The American Presidency going from bad to bad, or worse

It is very frustrating watching the most powerful man on earth use that power to advance Islam.

It seems to me that even the most uninformed Christian would refuse to equate The Religion of Death with his Christ. How much sense must one possess to know: Don't aid Muslims killing non-Muslims and stealing their land?

(At this point, Power-At-All-Costs-Republicans, Hugh Hewitt, liberals, and everyone else with their heads in . . . the sand should recall that in President Bush's second inaugural address he referenced the words of "the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, and the Qur'an.")

Unfortunately, the Three Replacements remaining in our current presidential race look to be no better in telling the truth about Allah's War Against Humanity.

At best, we will end up with GWB 2.0, a man who can't help but add at least three modifiers to the words "Islam" and "jihad" when uttering them. (Okay, using "jihad," even with modifiers, is an improvement.)

At worst, we'll get either a nominally-Christian liberal (whose church is led by a supporter of racism) with an Islamic education and devout Muslim family members and strong-man allies (who ally themselves with jihad), or a godless liberal with the Muslim daughter of a Saudi imam acting as her closest aide (and paramour, if the reports are true).

Dark days are coming.

First Afghanistan, then Iraq, and now Kosovo

Is Israel next?

At least Afghanistan was previously in the hands of the Taliban, so Allah gains little there.

But in the others? President Bush has used American Blood and Treasure to establish Sharia in Iraq, he has rewarded jihad in Kosovo by having our government recognize it as an independent state, and he continues to pressure Israel to commit suicide.

If the United States is truly a "government of the people, by the people, and for the people," then I want to make it clear that this part of the American government condemns vehemently his treachery.

What do you call a "Christian" who aids Allah?

I've given the President the benefit of the doubt for many years now, but how can an uninterrupted chain of betrayals of Liberty in the cause of jihad continue to be explained away as the by-product of his ignorance of Islam?

It begins now to look like dhimmitude, bribery, or perversion.

Telling the truth about our nation's enemy in a time of war -- in this case, Islam -- is his job as Commander-in-Chief.

Telling the truth about the latest phase in the nearly 1400-year-old jihad that Allah has waged against humanity is what our President, Congress, clergy, universities, and media (especially the "Conservative" pundits) ought to be doing.

Unfortunately, all of them are groveling in the muck at Mohammed's feet.

It's not even a matter of indifference. They actually obfuscate for Islam.

This week, Hugh Hewitt and a guest were patting themselves on the back for their vast knowledge of "Islamofascism," proud that they knew that the "extremist Islamist jihadists" had been warring with us not since 9/11, but since 1979.

And now, President Bush has established another Muslim state, this time in Europe.

Bill Clinton bombed Christians to aid the mujahideen against Serbia, and George W. Bush is finishing what his predecessor began. Under the UN's protective gaze, Muslims have burned churches, destroyed property, and brutalized, raped, and slaughtered Christians in the name of Allah.

I imagine the President will want now to finance with our tax dollars the KLA. (Instead, he ought to use some of that Saudi money he and his father have received over the years to do it.)

What's next? Will he bomb Israel to help Hamas?

Apart from Geert Wilders, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Diana West, and Sue Myrick, can you think of any leaders in the West telling the truth about the Most Hateful Ideology the World Has Ever Seen?

Abraham never did what Mohammed preached and practiced

From here, in response to an Islamic lie commonly repeated by ignorant dhimmis:

As a post-Vatican II Catholic myself, I share the ecumenical beliefs of most modern Christians. One of these is that Islam, being one of the three "Abrahamic" religions, has a great deal in common with Christianity, and that these common roots should be cultivated. It contains truth, and wisdom, and has built civilisations.

Islam shares nothing in common with Christianity.

That Mohammed transmitted (or fabricated) perversions of Biblical characters and events does not make Islam a continuation, completion, or correction of Christianity.

Neither can Islam be called an "Abrahamic" faith. When combating the heresy and apostasy of His own day, Christ told an unbelieving audience that if they were truly children of Abraham, they would do what Abraham did. Abraham never did what Mohammed preached and practiced. The prophet from Hell made the most vile and barbaric violations of the Ten Commandments "divine."

The words and actions of Mohammed prove clearly that Allah is no Christ. For example, Jesus said, "Love your enemies," but according to Mohammed, Allah commands, "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them . . . ." Jesus said that He is the Son of God, but Mohammed taught that whoever says Allah has a son blasphemes. Third, Jesus warned that whoever causes a little child to sin would be better off if a large stone were tied around his neck and he were thrown into the depths of the sea, but Mohammed said of his raping little nine-year-old Aisha, "If this is from Allah, then it must happen."

Mohammed may have received revelations from a "deity" (even the grotesquely self-serving ones), but there is no way that his god was the Biblical One.

Another light in the dark struggle against the malevolence of Allah

While the Archbishop of Capitulation shills still for the Religion of Death, another bishop refuses to bend the knee.

We need more leaders with the sense and courage to tell the truth about Islam. Michael Nazir-Ali is the Bishop of Rochester. According to this article, he's received much criticism (and veiled threats to himself and the non-Muslim public) for refusing to genuflect to the Prophet from Hell.

Imagine that! Someone has the nerve to admit publicly that "people of a different race or faith face physical attack if they live or work in communities dominated by a strict Muslim ideology."

But doesn't "Islam" mean "peace"?

No, it means "submission," just as Mahomet professed:

"the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: 'Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them . . .'" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29).

"Allah's Apostle said: 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle . . . '" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

Nazir-Ali lays the blame where it belongs for allowing a formerly-Christian land to sink so far into the Islamic Abyss -- multiculturalism and faithless clergy:

Bishop Nazir-Ali, who was born in Pakistan, gives warning that attempts are being made to give Britain an increasingly Islamic character by introducing the call to prayer and wider use of sharia law, a legal system based on the Koran.

In an attack on the Government's response to immigration and the influx of "people of other faiths to these shores", he blames its "novel philosophy of multiculturalism" for allowing society to become deeply divided, and accuses ministers of lacking a "moral and spiritual vision".

And here's one of the veiled threats issued typically by Muslims, this from Ibrahim Mogra of the Muslim Council of Britain:

"It's irresponsible for a man of his position to make these comments."

Where are our leaders?

Apart from a few half-hearted refusals to outright disagree with Nazir-Ali, the replies to his observations either favor submission ("Sit down and shut up!") or obfuscate by putting the blame where it doesn't belong (it's not "religions" harming Britain, it's Islam).

We the People must use our Freedoms of Speech and of the (key)Press while there is time. If we do not, we may find too late that our only option left is the exercising of our Right to Bear Arms.

Many great civilizations before us faced the bloodlust of Allah, and are no more.

Winston Churchill observed:

"Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves."

Geert Wilders and Ayaan Hirsi Ali warn the West against encroaching Islam

What major political leaders in the West have the sense and courage to confront the bloodlust of Allah? Certainly not President Bush.

Here is Geert Wilders with a proper warning against encroaching jihad and what motivates it, in two parts.

Notice the interviewer's suggestion for dealing with the unsurprising death threats coming from Muslims -- sacrifice your freedom of speech:

And here's the first part of Submission, the film written by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, for which Theo van Gogh was butchered by Allah (some images unsuitable for children):

Mohammed irrationally fearful of his own religion

Those who say, "Islam requires violence against non-Muslims," are demonized as "Islamophobes."

Mohammed transmitted Allah's command to, "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5), and confessed, "I have been made victorious with terror . . . ." (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

Clearly, Mohammed was an Islamophobe.

Reuters obfuscating for jihad

Like almost everyone else in Western government and media, the author and editor responsible for this piece of jihad-friendly Newspeak bend over backwards to avoid laying the blame where it lies -- the command of Allah and the example of Mohammed.

At least they used "Islam" in the piece; in some countries, that'll get you arrested.

A few lines from their report on some Religionists of Peace planning to wage that "peaceful inner struggle" in various locations across Europe:

MADRID (Reuters) - Islamist extremists were planning attacks across Europe . . . .

Just say "Muslims."

Adding "-ist" to "Islam" here is deceptive, for it implies that the bloodletting in which these animals were about to engage is inconsistent with the command of Allah and the example of Mohammed.

Adding "extremist" provides another layer of opaqueness.

Reuters must supply their reporters and editors with Internet access. That Allah and his false prophet command offensive warfare against those who refuse to convert or submit to their tyranny is quickly discoverable to anyone with a search engine.

The Al Qaeda-inspired cell planned to attack the Barcelona metro and other targets in Spain, Germany, France, Portugal and the United Kingdom, said the bomber turned police informant.

And by whom or what are these monsters inspired? Only their god and prophet who command,

"the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: 'Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them . . .'" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).

Continuing with Reuters:

In testimony that led to the arrest of 14 South Asians last Saturday, the informant told police the group had a preference for attacks on public transport, especially metro systems, El Pais newspaper reported. "If we attack the metro, the emergency services can't get there . . . ."

They think of everything, don't they?

Notice the term, "South Asians." Indians? Roma? Nepalese? Must be Sri Lankans.

The problem is neither race, ethnicity, nor national origin, it is an ideology.

It is Islam.

[. . . ] Spain's government said the Barcelona cell was preparing to carry out the metro attack either last weekend or in the following 15 days. Two other pairs of suicide bombers had been assigned targets elsewhere in Spain, another was to attack Germany, three were given objectives in France and two more were to strike Portugal. The informant said the Barcelona cell had six suicide bombers and other members responsible for preparing explosives and planning attacks in other European states.

. . . after the first attack, but if they are not carried out, there will be a second attack, a third in Spain. And next Germany, France, Portugal, United Kingdom," the head of the cell told the police informer, El Pais reported. The Barcelona bombings could have taken place less than two months before Spain's March 9 general election. Islamic militants attacked Madrid commuter trains days before Spain's last general election in March 2004, killing 191 people and wounding 1,800. They said the attacks were made in revenge for Spain sending troops to Afghanistan and Iraq.

And the Spanish proved the efficacy of their efforts.

Admission by omission

Muslims Against Sharia -- a group working against those aspects of Islamic theology and law which "promote divisiveness and religious hatred, bigotry and discrimination" against non-Muslims and females -- is publicizing their efforts at removing the Qur'anic foundation for such evil.

The list of verses -- including, it appears, entire surahs -- can be found here. There are also numerous ahadith that need purging. And most of Mohammed's latter years.

It is instructive to note that in order to demolish the Islamic justifications for such barbarity, one must remove numerous passages of Islam's foundational texts.

(So much for the idea that "Islam is peace," though MAS would say that those passages requiring violence and oppression are not from Allah.)

The fact that this group of heroic Muslims is a tiny minority when compared to their orthodox coreligionists demonstrates also the fundamental error of the President's public statements on the legitimacy of those who maim and kill for Allah.

Perhaps he didn't know all that much about European politics in the first place

Which calls into question his judgment regarding the "experts" in whom he put his trust.

You can't hide what happened here by calling it a "typo." It's called, "ignorance," and it should have served as a caution against rushing to judgment and condemning as Nazi-sympathizers -- absent conclusive evidence -- those opposing jihad.

If Charles can err regarding Lionheart's sympathies, if Lionheart can err regarding the nature of the BNP, if Pamela can err regarding Charles's intentions, then all should be able to step back, take a deep breath, and admit where they went wrong.

This whole 'blog fight (that's silly, isn't it?) has been four months of friendly-fire among people of good will who should never have been arguing in the first place.

An important question regarding a political group led to an overreaction by a fellow anti-jihadist. Since then, it's been one spiteful, vindictive ad hominem after another, sustained by the statements of experts some of whom would not have been trusted perhaps but for the fact that their posts supported the 'blogger's position against their opponents. (Extreme leftists would never demonize their political opponents, would they?)

Charles wants to avoid allying with racists and Pamela denounces the "British Nazi Party" (BNP). Both oppose the tyranny of Allah.

So regrettable. Will either admit their error(s)? Will either apologize? Who will take the first step toward reconciliation?

Here was Charles's unsteady first step into the unfamiliar world of European politics (emphasis mine):

#13 Charles 10/24/07 12:07:46 pm . . .

re: #11 Defeater of Defeatism

"Dutch Vlaams Belang party"? Dutch-speaking perhaps. They're Belgian, or more specifically, Flemish. But Dutch, not so much.

Will add additional thoughts later on (being a Dutch citizen residing in Belgium and all).

Thanks. Typo corrected.

Here's more evidence that perhaps a little more research is needed, in response to a post by Charles gloating that "Lionheart drops the mask" regarding the BNP:

#489 Amillennialist 1/20/08 2:28:07 am . . .

re: #486 Pickle

re: #476 gunjam

Well said. We are kicking a guy who has taken a bullet -- not for being a fascist -- but for CRITICIZING JIHADISTS!

No. Charles defended him for doing that, and so do I. We're all excoriating him for his association with the BNP, which is not mitigated by his anti-jihadism.

Following links I found this from Lionheart:

I have written posts in support of the BNP in the past which I will explain . . .

. . . within the BNP there is an internal struggle between what has been termed the modernizers and traditionalists.

The modernizers want to reform the party to take it away from its anti-semetic and white supremacist roots and make it more inclusive for the British people and thus make it a respectable electable political party within Great Britain.

. . .

Being non-political a year ago I never knew the complexities of political parties and their origins, but now I am becoming aware of some critical things that I cannot support which is why in my mind since this rebellion started I removed my support of the present BNP which can be proved with documented evidence.

Articles on my blog supporting the BNP were written months ago when the only people out there doing anything about the Islamification of Great Britain were the people of the BNP. I support any good and decent British citizen who is a BNP member who is not a racist, neo-Nazi fascist . . . .

I personally reject, racism, fascism and neo-Nazism and would never knowingly support those traits because it is not who I am as a person.

To answer your question; do I support the BNP? No.

. . .

Q. . . . The BNP charter claims that membership should be limited to whites only, do you support that?

A. No I do not support that because being whites only makes you a racist organization, I never wrote posts in support of the BNP because of this issue, I wrote posts in support of the BNP regarding other issues like the Islamification of my homeland, uncontrolled immigration and the injustice that is aimed at people like Mark Walker.

Q. Nick Griffin the party leader for the BNP has made some very anti-semitic statements. What are your views on Jews and on Isreal?

A. Putting my life on the line twice for Israel and its Jewish residents within the Holy Land, [?] and being a very vocal supporter through my blog should speak for itself.

. . .

Q. And the holocaust?

A. The Holocaust happened during the Second World War and we should not let it happen again as is stated throughout my blog . . .

Too much jumping to conclusions, too much mob mentality, too much uninformed, hair-triggered self-righteousness.

We need to stop the friendly-fire.

Private clarifications ought to precede public eviscerations.

In defense of amillennialism

To one trying to link amillennialism to the Holocaust, from here:

falsehood . . . making noise . . . demonizing . . . libel . . . defensive . . . quibble . . . over a typo . . . petty . . . quote us chapter and verse and identify your translation or you're just making noise . . . dangerous and not Biblical.

A "typo"? Does that mean you had to search online to find out what amillennialism is? If so, then how can you accuse me of "noise" when you don't even know what the term means?

Out of all the possible articles available to humanity, how do you select one that misrepresents the idea that badly? What does that say about your judgment? Your intentions?

Still I will address your comments.

Speaking of "noise," this is from your link:

"The Church Stands in Proxy of Christ"

"Amillennialism is a belief . . . that the literal return of the Messiah . . . is not true . . . ."

". . . the rule of the church body politic . . . ."

". . . no millenial reign of Christ at all."

"Amillennialism lends itself to a diminishing of the Judaic birthright as firstborn of the chosen of God."

". . . the church "replaces" Israel . . . ."

"and in essence replaces even Christ himself on earth, becoming a self-ordained Christ -in -Proxy."

". . . the Church . . . sets itself in the stead of Christ and the Jewish nation, this position leads to the denigration of both . . . ."

"Instead of a millenium of the reign of Christ on earth, there becomes a "Messianic age" with a church and its figureheads as ushering in a utopian age, reinterpreting scripture in terms of church-initiated doctrine and dogma."

". . . the church replaces Christ as "decision maker" and the church replaces the Word of God as the final authority . . . the church confuses the sovereignty of God's dominion with the dominion given man."

That's a significant majority of the beginning o[f] your article.

It's all false.

Depending on whom you ask (someone trying to link the Biblical understanding of amillennialism with the Holocaust is either a malicious liar or stupendously ignorant), amillennialism is the belief (derived from Scripture) that Christ does reign on Earth through His word, the Church (all believers in Christ) endures the Great Tribulation, and Christ will return to deliver His people at the Last Day. The Biblical distinction between the Spiritual and Civil Kingdoms is recognized and upheld.

This understanding comes directly from the clear testimony of Scripture.

In Matthew 24, Jesus answers His disciples' questions about the destruction of the Temple and the End of the Age. Regarding the end, Christ says that it will come unexpectedly, and He notes the signs that will precede it. His description of it indicates that life will be going on as it always has, that Christians will be persecuted, and that His return will come without warning.

From the ESV:

"For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man" (Matthew 24:38, 39).

Or from the King James, 1611:

"For as in the dayes that were before the Flood, they were eating, and drinking, marrying, and giuing in mariage, vntill the day that Noe entred into the Arke, And knew not vntill the Flood came, and tooke them all away: so shall also the comming of the Sonne of man be" (Matthew 24:38, 39).

On the "true Israel," straight from the Apostle Paul who described himself as a "Hebrew of Hebrews," was an expert in the Law of Moses (he was a Pharisee), and who persecuted the Early Church.

Just before these comments Paul laments that he would go to hell in place of his fellow Jews:

"not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but 'Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.'

"This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring" (Romans 9:6-9).

This echoes John the Baptist and his Cousin's charges against the Jewish religious leadership who counted their genetic history as sufficient for salvation, even though they rejected their God and His Messiah.

From John:

"do not presume to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father,' for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham" (Matthew 3:9).

From his Cousin, the Son of God:

"They answered him, 'Abraham is our father.'

"Jesus said to them, 'If you were Abraham's children, you would be doing what Abraham did, but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did'" (John 8:39, 40).

And again back to Paul:

"For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God" (Romans 2:28, 29).

On God's Chosen People, from the Apostle Peter, to Christians (who by this time were not only Jewish, but also Gentile):

"it stands in Scripture: 'Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.'

. . .

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light" (1 Peter 2:6, 9).

On Jew and Gentile being now one man in Christ, from Paul:

"Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called 'the uncircumcision' by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands--remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.

"But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

"For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility" (Ephesians 2:11-16).

And, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28).

As for the Tribulation, it's not some future event:

"I, John, your brother and partner in the tribulation and the kingdom and the patient endurance that are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos on account of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus" (Revelation 1:9).

A place at which confusion (and outright deception) comes is in misreading Revelation. Reading the New Testament texts regarding the end without Revelation leads to the commonsense understanding noted above from Matthew. People see the numbers and signs in Revelation -- which are intended to be understood symbolically, not literally -- and make up all sorts of nonsense.

Demonstrating that the visions John received by revelation contained symbolism:

"Write therefore the things that you have seen, those that are and those that are to take place after this.

"As for the mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand, and the seven golden lampstands, the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches" (Revelation 1:19, 20).

We know from Scripture that Christ resurrected physically, so this bit from Chapter 5 contains symbolism:

"And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth" (Revelation 5:6).

If you want to argue that Revelation does not use symbolism, would you say that Jesus in Heaven has a sword in His mouth? Or that there's only 144,000 people in Heaven?

As for the Apostles' expecting Christ's imminent return, here's a little from Paul:

"the hour has come for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed.

"The night is far gone; the day is at hand" (Romans 13:11, 12).

From Peter:

"But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.

"Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God" (2 Peter 3: 10-12).

And from John:

"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.

"The Spirit and the Bride say, "Come." And let the one who hears say, "Come." And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price.

"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

"He who testifies to these things says, 'Surely I am coming soon.' Amen. Come, Lord Jesus" (Revelation 22:16-20)!

And from the author of the Letter to the Hebrews (possibly Paul):

"And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near" (Hebrews 10:24, 25).

*Finally, Christ said regarding His kingdom:

"My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world" (John 18:36).

"nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or 'There!' for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you" (Luke 17:21).

*Added 1/20

Romney's plan to defeat jihad? Pay the jizya!

Jizya is the humiliating and oppressive head tax inflicted upon populations conquered by Islam -- just like Mohammed and his god commanded.

It is essentially what Mitt Romney has proposed to defeat jihad.

From here:

Hugh Hewitt is a conservative talk show host and author with a national audience. He likes to think he knows the intricacies of any particular issue relating to national politics.

Not too long ago, before the general public knew of CAIR's perfidy, Hugh invited one of their propagandists to appear on his show to spread their deception. Hugh was bombarded with phone calls and e-mails informing him of what his guest was.

If the cluelessness of those who are supposed to be our leaders weren't so tragic, what followed would be funny: Hugh scrambled desperately for an "expert" to counter his guest.

The best he could do was Frank Gaffney who, though he is knowledgeable in many areas regarding national security, knows only "radical extremist jihadism," not jihad and not Islam.

And Hugh was revulsed at the number of Neanderthals in his audience claiming that Islamic terrorism has something to do with Islam.

Since that time, Hugh has read several books on terrorism and interviewed on his program many "experts" on the subject, but (to my knowledge) he runs from Robert and his work like the plague. Whenever I've suggested him to Hugh as a guest, I've received no reply.

The same Hugh Hewitt who invited CAIR to speak on his national radio show is the same Hugh Hewitt who insists that it is the mujahideen who pervert Islam, not those who reject jihad.

He now throws around authoritatively terms like "radical jihadism" (sound familiar?), "Salafist," and "Qutb" (this too should sound familiar!), but he still denies the core fact that Allah and his false prophet command the enslavement or death of all who refuse to convert to Islam.

Despite numerous e-mails and phone calls, Hugh Hewitt continues to define Islam in terms of its heretics, apostates, and apologists. He believes that it is a "tiny minority of radically-extreme Islamo-fascist fundamentalist jihadism-ists" who've "hijacked a great world religion."

So, what does Hugh Hewitt have to do with Mitt Romney's position on jihad?

Hugh Hewitt wrote a book to help Romney get elected. Mitt is Hugh's guy. They use the same vocabulary on "jihadism." Mitt wants to throw unlimited Infidel money and manpower at jihad in hoping to "win [Muslim] hearts and minds."

If Romney really understands the Source and Sustenance of the global jihad, how can he propose such suicidal nonsense?

And how can Hugh cheerlead so vigorously for him?

Romney's "strategy" is both jizya and proof of a complete ignorance of what motivates Allah's War Against Humanity.

To assume otherwise is wishful thinking. All those suffering under the tyranny of Allah have had enough make-believe.

Unless a candidate makes and adheres to a public statement identifying the cause of the global jihad as the command of Allah and the example of Mohammed, it would be foolish to assume knowledge or judgment any better than we've had the last six years.

Rather than mock Mohammed, let Mohammed mock himself

Noted here at Dhimmi Watch is another attempt by jihad's agents and their Useful Idiot Dhimmis to make anything less-than-complimentary of Mohammed a "hate crime." Only this time, it's not in the United (Islamic) Kingdom (UiK), where a blogger is being arrested for "inciting racial hatred" because he dares to tell the truth about Islam. Neither is this in Canada, where the target is Mark Steyn.

This is in America.

How tyrannical. How dishonest. How treacherous. How un-American. Those pushing for this ought to be dealt with in the harshest manner possible within the limits of the law. Does New England still tar-and-feather?

Mocking someone who takes himself so seriously his followers have to kill you does provide the mocker a sense of satisfaction at having defied tyranny and stupidity, but here's one alternative to simplistic taunting that can aid The War of Self-Defense Against Islam:

Islam is the religion that keeps on giving, because it boasts about those very texts that reveal its utter depravity.

I understand the visceral satisfaction to be enjoyed at mocking publicly the false prophet, but it would be much more productive to have -- instead of drive-by-derision -- quick, clear, concise citations of Islam's more unpalatable (for non-Muslims) "divine" mandates and statements and actions from and by Mohammed.

Recently, in the Comments for a MEMRI video at YouTube in which a Muslim scholar discusses the proper Islamic way to beat one's wife, an apparently Muslim poster dared someone to write anything more critical of Islam.

Naturally, I complied.

I posted only statements directly from Islam's "sacred" texts showing the prophet from hell to be a genocidal, enslaving, butchering, pedophile.

(It's hard to call it "abuse" when it comes straight from their own texts.)

There's been no reply yet from that poster.

The effect of distributing such quick, informational blurbs in American cities would be several. Uninformed non-Muslims who are ill-at-ease with Islam but are unable to articulate why will be emboldened to learn and share that learning. Uninformed Muslims will have to decide whether or not such a deity deserves their fealty. Informed Muslims will be put on alert that their nonsense will no longer continue under the cover of multiculturalist ignorance. Dhimmis -- especially in leadership positions in government, media, and academia -- will be able to spread their ignorance unchallenged no longer.

And here is an example of letting Islam speak for itself:

Mohammed as genocidal maniac:

"fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) . . . " (Qur'an 9:5).

Mohammed as terrorist:

"Allah's Apostle said, 'I have been made victorious with terror . . . '" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

Mohammed as butcher:

"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides . . . " (Qur'an 5:33).

Mohammed as pedophile:

"My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down . . . I was brought in while Muhammad was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. The other men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old" (Tabari 9:131).

It's hard to call it "abuse" when it comes straight from your own "sacred" texts.

The American and British governments betraying to Islam those whom it is their duty to defend

A jihadist manages to secure the firing of one of the apparent few in our government who appear to understand Islam, a British citizen is being arrested for telling the truth about the Religion of Peace, and the adult candidates for President of the United States of America twist their tongues and intellects condemning "radical jihadist Islamofascist extremism" while assuring us that they have "great respect for Islam," a religion "perverted" by those wanting to establish the worldwide tyranny of Allah.

It was a tragic and horrifying scene at the debate tonight: Ron Paul running back and forth, his hair aflame yelling, "Islamophobe!" Rudy obliterating Paul's nonsense about America's foreign policy being the cause of the Greater Jihad but then destroying any hope for clarity from him on what motivates it, and Mitt actually using the word "jihad" but with a modifier.

McCain and Huckabee were no better.

Where's Fred?

Note below that now, over six years since 9/11, we're only "preparing" to wage the ideological war against Islam.

On treason in D.C.:

Infiltration Update. Here is a travesty for which Gordon England should be held accountable.

"Coughlin sacked," by Bill Gertz in the Washington Times:

Stephen Coughlin, the Pentagon specialist on Islamic law and Islamist extremism, has been fired from his position on the military's Joint Staff. The action followed a report in this space last week revealing opposition to his work for the military by pro-Muslim officials within the office of Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England.

Mr. Coughlin was notified this week that his contract with the Joint Staff will end in March, effectively halting the career of one of the U.S. government's most important figures in analyzing the nature of extremism and ultimately preparing to wage ideological war against it.

He had run afoul of a key aide to Mr. England, Hasham Islam, who confronted Mr. Coughlin during a meeting several weeks ago when Mr. Islam sought to have Mr. Coughlin soften his views on Islamist extremism.

Mr. Coughlin was accused directly by Mr. Islam of being a Christian zealot or extremist "with a pen," according to defense officials. Mr. Coughlin appears to have become one of the first casualties in the war of ideas with Islamism.

The officials said Mr. Coughlin was let go because he had become "too hot" or controversial within the Pentagon.

Misguided Pentagon officials, including Mr. Islam and Mr. England, have initiated an aggressive "outreach" program to U.S. Muslim groups that critics say is lending credibility to what has been identified as a budding support network for Islamist extremists, including front groups for the radical Muslim Brotherhood.

Mr. Coughlin wrote a memorandum several months ago based on documents made public in a federal trial in Dallas that revealed a covert plan by the Muslim Brotherhood, an Egyptian-origin Islamist extremist group, to subvert the United States using front groups. Members of one of the identified front groups, the Islamic Society of North America, has been hosted by Mr. England at the Pentagon.

After word of the confrontation between Mr. Coughlin and Mr. Islam was made public, support for Mr. Coughlin skyrocketed among those in and out of government who feared the worst, namely that pro-Muslim officials in the Pentagon were after Mr. Coughlin's scalp, and that his departure would be a major setback for the Pentagon's struggling efforts to develop a war of ideas against extremism. Blogs lit up with hundreds of postings, some suggesting that Mr. England's office is "penetrated" by the enemy in the war on terrorism....

LTC Joseph C. Myers on this firing:

MAJ (USAR) Stephen Coughlin is to my knowledge the only Islamic Law scholar on the Joint Staff...

He is a lawyer by training and a reserve Military Intelligence Officer. His first interface with Islamic Law began in Pakistan where he was investigating and prosecuting an intellectual property rights case about 10 years ago. Reviewing Pakistani property rights law, he kept seeing footnoted references to the Quran and sharia law...

I have long argued and wondered why our military from senior leaders down to tactical level are so unread and unstudied on Islam, jihad in Islam, even the topic of terrorism. I have often contrasted this unconscionable wartime state of affairs, with the due diligence the US military showed since I was a cadet at West Point 30 years ago, where we lived, ate, slept and drank Soviet warfighting doctrine...it was the threat we oriented on and we developed our own doctrine around -- "AirLand Battle" in the early 1980's.

Can anyone show me where the equivalent of the Soviet threat doctrine series for the global war on terror is published?

It has not been done.

Yet today we are in the process of prosecuting war, that from doctrinal perspective, we fundamentally do not understand. Over two years I have had 90 of the Army's top majors come through ACSC, across all branches including MI and special operations forces, and only one had read a book with the title Understanding Terror Networks, that by Marc Sageman...

Just before Christmas I presented a lecture on Understanding Terrorist and Insurgent Support Systems to an interagency audience at the Joint Special Operations University, that included Joint Staff and Joint Command officers, DIA and other IC reps, DHS and law enforcement... there, two people had read Sageman's work...two out of the special ops community. The third individual was Sageman himself.

More importantly we have not studied Islamic Law and few have seen or heard of even the English translation of it that has been in print for years, none had at JSOU or had read a work titled Understanding Jihad, War and Peace in the Law of Islam or even The Quranic Concept of War...I can go on but let me be frank.

This failure of intellectual preparation is a leadership failure, and it is as the 9-11 Commission warned, a failure of vision.

We have spent much intellectual capitol revamping and analyzing our own doctrine as it relates to counterinsurgency...it's time we do our homework on the threat.

Coughlin has briefed senior Marine Corps leaders and staff and has presented his thesis in various military educational venues...by all accounts the veil of ignorance is lifted for all but only a few who are afraid to face what Islamic Law, doctrinal Islam, says and means with respect to jihad and how it plays out across the Islamic world from al Qaida, to the Saudi government, to Pakistan to the Muslim Brotherhood...

What Coughlin did was provide the epiphany in his over 300-page Joint Military Intelligence College thesis titled, "To Our Great Detriment: Ignoring What Extremists Say About Jihad" that is meticulously documented and powerfully argued.

In short, he argues we have in fact intellectually pre-empted our military decision making process and intelligence preparation of the battlefield process, the critical step 3-"evaluate the threat." Strategically we have failed to do that by substituting policy for military analysis, for substituting cliché for competent decision processes.

We began on September 12, 2001 with "Islam is a religion of peace," which soothed ideological sentiments of many but has failed us strategically, short-stopped the objective, sytstemic evaluation of the threat doctrine.

"Islam is a religion of peace" is fine for public policy statements, but is not and cannot be the point of departure for competent military or intelligence analysis...it is in fact a logical flaw under any professional research methodology...you have stated the conclusion before you have done the analysis.

If one has studied the implication of the Holy Land Foundation trial discovery documents as I have, as a former DIA senior military analyst, and understanding as even Bill Gertz has written in his book Enemies about the dismal record of our counter-intelligence one has to wonder and question the extent we are in fact penetrated in government and academia by foreign agents of influence, the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamists and those who truly in essence do not share our social compact.

The termination of Stephen Coughlin on the Joint Staff is an act of intellectual cowardice.

We can only hope he can be positioned in his next venue to continue to educate our military for the fight we are in -- if we don't understand the war and the enemy we are engaged against we remain vulnerable and we cannot win.

No victory in the war on terror.

And on treasonous dhimmitude by the British government:

. . . the government and the Islamic Kingdom are trying to silence me . . . Ask yourself why?

A murderous section of the Pakistani Moslem community of Bury Park – Luton threatened my life, as witnessed by two witnesses, and my blog which is my perception of truth based on facts is my response to those very serious credible death threats.

I would rather die a Christian man than a pathetic Dhimmi – What about you?

They have bombed my homeland and they are desecrating my Nation on a daily basis with their Islamic degradation, so I will not back down from them or their gullible Liberal Left Wing tools who are trying to silence me – They are the ones who are at war with my country, and who want to kill me personally – If they want a war based on the facts and they want to kill me, then is it not my right to protect myself? If I don’t who will, do I just let these people kill me or do I run away and leave this to someone else to deal with? And if they are at war with us which they are, as the facts clearly prove, then can we the British people not let them have a war?

Whose homeland is this, theirs or mine?

What is the result of doing nothing?

My Grandfather never fought for Queen and Country so that the blessed birthright he handed to me which was my part of the British homeland as an Englishman could be taken away in my generation and given to an alien Kingdom with its alien Islamic culture so that there will be nothing left for my children other than an Islamic way of life enforced upon them.

I would rather my children know I died a free man for them and their birthright, than a coward and a slave to the oppressors, no matter what form that oppression comes in.

Why should I be forced out of my home, forced out of my business, forced into bankruptcy and forced to become a vagabond in my own land because of murdering warmongering Moslems who are at war with the Nation – something wrong there don’t you think?

And now people are trying to ‘silence’ me from speaking out about this abomination that is happening to me and my fellow countrymen by this internal enemy whose ultimate intention it is to take over rule of the land and enforce ‘Sharia Law’ upon the population, no matter how long that takes them.

. . .

You want a fight with me to silence me then lets fight, but remember there is an army made up of millions of people the same as me throughout the World who are ready to fight you with me, this has been shown to me over the last two days, and these citizens of the free world stand shoulder to shoulder with me, because this attack on me is an attack on them, their children and grandchildren also!!!

You have started something that will never be stopped now!!!

We have had enough of the murderous Islamic threat against our daily lives, and our futures, and we have had enough of our traitorous leaders and their supporters who are bending over backwards to appease the Islamic Kingdom at the expense of us and our children.

Ken Livingstone the slimy devil driven racist is the worst of them all!

The time has now come to let people know the truth so that they can decide where they stand in the coming days – I am not calling for people to march in the streets murdering people, we are civilized people we do not need to, we carry the ‘sword of truth’, that is enough at this moment in time, it is time innocent people woke up to this imminent Islamic threat that surrounds them and their children before it is too late.

Just remember we outnumber Moslems in our Country 20 to 1, we never asked for this, but we sure will rise to the challenge of the 21st Century and repel this foreign Islamic invader that has invaded our shores and is now conducting a Holy War against us.

Hasham Islam and Ken Livingstone are their own governments' Grima Wormtongues.

A presidential candidate who understands jihad, or more of the same?

That the question has to be asked gives cause for concern.

Tom Tancredo would not rule out erasing Mecca and Medina as a deterrent to OBL and his fellow inner spiritual strugglers, and I've heard that Mitt Romney has used the word "jihad" (Although if Hugh "Islam is a Religion of Peace because some apostate -- or deceptive, I can't tell the difference, but it doesn't really matter, does it? -- Muslims told me so" Hewitt supports Mitt, then how much can Mitt really know?)

Where's Fred Thompson on the vital issues?

-Excellent voting record in defense of the unborn? Yes.

-Directly condemns by name the NEA, ACLU, and Michael Moore? Yes.

-Opposes judicial activism? Yes.

-Recognizes that the powers of the Federal Government are limited to only those explicitly stated in the Constitution? Yes.

-Understands that small government, low taxes, secure borders, and military supremacy are essential to our prosperity and safety? Yes.

-Rejects the Big Government, Borrow-and-Spend, Open Borders recent history of the Republican Party (and how that lost the Congress)? Yes.

-Acknowledges the blessings and protections of Divine Providence -- and uses the language of the Founding Fathers in doing so? Yes.

-Understands, explains, and condemns jihad? There's a problem.

Debbie Schlussel and Michelle Malkin both wrote mid-year against Thompson's hiring of Spencer Abraham to his campaign. Ms. Schlussel notes that Abraham is an open-border, Islamized Christian who:

"favored pan-Islamists from HAMAS front group CAIR and others from Islamic charities raided by Customs Agents for laundering money to Al-Qaeda. He invited a man tied to one of the Al-Qaeda-related charities to the Bush White House to give out post-9/11 "awards." Abraham also took campaign contributions from Nijad Fares, the son of then-Hezbollah installed Deputy Prime Minister of Lebanon.

We're glad that Abraham has now come out in the open and made it official that--as we've previously lamented--he can be bought by the highest Pan-Islamist Mid-East bidder. We only hope he does not share vital energy secrets with them.

. . . he became a whore to radical Islamic causes once he reached the U.S. Senate and to date.

There is some good news, though it presents another dilemma. When CAIR filed recently is galling and treasonous Flying Imams lawsuit, this was Thompson's response:

I've talked before about the Council on American-Islamic Relations -- most recently because it filed that lawsuit against Americans who reported suspicious behavior by Muslims on a U.S. Airways flight. Better known just as CAIR, the lobbying group has come under a lot of scrutiny lately for its connections to terror-supporting groups. This time, though, The Washington Times has uncovered some very good news about the group.

For years, CAIR has claimed to represent millions of American Muslims. In fact, they claim to represent more Muslims in America than ... there are in America. This has alarmed Americans in general as the group often seems to be more aligned with our enemies than us -- which isn't surprising as it spun off from a group funded by Hamas. As you know, Hamas has been waging a terrorist war against Israel and calls for its total destruction. It also promises to see America destroyed. Nowadays, Hamas is busy murdering its Palestinian political rivals.

Even with this history, and CAIR's conspicuous failure to condemn Hamas by name, it has been treated as if represents Muslim Americans by our own government. The good news is that the financial support CAIR claims to have among American Muslims is a myth. We know this because The Washington Times got hold of the group's IRS tax records.

CAIR's dues-paying membership has shrunk 90 percent since 9/11 -- from 29,000 in 2000 to only 1,700 last year. CAIR's annual income from dues plunged from $733,000 to $59,000. Clearly, America's Muslims are not supporting this group -- and I'm happy to hear about it.

Of course, every silver lining seems to have a cloud; and this cloud is that CAIR's spending is running about $3 million a year. They’ve opened 25 new chapters in major cities across the country even as their dues shrank to a pittance. The question is; who’s funding CAIR?

CAIR's not saying. The New York Times earlier this year reported that the backing is from "wealthy Persian Gulf governments" including the UAE and Saudi Arabia. Obviously, we have a bigger problem here than the one with CAIR.

So, Fred recognizes the threat posed to America by CAIR and our "allies" in the Islamic world, but he hires someone who "favored" and served those same agents.

Only adding to the confusion is Fred Thompson's commentary on Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book Infidel:

Ayaan Hirsi Ali can’t leave her Washington D.C. home without guards.

Born a Muslim in the African nation of Somalia, she was treated as property. Hirsi Ali, though, escaped a marriage, arranged by her father, to a cousin in Canada she’d never met.

Granted exile in the Netherlands, Hirsi Ali rose like cream and was elected to the Dutch parliament. She also wrote a script based on her experience volunteering in battered women’s shelters. There, she learned that her fellow Somali immigrants were maintaining the feudal ways she thought she had left behind.

Filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, the great-grand-nephew of the famous painter, made her movie — but paid for it with his life. His Islamist murderer used a dagger to pin a note, promising Hirsi Ali’s death, to the director’s chest. Unsafe, and unwelcome to many, Hirsi Ali came to America last year and was able to live pretty much like a normal person.

But her new autobiography, Infidel, is out now and the usual suspects are furious that she would argue for the liberation of Muslim women. Due to serious and credible threats, she is once again surrounded by guards.

There were many Germans and other Europeans who came to America and warned of the Nazi threat in the 1930s, including writers and filmmakers. Can you imagine that any of them would have ever needed bodyguards?

Hirsi Ali does — right here in America. Yet too many people still don’t understand what our country is up against. They might if they read her book.

"Islamist," but not, "jihad." Though not directly comparing Islam to Nazism, at least he is unafraid to make the historical analogy.

Does Fred understand what our country -- and the rest of the non-Muslim world -- is up against?

Here's Fred Thompson before the Iowa Caucus:

Burnt by the truth about Max Cleland

Burnt Orange Report defends one who slanders our military by slandering one who defends our military. More illiberal illogic.

In response to an attack on Ann Coulter as "unpatriotic" (isn't that what liberals are always accusing Americans of doing?) for pointing out facts inconvenient to the Democratic Party's misuse of Max Cleland who -- though all who serve deserve honor and gratitude -- has slandered unapologetically our military:

When will you denounce John Kerry for his "anti-American, anti-soldier, hateful, malicious and untrue statements"? When will you demand of him "a huge apology for the vitriolic hatred [he] spew[ed]" against our servicemen in Vietnam?

If you believe Kerry, was not Cleland a murderous, raping butcher along the lines of Genghis Khan?

You can't have it both ways (unless you're an irrational, craven hypocrite).

As for Max Cleland, how can you call "great" someone who accused falsely our Marines in Iraq of murder? Was he not "spewing anti-American, anti-soldier, hateful, malicious and untrue statements" about our military while they're in harm's way? Are they not "great men" for defending us and our rights against those whose god and prophet command them to "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5)?

Here's an excellent rebuttal by Mark Harden:

Coulter pretty much blows away the misrepresentations of her column here.

Back in 1997, before he was hijacked as the Dem's Disabled Vietnam Vet poster boy, the media was more honest about what actually happened to Cleland:

Jill Zuckman in a lengthy piece for The Boston Globe Sunday magazine on Aug. 3, 1997:

"Finally, the battle at Khe Sanh was over. Cleland, 25 years old, and two members of his team were now ordered to set up a radio relay station at the division assembly area, 15 miles away. The three gathered antennas, radios and a generator and made the 15-minute helicopter trip east. After unloading the equipment, Cleland climbed back into the helicopter for the ride back. But at the last minute, he decided to stay and have a beer with some friends. As the helicopter was lifting off, he shouted to the pilot that he was staying behind and jumped several feet to the ground.

"Cleland hunched over to avoid the whirring blades and ran. Turning to face the helicopter, he caught sight of a grenade on the ground where the chopper had perched. It must be mine, he thought, moving toward it. He reached for it with his right arm just as it exploded, slamming him back and irreparably altering his plans for a bright, shining future."

Ann Coulter sums up the Left's problem succinctly:

Sadly for them, dozens and dozens of newspapers have already printed the truth. Liberals simply can't grasp the problem Lexis-Nexis poses to their incessant lying. They ought to stick to their specialty — hysterical overreaction. The truth is not their forte.

Here are more of Ms. Coulter's remarks on Cleland:

"He told the pilot he was going to stay awhile. Maybe have a few beers with friends. ... Then Cleland looked down and saw a grenade. Where'd that come from? He walked toward it, bent down, and crossed the line between before and after." (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Dec. 5, 1999)

"(Cleland) didn't step on a land mine. He wasn't wounded in a firefight. He couldn't blame the Viet Cong or friendly fire. The Silver Star and Bronze Star medals he received only embarrassed him. He was no hero. He blew himself up." (The Baltimore Sun, Oct. 24, 1999)

"Cleland was no war hero, but his sacrifice was great. ... Democratic Senate candidate Max Cleland is a victim of war, not a casualty of combat. He lost three limbs on a long-forgotten hill near Khe Sanh because of some American's mistake ..." (The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Sept. 29, 1996)

The story started to change only last year when the Democrats began citing Cleland's lost Senate seat as proof that Republicans hate war heroes. Indeed, until the myth of Republicans attacking Cleland for his lack of "patriotism" became central to the Democrats' narrative against George Bush, Cleland spoke only honorably and humbly about his accident. "How did I become a war hero?" he said to The Boston Globe reporter in 1997. "Simple. The grenade went off."

Cleland even admitted that, but for his accident, he would have "probably been some frustrated history teacher, teaching American government at some junior college." (OK, I got that wrong: I said he'd probably be a pharmacist.)

Cleland's true heroism came after the war, when he went on to build a productive life for himself. That is a story of inspiration and courage. He shouldn't let the Democrats tarnish an admirable life by "sexing up" his record in order to better attack George Bush.

The real Pakistan

Max Boot disagrees with Andrew McCarthy on the "real" Pakistan.

The battle in Pakistan, as it is in all Muslim (and increasingly non-Muslim) nations is between those who desire to obey Allah and those who do not.

Considering that it is the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, that the government's official history of the nation says that the foundation of Pakistan was laid at the invasion of the Muslim general Muhammed bin Qasim in 712 a.D., that its people overwhelmingly support murdering those who leave Islam (just like Mohammed dictated), and that half of those willing to answer a Western poll support Osama bin Laden, I'd say the real Pakistan -- the Pakistan one Musharraf heartbeat away from acquiring control of jihad's ultimate weapon -- is not the modern, moderate delusion of ignorant and gullible Western Infidels, but the nation that continues to move toward more Islam.

In light of Allah's will and Mohammed's example recorded in Qur'an and Sunnah, that is not a good thing.

(See also here and here.)

In response to Max Boot's post and a few of the comments following:

How can democratic elections in a country where half its people willing to respond to a western poll approve of UBL be a good thing for America (and non-Muslims, in general)?

The reason Pakistan has been moving ever closer to Shari’a is not because of American foreign policy, Israel, a lack of education, or poverty (jihadists tend to be better educated and wealthier than their peers), it is because of Islam.

Bhutto advocated not the different, peaceful, moderate (mythical) Islam that President Bush, Hugh Hewitt, and so many others like them hope exists, but less Islam. A secular democracy led by a woman is doubly anathema to Allah.

The President has not recognized — neither has any other world leader — that the reason Islam wars against the Infidel (and those considered not-Muslim-enough) is because its god and prophet require it:

“the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: ‘Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya . . . If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them . . .’” (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).

“fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) . . . ” (Qur’an 9:5).

“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Qur’an 9:29).

“Allah’s Apostle said: ‘I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle . . . ‘” (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

“Allah’s Apostle was asked, ‘What is the best deed?’ He replied, ‘To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad).’ The questioner then asked, ‘What is the next (in goodness)?’ He replied, ‘To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah’s Cause’ . . .’” (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 25).

“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

Mike Huckabee, George W. Bush II

Mike Huckabee is George W. Bush II: a professed Christian who also happens to be a Big Government, State-Knows-Best, globalist, politically-correct dhimmi who, if he understands the Constitution at all, overlooks the parts he finds inconvenient.

Making matters worse, he thinks we can negotiate with jihad.

America needs as president someone who will fulfill his or her presidential oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic and who has a clue as to what our enemy in the Global War on Terrorism is. (Hint: It's not the tactic terrorism, it is the jihad ideology and those who advance it.)

Here is the redoubtable Ms. Coulter on another statist wolf in conservative sheep's clothing:

Despite the overwhelming popular demand for another column on Ron Radosh's review of Stan Evans' book, this week's column will address the urgent matter of evangelical Christians getting blamed for Mike Huckabee.

To paraphrase the Jews, this is "bad for the evangelicals."

As far as I can tell, it's mostly secular liberals swooning over Huckabee. Liberals adore Huckabee because he fits their image of what an evangelical should be: stupid and easily led.

The media are transfixed by the fact that Huckabee says he doesn't believe in evolution. Neither do I, for reasons detailed in approximately one-third of my No. 1 New York Times best-selling book, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism."

I went on a massive book tour for "Godless" just last year, including a boffo opening interview with Matt Lauer on NBC's "Today," a one-on-one, full-hour interview with Chris Matthews on "Hardball," and various other hostile interviews from the organs of establishmentarian opinion.

But I didn't get a single question from them on the topic of one-third of my book.

If the mainstream media are burning with curiosity about what critics of Darwinism have to say, how about asking me? I can name any number of mathematicians, scientists and authors who have also rejected Darwin's discredited theory and would be happy to rap with them about it.

But they won't ask us, because, unlike the cornpone, we won't immediately collapse under gentle questioning. It's one thing to be "easily led" by the pope. Huckabee is easily led by Larry King.

Asked on CNN's "Larry King Live" Monday night about his beliefs on evolution, Huckabee rushed to assure King that he has no interest in altering textbooks that foist this fraud on innocent schoolchildren.

I don't understand that. Does Huckabee believe Darwinism is a hoax or not? If he knows it's a fraud, then why does he want it taught to schoolchildren? What other discredited mystery religions – as mathematician David Berlinski calls Darwinism – does Huckabee want to teach children? Sorcery? Phrenology? Alchemy?

Admittedly, the truth about Darwinism would be jarring in textbooks that promote other frauds and hoaxes, such as "man-made global warming." Why confuse the little tykes with fact-based textbooks?

Huckabee immediately dropped his alleged skepticism of Darwinism and turned to his main goal as president of the United States: teaching children more art and music. This, he said, was his "passion" because "I think our education system is failing kids because we're not touching the right side of the brain – the creative side. We are focusing on the left side."

I think I know someone who has just read an article in Reader's Digest about left brain/right brain differences!

When not evolving his position on Darwinism, Huckabee insults gays by pointlessly citing the Bible's rather pointed remarks about sodomy – fitting the MSM's image of evangelicals sitting around all day denouncing gays. (Which is just so unfair. I'm usually done denouncing gays by 10:30 a.m., 11 tops.) And yet, Huckabee has said he agrees with the Supreme Court's lunatic opinion that sodomy is a constitutional right.

In the 2003 decision Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court overruled Bowers v. Hardwick, a case only 17 years old (and with a name chosen by God) – despite the allegedly hallowed principle of "stare decisis." As explained in "Godless," stare decisis means: "What's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable."

Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion in Lawrence was so insane that the lower courts completely ignored it. Since then, courts have disregarded Lawrence in order to uphold state laws banning the sale of vibrators, restricting gays' rights to adopt, prohibiting people from having sex with their adult ex-stepchildren, and various other basic human rights specifically mentioned in our Constitution.

Lawrence was promptly denounced not only by Republican governors and Christian groups across the nation, but also by anyone with sufficient reading comprehension skills to see that the Constitution says nothing about a right to sodomy. But when Huckabee was asked about this jaw-dropping ruling from the high court, he said the majority opinion "probably was appropriate."

He made these remarks on his monthly radio show, "Ask the Governor," as was widely reported at the time, including a July 3, 2003, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette article titled, "Huckabee Says Sex Lives of Adults Not State Affair." I stress that "Ask the Governor" was not a wacky, comedy-based, morning zoo-type radio program. It was supposed to be serious.

Employing the ACLU's "any law I don't like is unconstitutional" test, Huckabee said he supported the court's decision because a law "that prohibited private behavior among adults" would be difficult to enforce. Next he'll be telling us which of the Ten Commandments he considers "nonstarters."

How about adults who privately operate meth labs? How about a private contract between an employer and employee for a salary less than the minimum wage?

Hey! How about adults privately smoking cigarettes in their homes? Nope, Huckabee wants a federal law banning smoking but thinks state laws banning sodomy are "probably" unconstitutional.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a spirited dissent in Lawrence, joined by Justices William Rehnquist and Clarence Thomas, raising the somewhat embarrassing point that homosexual sodomy is not technically mentioned in the Constitution. Otherwise, our Founding Fathers would have been our "Founding Life Partners."

Scalia said that inasmuch as the Texas law furthered "the same interest furthered by criminal laws against fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality and obscenity," the court's ruling placed all these laws in jeopardy.

Most important, Scalia said: "Today's opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions." At least no court has tried to legalize gay marriage since that 2003 ruling, so we can be grateful for – Hey, wait a minute!

Huckabee claims he opposes gay marriage and says Scalia is his favorite justice, but he supports a Supreme Court decision denounced by Scalia for paving the way to a "constitutional right" to gay marriage. I guess Huckabee is one of those pro-sodomy, pro-gay marriage, pro-evolution evangelical Christians.

No wonder Huckabee is the evangelical liberals like.

Defending Teddy bear jihad by accusing the West of overreacting

Obfuscating for Islam by blaming the victim, just like the Democratic Presidential candidates do when they blame non-Muslims for Muslim hate.

From here:

Rob,

So, Sudan duped the Western press?

It's amazing that those "yahoos" were able to manipulate the non-Muslim world into thinking that they wanted to incarcerate, brutalize, and kill a teacher over a teddy bear.

Your defense of jihad is transparent, immoral, and incoherent.

First, you lament the "injury" done to Islam by its own followers' barbarism rather than that inflicted upon the non-Muslim world by them.

Second, you call first the Sudanese "yahoos;" then, it's those who report on their insanity who are the idiots.

Third, rather than condemn Muslim bloodlust, you blame the actual and potential victims of it for their "broad-brushing."

Finally, you dismiss the utter depravity of Muslims imitating Mohammed's example and mock justified revulsion and alarm with lines like:

"the big bad Muslims"

"the Western press was duped"

"half-assed teddy story"

"conservative pundits whipped up a feeding frenzy"

"a piece of performance art"

"stage-managed"

"The West lapped up every bit"

"It doesn't take much to set off the West"

"chants of “death to the infidels” and threats of 40 lashes to some innocent usually does the trick"

"We nod our heads knowingly that the madness among Muslims will never end until we end it ourselves"

"most of the “knives” were ceremonial swords"

"pay small sums to uneducated members of their mosque"

"partners in the orchestration"

"frame the demonstrations"

"give the event a sense of urgency"

"We fell for it because we wanted to"

"It justifies our moral outrage"

"duped the Western press"

"opportunists in the West saw it as a means to paint all Muslims with a broad brush as unreasonable and violent"

Muslims want to kill over a teddy bear, actually riot and murder over cartoons, terrorize authors, slay artists, and commit over ten thousand attacks since 9/11, but it's the West which misrepresents "all" Muslims.

This is craven, seditious submission.

This is the fog of war.

This is the Genocidal Pedophile's "War is deceit" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 268).

So much for your false accusation of taking your words out-of-context.

Islam has little love for girls unless -- as in the case of Mohammed -- she's nine, he's in his fifties, and Allah tells him to rape her

From here:

robin,

The religious inequity noted in that last statement just flew right by you, didn't it?

Why is that a Muslim man can marry an Infidel woman, but the reverse is forbidden? Is that "tolerant" to you? Is that "equitable"?

otter's suggestion that your ex was an apostate is not unreasonable; more lamentable for you is the possibility that he was a devout Muslim compromising outwardly to advance the cause of Islam. I would question also whether you are much of a Catholic, since you seem perfectly proud to state that your daughter "by birth is a Muslim."

Assuming that you are a decent person, such a position indicates your ignorance of the faith into which you married, for Allah and his apostle have little love for girls unless -- as in the case of Mohammed -- she's nine, he's in his fifties, and Allah tells him to rape her:

“My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse took over and wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was brought in while Muhammad was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. The other men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old” (Tabari 9:131).

"Allah’s Apostle told Aisha [his six-year-old bride and nine-year-old sexual "partner"], ‘You were shown to me twice in my dreams. I beheld a man or angel carrying you in a silken cloth. He said to me, “She is yours, so uncover her.” And behold, it was you. I would then say to myself, “If this is from Allah, then it must happen”’” (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 87, Number 139-140).

In ten minutes she speaks more truth than the President has in six years

While he equates Islam's "sacred" texts with the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount, Wafa Sultan expounds on the malevolence of Allah:

What would Mohammed do?

In light of Allah's statement, "Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah" (Qur'an 33:21), it is reasonable to assume that the educated, faithful Muslim will strive to imitate his example.

In fact, Mohammed is called the "Ideal Man" in Islam. His words and deeds (and even what he saw and permitted) determine what is right and good.

If Mohammed's words and actions were at least somewhat moral, then non-Muslims can hope that more Islam will reduce and end eventually the threat posed by Muslims raping, enslaving, mutilating, and butchering in the name of Allah.

So, what is that example Allah desires his people to follow? What would Mohammed do? Let's ask him:

1. Slaughter all non-Muslims who refuse to convert to Islam or submit to its oppression, humiliation, degradation, and jizya:

"the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: 'Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya . . . If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them . . .'" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).

"fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) . . . " (Qur’an 9:5).

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29).

"Allah's Apostle said: 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle . . . '" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

2. Engage in terrorism:

“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror. The treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

"Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly" (Qur'an 8:60).

3. Kill even women and children:

"The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." I also heard the Prophet saying, "The institution of Hima is invalid except for Allah and His Apostle" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 256).

4. Behead, crucify, mutilate, and slaughter:

"Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): 'I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them'" (Qur'an 8:12).

"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter . . . " (Qur'an 5:33).

"It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise" (Qur'an 8:67).

5. Marry the six-year-old daughter of a close supporter and begin raping her when she turns nine (after all, Allah wanted it):

“My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse took over and wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was brought in while Muhammad was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. The other men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old” (Tabari 9:131).

“Allah’s Apostle told Aisha [his six-year-old bride and nine-year-old sexual "partner"], ‘You were shown to me twice in my dreams. I beheld a man or angel carrying you in a silken cloth. He said to me, “She is yours, so uncover her.” And behold, it was you. I would then say to myself, “If this is from Allah, then it must happen”’” (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 87, Number 139-140).

6. Beat potentially disobedient wives . . . .

Things named "Mohammed"

A teacher is threatened with death for naming a teddy bear "Mohammed."

"Just a 'tiny minority of extremists'" you say? Actually, it's the non-Infidel population of Sudan.

"Not official" you protest? The government's sentenced her to prison time.

"Muslims around the world condemn this"? Where are the counter-protests by the fabled "huge majority of moderate Muslims"?

Name any part of Islam which rejects such a reaction as un-Islamic.

You can't, since Mohammed silenced critics not by good deeds and sweet reason, but by silencing them.

Asma bint Marwan was a poetess who challenged the false prophet. This is what that brought her:

"When the apostle heard what she had said he said, 'Who will rid me of Marwan's daughter?' Umayr bin Adiy al-Khatmi who was with him heard him, and that very night he went to her house and killed her. In the morning he came to the apostle and told him what he had done and he [Muhammad] said, "You have helped Allah and His apostle, O Umayr!" When he asked if he would have to bear any evil consequences the apostle said, 'Two goats won't butt their heads about her,' so Umayr went back to his people.

Now there was a great commotion among Banu Khatma that day about the affair of bint [daughter of] Marwan. She had five sons, and when Umayr went to them from the apostle he said, 'I have killed bint Marwan, o sons of Khatma. Withstand me if you can; don't keep me waiting.' That was the first day Islam became powerful among Banu Khatma; before that those who were Muslims concealed the fact . . .The day after Bint Marwan was killed the men of Banu Khatma became Muslims because they feared for their lives" (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah).

A little more detail on the foul deed:

"Then (occurred) the sariyyah of Umayr ibn adi Ibn Kharashah al-Khatmi against Asma Bint Marwan, of Banu Umayyah Ibn Zayd, when five nights had remained from the month of Ramadan, in the beginning of the nineteenth month from the hijrah of the apostle of Allah. Asma was the wife of Yazid Ibn Zayd Ibn Hisn al-Khatmi. She used to revile Islam, offend the prophet and instigate the (people) against him. She composed verses. Umayr Ibn Adi came to her in the night and entered her house. Her children were sleeping around her. There was one whom she was suckling. He searched her with his hand because he was blind, and separated the child from her. He thrust his sword in her chest till it pierced up to her back. Then he offered the morning prayers with the prophet at al-Medina. The apostle of Allah said to him: "Have you slain the daughter of Marwan?" He said: "Yes. Is there something more for me to do?" He [Muhammad] said: "No . . . " (Ibn Sa'd's Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir).

Let's see, things named "Mohammed" . . . .

1. Bill Keller's little friend:

In response to the Annapolis Atrocity and another ignorant and gullible Infidel advancing Islam

Why do so many who would be among the first to be forced into conversion or decapitation defend the ideology of their demise?

From here:

I sent the following to the Saudi embassy and Cc'd it to President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, Rush, Hannity, Glenn Beck, and Hugh Hewitt.

This is the reason there will be no peace between Islam and Israel. It is an infidel state on land once controlled by Allah, and once Allah's, always Allah's:

Sirs,

No decent, rational human being can consider the evil cited below to be the will of a god.

Inexplicably, the President of the United States of America -- a man who claims for himself the title "Christian" -- appeases and calls "ally" some of those who consider such excrement to be "divine." He defends their depravity, even equating such vile filth with the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount in an Inaugural Address!

(Jefferson and Adams -- two men whose Islamic counterparts were much more honest about their "sacred" right to Infidel blood than are today's Muslim leaders -- would be disgusted to see such craven dishonesty from the leader of the nation they helped create.)

No less shamefully, those pretend defenders of Western Civilization -- lions behind microphones except when it comes to telling the truth about Qur'an and Sunnah -- do the same.

This is the will of Allah and the example of Mohammed. This is what you defend:

"...fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them . . . " (Qur'an 9:5).

"Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya . . . If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them . . . " (Muslim Book 019, Number 4294).

"Fight those who believe not in Allah . . . nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29).

"Allah's Apostle said: 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle . . . '" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

"Allah's Apostle said, 'I have been made victorious with terror. The treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand'" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

"My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse took over and wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was brought in while Muhammad was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. The other men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old" (Tabari 9:131).

"Allah's Apostle told Aisha [his six-year-old bride and nine-year-old sexual "partner"], 'You were shown to me twice in my dreams. I beheld a man or angel carrying you in a silken cloth. He said to me, "She is yours, so uncover her." And behold, it was you. I would then say to myself, "If this is from Allah, then it must happen"'" (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 87, Number 139-140).

"War is deceit" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 268).

One who likes to indulge in logical fallacies responded. Here's my answer:

That's impressive, Norman Blitzer.

A false moral equivalence between YHWH and Allah easily refutable by anyone who can read, a tu quoque argument, and an appeal to authority contradicting your previous point -- all in one brief post.

The passages from Qur'an and Sunnah I cited make "divine" pedophilia, lying, terrorism, and offensive warfare against all non-Muslims who refuse to submit to the tyranny of Allah.

The Biblical passages you cite do not.

The first was a limited, one-time command in the context of Israel's on-going wars under their first king against a nation that had harmed it, not a command for offensive warfare to make the world Hebrew.

The second, the punishment for Hebrews under the Mosaic Covenant, not a command for offensive warfare to make the world Israel.

The third, protections for a daughter in a world in which slavery was commonplace. No commands to enslave Gentiles nor for offensive warfare to make the world Hebrew.

The last, more accommodations reflecting the ubiquitous nature of slavery, not commands to enslave non-Hebrews nor for offensive warfare to make the world Hebrew here, either.

As for Rudy, which is it? Is Islam "just as bad" and Judaism, or is it a "great religion"? Or are you saying that Judaism is also a great religion?

Next,

Norman,

"All you're doing is splitting hairs and defending your god."

It's called "reading."

That and a little intellectual integrity will go a long way.

"Whether an evil act is committed once or several times; against one person or many, it's still evil."

A Divine judgment may offend your amoral sensibilities, and certainly it is terrifying, but that doesn't justify calling it "evil."

Commanding an entire religion to kill all who refuse to convert or submit to Allah is evil on a scale incomprehensible. That you are unable to admit that says a lot about you.

"As for your ridiculous explanations of slavery"

Perhaps re-reading for comprehension would help.

I was not "explaining" nor justifying slavery (neither were the Biblical texts you cited); I was pointing out that what you misrepresent as commands to enslave (or as "God's rules, not man's") were in fact concessions made to corrupt people in a sin-sick world.

This same principle is evident in allowing divorce under certain circumstances. Though YHWH says He hates the practice, yet He set boundaries on it because of the "hardness of men's hearts."

Neglecting the numerous New Testament passages regarding Liberty and emancipation calls into question your willingness or ability to tell the truth.

"Your God's "protection" for a daughter amounted to making her a sex slave."

Your historical illiteracy is showing. Why do you think the commands were given? Because otherwise ordinary, decent people would refrain from enslaving their children, or because without such limitations even worse would occur against them?

By the way, I've checked three different translations of the Exodus 21 passage. None of them render it the way you do.

Here's the way the ESV says it:

"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her.

"If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights.

"And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money."

Without such restrictions, what do you suppose happened to a female sold into slavery?

"Morally speaking, there's little difference between the OT and the Koran."

"Little difference" is better than, "no better," I suppose. It looks like we're making progress! :)

So, in your opinion, limitations on the evil of an institution foundational to the ancient world is little different than universal, open-ended commands to genocide.

"Maybe Christopher Hitchens is on to something..."

Yes, if you consider intellectual dishonesty, moral inversion, and logical fallacies fashionable.

Finally,

"I've never ever expressed any anti-Semitic sentiments"

In response to a religion sworn to the enslavement or death of Israel you condemn -- Israel's God.

"if someone is going to post negative excerpts from the Koran then be prepared to see similar excerpts from the Bible posted."

A logical fallacy in first place, and a false moral equivalence in the second.

"There's no excuse for God to order the killing of children and infants or to uphold the institution of slavery. It's still evil."

The command to Israel to wipe out certain Canaanites was a Divine judgment limited to only that time, place, and target. Yes, it was brutal and terrible, but it is in no way comparable to the universal, open-ended commands to wage offensive warfare against all non-Muslims who refuse to submit to Allah.

How many Hebrews are going around slaughtering Canaanites?

As for slavery, surely a good pagan like you also hates Classical Greece and Rome, for did they not also practice it?

What ancient civilization did not?

I encourage *you* to take your own advice and actually read the Old Testament. The commands regarding slavery were not exhortations to enslave, they were limits on what could be done within that ubiquitous, global institution.

It wasn't until over three millennia after Moses that a significant movement to abolish slavery finally took hold.

Who was behind that? Christians.

You refuse to address the numerous New Testament passages speaking of Liberty and encouraging slaves to gain their freedom peacefully, if possible because doing so would make your libelous, vomitous mass a little harder to issue.

"'Yes, if you consider intellectual dishonesty, moral inversion, and logical fallacies fashionable.' Sounds like something you did."

Impressive retort. Isn't that the Comment Board equivalent of "I know you are, but what am I?"?

Telling the truth will do more to enhance your credibility than perseverating error.

"'Ignore efforts to make peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians? Not to create a Palestinian state? Seems to me most people here rather see continuing violence.'

"Thank you for your insightful post 13 Martyrs."

We see the violence continuing, but not because we want it. It's because Islam's god and prophet command it.

An addendum,

"In other words it reaks of man's attempt to structure man's evil qualities that one can have if one chooses not to attempt the path of good."

That is a perceptive analysis, ArloRay.

In the early years of Mohammed's career as a prophet of Allah, his revelations were of a cooperative and respectful nature.

Later, as he grew in military and political might, the revelations concerning non-Muslims evolved into allowing war in self-defense, then demanding war in self-defense, and then finally requiring offensive warfare against all mankind to establish the tyranny of Allah.

Couple this with the fact that many of Mohammed's other later revelations justified his most base, vile impulses. He received from Allah statements that justified his murder, thievery, polygamy, even his raping of little Aisha from the time she was nine until his death.

And Allah calls Mohammed a "beautiful pattern of conduct" for all who want to please him, making the violation of every commandment under the sun "divine" in Mohammed.

"What was it about Christians that gave Muslims the idea that they could achieve that spread of domination in the first place?"

One God says, "Love your enemies." The other says, "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them."

Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, and other non-Muslims failed to halt the expansion of Islam in ancient times; I suppose they didn't have the means to communicate and coordinate, and they didn't know what they were facing.

Today, we have no excuse.