Iranian Regime Waiting for the Twelfth Imam and Creeping Sharia in America

All this week, Glenn has been asking the questions - Who is looking out for Israel? And, who is standing up for freedom here and all over the world? Well, one thing is for certain- we know the answer to these questions is certainly not Iran. They want to take both the United States and Israel down and clear the path for the Twelfth Imam. Glenn welcomes a special guest to this program... a former member of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard shares some frightening video that proves the regime is indeed preparing for the return of the Twelfth Imam. Plus, CBN Host Erick Stackelbeck.

Video:  Iranian Regime Waiting for the Twelfth Imam

Click Here for the backup show notes on this program

The Terrorist Next Door: How the Government is Deceiving You About the Islamist Threat   -  Comes Out May 2nd

Are We Standing on the Wrong Side… Of History?

Obama and Ahmadinejad

Is Barack Obama the "promised warrior" coming to help the Hidden Imam of Shiite Muslims conquer the world?

The question has made the rounds in Iran since last month, when a pro-government Web site published a Hadith (or tradition) from a Shiite text of the 17th century. The tradition comes from Bahar al-Anvar (meaning Oceans of Light) by Mullah Majlisi, a magnum opus in 132 volumes and the basis of modern Shiite Islam.

According to the tradition, Imam Ali Ibn Abi-Talib (the prophet's cousin and son-in-law) prophesied that at the End of Times and just before the return of the Mahdi, the Ultimate Saviour, a "tall black man will assume the reins of government in the West." Commanding "the strongest army on earth," the new ruler in the West will carry "a clear sign" from the third imam, whose name was Hussein Ibn Ali. The tradition concludes: "Shiites should have no doubt that he is with us."

In a curious coincidence Obama's first and second names--Barack Hussein--mean "the blessing of Hussein" in Arabic and Persian. His family name, Obama, written in the Persian alphabet, reads O Ba Ma, which means "he is with us," the magic formula in Majlisi's tradition.

Mystical reasons aside, the Khomeinist establishment sees Obama's rise as another sign of the West's decline and the triumph of Islam. Obama's promise to seek unconditional talks with the Islamic Republic is cited as a sign that the U.S. is ready to admit defeat. Obama's position could mean abandoning three resolutions passed by the United Nations Security Council setting conditions that Iran should meet to avoid sanctions. Seeking unconditional talks with the Khomeinists also means an admission of moral equivalence between the U.S. and the Islamic Republic. It would imply an end to the description by the U.S. of the regime as a "systematic violator of human rights."

Obama has abandoned claims by all U.S. administrations in the past 30 years that Iran is "a state sponsor of terrorism." Instead, he uses the term "violent groups" to describe Iran-financed outfits such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

Obama has also promised to attend a summit of the Organization of the Islamic Conference within the first 100 days of his presidency. Such a move would please the mullahs, who have always demanded that Islam be treated differently, and that Muslim nations act as a bloc in dealings with Infidel nations.

Obama's election would boost President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's chances of winning a second term next June. Ahmadinejad's entourage claim that his "steadfastness in resisting the American Great Satan" was a factor in helping Obama defeat "hardliners" such as Hillary Clinton and, later, it hopes, John McCain.

"President Ahmadinejad has taught Americans a lesson," says Hassan Abbasi, a "strategic adviser" to the Iranian president. "This is why they are now choosing someone who understands Iran's power." The Iranian leader's entourage also point out that Obama copied his campaign slogan "Yes, We Can" from Ahmadinejad's "We Can," used four years ago.

A number of Khomeinist officials have indicated their preference for Obama over McCain, who is regarded as an "enemy of Islam." A Foreign Ministry spokesman says Iran does not wish to dictate the choice of the Americans but finds Obama "a better choice for everyone." Ali Larijani, Speaker of the Islamic Majlis, Iran's ersatz parliament, has gone further by saying the Islamic Republic "prefers to see Barack Obama in the White House" next year.

Tehran's penchant for Obama, reflected in the official media, increased when the Illinois senator chose Joseph Biden as his vice-presidential running mate. Biden was an early supporter of the Khomeinist revolution in 1978-1979 and, for the past 30 years, has been a consistent advocate of recognizing the Islamic Republic as a regional power. He has close ties with Khomeinist lobbyists in the U.S. and has always voted against sanctions on Iran.

Ahmadinejad has described the U.S. as a "sunset" (ofuli) power as opposed to Islam, which he says is a "sunrise" (toluee) power. Last summer, he inaugurated an international conference called World Without America--attended by anti-Americans from all over the world, including the U.S.

Seen from Tehran, Obama's election would demoralize the U.S. armed forces by casting doubt on their victories in Iraq and Afghanistan, if not actually transforming them into defeat. American retreat from the Middle East under Obama would enable the Islamic Republic to pursue hegemony of the region. Tehran is especially interested in dominating Iraq, thus consolidating a new position that extends its power to the Mediterranean through Syria and Lebanon.

During the World Without America conference, several speakers speculated that Obama would show "understanding of Muslim grievances" with regard to Palestine. Ahmadinejad hopes to persuade a future President Obama to adopt the "Iranian solution for Palestine," which aims at creating a single state in which Jews would quickly become a minority.

Judging by anecdotal evidence and the buzz among Iranian bloggers, while the ruling Khomeinists favor Obama, the mass of Iranians regard (and dislike) the Democrat candidate as an appeaser of the mullahs. Iran, along with Israel, is the only country in the Middle East where the United States remains popular. An Obama presidency, perceived as friendly to the oppressive regime in Tehran, may change that.

by Amir Taheri, author of 10 books on Iran, the Middle East and Islam. His new book The Persian Night: Iran under the Khomeinist Revolution will be published by Encounter Books in November.

Video:  White House ‘Big Dig’ Engulfs West Wing  Upgrade… Or?

Is there a threat of Sharia Law in America? Are we the American taxpayers funding terror? Are we unwittingly contributing to the destruction of our own Constitution? Is there a financial jihad being waged against America? Discussed here, some of the laws being passed here in America and what we are doing to ourselves... Glenn and a special studio audience for this program were joined by: Christopher Holton from The Center for Security Policy and Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum.

Enter video caption here

Video:  Sharia Law in America Part I

Senate to hold hearings on Muslims' rights

Some Good Resources:

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)

Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America

A God Who Hates: The Courageous Woman Who Inflamed the Muslim World Speaks Out Against the Evils of Islam

The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran

The Coming Revolution: Struggle for Freedom in the Middle East 

The right of return is the UN's plan to overwhelm the Jews with Muslim immigration into Israel.  Its a lot like illegal immigration, the the government ignores if not promotes in the USA!!

Related:

The UN’s True Believer

Exposed:  The US-Saudi Libya Deal  -  You invade Bahrain. We take out Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. This, in short, is the essence of a deal struck between the Barack Obama administration and the House of Saud. Two diplomatic sources at the United Nations independently confirmed that Washington, via Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, gave the go-ahead for Saudi Arabia to invade Bahrain and crush the pro-democracy movement in their neighbor in exchange for a "yes" vote by the Arab League for a no-fly zone over Libya - the main rationale that led to United Nations Security Council resolution 1973. The revelation came from two different diplomats,...

US Orders Saudi Invasion of Bahrain

Obama: The UN’s True Believer

Anything so as not to appear to be like George Bush.

That was the not-so-hidden theme of President Barack Obama’s speech on Libya last Monday. In his first crack at his predecessor, Obama defended his decision to not expand the American mission in Libya by saying “we went down that road in Iraq.” In another, an allusion to the superiority of his approach to foreign affairs over that of Bush’s, Obama stressed the fact he was acting in Libya out of humanitarian motives and on the basis of a United Nations (UN) mandate (Bush did not obtain one for his Iraq invasion).

”The Libyan opposition, and the Arab League, appealed to the world to save lives in Libya,” Obama said. “At my direction, America led an effort with our allies at the United Nations Security Council to pass an historic Resolution that authorized a No-Fly Zone to stop the regime’s attacks from the air, and further authorized all necessary measures to protect the Libyan people.”

But while Obama is priding himself on not being like George Bush, the current president’s well-known penchant for multilateral action abroad and for putting American interests and foreign policy in the hands of international bodies is turning out to be a disaster for everyone involved, especially for the Libyans. In the end, American reliance on the UN to determine its foreign policy will ultimately wind up costing more money and lives than a quick and massive, unilateral NATO invasion. At the other end of the scale, negotiations and no intervention would have even been more preferable.

Obama stated the UN established the No-Fly Zone to protect Libyans from Gaddafi and proudly said in his speech NATO warplanes prevented a massacre in Benghazi, which the Libyan dictator’s troops were poised to overrun two weeks ago. While this is true, Obama failed to mention that it took three weeks to get that mandate, during which time Gaddafi’s troops ousted most of the rebel forces from Western Libya.

Before their ouster, the rebels occupied towns and cities as close as 30 kilometres to Tripoli. A quick intervention by NATO ground troops to bolster rebel positions, or the threat to do so, would have seen Gaddafi’s small army confined to the Tripoli area. Military force is the only thing a nasty bully like Gaddafi appears to understand. George Bush’s invasion of Iraq, for example, caused the Libyan leader to give up his weapons of mass destruction program, since Gaddafi was afraid he would be next.

But during this wait for UN approval for action, the Libyan dictator captured the rebel-held areas in Western Libya, after which he sent in his secret police to hunt down rebel supporters. The resulting death toll is unknown. The hunt for rebel sympathizers continued as his forces advanced into rebel-held Eastern Libya. After their retreat, several hundred people were listed as missing by the Libyan Red Crescent. In a dozen cases, Human Rights Watch reports “government forces answered the mobile phone of the missing person.” Gaddafi’s “campaign of killing”, which Obama said the UN-mandated bombing stopped, continues.

Ironically, to end the violence and the killing, Obama’s current proposed plan entails violating the UN mandate he is so proud of having brought about. But Obama would never admit he is doing so, since the UN is sacrosanct among leftists, and he would also be acting, once again, like George Bush in his unwillingness to be bound by the UN’s restrictions (Obama has previously said he wants Gaddafi gone, but regime change is also not part of the UN mandate).

This latest mandate violation concerns the proposed plan under consideration by Obama and NATO to arm and train the rebel force, which has proven woefully inadequate in battle against Gaddafi’s troops. But Paragraph 9 of UN Resolution 1970, which establishes sanctions against Libya, unambiguously states: “… all Member States shall immediately take the necessary measures to prevent the direct or indirect supply … to the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (Republic)… of arms and related materials of all types…”  Arming the rebels would therefore be illegal.

However, in a contortion worthy of Houdini, Hillary Clinton says Paragraph 4 of UN Resolution 1973 allows arms shipments to the rebels. But if so, this passage, which only mentions “necessary measures,” says this is to happen only if civilians are “under threat of attack.” If Gaddafi pulls back to Western Libya and allows the war to settle into a stalemate, then there is no legal justification for the Obama administration to pursue this policy. Moreover, arming and training the rebels will be very expensive and lead to more violence and death in a protracted struggle.

Other dangers also exist in giving the rebels weapons. A justifiable fear exists the United States would be arming hardcore Islamists among their number who would one day turn their guns against the West, which speaks against the plan. Also speaking against the plan is the fact the rebels want to kill Gaddafi and his supporters, tribal or otherwise, which is the main reason for his fierce resistance. A warning against such massacres was issued to the rebels this week, and such admonitions usually do not arise in a vacuum.

Rebel massacres with American-supplied weapons would undoubtedly not look good on the White House, especially after the UN resolution Obama sponsored to protect Libyan civilians. Such a horrific development would be particularly embarrassing for the president who said in his Monday speech: “The United States is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.” In this case, his shipping arms to the rebels may actually result in such slaughter and mass graves.

Like with Tunisia and Egypt, the Obama administration appears not to have had any prepared policy regarding an uprising in Libya, proving once again it is reactive rather than proactive and deeply over its head in the foreign affairs field. Relying on UN resolutions to determine American action in Libya is producing a worse-case scenario: a long, expensive and exhausting conflict with a large number of civilian casualties, which the “historic Resolution” and American air intervention were meant to prevent. It is a scenario that may yet require American soldiers, despite the president’s and Defense Secretary Robert Gate’s denials, if Gaddafi threatens to overrun Eastern Libya again.

---

Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com  -  URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/04/01/obama-the-un%e2%80%99s-true-believer/

Exposed:  The US-Saudi Libya Deal

Who is Barack Obama?  -  A Terrifying Analysis – Israel Commentary

U.N. Admits at Least $600G Lost on Overpriced Boat that Housed Haiti Peacekeepers

So $62,590,000 has been spent to kill people without the consent of Congress:  At least 110 Tomahawk Missiles Fired at Libya by US  -  Editor’s Note: Each Tomahawk missile costs $569,000.

Quote of the Day:  “Barack Obama has now fired more Tomahawk Cruise Missiles than all other Nobel Peace Prize winners combined!”