Obama’s Promise to Fund Jihad in America

By | October 8, 2012

How Americans missed the big one.

Barack Obama cut a huge swath from the fabric of American Constitutional liberties. It was subtle, as his underminings of America always are. One thing we do know is that Obama does not make idle promises when it comes to promoting Islam in America. Apparently he’s waiting until after his re-election when he’s freer to act without concern for the American People’s reaction. Sound familiar?

Average Americans are long baffled by the Democrats’ remarkable ability to lie in the face of opposite truths. In trying to reason what we regard as quirkish dysfunction we’ve chalked them off to everything from lack of moral character to schoolyard shenanigans. Few of us if any have attributed it to the “religion” of lying.

Democrats are so bold in their assertions it is no indistinguishable fact that as a majority they reject the concept of religion. This year’s DNC made it clear they not only reject religion they reject God. We want to believe Americans are at least reared with some level of respect that compels basic human decencies – like not lying. So the lying phenomenon remains a quandary at best.

Barack Hussein Obama is the product of the Democrat Party’s outreach to Muslims beginning in the 1990s. Whether or not it’s accurate to describe Obama as ‘the first America Muslim president’ he is certainly the most Muslim-sympathetic. His years studying under Islam and his proficiency in citing the Koran and its Call To Prayer in perfect dialect are well known if not always admired.

Obama’s June 2009 Cairo Egypt speech was met with such mixed reaction. Average Americans wouldn’t recognize the Arabic terminology Obama intertwined for sole benefit of his Muslim audience. It is telling in retrospect that this president would couch hour long rhetoric of American commitments to a foreign people in a tongue that only the foreign people understand. They are Americans’ commitments, after all, we’ve every right and expectation to know just what foreign promises this president is making of us.

Of all the names you hear today Suhail Khan’s probably isn’t one of the most prominent. He’s been climbing our government and political ladders for about 15-years and is the subject of many articles. “Suhail Khan Exposed.com” is a comprehensive site in detailing his history including a video archive.

For purposes of this article whatever background provided on Khan is to demonstrate one thing: The keen art of lying. It’s much simpler than we gave credit and more complex than we imagined. Yes, it requires a couple of Arabic terms, welcome to Arabic In America 101.

Once you understand the art of lying you understand the problem. When you understand the problem you’re equipped to react effectively instead of fumbling around in the “Can you believe he said that” menagerie of going nowhere fast. Then we can get to Suhail Khan playing into Obama’s foreign language promise to a nation of Muslims. A promise this president had no business making on behalf of the American people let alone pretending he had authority over our country’s U.S. Constitution in order to bring his promise to fruition.

Suhail Khan’s father and mother participated in several Muslim Brotherhood (“Ikhwan”) front groups in America with four in particular personally attributed to them:

  • The Muslim Student Association (MSA)
  • The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA)
  • The Muslim Community Association (prominent in Northern California)
  • The Council on American Islamic Relations, an off-shoot of the Islamic Association for Palestine.

Suhail was introduced to the Bush White House at promotion of Karl Rove who was running Bush’s campaign along with Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) founder Grover Norquist and his Islamic Institute front group cofounder, Abdurahman Alamoudi (discussed in my last article).

It is important to watch the ease with which Suhail Khan lies in the face of opposite truths. Observe his simplistic form and understand how many times he does it (they do it) effectively with such nonchalant ease. This was the same ruse Democrats used against Michele Bachmann when she raised founded concerns about the Muslim Brotherhood within ranks of our government.

Suhail Khan’s responses begin at minute 4:00 of this CNN news video. You’ll recognize the familiar communist technique of ridicule and character assissination to silence an opponent.

Indisputable proof of Suhail Khan’s lies are clear by just a few pieces of the massive amounts of evidence that are available (see voluminous more links at Suhail Khan Exposed.com.):

  • Suhail Khan’s father, Dr. Mahboob Khan’s obituary:

“Dr. Khan was one of the founders of Muslim Students Association of America in 70’s which later became the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).” (Click link above for full obituary.)

  • Suhail’s personal accolades to both of his parents for their Islamic-Jihadist work:

1. Minute 4:10 & Minute 6:35 of Part 4 Video. Don’t let Suhail’s stammering inexperience at Minute 4:10 fool you, he was just graduating from the University of California Berkley and became much more polished by Minute 6:35.

2.  Minute 5:20 of Part 4 Video with Alamoudi in June 2001. By then Suhail is on the White House staff and speaks at this Jihadist function as a White House representative – unbelievable.

Suhail Khan fooled Anderson Cooper if not all of CNN and most Americans watching unless you recognized the “Useful Idiots” syndrome that Islam itself employs.

Having made that point, remember it. It’s important.

The Muslim Islam religion under its Koran Shariah Law not only condones ‘lying for the faith’ it makes ‘lying for the faith’ an obligation whenever Islamists are threatened or when ‘the good of the faith demands it.’ Lying for the faith is called “Taqiyya.” Wikipedia’s Obama-cleansed definition of Taqiyya ever so gingerly lends credibility to what it is without calling it what it is – lying.

Now why would Americans care about Taqiyya? Number one it explains Democrats. Number two it explaims Sharia-adherent Muslims. And God knows America has its share of both. Once you see the lying as the firm commitment of ‘religion’ it is the mistique is gone. You know to watch for more regardless what you’re told by whom. This is America’s challenge.

Suhail Khan to hold Barack Obama to his Cairo Egypt promise.

In his June 2009 speech in Cairo Egypt Obama promised American Muslims (excerpted):

“Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance in the United States rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That is why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat. It is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit … .”

No average American knows what “zakat” is. Zakat is an Islam-adherent Muslim’s obligation to make contributions from their income, similar to a Christian’s tithing. Hearing Obama’s Presidential Commitment – even if we knew what zakat meant – could still sound harmless if not commendable – right?

Shariah Law cites eight approved purposes for which Islamic-adherent Muslims are required to give a percentage of their income – to zakat. One of those eight purposes is to fund Islamic Jihad, their ‘Holy War’ or what Civilian Jihad has successfully politically corrected in America to mean “struggle.” Uh-huh.

By the way, the word for “success” in Arabic is “muflehun” which is not by coincidence the name of another initiative of Suhail Khan’s. Khan is Muflehun’s Chairman of the Board. The Imam Mohamad Magid of this front group is its Vice Chairman, who also happens to be current president of Suhail Khan parent’s ISNA front group. This front group is addressed at minutes 43:10 & 45:30 of Part 4 Video. Mufelhan’s stated vision is in the context of Islam’s Koran – not that of the Western world:

“To help establish a community that promotes good works and justice while peaceably working against injustice and wrongs.”

Of course the “good works” and “justice” that Mufelhun refers to is for Islamic Shariah ‘good & justice’ if there be such a thing. Mufelhun’s Islamic vision goes directly against protecting America and its U.S. Constitution from the Shariah agenda. This takes us to Suhail Khan’s next priority: Ending U.S. restrictions on Islam-adherent Muslims’ ability to raise money in this country to finance their Jihad.

The problem with zakat for purposes of Jihad is that in the United States funding Jihad is “terrorism.” The “impediment” to zakat that Obama spoke of in his speech is the United States’ statutes that specifically prohibit materially supporting terrorist and their terror organizations. That’s why ATR/Norquist’s cofounder of the Islamic Institute, Alamoudi, went to jail after admitting he’d given $1-million to Al Qeada. Yeh – that zakat.

What to do now? Well, fear not, Suhail Khan has a plan.

Just as ATR/Norquist & Alamoudi‘s-assisted Sami al-Arian prohibited America’s “Secret Evidence” law – overturning a Clinton law that allowed government to use its classified information as court evidence against terrorists based on Sharia “religious” civil liberties – Suhail Khan will work to bar American laws that prevent Muslims from supporting terrorism through zakat. They will seek to overturn U.S. laws against Islam zakat, laws that are currently protecting the American people.

Islam-adherent Muslims will continue taking advantage of America’s civil liberties to successfully undermine us from within. Your president promised that three-years ago. Do you think Obama’s been waiting for his second term when he’s free to not worry about the consequences of a re-election or the outcries of the American people?

Moving Forward toward this end Suhail Kahn has set the stage with several front groups and organizations to lend legitimacy in his “religious freedom“ endeavor. Just a few of many are:

  • The Institute for Global Engagement (minute 39:37 Part 4 Video)
  • That Institute’s “Interfaith Dialogue” Envoy (minute 39:37 Part 4 Video)
  • The Red-Green Coalition’s Charity and Security Network (minute 47:03 Part 4 Video) The term “Red-Green” represents combining Communim’s red with Ikwhan’s green symbolism.

The Red-Green Coalition’s Charity and Security Network issued a December 2011 publication entitled “U.S. Muslim Charities and the War On Terror – A Decade In Review.” Its mission is aimed directly at the Muslim Brotherhood’s (”Ikwhan’s”) agenda item of overturning U.S. Laws that prohibit zakat for purposes of funding Jihad.

Mission Statement: “To eliminate barriers counter-terrorism measures create for legitimate charitable development, human rights and conflict resolution work.”

For Sharia-adherent Muslims the answer to what creates ‘legitimate charitable work’ is zakat in ALL of its forms. By definition that is the Islam’s perfect, divinely directed and immutable law under Koran: Shariah Law. American manmade laws – the United States Constitution – intended to protect us, is, to them unacceptable of their ‘religion,’ Islam.

Shariah law is destroying America from within by our own hands.

America’s extreme Islamic-adherent condition can no longer be shoved under the rug whatever excuse we use to try to do that. This is America’s “enemy from within” and it is on our doorstep today. If you do not know your enemy you cannot be prepared to protect yourself against them.

Credit for the bulk of information in this article goes to the documented series (click icon) of Frank Gaffney and the Center for Security Policy.

For background information read Know Your Enemy & You Probably Don’t and A Friend of the Tea Party. Really? articles.

Conservative Daily News allows a great deal of latitude in the topics contributors choose and their approaches to the content. We believe that citizens have a voice - one that should be heard above the mass media. Readers will likely not agree with every contributor or every post, but find reasons to think about the topic and respond with comments. We value differing opinions as well as those that agree. Opinions of contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of CDN, Anomalous Media or staff. Click here if you'd like to write for CDN.
Put This Story in your Circles and Share with your Friends

13 thoughts on “Obama’s Promise to Fund Jihad in America

  1. Jan Brown

    How can so much destruction take place in such a short time? My hindsite allows me to realize that this ‘movement’ began long before my brain gave “gave birth” to recognition of the Muslim/radical Islamic religion. It began with the congressman from Illinois was sworn into office using the Koran in place of a Bible. I thought that to be ‘rather odd’ & perhaps a little ‘UnAmerican’ but no alarms went off. I’m afraid many of Christian Americans had similar experiences & failed to realize the full threating impact to our own ‘freedom of religion’. In other words, we heard the rattle.. but didn’t see the snake….Now that we do, we must chop off the head. “Money talks” so we must cut off the head througfh funding of ~all organizations~ that even slightly indicate a connection to this Muslim religion. And we must take a good long look at our ‘vetting’ process (starting with our personal approach) and Polictical Correctness must go!! COMMON SENSE makes an excellant replacement…”if it looks like a duck, walk & sounds like a duck…The ONLY ones we owe anything to are our Founders & brave men & women that dedicated their lives to Keep it in tact.

    Susanne, the only exception I have with your well researched information would be the seemingly use of the word ‘Democrate” to describe these evil “taqiyyas”. Many of that party still cling to our Constitution,Flag & all it stands for.

    Looking forward to more.

    1. Suzanne

      Jan, you coined it! “we heard the rattle..but didn’t see the snake.” And yes, Americans must watch where we spend our money & ensure we’re not funding these agendas. About use of the term Democrat, I’ve considered that as well. I think I do clarify it with “most,” which is the case. I use the term in part to wake up Democrats who are not speaking out loudly enough for us to know they’re there. If they don’t like that association they need to correct it. I also use that term now, specifically, because we’re in an election between the two parties.

      Thank you for reading, for your comments and for your constructive criticism, I appreciate it very much.

      1. Jan Brown

        Suzanne, said this way I yield to you. I agree that ‘slience’ easily is part of the problem. Perhaps there is just so much debris in my path that I stumbled over the ‘bump in the road’..

        1. Suzanne Webb Post author

          Thank you, Jan. It is good to know how that might come across ro readers in general, though, and I do appreciate it.

    2. Jon

      Obama was not sworn in on a Koran. That is a widely debunked story that got traction because some people were very eager to have the worst of their paranoid delusions confirmed. In 2007 a Muslim American named Keith Ellison was sworn in using Thomas Jefferson’s Koran, but the big differences here are A) he is a practicing Muslim and B) his name is not Barack Obama.

      1. Suzanne Webb Post author

        I’ve seen that allegation repeatedly and wondered where it came from? Thank God that much of the process was held sacred. I enjoy your knack for coining phrases: “some were very eager to have the worst of their paranoid delusions confirmed.” How astute – and true :).

      2. Jan Brown

        Jon, seems perhaps I wasn’t clear on my “congressman & Koran” I know it wasn’t Obama, couldn’t recall Ellison’s name & thought He (Ellison) was from Illinois. Thanks for the heads up..have a tendancy to figure everyone is a mind reader.

        1. Suzanne

          If it’s any consolation, Jan, I didn’t read you that way. Wasn’t sure what generated Jon’s comment.

    3. Jay

      Wait… are you for freedom of religion or not?

      If you are for freedom of religion, then muslims and christians would be entitled to the same rights and respect.

      If you think that christianity deserves a special place in your country, then you are a bigot.

      Rather simple, huh?

      1. janbrown

        A bigot,a baker, a butcher & a candlestick maker all set out to sea..in hopes to find out what might better be…much as the searchers aboard the Nina,the Pinta & Santa Marie….Your own studies of history teach that ‘freedom of religion’ was to be free to practice Christianity in peace without persecution & violent punishment was their driving force. It was also a large block in the base of My Constitution & I proudly give it a ‘special place’ in this, MY country. I DID NOT SAY, I was againt the Muslim religion, I DID say that using the Koran ‘seemed’ unamerican..a vast difference. I DID say that funding should be stopped to the Muslim causes. WHY? Much for the same reason you probably shut & lock your doors….to protect that which is of great value to me.
        If that makes me a bigot….so be it.

        1. Jay

          If they meant freedom to practise christianity, you would think they would have been explicit in their wording.

          If christianity formed a large place in the constitution, why is it never mentioned in the constitution? In fact, where is the mention of the bible, god and jesus?

          “Your own studies of history teach that ‘freedom of religion’ was to be free to practice Christianity in peace without persecution & violent punishment was their driving force.”

          My own studies have taught me that a mere 14 after the recognition of the US as a nation, the treaty of Tripoli was signed. In this treaty it explicitly states that ‘the government of the united states of america is not in any sense founded on the christian religion.’ This treaty was written under George Washington and was signed by John Adams, and it was rather specific on the matter, don’t you think?

          1. Suzanne

            Very nice reply, Jan.

            Jay – What you regard “rather simple” does not translate to the rest of the world adhering to your over-simplified perspectives. So far your words alone have exemplified the definition of “bigoted.”

            It’s a fool’s chore to debate anyone dedicated to self-indulgence. Nor do I have any intention. Rather and purely for sake of all readers, I suggest understanding the truth AND context of the Treaty Of Tripoli as opposed to your maligned, cherry-picked and just as over-simplified one-liner.

            There are numerous relevant facts about this Treaty that debunk your quippish mistake. Article 11, to which you’ve alluded, is a mere snippet from within its own highly-questionable context, further taken from outside the Treaty’s entire historical context; language of the Treaty cannot be attributed to George Washington nor did he even read the Treaty; when the Treaty was reworked a mere 8 years afterwards Article 11 was conspicuously absent; and John Adams, the president under whom the Treaty was ratified – in a conversation with Jefferson about Muslim Pirates of the Barbary Conflict that this Treaty addressed – stated (among countless more):

            “The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were…the general principles of Christianity…I will avow that I then believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature.”

            I find it indisputable that America was indeed founded a Judeo-Christian nation. IMO only those stretching beyond reason for misconstrued fragments, in trying to re-enforce what they’d rather believe, will cherry-pick nits from an otherwise massive body of Judeo-Christian founding evidence to the contrary.

            As for what I personally believe about a barbaric and murderous “religion” seeking further to violate our nation’s laws in denying us of our own, versus an individual’s God-given liberty to practice their faith, is clearly beyond your capacity to grasp. Don’t presume otherwise else you prove yourself guilty of the very bigotry you allege.

            http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=125

            http://www.tektonics.org/qt/tripoli.html

            Bigotry defined: Stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.

Comments are closed.