Those 'Tolerant' Muslims

There is much angst and whining in these United States over the recent Arizona law that (gasp!) actually required state officials to enforce already-existing national immigration law. The open-borders lobby is insistent that enforcing existing law is intolerant and racist.

So I'm sure that the same grievance-mongers who are so upset about Arizona's law will be quick to take offense at the restrictions Dubai (and most other Muslim countries) place on visitors. According to a story in the United Kingdom's Daily Mail website, these restrictions include the following:

• Alcohol is only allowed in licensed restaurants, pubs, clubs, private venues. And to drink at home, you must have a special alcohol licence. Alcohol can only be consumed by over 21s.


• Drugs are strictly forbidden, and even having a residual amount in your bag or on clothing could result in a four-year jail sentence. Even if you are importing prescription drugs you may need to get permission from the UAE authorities first.


• Sex outside of marriage is illegal and sharing a hotel room could land you in a police cell.


• Holding hands is tolerated if you are married, but kissing and hugging is considered an offence against public decency.


• Dancing is only allowed in the privacy of your home or at licensed clubs. Dancing in public is classed as indecent and provocative.


• Offensive language, spitting and aggressive behaviour (including hand gestures) is though to be unacceptable. British offenders have been known to receive a six-month jail sentence for such an act and some have been deported.


• Drink-driving is illegal and the UAE has a ZERO-tolerance policy. Even having the smallest amount of alcohol in your system is banned. Tailgating, speeding, racing, lane jumping, or using a mobile phone while driving are also against the law.


• Addressing women in public, or taking their photo without permission is strictly frowned upon and it is forbidden to take pictures of government buildings.

So to recap. Enforcing existing immigration law in the United States is racist. But it is perfectly OK for foreign countries to place far more restrictive limits on visitors. As an aside, how does Mexico treat visitors? I think we all know the answer to that - they are famous for their shakedown tactics and the corruption and arrogance toward foreigners are well-documented. I'll take all this outrage over the Arizona law with more than a grain of salt when and if they adopt open-borders policies in their own country. And when the professional open-borders lobby targets countries other than the United States.

Remembering 9/11

I have been struck by the many posts on Facebook and other places remembering the attacks of September 11, 2001. So I thought I would post a few thoughts as well.

It is interesting how no one in our media (and few in our current Administration) seems to want to recall that this attack was unprovoked, uncalled for and thoroughly against every law of war that there is. It is strange how most Americans seem to have forgotten that the same people who organized the attacks of September 11 were the same folks who attacked US military bases, who attacked US embassies, who attacked US warships and who had tried once before to destroy the World Trade Center. And that these people were utterly unmolested by the US government prior to September 11.

The attackers of the World Trade Center on September 11 were all Muslim. They were mainly from Saudi Arabia, but their countries of origins were largely irrelevant to their mission. No government officially backed, them though many - including Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and others - gave them refuge and supplied money and training facilities. The Muslim terrorists who carried out the September 11 attacks and their ilk (such as Hezbollah) were fired by the ideals of Muhammad - the failed businessman who despite being run out of Mecca somehow manged (due entirely to a fortunate marriage) to create the greatest force for bloodshed and suffering the world has ever seen. Muslim armies exploded out of Arabia in the mid-sixth century AD and proceeded to being a campaign of blood and terror that would cause half the world to end up in the chains of Islam - a religion that is nearly as harsh on its female adherents as it is to anyone who is not a member. Islam has a simple ideal - join or die. And once joined, you can never leave. Trying to convert is met by death in the Arab countries - by imprisonment and 'reeducation' in the supposedly moderate ones such as Indonesia and Malaysia.

For al Quaeda and its many sympathizers around the world, such as the regimes in Iraq, Iran and many of the powers that be in other Muslim states, there are no rules of war. They are essentially cowards - fighting behind the unwilling human shields of the captive populations and refusing to show their faces. They wear no uniform, carry no flag and answer to no defined command structure. This is the reason that the Geneva Conventions specifically deny terrorists and those who fight without following acceptable rules of war the benefits of their protections.

Let us never forget the evil that these attackers did and continue to try to do. When we tried to fight them with criminal courts and lawyers, the lawyers turned against us, like the traitress Lynne Stewart and the courts, lacking any understanding of military strategy, ended up using laws the United States never agreed to to force us to allow these men to use our own courts against us. Only when President George W. Bush, in one of the most courageous decisions a president has undertaken in recent years, unleashed the military against their sponsor states did their reign of terror slowly begin to be brought under control. As Americans, we should know these people better. We have fought them before and for similar reasons - have we already forgotten the Barbary Wars against the Muslim Pashas of North Africa?

And then too, let us not forget that these enemies of civilization follow the creed that has been trying to destroy the West since Muhammad led his first imperial jihad out of the Arabia in the mid-sixth century AD. The civilizations of North Africa - wiped from the face of the Earth. Spain conquered in 714, France barely saved by Charles Martel in 732. None of that was provoked either. The Crusades were a reaction to the Muslim wars of conquest, not an action. I wish more Americans realized that. The people who attacked us on 9/11 are the ideological heirs of Muhammad and his bloodthirsty wars of conquest that nearly conquered the entire world. Europe barely escaped this fate many times, most recently in the campaigns of 1680 before the gates of Vienna, when forces led by the military genius Prince Eugene of Savoy fought off a Muslim force led by the Ottoman Sultans. After first serving in the great defense of Vienna in 1683, he finally stopped the Muslim tide in its tracks with his victories at Belgrade and Petrovaradin in the mid-eighteenth century. That is less than three hundred years ago - no time at all in terms of history. Muslims spent nearly eight hundred years trying to bring down the Byzantine Empire before they finally succeeded in 1453. A mere three centuries is nothing.

Many have claimed that Christianity is a greater force of evil that Islam and there are certainly many episodes of terror and brutality in the kingdoms that call themselves Christian. Nor have the Church's leaders always shown to advantage. But I cannot find any similar campaign to conquer the world as that carried out by Muslim armies for nearly a thousand years. Christianity has never tried to take by military force any of the traditional Muslim homelands in Arabia - I do not count Israel as that is a special case and is not a traditional Muslim homeland in any case. Christianity is also not a religion that mixes politics with its preaching. Although many political leaders have wrapped themselves in the Church, at no time has any Pope or other religious leader sent Christian armies out to conquer the world by force of arms for Christiantiy as Muslim leaders have done for centuries. And Christianity is aided by the fact that it has traditionally been a bottom up religion. many of its most influential leaders are not men of great power, but rather poor or ignobly born men. Islam, incontrast, is a religion run by the elites. Chirstianity is not, though it has gone through phases where the elites have tried.

As to the argument of imperialism, the West has been practicing imperialism for a far shorter time than has Islam. Islam has been exporting blood and war since roughly 550 AD. The West began to practice such in the 1500s, and mass imperialism did not become popular in Europe until the 1800s. Quite a difference. Nor did European imperialism involve forcible religious conversion in most cases - again utterly unlike Islam. In fact, under TE Lawrence, British imperial forces actually aided Muslims against other Muslims - the forces of Ottoman Turkey And the US itself has fought alongside Muslims many times - including defending Bosnians from other Christians. But to the wild-eyed Muslims, this matters not at all.

I put all this to paper to remind America that the attacks of September 11 did not occur in a vacuum. Are all Muslims bloodthirsty monsters? Of course not. But Islam itself has a streak of imperialist violence we would do well to remember . And we also would do well to remember that this is the same religion that calls non-Muslims inferiors and requires submission by such to Muslims. This attack is part of a long story of war and conquest. It was not begun by Christians, but if our children are to survive to see a world where they can freely worship and speak in public, we may need to finish it. In that vein I call upon all Americans to think well about the events eight years ago. While we argue about 'torture' and 'Abu Ghraib', Muslims are sharpening their spears and waiting for their next chance. They think that they can win and if we don't start defending our culture a bit more strongly, they may well prove to be right. The lessons of September 11 are that we must never relax - we are fighting a war and it is a war that we can only win by shouting the virtues of our civilization as opposed to the barbarian monsters we face.

So on this eight anniversary of the bloody and unprovoked attacks on the World Trade Center that took over three thousand innocent lives, I ask that you remember 9/11. Never forget!

British Publisher Stands Up to Muslims

Islam is well-known for using threats of violence to silence its adversaries. However, at least one company had the strength of will to stand up to said threats. Alas, that company is not US-owned, but rather is a British company.

According to Breitbart.com,

A novel about the Prophet Mohammed and his child bride, which has already caused controversy in the United States and Serbia, will be released in Britain next month, its publisher said Wednesday.

Publishing house Gibson Square, known for having sold other controversial books, such as Alexander Litvinenko's "Blowing Up Russia", said it was "imperative" that "The Jewel of Medina" by American author Sherry Jones be available to the public.

Now, the book itself may well be (and I regret to say probably is) unmitigated rubbish- many romance books are. However, it is the principle at stake here. No group should be able to threaten us into submission. Muslims in particular are very adept (with the willing participation or the world's media) in threatening violence in response to things they do not like.

However, we in the West are not Muslim (yet). There is no reason for Christians, Hindis, Jews, Buddhists or any other non-Islamic religion or culture to pay any attention to what Muslims do or do not like. Christians certainly are not fond of images of Jesus Christ in piss water, but that is one of the many things that they must bear. So books or images that do not portray Muhammad or members of his family in a positive light are also things that Muslims ought to get used to.

Islam and Counterfeit Toothpaste

There have been a number of stories on the counterfeit toothpaste and other items like Nike shoes, such as this one on FoxNews.com. However, is this the only aspect to the story?

According to Debbie Schlussel this morning on KSFO radio, apparently not. She reported that police raided a warehouse in her suburb of Detroit, finding a great quantity of the counterfeit items. However, there was a major aspect of the story that somehow didn't make it into the news- the factory's ownership. According to Schlussel, the warehouse was owned by Muslims and was propagating the counterfeit items to Muslim-owned stores all over the United States. Schlussel wrote on her site,

Last night, Detroit's NBC affiliate, WDIV/LLocal 4, reported on the warehouse, but reporter Kevin Dietz left out one detail, which is almost always included--the names of the people who own and operating the warehouse and the stores that sell their counterfeit merchandise. That's because all of them are Arab Muslims. Watch the video--on the middle right side of the link--closely. It's hard, on the small screen, to tell the identity of the owners of the warehouse, but on the big screen, it's quite clear, they are Arabs and they are laughing about their toxic toothpaste . . . all the way to the bank. (The Black man shown is their worker and not an owner of the business.)

What's more, my sources tell me they are Muslim Arabs and are believed to be selling the smuggled counterfeit merchandise for money laundering to terrorists, specifically Hezbollah. But none of that is mentions, even though that's why ICE is involved and it's an "international investigation."

It's well known that Hezbollah has Arab Muslims selling counterfeit Nikes, hip-hop clothing, and other fakes like the toothpaste for profit to fund terrorist operations. I've written about it on this site many times, and it's been documented in the L.A. Times and elsewhere.

This is a huge issue, if Schlussel's report is true- and it appears that it is. And this is not merely a potential threat to our health, but also to our nation. According to Schlussel, much of the profits from this deadly counterfeit material ends up back in the hands of organizations that are dedicated to our destruction. She writes,

There are so many Muslims selling fake hip-hop gear and engaging in the hip-hop lifestyle to respectively fund and pimp their kinship with terrorists that a friend of mine in Dearbornistan calls them Hezbollah's Hip-Hop-bollah.

In those cases, it's fake Nikes and hip-hop clothing, but in the case of the warehouse in my area, it's toxic, counterfeit toothpaste. Many different phony products. Yet the perpetrators are all Muslims, mostly Arabs, and all for the same cause. Yet, you'd never know it if you watched my local newscast.

We have well-documented problems with counterfeit items and the fake toothpaste has indeed been well-discussed. But yet in these discussion, the identity of the sellers of this material, and the results of their profits has been left mostly unmentioned. How did the media manage to miss the connection between the Muslim distributors and sellers and the potentially deadly products they are disseminating to the American public? Isn't one of the media's jobs to inform the public about potential threats? Certainly they seem to have no compunction writing articles with screaming headlines about our supposed loss of civil rights. What about the even more important loss of life- which could indeed occur due to these fake products and the use to which their sellers put their ill-gotten profits? Why are the media seemingly so blind to the dangers here? is it because they are afraid, or because they secretly sympathize with the aims of these cowardly weasels?

I fear that it is the latter, and I can only hope that their willful betrayal of their fellow Americans in this dangerous time will not cost us all our lives and freedom.

Michigan Girl to Marry Arab- Family Fears For Safety

What is about Islamic terrorists that attracts ignornat American teenagers? The Michigan teenager, Katherine Lester, who tried once before to sneak off to join her myspace boyfriend in the West bank has once again traveled to the Middle East to marry him and convert to Islam. As she is now 18, legally her parents cannot stop her. According to Michigan CBS affiliate WMEN,

or the second time in two years, Katharine Lester boarded a plane to the West Bank to be with a Palestinian man she met on MySpace.com.

Lester’s first attempt was thwarted when FBI agents intervened and returned the then-16-year-old to her parents in Michigan.

Lester, now 18, was at the airport with her passport in hand, and there was little her parents could do to stop her.

One family member told TV5 that she worries Lester won’t come back, and that she won’t ever see her again. The family member went on to say “I’m just really scared. I hope that she comes back safe.”

This is so true. Muslims, especially Arab Muslims, have no respect for women and since the man in question, a suposedly 20-year old 'computer major' who signs himself 'Abdullah Psycho' on his myspace page, would not visit the United States and insisted on the girl traveling to his area of the world. I seriously doubt this guy is 20, and once the girl is married to him, under sharia, she has no rights, and cannot even escape him. Undoubtedly he will use her to gain entry into the United States and kill more of us.

My question is for the parents. You had a year with your daughter. How is it that you weree unablee to open her eyes as to what Islam really is? I cannot believe she got a real understanding living in liberal Michigan, but the truth is not hard to find. On the other hand, teenage girls are prone to silly beliefs about their boyfirends, and perhaps it was too late by the time her family realized that she was determined to be with this probable Islamic terrorist.

As I wrote in my intial post on the topic, mothers, watch your daughters. Islamists are trying hard to convince these gullible teenss that they are for real, and once they gain possession, there is nothing the family can do undcer Islamic law- women are proerty. All we can do is to watch what our daughters are doing onh the Internet and try to preach the truth about Islam.

I feel very sorry for this idiot girl's family and can only pray that Katherine Lester herself comes to no worse harm than she already has. However, considering the religikon into which she is planning to marry, and considering the habits of most Arab Muslims, I doubt that this will have a happy ending either for the girl or her family.

Muslims To Christians: Make Peace Or Else

Islam has a long history of imperialism and bloody conquest against non-Islamic cultures. Cases in point include the unprovoked invasion and conquest of the classical Mediterranean cultures (Carthage, Egypt) of North Africa through the sixth and early seventh centuries and the equally unprovoked invasion of Spain in 715. This invasion continued until Charles Martel's victory in 732 at the Battle of Tours halted Islam's attempt to conquer Europe. Other examples include the Mughal conquest of India, the destruction in 1453 of the ancient Christian kingdom of Byzantium (today known as Turkey) despite Byzantium's history of cooperating with Islamic kingdoms and the Ottoman invasion of Europe that ended before the walls of Vienna in 1683. Sandwiched in betweem were many more Muslim invasions of Europe. Compare this with no Christian invasions of native Islamic land (the Crusades did not invade any historically Muslim land- Jerusalem was not historically a Muslim city).

Contrast this bloody march of conquest with Christianity's history- a religion that spread from the slaves through the middle and upper classes and finally came to be the faith of kings. At very few times in Christianity's history can one find examples of conversion by force, and nowhere can Christianity match Islam's bloody record of destroying civilizations and converting entire populations by the sword. Although Christian kings fought viciously against each other, there was never any concerted attempt by the Christian powers to destroy of even invade Islamic heartlands, despite the great provocation given by the repeated Muslim attemtps to conquer Europe. While this was probably due more to the nature of political infighting amongst the Western leaders than anything else, it is significant that no Pope or Emperor ever tried, aside from the Crusades, which wree primarily to aid Byzantium and recapture the holy city of Jerusalem.

With this history, does it not seem strange that 138 leading Islamic scholars have sent a letter pleading for Christians and Muslims to make peace to many leading Christian leaders? According to the United Kingdom's Evening Standard,

Prominent Muslim scholars are warning that the "survival of the world" is at stake if Muslims and Christians do not make peace with each other.
In an unprecedented open letter signed by 138 leading Muslim scholars from every sect of Islam, the Muslims plead with Christian leaders "to come together with us on the common essentials of our two religions."

...

The Muslim scholars state: "As Muslims, we say to Christians that we are not against them and that Islam is not against them - so long as they do not wage war against Muslims on account of their religion, oppress them and drive them out of their homes."
The phrasing has similarities to the New Testament passage: "He that is not with me is against me" - a passage used by President George Bush when addressing a joint session of Congress nine days after 9/11.

The hypocrisy in this letter is towering. Firstly, the Muslim scholars claim if Islam and Christianity do not make peace the "survival of the world is at stake". This sounds suspiciously like a threat to me. Secondly, they claim that Islam is not against Christians. Really? Then why are all the atttacks against Christians, Americans and other non-Islamic peoples always clothed in religious motives. bin Laden and the zealots of al-Quaeda and Hezbollah have never been shy at proclaiming their religious motivation. However, the Muslim scholars pass this point with no comment and proceed to say that "as long as they do not wage war against Muslims on account of their religion..." Did the Muslim scholars somehow miss the fact that the current war, at least according to American leadership, has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam as a whole? American leaders have been careful to state that they are waging war against the miscreants who bombed the World Trade Center and the states who have aided them. This includes Saddam Hussein's Iraq. At no point has any American leader called this war a fight against Islam. It has been called a war on terror and various other names, but never has it been cast as a war against Islam. Only the Islamics we are fighting have cast it in religious terms.

And that brings up a second point. Certain elements of Islam started this war, not the West. The West, in particular the United States, has actually fought for Muslims, both in Bosnia and in the Middle East. US soldiers were stationed in Saudi Arabia at the request of Saudi leadership to protect them against fellow Muslim Saddam Hussein. US soldiers also liberated Kuwait (a Muslim country) from Iraq (another Muslim country) in the First Gulf War. And the United States supported the (Muslim) mujahadeen who helped drive the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan.

To me this smacks of the classic Islamic idea that when one is being defeated, it is acceptable to call for a truce, which should be used to rearm and refresh oneself before continuing the battle. And this seems more evidence that the United States is currently winning the war against Islamic fundamentalism, if leading Islamic scholars are calling for a truce. I hope and trust that the Christian leaders to whom this letter is addressed treat it with the appropriate solemnity- they drop it in the nearest wastebin. I believe that there are essentially only two kinds of peace- the kind of a resounding victory and the kind of defeat and submission. Detente falls into the 'peace through strength' category, as it is enforced by a willingness to fight for one's beliefs. Which kind do we want?

If Islam truly wants peace with Christians, perhaps they could abandon the anti-Christian rhetoric issuing from so many mosques around the world. Perhaps Saudi Arabia could discontinue its sponsorship of the radical, anti-American Wahhabi sect, which preaches violence against America. Perhaps Muslim nations could eliminate their anti-Bible laws, and no longer execute Muslims who wish to convert from their barbarous religion to one that is kinder and gentler. Perhaps Islam could begin an honest debate about how seriously the Koran should be taken. Perhaps Muslim nations should do a better job preventing Muslim fanatics from executing people memerly for the crime of being non-Muslim. Perhaps Islamic nations should actually offer protection to the non-Muslims who live in their midst, instead of encouraging the medievalist who want them dead. And most of all, perhaps Muslim nations can cease their autocratic leadership practices and give their people some real rights, along with disposing of the medieval notion that women are merely baby factories. if the people were to be granted some enlightened leadership, then perhaps the fundamentalists would be less successful in their proselytizing.

Christian nations are perfectly ready to live in peace with Islam. But we are not willing to live in the kind of peace that Islam too often brings- the peace of submission and dhimmitude. If Islam is willing to renounce its violent and imperialist tendencies towards us, we are perfectly happy to live side-by-side. But we will not tolerate any further attempts to conquer us, and Islam has made too many of these attempts for this poor writer to trust them any further than needs be. I can only hope our leaders are similarly wary, for I do not wish to live under sharia. Not now, and not ever.

Creeping Sharia In Chicago

Sharia claims yet another victim- a Muslim mother has managed to get Ramadan added to the calendar of holidays at the Oak Lawn school disctrict in Chicago.

However, the local media outlet, CBS Channel 2, downplayed the significance, by claiming that not much has changed- "School Keeps Christmas, Hallowe'en; Adds Ramadan". Since when do American schools celebrate non-Christian holidays? I had many Jewish friends, who never celebrated Hanukkah or Passover at school. We did not get holidays for their religious holidays, though some school disctircts did give the Jewish children days off during their most holy celebrations. Why are we allowing Muslims to suddenly add Ramadan to the school calendar?

It seems that most of the school district's residents took a common-sense approach. As CBS 2 reported,

Elizabeth Zahdan was at the center of the storm, a Muslim mother of three who requested that her children be separated from others at lunch during the Ramadan fast.

The schools agreed, but at the Tuesday board meeting, many parents didn't.

"I don’t ever remember one of us asking for our child to be separated from classmates during Ash Wednesday when they were fasting, or on every Friday of Lent when our children are not allowed to eat meat," said parent Cathy Hughes.

"If Muslims want the school holidays, menus and school traditions to become tailored to their needs or beliefs, then they should go to private school next to their mosque," said resident Brian Shapiro.

"That does not represent all the Muslims, all of the Arabs at that school," said Qais Nofel, the father of a student in Ridgeland School District 122.

There may be hope for America if residents are willing to stand up to the spineless bureaucrats who want so badly to be politically correct. (For a discussion of the pernicious nature of political correctness, please see Professor William Anderson's remarks on the subject). However, the deeper concern is when Americans will recognize that Muslims are not by nature satisfied with being equal- they want to be dominant and everyone else to be in a subordinate position. Their religion demands it, and many Muslims, especially Black Muslims, see an opportunity to use the new accepted 'victimhood' of Islam to gain a position of even more entitlement.

The United States by definition is designed to downplay religious conflict, as the State cannot advance one religion over another, according ot the Constitution. But although the ACLU will never recognize it, their efforts to advance Islam (publis-financing of foot-baths at public colleges, publicly-financed mosques, etc) and the constant attacks on Christianity are doing precisely that. The United States, like it or not, is built on Christian foundations, not Muslim, not Jewish, not Buddhist. We are remarkably tolerant, as most other religions who live here among us can testify. But Islam is not like other religions. And unfortunately, many Muslims are determined to use our insititutions against us to institute creeping sharia of the type that this Elizabeth Zahdan is attempting. It may be adding Ramadan to a school holiday calendar today. But what comes tomorrow? The only thing we can be sure of is that there will be other demands, until we find ourselves living under Islamic shaira. For that is many Muslims' ultimate goal. And only constant vigilance will prevent them from succeeding- our elected leaders certainly have not the courage to stand up for our culture and our civilization.

Publicist: I Want Osama bin Laden As a Client

Publicists exist to help their clients get their message out to the larger public. As I understand their role, they shape, spin and aotherwise massage their client's actions and words to create a most positive public presence. However, one would expect publicists to be able to differentiate between spoiled actors and other 'celebrities' and murderous terrorists who espouse a global empire based on a particularly barbaric code. In the case of publicist Prada Jones, one would be severely mistaken. Jones' wrote an article at Ezinearticles.com on why she wants to be Osama bin Laden's publicist, and based on her comments, seems to lack both common sense and moral clarity.

Jones fatuously wrote,

He seems like he would be a typical client... always wanting the world to hear what he's got to say. And, he would always be coming up with some new idea or theory for me to publicize. Just like most celebrity clients, he would be somewhat hard to get on the phone.

A typical client? Jones apparently doesn't understand the difference between an actor or fake celebrity such as Paris Hilton, and a man who has masterminded attacks against the United States and Western Europe that have killed thousands of people and injured many more. In addition,why she is so gushing over a mass murderer who doesd not respect women as individuals and who if successful would launch a global empire in which non-Muslims, including women, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and certainly Christians would be relegated to second-class citizenship at best. bin Laden promotes and fights for a State in which all decision would be made by an unelected council of self-appointed imams, just as is the case in Iran and in most other Islamic states.

The amount of ignorance coupled with naivete in Jones gushing nonsense is shocking. One would expect a graduate of high school to have some understanding of the difference between an Islamic terrorist and a narcissistic celebrity such as Hilton or most other Hollywood celebrites. But in this day and age, where moral equivalency is taught as a matter of course, one would be sadly mistaken. This kind of nonsense is hailed as the new tolerance, as its adherents never realize that they are enabling a form of tyranny that compares to that perpetrated by Hitler's Germany. We can only hope they awake before they find themsleves trapped within its grasp. Hat tip to NewsBusters reader GoldenEagle.

Would-be Dhimmis Beware

Many of the liberal left and their media enablers seem to be in a sort of unholy alliance with the Muslim fundamentalists who are actively trying to destroy our culture and make us into dhimmis under a worldwide Islamic caliphate. A word of warning to these useful idiots and sufferers of Bush Derangement Syndrome: be careful what you wish for.

An article from 2002 in the BBC displays what sort of regime would be our lot if the Islamists should happen to win this war in which we are engaged. According to the BBC, the Saudi religious police allowed fifteen schoolsgirls to die in a fire simply because they were not wearing the headscarves and black robes required for Saudi Arabia's second-class women citizens. As the BBC reported at the time,

Saudi Arabia's religious police stopped schoolgirls from leaving a blazing building because they were not wearing correct Islamic dress, according to Saudi newspapers.

...

One witness said he saw three policemen "beating young girls to prevent them from leaving the school because they were not wearing the abaya".

The Saudi Gazette quoted witnesses as saying that the police - known as the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice - had stopped men who tried to help the girls and warned "it is a sinful to approach them".

But the story gets worse, as it opens a window on the practices of the Muslim police, whose role would be even more invasive in a majority Christian country such as ours if their barbaric and bloody religion shouild happen to win this war of cultures we are waging. The BBC writes,

The religious police are widely feared in Saudi Arabia. They roam the streets enforcing dress codes and sex segregation, and ensuring prayers are performed on time.

Those who refuse to obey their orders are often beaten and sometimes put in jail.

is this what the Democrats are working with to defeat American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan? Is this the ally that the Left is so pleased to welcome to Columbia Uiversity and other once-prestigious unviersities? Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was only too happy to wear a submissive headscarf in Syria, though she is outspoken here about allowing Muslims to do as they wish in our country. Does she not see the contrast in how Muslims expect her to bend to their wishes, though they are actively trying to impose their vision of society on us? If Islam will not compromise, why should we be expected to bend over backward to Islamic dreams of empire?

This idiocy must end. We have our own culture, and our own laws. We can boast of a proud tradition of espiousing hhuman rights and we can point to many acheivements both techniocal and philosophical. Islam had a brief time in the sun, but it is by far more renowned for its inhumaity, its misogyny, its bloodthirsty imperialism than for its arts and science. We on the other hand have soared since our small beginnings from a global backwater in Europe. We can point to many achievements in Western Civilization, from the Magna Carta to the abolition of slavery (Saudi Arabia officially abolished slavery in 1956 and Arabs have beeen for centuries the primary slaver societies- remember why we fought the Barbary Wars against Muslim pirate states in the early nineteenth century). We have pioneered the ideals of freedom- something Islam cannot boast of. And no Muslim society has ever come up with anything analogous to our Constitution, with its insistence on rights granted by God, and guranateed by wise governance.

If we would continue to live by those laws, we must be prepared to defend them. Byzantium fell in large part becasue the people as a whole no longer were able to defend themselves. They were more concerned with arguing over the nature of the Trinity than working with other Chrisitans to defend their city from the rapcious hordes of Ottoman emperor Mehmet II. And we ourselves are in danger. We have terrorst-enablers such as the Council on Muslim American Relations working hand-in-hand with anti-American groups like MoveOn.org and George Soros' anti-capitalist Open Society. But I remind these useful idiots that should their friends win, they will find them selves at the forefront of the execution queue, for their ideas are complete anathema to the Muslims who are so happy to receive their support now. beware of what you wishe for- especially if you continue to work so hard to make sure it happens.

Remember Sergeant Jeffers

Sergeant Eddie Jeffers was killed in Iraq yesterday. Most of my readers probably don't know who Sergeant Eddie Jeffers was. Maybe they don't care- they never met him, and now they never will. But Sergeant Jeffers was a man who counted, a man who fouhgt even while he recognized that many of his countrymen could not or would not participate in the fight with him.

Let me tell you about Sergeant Jeffers. I never met him either, but I wish I had. He was a man who understood what counts, and a man of honor I would gladly stand beside. And though he was only 23 when he was killed, he had a more mature and responsible outlook on life and the war in which we are engaged than many of his countrymen, no matter their age or their supposed intelligence. Bloviating fools like Senator Edward Kennedy, or Representative Nancy Pelosi, or media hacks like Chris Matthews lack Sgt. Jeffers' comprehension. But maybe it is not too late even for such as they.

Back in February, Sergeant Jeffers penned a piece for the New Media Journal entitled Hope Rides Alone, wherein he introduced his readers to his life and how he views those who for political or partisan gain, or though ignorance are helping the enemies of this country. Regarding his ignorant countrymen and women back home, Sgt. Jeffers wrote,

People like Cindy Sheehan are ignorant. Not just to this war, but to the results of their idiotic ramblings, or at least I hope they are. They don't realize its effects on this war. In this war, there are no Geneva Conventions, no cease fires. Medics and Chaplains are not spared from the enemy's brutality because it's against the rules. I can only imagine the horrors a military Chaplain would experience at the hands of the enemy. The enemy slinks in the shadows and fights a coward’s war against us. It is effective though, as many men and women have died since the start of this war. And the memory of their service to America is tainted by the inconsiderate remarks on our nation's news outlets. And every day, the enemy changes...only now, the enemy is becoming something new. The enemy is transitioning from the Muslim extremists to Americans. The enemy is becoming the very people whom we defend with our lives. And they do not realize it. But in denouncing our actions, denouncing our leaders, denouncing the war we live and fight, they are isolating the military from society...and they are becoming our enemy.

Democrats and peace activists like to toss the word "quagmire" around and compare this war to Vietnam. In a way they are right, this war is becoming like Vietnam. Not the actual war, but in the isolation of country and military. America is not a nation at war; they are a nation with its military at war. Like it or not, we are here, some of us for our second, or third times; some even for their fourth and so on. Americans are so concerned now with politics, that it is interfering with our war.

But Sgt. Jeffers has room for hope, despite the sickening cowardice or partisanship of so many in this country. He concluded his piece by saying,

We are the hope of the Iraqi people. They want what everyone else wants in life: safety, security, somewhere to call home. They want a country that is safe to raise their children in. Not a place where their children will be abducted, raped and murdered if they do not comply with the terrorists demands. They want to live on, rebuild and prosper. And America has given them the opportunity, but only if we stay true to the cause and see it to its end. But the country must unite in this endeavor...we cannot place the burden on our military alone. We must all stand up and fight, whether in uniform or not. And supporting us is more than sticking yellow ribbon stickers on your cars. It's supporting our President, our troops and our cause.

Right now, the burden is all on the American soldiers. Right now, hope rides alone. But it can change, it must change. Because there is only failure and darkness ahead for us as a country, as a people, if it doesn't.

Let's stop all the political nonsense, let's stop all the bickering, let's stop all the bad news and let's stand and fight!

Isn't that what America is about anyway?

Isn't it? When did we cease being a nation that understood the darkness that is Muslim, or any totalitarian aggression? During World War II, we understood the stakes, and although we might have differed on strictly domestic issues, as certainly the Republicans did at that time, we stood together- no one made Roosevelt's handling of the war an issue during the campaigns of that time. When did it become acceptable to call a sitting President a Fascist, or call a commanding general a traitor?

We need more like Sergeant Eddie Jeffers, more men and women who understand the stakes and are willing to stand up against that darkness that threatent to overwhelm the world, as it has tried so many times before. But Sergeant Jeffer is right. Let's take his advice and stop the bickering. Give the troops what they need to win. Imperialist Islam is like a Hydra- cut off one head and many more appear, but it is cowardly at its heart- it will not attack those it perceives as stronger. We can only be defeated by ourselves. That is what the enemy hopes for- they know that they can never defeat us on a battlefield. So let us stand together and deny them that victory. And let us honor men and women like Sergeant Jeffers, for they stand between us and a barbarism like none the world has known for many a long year. May God rest your soul, Segeant Jeffers, and thank you, thank you for everything.

New Journalists Missing Moral Clarity

Journalists are responsible for presenting the news of the day to ordinary citizens. Their requirements include objectivity and analysis. However, they are also expected to understand the difference between a mass-murderer who espouses a form of global slavery and an elected leader of the freest country on Earth. Unfortunately, it appears that Ryan Yeoman, of the Central Connecticut State University does not have that understanding. Writing today in the opinion pages of The Recorder, Central Connecticut State's college newspaper, Yeomans states,

As of late, if you were to bring up the president in a discussion you would find that many Americans disapprove of the decisions he has made. At the same time, Osama bin Laden presents many good arguments against the president and many of his reasons for disapproving of Bush are similar to those of anti-Bush Americans. Would it be wrong to assume that there is some kind of connection between feelings of the American people and those of Osama bin Laden? As I would love to make this connection, I ultimately cannot because of the actions of our president. If I were to say I agree with bin Laden, that would mean that I agree with a terrorist; under the Patriot Act, I could be labeled a potential terrorist and my phone could be tapped, and every move I make could be watched and analyzed.

In finding myself in this predicament, I questioned myself as to who the lesser evil actually is. I ask, “Who has done more damage to the lives of the American people?” Personally, I worry more about the next bad decision Bush is going to make than I worry about a potential Osama bin Laden organized terrorist attack.

One thing I have realized from these videos is that while Osama bin Laden remains free, Americans are slowly becoming bound by the decisions of the president to remove and restrict the rights given to us by our knowledgeable forefathers, without whom we would not be here. I can only hope that Americans will open their eyes and see what is in front of them, in order to prevent things from getting out of hand any further.

This writer displays such a lack of common sense that it is difficult to know where to start deconstructing. Let's take his statement that "Americans are slowly becoming bound by the decisions of the president to remove and restrict the rights given us by our knowledgeable forefathers". Mr. Yeomans, precisely what rights has the president removed from American citizens? I cannot think of a single right enumerated in the Constitution that Mr. Bush has either removed or restricted. In fact, the courts have created new rights for our enemies that have never existed previously, such as access to the US court system.

Yeomans also complains that although he agrees with bin Laden, "If I were to say I agree with bin Laden, that would mean that I agree with a terrorist; under the Patriot Act, I could be labeled a potential terrorist and my phone could be tapped, and every move I make could be watched and analyzed." Well, actually no. Free speech is protected, though advocating the assassination or other violence against the president is a federal crime and has been since long before the Bush Administration. I have not noticed any anti-war/pro-Islamic protestors being placed in prison for speaking their minds, and certainly the MoveOn.org folks who masterminded the 'Bush-as-Hitler' campaign are still free. If Mr. Yeomans were communicating with foreign nationals connected to terror via international phone calls, then yes, those calls could be and probably should be tapped. But tapping domestic calls (those are calls with both ends within the United States, as opposed to international calls, which have at least one end in a foreign country) require a warrant- no matter how many Democratic talking points bin Laden parrots.

However, the most startling aspect of this opinion piece is the complete lack of understanding betrayed by the writer. This is someone who will be entering the journalistic world and will be responsible for portraying the news to his fellow Americans. Yet, he displays the most astonishing lack of ability to differentiate between an elected leader who is bound (and who has followed) the law, and who has two other branches of the government overseeing him as well, and an unelected terrorist who wants a global Islamic caliphate, containing no rights whatsoever for non-Muslims. A leader who masterminded the attacks on September 11, 2001 that killed over three thousand American citizens. And Yeomans appears to be ignorant of how bin Laden's videos have increasingly adopted Democratic Party talking points, as he tries to elect a party that would be much easier to defeat than the current Adminstration.

It used to be that college students were taught the difference between murderous barbarians such as bin Laden and elective republics such as we. There is a difference between forces that refuse to wear uniforms, who hide amongst civilians and who behead and torture their enemies (the Muslims) as opposed to a society that adheres to a rule of law, wears uniforms, fights under a flag, and who actually provides their captives with food, Korans and exercise (the United States)- none of which privileges are granted to those unfortunate enough to fall into the hands of the Islamists. Mr. Yeomans has an understanding neither of history, which provides the context for bin Laden and his allies, nor for the proper use of force, which is often the only resort against aggression such as that espoused by bin Laden and his allies. Proper use of force saved Europe from Islamic aggression many times, beginning in 732 at the battle of Tours, and most recently in 1683 in the siege of Vienna.

If Mr Yeomans is the future of American journalism, then American journalism has fallen a long way since the days of Ernie Pyle. Cross-posted on NewsBusters.

Rediscovering Faith In the Face of Evil

Islam has always yearned to own and control the ancient lands of Europe. They have tried many, many times to conquer the West, beginning in 715 with the invasion of Spain and most recently in front of Vienna in 1683. With nuclear weapons, a vast population and a new generation of leaders who see the West as weak, sonner or later they may well succeed. The question is, what should the West, principally the United States, do about these barbarians?

Writing in the American Conservative, James Pinkerton has an audacious answer- revive Christendom and make a Council of the West to defend Christians around the world from the rapacious and bloody grasp of Islam. Channleing JRR Tolkien, Pinkerton suggests that the West take a page from the Council of Elrond, which brought together the races and groups- Men, Elves, Hobbitts- who opposed the evil of Sauron. Pinkerton proposes that the West do something similar to forge a grand council to oppose Islam and secure the West, while leaving the East to do what it will. Pinkerton writes,

Two years ago, the Eurocrats in Brussels drafted a 300-page EU constitution that consciously omitted reference to Europe’s specifically Christian heritage. The voters of France, as well as Holland, rejected that secular document.

Maybe there’s a lesson here. The people of Europe might not be so eager, after all, to declare that they are “united in diversity.” What does that phrase mean, anyway? How about trying to find something that unites Europeans in unity? How about a revival of Christendom as a concept—as a political concept? A revival, or at least a remembrance, of Europe’s cultural heritage could be the healing force that Europe needs.

After all, it worked in the past. In the words of the 19th-century French historian Numa Denis Fustel de Coulanges, the victory of Christianity marked “the end of ancient society”—and all the petty divisions that went with it. Fustel de Coulanges continues, “Man felt that he had other obligations besides that of living and dying for the city. Christianity distinguished the private from the public virtues. By giving less honor to the latter, it elevated the former; it placed God, the family, the human individual above country, the neighbor above the city.”

As history proves, a larger communion can be built on such sentiments. In the 9th century, Alcuin of York declared that the crowning of Charlemagne as the first Holy Roman Emperor would bring forth a new Imperium Christianum. Ten centuries later, Hilaire Belloc asserted, “The Faith is Europe. And Europe is the Faith.” Indeed, during those many centuries, Europe enjoyed a pretty good run. Only in the last century—the century of atheists, psychiatrists, and National Socialists—has Europe’s survivability come into question. Today, the Christian author Os Guiness puts the issue plainly: “A Europe cut off from its spiritual roots cannot survive.”

Some will smile at the thought that Christianity might be part of the solution to the problems of the Third Millennium. Admittedly, there’s an element of faith in the idea of trying to revive the idea of Christian unity. But Christendom is the Shire Strategy, applied.

But what about the groups who are neither Christian nor Mulsim? What about the Buddhist Chinese, Japanese and Korean? What about the Hindi Indians? These groups also are threatened by resurgent Islam. As the Indians know, Islam has no preferences- India was under the Muslim Mughal emperors for centuries. Pinkerton suggests that as long as Christians do not seek to expand their own lands by conquest, then Christians, Buddhists and Hindus can work together to surround Islam and force it to stay within it's own boundaries. As he says,

No matter what we say or do, the blocs of Hindus, Chinese, and Japanese are all going their separate cultural ways, rediscovering their own unique heritages. And Islam, of course, is at odds with all of its neighbors. In his book a decade ago, Huntington, mindful of the indirect danger posed by American universalism, was even more mindful of the direct danger posed by Muslims: “Islam’s borders are bloody and so are its innards,” he writes. “Muslim bellicosity and violence are late-twentieth century facts which neither Muslims nor non-Muslims can deny.” That’s bad news, but there’s a silver lining: if Westerners, Russians, Africans, Hindus, and Chinese all feel threatened by Islam—and they all do—there’s plenty of opportunity for a larger encircling alliance, with an eye toward feasible strategies of containment, even quarantine. But not conquest, not occupation, not “liberation.”

Not everyone will agree with Pinkerton- for example, I suspect that the West is less reliable than the Anglosphere, but his suggestions are certainly a possibility, if only Europe will raise its collective head from the sands and realize the danger in which it stands. The Hagia Sophia, one of Christendom's greatest church, was turned into a mosque on the Muslim capture of Christian Constantinople in 1453. Today, it is a museum, but Chirstians are not permitted to worship within its hallowed walls. Could we face Muslims worshipping in the halls of Saint Peter's Basilica in Rome? Diversity and multiculturalism are a recipe for cultural suicide in the face of an Islam that thinks it is finally in position to destroy the one region that has always resisted it and has surpassed it so badly in ther last few centuries. If the West does nto awake, there won't be a West. Freedom of press, dress, behavior and the ability to worship as one chooses are integral to the West. They are anathem to Islam.

Read the whole thing and make your own decision. One way or another, we will be faced with a murderous and religiously inspired Islamic world against us sooner or alter. How we deal with it will determine whether we survive or not. Hat tip to Jerry Pournelle.

Media Not Interested In American Islamists

Is the mainstream media uninterested in radical Islamists in America? Recent events would seem to indicate that that may indeed be the case.

Today, according to the Dearborn, Michigan Press & Guide, a Muslim medical student named Houssein Zorkot was arrested while wearing full combat gear and carrying an AK-47 rifle. His website contained a plethora of anti-American imagery and included shots of him posing with a picture of Hezbollah leader Sheik Nasrallah. Of course, the local media neglected to mention the Islamic connection when reporting Zorkot's arrest. He was identified only as a 'third-year medical student'. The Press & Guide appears to think that ostrich-like behavior is the best course of action when confronted by murderous barbarians like Zorkot and his Muslim allies. So far not a single national news organ has picked up this story. This is all too similar to the story of North Carolina terrorist Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, whose clear motivation for his act of terror was his religion. Despite Taheri claiming that 'Allah is my lawyer' and similar phrases, the local ABC affiliate did not post a single reference to his religion in their story on the attack.

Simultaneously, it appears that the case of the US government against the Holy Land Foundation- a Muslim organization strongly linked with the fundamentalist Muslim organization the Muslim Brotherhood- has managed to fly beneath the mainstream press' mention. Fortunately, despite the disinterest of the major media ogans, Rod Dreher has been attending this trial. As reported by Dreher in the Dallas Morning News,

"Our strategy is this," President Bush said last month. "We will fight them over there so we do not have to face them in the United States of America."

He was talking about jihadists, of course. And Mr. Bush is behind the curve. The president apparently missed the smoking-gun 1991 document his own Justice Department introduced into evidence at the Holy Land Foundation trial in Dallas. The FBI captured it in a raid on a Muslim suspect's home in Virginia.

This "explanatory memorandum," as it's titled, outlines the "strategic goal" for the North American operation of the extremist Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan). Here's the key paragraph:

The process of settlement [of Islam in the United States] is a "Civilization-Jihadist" process with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that all their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" their miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who choose to slack.

Although virtually ever single American Muslim organization- the Council on Muslim American Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Muslim American Society (MSA) are intricately involved in the Muslim Borhterhood's attempt to destroy the United States and all other Western nations from within, not a single majro media outlet has managed to report on this amazing trial as yet.

As Dreher concludes in his article,

As long as they commit no crimes, CAIR, ISNA and the other Brotherhood-related groups have the right to advocate for their beliefs. But they don't have the right to escape critical scrutiny, and they deserve informed opposition. Courageous Muslims like Dr. Zuhdi Jasser of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy are sounding the alarm about radical Islam's stealth takeover of U.S. Muslim institutions. Why are the news media ignoring this? Fear of being called Islamophobic?

This has got to stop. Six years after 9/11, we're still asleep. Islamic radicals have declared war on us – and some are fighting here in what looks like a fifth column. Read their strategy document. It's there in black and white, for those with eyes to see.

I agree. The media has too long ignored these groups who claim victimhood. Muslims claimed that the Spetember 11 attacks created a backlash, and the media appears to have bought this argument hook, line and sinker. Since then, they have bent over backwards to avoid exposing the unseemly and downright dangerous motives that underlie many, if not all of these groups. Is it because exposing these groups' ideology would actually buttress the President's claim that the war on Islamic terror really is global? DOes partisanship take precedence over protecting our own country and way of life? Or is it because the media are frightened? What ever the cause, the media must remove their blinders regarding the terrorists in ouir midst, and the organizations that try to manipulate Americans' freedoms to destroy us from within. Cross-posted at NewsBusters.

Dhimmis at the BBC

The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), like many other so-called "mainstream media" outlets, has been one of the worst offenders in groveling to anything Muslims wish, while doing their utmost to assist in the defeat of the Western culture that they exploit and which pays their bloated salaries.

Today, the BBC made yet another step toward dhimmitude, as they cancelled a proposed fictional terror attack in order to avoid offending Muslims. According to the This is London entertainment guide at the Evening Standard,

The first show of the hospital drama's new series was to have featured a storyline about an explosion caused by Islamic extremists.

Now the bomb will be set off by animal rights campaigners instead.

It appears that the BBC caved due to fears of Muslim's reactions to the proposed show. One wonders if they would have had the same reaction if the proposed show had featured Christian extremists setting off a bomb?

The BBC is well on the way to full dhimmitude. It only remains for them to follow Dutch Bishop Tiny Muskins and call God "Allah" in their public pronouncements. Or maybe they can wear large crosses on their raiment as Muslims have traditionally required non-Muslims to do. Surely the fine progressives at the BBC would not protest- after all, they have already surrendered in the culture war between Islam and the West.

Dhimmitude Creep

I have never understood why Christians should be expected to be submissive to Muslims. It was not Christianity that has spent over a thousand years murdering its way across two continents. It is not Christianity that has tried time and again to conquer ancestral homelands of Muslims. On the contrary, Islam has a bloodier record and a longer history of imperialism than any single other organized group of belief.

However, this appears to be unknown to at least one Christian official. Bishop Tiny Muskins of Breda in the Netherlands has suggested that Christians should call God 'Allah' to "foster understanding".

This has to be the most ridiculous suggestion I have heard yet. Why don't you renounce your diocese, Bishop Muskins, give up your raiment and become a practicing Muslim? This is what you are suggesting, that Christians should basically convert to Islam. I think the response by one of the Bishop's potential parishioners is the best.

"Sure. Lets call God Allah. Lets then call a church a mosque and pray five times a day. Ramadan sounds like fun," Welmoet Koppenhol wrote in a letter to the newspaper."

I couldn't have said it better myself. If you are determined to become a dhimmi, then I would be the last to stop you. But if you, like me, believe that Western culture and history contains far more shining examples of goodness than does Islam, then we need to stand up and defend our own civilization. Islam, save for a short period in the Middle Ages, has always been a barbarous religion, displaying neither mercy nor equality to anyone other than its own. Christianity, on the other hand, has a long history of tolerance, though like most other religions, it also has its dark stains- the Inquisition come to mind relatively quickly.

Islam is determined to conquer the world. It has tried many, many times before and the current popularity of al-Quaeda and other similar organizations indicate that jihad and imperialism once again are popular with many Muslims. Only a strong defense , both verbally and militarily will overcome this jihadist fervor. We have a culture and history to be proud of. Our nations are responsible for many gifts to the world, including the ideas of equality and freedom- something Islam cannot claim. We do not live under Sharia, and the only way to ensure we never do is to promote our own culture- not denigrate it to "reduce tensions". We did not start this- Islam did. It is their responsibility to "reduce tensions", not ours.

Hat tip to SFB.

Guilty As Charged

Breitbart News reported that Jose Padilla was found guilty on all charges today by a jury in Miami. According to the article,

Padilla, Adham Amin Hassoun and Kifah Wael Jayyousi face life in prison because they were convicted of conspiracy to murder, kidnap and maim people overseas. All three were also convicted of two terrorism material support counts that carry potential 15-year sentences each.

This is very good news, as it justifies the Bush Administration. Despite the idiocy of allowing terrorists and accused terrorists access to our legal system, the trial results deliver harsh reality to the folks who have claimed that Padilla is merely a misunderstood American- folks who include much of the mainstream media!

Let us hope that this conviction is the beginning of a long line of terrorists meeting their richly deserved fates. Padilla is a traitor and deserves everything he gets.

News Flash- Palestinian "Leaders" Are Gangsters!

The Muslim residents of Gaza have long held a very favorable opinion of the murderous thugs and terrorists who claim membership in organizations such as Hamas, Fatah and other similar terrorist organizations. However, since electing them to positions of power after Israel withdrew, they have more and more shown their true colors as gangsters who yearn merely for power. This has understandably upset their heretofore loyal peonage.

These colors have become so easy to discern that even propaganda outlet Reuters has belatedly recognized them. According to Reuters employee Wafa Amr, quoting a Palestinian legislator,

"Many of these groups are now a burden on society. They were created to fill a security vacuum under the pretext of national resistance, said legislator Nasser Jum'a, once a leading member of Fatah's al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades.

"They then blackmailed people, attacked them and confiscated their freedoms as the weak official security forces failed to punish them," he said.

FED UP

Jum'a said ordinary Palestinians were so fed up with the armed groups "they now wish the Israeli occupation would take over in Gaza or hope for the return of Jordanian rule in the West Bank" to get rid of them.

Well, be careful what you wish for- you may get it. The Gaza Muslims have only themselves to blame for this sorry state of affairs. Israel has made many sincere offers of land for peace, most recently at the ill-fated Oslo conference, but the desire of terrorists like Yasser Arafat for the demise of Israel led them time and again to reject these overtures to the point where Israel finally said "enough is enough".

Maybe the people of Gaza are finally waking up to what rational people have known for years- that the so-called leaders of the "Palestinians" are no better than lawless thugs, and that Israel, which wants only peace with security, is not the cause of this misery after all.

Hat tip to Power Line.

Islam & the Left

It is no secret that the political Left in the United States and indeed most of the West has made common cause with the forces of radical Islam. this should come as no surpirse to anyone who has spent any time at all studying either of these two forces.

Islam has spent well over a thousand years conducting bloody imperialism against the world, including the West. The radical Left has spent the majority of the past two hundred years enabling and apologizing for various dictators- Mao Tse-tung, Josef Stalin, Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, Robert Mugabe and of course Yasser Arafat. The Left has spent the majority of the past century trying its best to cause revolution in democratic states that might bring in their preferred form of government- totalitarianism.

Let us not forget that Hitler's war was made possible by his secret alliance with Josef Stalin's Soviet Union. And that the predecessors of today's al-Quaeda, in the person of Yasser Arafat's uncle, Grand Mufti Amin al-Husayni (or al-Husseini) constituted some of the strongest and most fervent supporters of Hitler's "Final Solution". Before there was a state of Israel, mind you.

Of course, the latest collaboration has caused the Left some problems. After all, leftists renounce all religion with great passion. they consider Christianity to be one of the great evils of history, and rarely have a good word for any other religion either. But yet their alliance with Islam requires that they celebrate exactly the kind of religious ecstasy that they find so repugnant in other religions. Christians experience ecstasy in the covenants, or in "being saved", not in blowing up civilians or making onerous pronouncements about how non-Christian must convert or die.

Christopher Hitchens, the anti-religious, pro-Iraq War leftist stepped up on May 24 in Berkeley, California to try to make the Left reconcile this essential dichotomy. His verbal opponent was journalist Chris Hedges. According to Zombie, who photo-blogged the event,

The American political landscape experienced an epochal re-alignment on May 24. A subtle yet far-reaching tectonic shift.

You probably didn't notice. But you will, eventually.

Because it was on that date in Berkeley, California that the radical left reversed what had been its immutable rejection of religion and for the first time embraced spirituality.

...

The arena where this pivotal re-alignment took place was the King Middle School auditorium in Berkeley, where far-left "progressive" journalist Chris Hedges formally debated iconoclastic "neocon" pundit Christopher Hitchens. (Videos of the debate and photos from the event can be found below.) The topic of the debate was "Is God...Great?", a riff on the title of Hitchens' new book, God Is Not Great.

Surprising as it might seem in a contemporary political landscape where mocking religion is an established liberal pastime, and where Christianity and spirituality are most often associated with conservatism, it was Hitchens -- now loathed by the left for not toeing the party line over the Iraq War -- who attacked religion, while the neo-Socialist, anti-patriotic, radical Hedges volunteered for the seemingly topsy-turvy position of having to defend spirituality and the existence of God.

How did this strange state of affairs come to pass? In one word: Islam.

The left -- of which Hitchens was a part until recently -- has always been anti-religion. But now, they've become caught in a philosophical bind: how can they promote multiculturalism -- and by extension all non-Western cultures, such as fundamentalist Islam -- if they condemn religion in general? Neocon pundits have since 9/11 frequently accused the left of being in bed with Muslim extremists, a charge which the left has vehemently denied. But with every denial their position was becoming more and more untenable, as the verbiage and narratives of Islamic radicals and "anti-war" progressives have grown to become virtually indistinguishable.

Someone had to take the lead and resolve the dilemma that the left had created for itself. And so it was Hedges who stepped forward in this debate to test the waters for the first time, taking what is for him (and the left) a revolutionary position: that spirituality and religion -- with the noteworthy exception of organized Christianity -- is good.

Now, at no point did Hedges state that he was performing this amazing flipflop specifically due to Islam. He didn't need to say it -- because Hitchens said it for him. In fact, Hitchens repeatedly tore the roof off of Hedges' carefully constructed rhetorical edifice, saying aloud the exact thoughts that Hedges and the left didn't want anyone to hear.

OK, let's be frank: Hitchens absolutely mopped the floor with Hedges. It was an embarrassment, really.

Zombie has been kind enough to post the videos on YouTube that he took of the evening's entertainment. Read the whole thing and watch the videos.

The Left in the United States and the rest of the West has become a laughingstock for their persistent hypocrisy and their lack of patriotism. However, it took Hitchens to expose them as nothing more than tired ideas without even a robe in which to hide- unless they want to take the burqa. I hear Islam is always looking for converts...

Hat tip to little green footballs.

Fatah is "Secular"?

According to the United Kingdom's Telegraph they are. The Telegraph posted an article today announcing that the Palestinian Interior Minister has stepped down. However, inside the article, one could find this line:

"The resignation cast new doubt on whether the power-sharing partnership between Islamist Hamas and secular Fatah could continue."

It is the height of ignorance to call Fatah "secular". They are of a different sect than Hamas, but both are radical Islamist groups- they differ only to the extent that they are willing to admit it to the fatuous idiots who comprise the mainstream news. Both groups have written articles that call for the extinction of Israel. Both groups have carried out terrorist attacks against the West and both groups are corrupt. So where's the difference?

I think Captain Ed Morrissey provided an excellent analysis, as he wrote,

Forming unity governments might seem like a great idea, but a society has to have some kind of unity on which to base it. The Palestinians right now do not have even a protostate but a massive amount of gang turf. Hamas and Fatah have operated as the terrorist groups they are rather than as true political parties. Neither have interest in actual politics but in power grabs, which has been all too apparent in the failure of both groups to actually govern in any sense of the word.

Aside from providing yet another example that coalition governments of this type cannot work in reality, this article also provides a window into the mindset of the mainstream news people, who couldn't care less about actually performing research- apparently it's all about trying to convince ordinary Americans that Islamic terror organizations are "secular".

About that claim of why Muslims hate non-Muslims....

...it does not appear to hold water after the news of Islamic terrorists attacking Bombay's train system. The Islamists have been hating all non-Islamic countries and peoples for centuries. Any liberal/anti-American/fifth-columnist who tries to deny that simply is either a paid stooge or an ignorant fool. History does not back up the "They hate us becasue of our policies" argument.

Why did they attack India? Land, pure and simple. Islam has been trying for centuries to reconquer all land that Muslims once held. Spain, Eastern Europe, etc, all have faced Muslim campaigns to take them from the non-Muslims who control them and whose native lands they are. And Islam has invaded Europe in wars of pure impreialism many times. How many times has Europe or America invaded Arabia or Muslim lands in a desire to conquer and hold? Never. The Crusades, as I must constantly remind the ignoramuses who populate American capmuses these days, were a reaction to retake the Holy Land (never Muslim property) from the Mulsim invaders who ruthlessly conquered and raped it in 1076, and closed the pilgrimage routes. Before that time, the Christians had never invaded Muslim territory in an attempt to conquer, though the Muslims had by that time been conducting a war of extermination against all non-Muslims, leading to the complete destruction of the classical North African states (and the occupation of most of Christian Spain) for over four hundred years.

In this case, India controls most of the majority-Muslim province of Kashmir. This was a result of the 1947 division of the British Raj between Pakistan and India. The afore-linked site is good, though it fails to mention that India is still Hindu- not 'secular'. the difference is that Hindu India is ruled by a non-religious legal system of law, unlike sharia-dominated Pakistan where any so-called imam can accuse anyone of anything and be upheld with or without ev idence. India, in contrast, relies on British rule of law.

Ever since the division, Muslims have been trying to take Kashmir by force, never mind how many Indian civilvians they kill or injure. The two countries have gone to war twice over the disputed province, the last time in 1965. And the Indian Hindus and Sikhs have long known of the terrorist tactics employed by the Muslims, and have first-hand knowledge of living as dhimmis- the long Mughal rule over India gave them plenty of practice!

Hat tip to Breitbart.com.