Sunday, March 23, 2014

Was Esther Bossy? Purim occurs amidst “Ban Bossy” Campaign Posted by: Princella Smith March 19, 2014 , 1:17 pm Read more at

Sheryl Sandberg, the COO of Facebook, wants to ban the use of the word “bossy” as it pertains to young girls. She feels that it affects their desires to want to lead in the future. According to Sandberg, by the time these young ladies reach puberty, they are less and less likely to assert themselves or to aspire to lead because they do not want to be labeled negatively as an overbearing female.

Sandberg is no stranger to success. In 2013, she was ranked #8 on The Jerusalem Post’s  list of “The World’s 50 Most Influential Jews.” She has also been named one of Time Magazine’s 100 most influential people in the world, and is one half of a true power couple as her husband is David Goldberg, the current CEO of SurveyMonkey.

Sandburg clearly is no weak woman and overcame the label “bossy” which was applied to her during her ascent to the upper echelon of society.

Considering Sandberg’s impressive history, it is a curious notion that she selected this approach to empowering young women. It appears that addressing the root of the problem of young women’s lack of confidence in themselves would go much deeper than the use of such a petty adjective like “bossy”.

While the underlying premise of Sandberg’s campaign is both admirable and necessary, banning a common word is not the answer. In fact, it trivializes the larger issue with the negative psychology on our young women which can be loosely summed up by saying that even though women around the world are climbing the corporate ladder, becoming elected officials, and leading on the international stage in foreign affairs, there is still a strong undercurrent of pop culture which seemingly overpowers these advances by telling young women that their worth still boils down to a bottom line of how physically attractive they are.

It is sad but true that our young women are regularly inundated with the words “bitch,” “trick,” “hoe,” and “scandalous,” which are used as normal lexicon in music and movies. “Rape jokes” have an amazingly high popularity in their favorite comedies.

One wonders if Sandberg celebrated the Purim holiday as a child and if her family continues to celebrate it now. Queen Esther’s timeless story of standing in the gap for her people to prevent genocide at the hand of Haman will forever serve as an inspiration to Christians and Jews as it is a pivotal story in the Tanakh and the Christian Bible.

As was custom in those days, no one spoke to the king unless they were summoned or spoken to first—especially a woman, but Esther knew that she had to speak up to save her people. It is certain she did this with a level of finesse and grace that moved the king. Whether she was a man or a woman addressing the king at that point, it would have been important that the words said were succinct, strong, measured and controlled—not demanding, rattling, or “bossy”.  There is a real difference in being bossy and being a leader.

Both bossy men and bossy women are off-putting. The exercise of leadership is not only being courageous enough to take a stand but attentive enough to surroundings and details of a situation to know how to approach a situation. This should be taught to our young boys and young girls alike with an effort to revert back to raising young gentlemen and young ladies as opposed to today’s popular brand of “I’m brash, bold, and in your face.” Nothing—nothing AT ALL—can take the place of the charm and grace of a well-mannered, even-spoken young man or young woman.

Katie Rogers and Ruth Spencer wrote an interesting piece for The Guardian in which they interviewed parents on the topic. Here are excerpts from the most interesting quotes:

“… In my experience, the people who I’ve admired were leaders, not bosses. They were empathetic and listened to the people they were leading. That’s what I want my daughter and son to do, and that’s why I’m still OK with telling them not to be bossy. I understand that there is a lot of nuance associated with the word, which is why when I use a word like “bossy” with my children, I take the time to discuss the positive attributes I want them to demonstrate.” — Naama Bloom, age 41 and CEO of Hello Flo

“…[My daughter] can choose what she wants to wear and eat even at her young age. I want her to have her own opinion and be her own person. But sometimes she is bossy. What do I mean by that? She demands and does not ask. She gives orders instead of participating in the conversation – and I have flat out-looked at my daughter and said ‘don’t be bossy’. I’m not trying to take away her opinions, or stifle her in any way, but like every other person on the planet (no matter their sex), she needs to learn to be polite. And teaching her how to be articulate – and express herself in an appropriate way – will only help her be a successful, independent woman when she grows up. People will respect her opinions and not deem her as ‘bossy’ since she will be able to communicate what she thinks while respecting others… I will continue to tell my daughter when she is being bossy in hopes that she learns how to be assertive while also being respectful to others.” –Natascha Hainsworth, age 30, Runs a theatre company.

“Banning a word like bossy isn’t the answer. For some reason, as society progresses, we are failing our kids by not teaching them how to deal with adversity. As parents, part of our job is to help prepare our children for when they embark on their journey without us. If we try to simply remove struggle from their lives, and shelter them from what this world – positive or negative – might have in store for them, it is a disservice to our children…This is not a perfect world – by far – and utopia is but a dream. I am not saying we should crush all things that are positive, but learning to deal with some of the negative is a necessary component somewhere.” — From Brandon-Regina Payne-Hilton, Parents responding on Twitter

March is Women’s History Month. At the heart of women’s history is one brave young Jewish woman named Esther whose great stand has been characterized as leadership—not bossiness.


Cunningly, Christ Being Used to Thwart Support for Israel Posted by: Earl Cox March 19, 2014 , 1:17 pm Read more at

This article is sure to push the hot button of many, even my Christian brothers and sisters who have, despite facts, made up their minds that Israel is the aggressor and guilty of oppressing the poor Palestinians along with other non-Jews.  Because many have been duped and brainwashed into believing this absolute lie, anti-Semitism is alive and spreading throughout the world.  If there is anyone out there who does not know what it is, it is the hatred of the Jews and is diametrically opposite of our Christian belief.  To the modern mind, the phrase “anti-Semitism” generally conjures up images of goose-stepping Nazis, Germany and the Holocaust.   These very caricatures are what cause many today to miss the new and subtle anti-Semitism message catching hold everywhere at an alarming rate of speed.

When otherwise decent westerners, particularly church-going Christians, equate the phrase “anti-Semitism” with Nazis, Germany and the Holocaust only, we fail to recognize and accept our own guilt thus making us blind to the rising tide of anti-Semitism that has been slowly flooding our local churches, communities, families and even our own hearts and minds.

Anti-Semitism is an ancient evil that can be found in writings as far back as 270 B. C. and its basis is in religion.  Modern anti-Semitism stems from a concern for social or moral justice, but does not exclude the religious element.

In truth, most Christians did not participate in the pograms (massacres) of the past that caused the slaughter of countless Jews.   It was only a handful that actually participated, but this is fact:  a huge portion of society became convinced of the validity of the pograms and of Jewish guilt; these pograms were allowed to take place because the vast majority remained silent.

The new face of anti-Semitism in today’s world and today’s Church must be recognized.  The Muslim Brotherhood has been working patiently and quietly under the radar screen for years.  They have been infiltrating and embedding themselves into positions of influence in countries throughout the Middle East, Europe and, yes, even America.  So too, are they and other nefarious groups, working under the guise of the Christian faith, to influence the Christian Church in America and around the world to adopt a pro-Palestinian stance.  This Palestinian stance, of course, translates into anti-Israel bias.  They are targeting other arenas, such as the universities, but we as Christians are a huge target because American Christians have historically been pro-Israel.

Anti-Israel groups are subtle, sly operators and very patient.  Also there is a general ignorance of history on the part of the American public combined with their failure to recognize when they are being manipulated.  These groups often work through those who claim to be Arab Christians who have obtained places on the speaking circuit addressing church congregations and university students across America. Beware of these wolves in sheep’s clothing – as warned in God’s Holy Word – who will deceive even the elect.  They begin by talking about how we should love one another, followed by a subtle shift in the monologue.

Without a discernible transition, the talk becomes about how the poor Palestinians are suffering in refugee camps and how it is all because of Israel.  The thought of this injustice fills the audience with righteous indignation.  The speakers omit the fact that Palestinians are being used as spawns by Arab nations.  They are keeping them in squalor as refugees and this serves to keep the Palestinians stirred up so as to keep pressure on Israel.  The people then sympathize with the Palestinians and hate Israel and the Jews.  While these people claim to be Christians, the truth is their nationalism has been placed above their love for Christ.  Am I guilty of Judging?  No, I am just a simple fruit inspector and the Lord says we will know our Christian brothers and sisters by their fruit.

Many devout Christians visit Israel and the Palestinian territories on a regular basis.  They care deeply about the world we live in and have a genuine desire to make a positive contribution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.  Innocent, people-loving tourists believe all tour guides are created equal, that they provide their services without personal, social or political agendas and that they will provide just the history and the facts.  These tour groups often innocently hire tour-guide services (licensed by the State of Israel) that indeed have an agenda to slant participants against Israel and in favor of the Palestinians.  Unless tour participants have their antennas tuned to be on guard against all forms of subtle manipulation, they will be duped.  After all the guide is licensed by the State of Israel so what they say about Israel must be the truth.

It is important to know that not all Arab Christians are cut from the anti-Israel/anti-Jewish cloth.  Many, many Arab Christians know and understand the Bible and the significance of Israel and the Jews.  Yes, they, too, suffer severe persecution for their faith, even to the point of death.  They suffer discrimination, harassment, loss of income, physical assaults and death.  Yet they have remained faithful.  This persecution was not at the hands of Israel or the Jewish people.  The perpetrators were Arab Palestinians, their own people.

Many today are being taught “Replacement Theology” which has pulled the wool over the eyes of many.  This theology teaches that where the Bible talks about Israel and the Jews, it is today referring to Christians and the church.  It also teaches that God is through with the Jews.  They are no longer His chosen people. ”After all,” some say, “Didn’t the Jews kill Jesus?”  The answer to that question is, “NO!”  The Bible, in the New Testament, clearly teaches that Jesus suffered on the cross to pay the price for the sins of all mankind.  In the New Testament in the Book of Romans the Bible emphatically teaches that Christians are only branches grafted onto the natural olive tree (the Jews) and that we (Christians) should be careful never to think ourselves “as supporting the root” but rather to be mindful that it is the root (the Jews) which supports us.  Remember we Christians worship a Jewish Messiah.

Be vigilant my brothers and sisters.  Recognize what is happening right before our eyes.  In a famous quote attributed to George Santayana he said, “Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it.”  God promised He will bless those who bless Israel.  We must not be ignorant of foundational Truth and we must possess knowledge of history, otherwise the doors are wide open for the enemy to manipulate the hearts, minds, souls and spirits of all—especially those who claim the name of Christ.  The Bible clearly states that the Jews are God’s chosen people and Israel is His special land.  It is the only land in the world whose surveyor was God Himself.  The Bible warns us about touching the ’apple of His eye’ and we must not take this lightly.

Reprinted with author’s permisison


The Ever-Elusive Peace: A History of Rejection Posted by: Yonina Pritzker March 20, 2014 , 9:21 am Read more at

As pressure to reach a peace agreement mounts, strong voices urge Israel to relinquish the land that has borne the name and history of the Jewish people for four millennia.

Chaim Weizman, the first President of Israel, was once asked, “Why don’t you just accept the offer to establish a Jewish State in Uganda?” He answered, “That’s like me asking why you drove 50 miles to see your mother when there are so many other nice old ladies so much closer to your home.”

The Land of Israel is the Jewish National Homeland. The history, faith, religion, culture, and identity of the Jewish people has been, is, and forevermore will be, tied to this land which bears their name, from its ancient name of Judea, to its modern name of Israel.

The Jewish nation lived and worshipped as a free and sovereign nation in the Land of Israel, from the time Joshua re-entered the land with the Israelites, until the Babylonians destroyed the holy Temple in Jerusalem in 586 BCE.  Seventy years later, the Jews rebuilt this Temple, which then stood for centuries until the Romans destroyed it in the year 70 CE. The Temple Mount in the holy city of Jerusalem remains the holiest place within Judaism, and unto this day, every Jew turns towards the Temple Mount to pray.

Throughout the centuries, many conquerors tried to incorporate the Land of Israel into their own empires: the Babylonian empire, Persian and Greco-Assyrian, Roman, Byzantine, Arab Caliphates, Turkish, Crusader, Ayyubid, Mameluke, and Ottoman.

But despite these attempts, Israel remained the country of the Jewish people, where they have lived continuously since ancient times; and Jerusalem has served as the capital of only one nation: the Jewish nation.

Through every banishment and forced exile, the Jewish people looked to their ancient homeland, prayed to return to their land, included the mention of Israel and Jerusalem in daily prayers, and imbued each life-cycle celebration and festival gathering with the yearning for Shivat Tzion, for a return to the land of their ancestors.

Wherever a Jew was, his heart was always in Jerusalem. When he sat by the waters of Babylon, he wept as he remembered Zion. “If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, may my right hand forget its cunning. May my tongue cleave to its palate… if I put not Jerusalem above my highest joy” (Psalm 137). From Spain in the 12th century, Yehuda HaLevi cried “Libi B’Mizrach, Va’Ani b’sof ha’Ma’arav;” “My heart is in the east, though I am at the ends of the west.”

In the modern era, the historical and religious rights of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel were codified in international law at the San Remo Conference of 1920, a meeting of the Allied Powers of WWI to decide the future of the former territories of the Ottoman Empire. At this conference, a binding agreement was enacted between these world powers “to reconstitute the ancient Jewish State within its historic borders.”

At the same time, Arab national entities were designated for other areas of the former Ottoman Empire. Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and ultimately, Jordan were all established out of what had been provinces of the Ottoman Empire.

For the Jewish National Homeland, this international forum in San Remo allocated all the land that is between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, as well as, the land that currently comprises the country of Jordan, along with the Golan Heights, and Gaza. They allocated these regions of the former Ottoman Empire for the Jewish homeland in recognition of the fact that these were the areas where the Jewish people lived, where the history of the Jewish nation took place, and where the prophets of Israel delivered their message.

In these regions, we find Hebron which was the first capital of Israel, burial place of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs of Israel. Here we also find Bethlehem, the city where the Matriarch Rachel is buried, where Jews visited and prayed through the centuries. In 1830 the Turks issued a royal decree recognizing Jewish rights at this Jewish holy site. The governor of Damascus instructed the Mufti of Jerusalem that “the tomb of esteemed Rachel…they (the Jews) are accustomed to visit it from ancient days; and no one is permitted to prevent them or oppose them (from doing) this.”

Shechem was the capital of the Northern Kingdom of Israel. It is the city where Joseph is buried. Shiloh, the city of Priests, housed the holy Tabernacle before it was brought to Jerusalem. We read of Joshua in Jericho, Amos in Tekoa, Jeremiah in Anatot, and Jacob in Beit El. These regions of Shomron (Samaria) and Yehuda (Judea) constitute the Jewish spiritual heartland which is steeped in Jewish history dating back to Biblical times.

The word “mandate” means trust. As stated in Article 6 of the Mandate, the British were entrusted with assuring the “close settlement of the Jews on the land.” This was in keeping with a unanimous vote of the League of Nations which wanted to restore the Jewish people to their native land, thereby correcting an historical injustice. The British affirmed the Jewish connection to the Land of Israel, stating unequivocally that the Jewish nation was in this land “as of right and not on sufferance.”

The British, nonetheless, went on to violate their obligations under these binding acts of international law by giving 77% of the lands allocated exclusively for the Jewish homeland, to create the Arab country of Jordan, or Transjordan, as it was initially called. The British gave away these areas that were steeped in Jewish history, areas where the tribes of Israel had made their homes, thereby leaving only the land that was between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River for the Jewish National Homeland. The Jewish right to settle anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea remains enshrined in international law to this day.

Additional attempts to wrest the Jewish homeland away from the Jewish people have continued throughout the decades since San Remo. And we are seeing the current rendition today, as once again, pressure is being brought to bear on the Jewish nation to forfeit its legacy in order to appease those who reject her right to exist.

The Peel Commission advanced another such attempt. In 1937, it proposed a partition of the 23% of remaining Mandate land, after the British withheld 77% of the Mandate to create Transjordan. The Arabs rejected the proposal of the Peel Commission, just as they would reject every proposal that included a Jewish state within any borders. Instead, the Arab Bludan Conference, in September of 1937, proposed a boycott of “all Jewish goods and activities,” a tactic often used to criminalize the Jewish presence in the region. It is a tactic that is being utilized against the State of Israel again today.

The Partition Plan was yet another attempt to wrest away from the Jewish people additional portions of the Jewish homeland. Ironically, this November 29, 1947, vote of the General Assembly of the United Nations on Resolution 181 which, similar to the Peel Commission, tried to partition the remaining 23% of the land allocated for the Jewish homeland, has often, erroneously been viewed as the legal basis for the modern State of Israel. In fact, this Partition Resolution, which reserved for the Jewish State only 17% of the original Mandate, in illegal abrogation of Jewish rights to this land, was true to its name: it was yet one more attempt to subdivide the Land of Israel in order to appease those who have repeatedly rejected the right to sovereignty and self-determination for the Jewish people in their ancestral homeland.

The San Remo Conference along with various treaties following World War I succeeded in establishing independent countries sought by the Arab nationalists: the country of Iraq gained full independence in 1932, the country of Lebanon was established in 1943, and the country of Syria attained their independence in 1946. Nonetheless, when the modern State of Israel similarly exercised its sovereign right and formally declared statehood in 1948, the Arab armies of Egypt, Lebanon, Transjordan, Syria, and Iraq immediately attacked the nascent state. Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab League announced: “It will be a war of annihilation. It will be a momentous massacre in history…”

Then, in 1949, when the Armistice Demarcation Lines were drawn, this line, which is commonly called “The Green Line,” and which many today attempt to reinvent and claim as borders – namely, so called “’67 borders” – was rejected vehemently by Syria, Jordan, and Egypt as delineating any type of border. The Armistice agreement with Egypt stated,

“The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary…”

The Armistice agreement with Jordan included the following statement:

“The provisions of this article shall not be interpreted as prejudicing, in any sense, an ultimate political settlement between the Parties to this Agreement. The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in Articles v and vi of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto.”

And Syria was adamant that there be no misunderstanding, stating,

“It is emphasized that the following arrangements for the Armistice Demarcation Line between the Israeli and Syrian armed forces and for the Demilitarized Zone are not to be interpreted as having any relation whatsoever to ultimate territorial arrangements affecting the two Parties to this Agreement.”

These agreements were emphatic in ensuring that the Armistice line would not be considered a formal boundary, once again, rejecting a Jewish state within any borders.

Whether by further subdivision of the land, or through boycotts to criminalize the Jewish State, these tactics stem from the ongoing rejection of the Jewish people’s right to sovereignty and self-determination in their ancestral homeland. And while much attention is focused on the years of 1948 and 1967 as the lynchpins for strife in the region, in fact, attempts to rid the land of the Jewish people, as well as, violent attacks on Jews, were as clear before these dates as they were after these dates.

There was the Hebron massacre of 1929, when Arabs slaughtered their Jewish neighbors who had resided in Hebron for, literally, thousands of years. There was no “Green Line” at this time; there was no modern State of Israel at this time.

In 1938, in Tiberius, terrorists went from house to house killing parents and children. Again, there was no “Green Line,” no Jewish State.

In 1954, in Scorpion’s Pass (Maale Akrabim), 11 men and women were murdered as their omnibus travelling from Eilat to Beersheba was attacked. This was long before the 6 Day War of 1967.

In 1956, in Shafrir, terrorists fired on a synagogue full of children and teenagers.

In 1972, Israeli Olympic athletes were killed in Munich, Germany.

In 1974, schoolchildren on a field trip from Tzfat were executed in Ma’alot in northern Israel:

Time’s David Halevy was among the first to enter. “…The movement of stretchers seemed endless.” The carnage, once the shooting ended, included 17 teen-agers dead and 70 wounded. (Time Magazine; Monday, May. 27, 1974).

On June 1, 2001, a terrorist detonated a bomb while standing in a crowd of mostly teenagers outside a discotheque in Tel Aviv. Twenty one people were killed and 120 were wounded.

Year after year, there have been terrorist incidents, too numerous to mention here.

The message has been consistent: it is the absolute rejection of the right of the Jewish people to security, to self-determination, and to peace.

The right of the Jewish people to live in their historic homeland of Israel was rejected before 1948, and after the reestablishment of the modern State of Israel in 1948; before 1967, and after 1967, when, besieged by hostile Arab armies, Israel recovered those lands that had been internationally mandated and guaranteed to the Jewish people at San Remo; and this basic right is still being denied today.

In fact, after the war in 1967, Israel attempted to make peace with her neighbors. But, similar to every previous rejection of a Jewish state within any borders, the Arabs rejected Israel’s desire to negotiate peace, and instead, issued the “The Three No’s” of Khartoum, namely, no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations with Israel. This resolution prompted Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban to declare, “This is the first war in history which has ended with the victors suing for peace and the vanquished calling for unconditional surrender.”

Had the neighboring countries and peoples ever offered Israel any kind of reciprocity, any acknowledgement of the rights of the Jewish nation to a sovereign state in her ancestral homeland; any recognition that the Jews, like the Arabs, were entitled to self–determination in their own homeland carved out of the vanquished Ottoman Empire; had they welcomed, or at least, tolerated, the Jewish people’s right to their sliver of the Middle East, the right to one Jewish state amidst 21 Arab states – there would be peace.


Allah's Sword Of Terror Posted by: Raymond Ibrahim March 17, 2014 , 9:56 am Read more at

The first time I heard about Khalid bin al-Walid—the 7th century Muslim jihadi affectionately known in Islamic history as “The Sword of Allah”—was when I was in college researching for my MA thesis on the Battle of Yarmuk, when the Muslims, under Khalid’s generalship, defeated the Byzantines in 636, opening the way for the historic Islamic conquests.

Nearly a decade and a half later, Khalid, that jihadi par excellence, has come to personify a dichotomy for me—how the jihad is understood in the West and how it really is: officially, Western academia, media, and politicians portray it as defensive war to protect Muslim honor and territory; in reality, however, jihad is all too often little more than a byword to justify the most primitive and barbaric passions of its potential recruits and practitioners.

Based on the English language sources I perused in college, Khalid was a heroic, no-nonsense kind of jihadi—fierce but fair, stern but just.  He was the champion of the Apostasy Wars, when he slaughtered countless Arabs for trying to leave Islam after the death of Muhammad.

Modern day Muslims writing about Khalid—see for example Pakistani army lieutenant-general A.I Akram’s The Sword of Allah—had naught but praise for him, the scourge of infidels and apostates.

But as years went by, I came across more arcane and Arabic sources telling of the “darker side” of The Sword—a depraved and sadistic side.

For example, only recently I came across a video of a modern-day Egyptian Salafi explaining how Khalid raped Layla, the wife of Malik bin Nuwayra—but only after he severed her husband’s head, lit it on fire, and cooked his dinner on it.

Khalid was recalled and questioned by the caliph—not because he killed and dined on an apostate’s head and “married” his wife, but because some believed that Malik was still Muslim, not an apostate to be treated so, and that Khalid killed him on the accusation of apostasy only as a pretext to take possession of his wife, whose beauty was renowned.

In the words of Ibn Kathir’s authoritative historical tome, The Beginning and the End (al-bidaya we al-nihaya), “And he [Khalid] ordered his [Malik’s] head and he combined it with two stones and cooked a pot over them.  And Khalid ate from it that night to terrify the apostate Arab tribes and others.  And it was said that Malik’s hair created such a blaze that the meat was so thoroughly cooked.”

More eye-opening is the way the videotaped Egyptian cleric recounts this whole narrative with awe and admiration—boasting, for example, how that when Khalid entered the caliph’s tent for questioning he was “wearing armor all soaked and rusted from blood [of his enemies], with arrows sticking out of his turban.”

As for the near-cannibalistic meal that the Sword of Allah ate, the cleric complained that “People wonder how our lord Khalid could have eaten from such meat?  Oh yes—he ate from it! Our lord Khalid had a very strong character, a great appetite, and everything!  All to terrorize the desert Arabs [apostates].  The matter requires determination; these matters require strength—terrorism.”

Of course, all this accords with the Koran’s many commands to “strike terror” into the hearts of disbelievers, be they born infidels or apostates (see Koran 3:151, 8:12, 8:60).

Now, let us fast-forward to the modern era’s “Arab Spring” and U.S. support for “freedom-fighters” trying to “liberate” Syria (the official, Western narrative of the jihad), and let us reflect on its true nature—from a jihadi (ironically named “Khalid”) biting into the heart of a soldier (and thus striking terror into the hearts of Assad’s “apostate” regime) to Islamic clerics justifying rape and prostitution to gratify the many swords of Allah.

And at last, let us understand that the heartbeat of the jihad—sex, violence, and rapine—has scarcely changed in nearly fourteen centuries.


Saturday, March 15, 2014

The Black Hitler of Harlem