by comparison.

“It’s just a very unique situation in which an extremely qualified candidate with a long history of public service who has been fully vetted is considering running for the presidency,” noted Nixon, who easily won reelection last year to his second term in conservative-leaning Missouri. “She’s entitled to her time of analysis. It does, I think, in many ways freeze the field until she more clearly states what she wants to do with the rest of her life.”

Like many of the Democratic governors, Nixon has a longstanding relationship with Hillary and Bill Clinton dating to the Missourian’s time as a state senator when Clinton was Arkansas governor and then running for president. Nixon served as his state’s state attorney general during the Clinton administration.

He stopped just short of committing to a Clinton candidacy.

“I worked extremely well with her husband, I work well with her on a number of things, feel a deep commitment to them at a lot of levels and a deep respect for them,” said Nixon. “I’d be very energetic about hitting the trail for [Clinton] if she decides to make that step forward.”

Arkansas Gov. Mike Beebe said Clinton would rally the party. “Should she choose to run, she is somebody we could all get behind,” said Beebe.

Shumlin, without fully denying his own ambitions, was blunt about what Clinton meant for the Democratic race.

“Let’s be candid about this: So much depends on Hillary,” he said. “If Hillary runs, you’re going to see fewer candidates. If Hillary does not run, you’re going to see more candidates.”

As big as Clinton’s shadow may be, it’s not stopping other potential Democratic hopefuls from positioning themselves to make a White House run. That includes Vice President Joe Biden, who raised eyebrows over the inauguration weekend last month for showing up at the Iowa state ball and hosting a slew of early-state Democrats to his residence for a party.

It also includes O’Malley.

The Marylander held court over the weekend with a stream of supporters and reporters in a snack-filled suite at the J.W. Marriott, the winter home to the governor’s conference, and is making the sort of hires and travels that indicate an interest in a campaign.

O’Malley, a Clinton supporter in 2008, praised the former Secretary of State and said she’d make a “great president” but suggested her entry into the race wouldn’t effectively end the primary.

“I doubt it,” he said. “I don’t think anybody ever clears the field.”

The Democratic primary may still be two years away from beginning in earnest, and would-be candidates are deploying their usual focused-on-my-current-job talking point, but the usual giveaways are unmistakable.

Just take South Carolina, an early primary state and the first contest where there’s a significant population of black voters.

O’Malley is heading down for a state party issues conference in March and Biden is likely to headline the state’s Jefferson-Jackson fundraising dinner in May.

But then there are the Clintons.

The former president is trekking to Kiawah Island near Charleston in April to see old friends from the state and raise money for Virginia gubernatorial hopeful Terry McAuliffe.

“If she gets into the race it’s going to be be difficult for other candidates to both raise money and get attention,” said former South Carolina Gov. Jim Hodges, who keeps close ties to many senior Democrats and was a national chair for Obama in 2008. “People like me will stay on the sidelines.”

But Hodges was sure to note that, for now, it makes sense for the O’Malleys and Cuomos of the world to still position themselves for a run – noting the example of then-Gov. Clinton and Cuomo’s father, former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo.

“They need to look no further back than Bill Clinton getting in back in ’92,” said Hodges, pointing out that the Arkansan didn’t wait on his better-known fellow governor, who ultimately decided against a run.

And, anyways, if Clinton does run the others can always gracefully step back.

“There’s no harm in a candidate getting in and then at some point in the process deciding that the race doesn’t look good and then getting out,” Hodges observed.

There’s also recent history: Clinton wasn’t supposed to lose the nomination in 2008, either; that is, until a freshman senator from Illinois came along with a message of Hope and Change.

But then she’s in an even stronger place today than she was then, coming off a stint as Obama’s loyal Secretary of State and showing up in polls as the most popular political figure in America.

Even old intra-party foes have nothing but kind words for Clinton.

“

She has done a terrific job and she is a formidable person,” said California Gov. Jerry Brown, who criticized both Clintons when he ran for the Democratic nomination in 1992.

Asked if she’d clear the field, Brown shot back “probably” before adding, in his inimitable fashion, that his “Ouija board is not operative in Washington.”

Hickenlooper predicted Clinton “clears half of [the field] the least.”

Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber said Clinton “would definitely have the inside track” but predicted there would still be a primary if she runs. He endorsed Obama in 2008.

But Kitzhaber illustrates the sort of capital Clinton has amassed inside the party. Now in his second go-round as governor, the Oregonian recalled then-First Lady Hillary Clinton coming to raise money for him when he first ran for governor in 1994.

And Kitzhaber met Bill Clinton when the former president was still Arkansas governor and Kitzhaber was president of the Oregon Senate.

Kitzhaber, a doctor who has made health care reform his signature, recalled the exact 1992 debate when Bill Clinton cited Oregon’s health initiatives.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------