Fitna

Let no one use ignorance as an excuse any longer.

The truth will out.

9/11 conspiracy theorists blame Bush and the U.S. because they, like OBL, hate professing Christians more than practicing genocidal monsters

How can anyone be so perverse, so hateful, so full of self-loathing that they would blame without evidence any American president for an attack as purely evil as that carried out on September 11th?

Despite Osama bin Laden's videotaped confession and celebration of the crime (transcribed and published by Al Jazeera, which is well-known for its pro-Bush, pro-American, and pro-Conservative Christian biases), some Americans still support the idea that 9/11 was an inside job.

Was President Clinton in on the bombings of the World Trade Center in 1993, Riyadh in '95, the Khobar Towers in '96, our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in '98, or the U.S.S. Cole in 2000?

How can Muslims celebrate bin Laden's Allah-pleasing victory against the Great Satan if he were not involved?

Why has Osama never said, "Hey, wait a minute! I had nothing to do with 9/11, but even if I did, Bush was in on it!"?

Wouldn't that one declaration have ended the current Crusader/Zionist War Against Islam?

If President Bush really did plan and execute -- or even know of and allow -- the foul deed, why did not John Kerry call him on it during the 2004 campaign? He'd be President Kerry now (and unlike our current Economist-In-Chief, getting credit for "keeping the nation strong in tough economic times").

Senator Kerry didn't mind slandering his fellow servicemen in harm's way during the Vietnam War to advance his own career then; I doubt he'd mind exposing the truth about the worst mass-murderer in American history now. (And a Republican one at that, though for those twisted enough to believe the President had something to do with 9/11, the difference is one of semantics only.)

Here's John Kerry vowing to "destroy" OBL. Why bin Laden, if Bush is guilty of the blood of those three thousand?

According to Al Jazeera:

In a statement, Kerry said he will do whatever it takes to capture or kill "terrorists".

"In response to this tape of Usama bin Ladin, let me just make it clear, crystal clear, as Americans we are united in our determination to hunt down and destroy Usama bin Ladin and the terrorists," Kerry said.

If President Bush really had something to do with 9/11, why has not the Democrat-controlled House impeached him? Why does no rational human being -- even liberal Democrat politicians -- make that argument?

The best that the Rabid Socialist and her (now overtly) Racist Rabid Socialist opponent can come up with is criticism of the War in Iraq, but the Administration has always denied a direct connection between Saddam Hussein and September 11th.

After 9/11, everyone -- even the most hateful, liberal bigots, and then out of fear -- united behind President Bush. After a year or two of no other major attacks, many of those worms crawled out from under their rocks and attacked the President for political gain and out of malice. Of those, not a few wrote books to cash in on their treasonous derangement. Who among them ever said, "By the way, this is what I did to carry out 9/11, and I did it at the President's request"?

The truth is, everyone without an overwhelming compulsion to lie (and even many with one, like Democratic presidential candidates) finds it impossible to advance the absurd notion that President Bush had anything to do with 9/11.

Of course, irrefutable evidence of responsibility for the single greatest slaughter of American civilians (to date) comes directly from bin Laden himself. Just like his "Ideal Man" and prophet, OBL can't help but brag about that of which he should be utterly ashamed, that which makes him uniquely depraved and vile.

Here is the Caliph-In-Waiting in his own words, translated from the original Black Speech of Mordor into English.

(Has anyone else noticed that Arabic is starting to sound a lot like German? Every time I hear the latter spoken I can't help but think of Life is Beautiful, Schindler's List, or The Sound of Music -- and I don't mean the happy parts. I suppose that genocidal, anti-Semitic, totalitarian ideologies do that to the languages in which they are expressed. Two perfectly-good tongues with historic ties to Christianity ruined now.)

Notice he casts his terrorism in terms of defense of Islam and its adherents (I suppose the only people who can kill innocent women and children are Muslims. Selfish!). Note also that he plagiarizes Michael Moore, which is both poetic justice and a warning to the Blame America Firsters: You're in harmony with a monster:

But I am amazed at you [the American people]. Even though we are in the fourth year after the events of September 11th, Bush is still engaged in distortion, deception and hiding from you the real causes. And thus, the reasons are still there for a repeat of what occurred.

So I shall talk to you about the story behind those events and shall tell you truthfully about the moments in which the decision was taken, for you to consider.

I say to you, Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers. But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind.

The events that affected my soul in a direct way started in 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and the American Sixth Fleet helped them in that. This bombardment began and many were killed and injured and others were terrorised and displaced.

I couldn't forget those moving scenes, blood and severed limbs, women and children sprawled everywhere. Houses destroyed along with their occupants and high rises demolished over their residents, rockets raining down on our home without mercy.

The situation was like a crocodile meeting a helpless child, powerless except for his screams. Does the crocodile understand a conversation that doesn't include a weapon? And the whole world saw and heard but it didn't respond.

In those difficult moments many hard-to-describe ideas bubbled in my soul, but in the end they produced an intense feeling of rejection of tyranny, and gave birth to a strong resolve to punish the oppressors.

And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children.

And that day, it was confirmed to me that oppression and the intentional killing of innocent women and children is a deliberate American policy. Destruction is freedom and democracy, while resistance is terrorism and intolerance.

This means the oppressing and embargoing to death of millions as Bush Sr did in Iraq in the greatest mass slaughter of children mankind has ever known, and it means the throwing of millions of pounds of bombs and explosives at millions of children - also in Iraq - as Bush Jr did, in order to remove an old agent and replace him with a new puppet to assist in the pilfering of Iraq's oil and other outrages.

So with these images and their like as their background, the events of September 11th came as a reply to those great wrongs, should a man be blamed for defending his sanctuary?

Is defending oneself and punishing the aggressor in kind, objectionable terrorism? If it is such, then it is unavoidable for us.

This is the message which I sought to communicate to you in word and deed, repeatedly, for years before September 11th.

And you can read this, if you wish, in my interview with Scott in Time Magazine in 1996, or with Peter Arnett on CNN in 1997, or my meeting with John Weiner in 1998.

You can observe it practically, if you wish, in Kenya and Tanzania and in Aden. . . . .

[. . .]

So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah.

That being said, those who say that al-Qaida has won against the administration in the White House or that the administration has lost in this war have not been precise, because when one scrutinises the results, one cannot say that al-Qaida is the sole factor in achieving those spectacular gains.

Rather, the policy of the White House that demands the opening of war fronts to keep busy their various corporations - whether they be working in the field of arms or oil or reconstruction - has helped al-Qaida to achieve these enormous results.

And so it has appeared to some analysts and diplomats that the White House and us are playing as one team towards the economic goals of the United States, even if the intentions differ.

[. . .]

It is true that this shows that al-Qaida has gained, but on the other hand, it shows that the Bush administration has also gained, something of which anyone who looks at the size of the contracts acquired by the shady Bush administration-linked mega-corporations, like Halliburton and its kind, will be convinced. And it all shows that the real loser is ... you.

. . . for the record, we had agreed with the Commander-General Muhammad Ataa, Allah have mercy on him, that all the operations should be carried out within 20 minutes, before Bush and his administration notice.

[. . .]

In conclusion, I tell you in truth, that your security is not in the hands of Kerry, nor Bush, nor al-Qaida. No.

Your security is in your own hands. And every state that doesn't play with our security has automatically guaranteed its own security.

And Allah is our Guardian and Helper, while you have no Guardian or Helper. All peace be upon he who follows the Guidance.

My help is in YHWH, Who made heaven and earth.

The Suffering Servant, the Anointed One

To understand Good Friday, one needs only the Old Testament. The words of the Prophets from centuries before that day describe in detail what would happen to the Messiah.

Sinful man killed God-in-the-Flesh. In that incomprehensible evil, He accomplished His will, which is our salvation.

Here is Good Friday:

Psalm 22

My God, My God, why did You forsake Me?

Far away from Him Who can save Me, I cry out.
My God, I call by day, but You don't answer, at night, and I get no rest.

But You are holy, on Your throne; You are praised by Israel.
Our fathers trusted You; they trusted You, and You rescued them.
They cried to You and were saved; they trusted You and were not disappointed.

But I am a worm and no man, scorned by men and despised by people.
All who see Me mock Me; with mouths wide open they are wagging their heads (saying):

"Put your trouble on the Lord.
Let Him rescue Him and save Him, seeing He delights in Him!"

You drew Me out of My mother's womb and made Me feel safe on My mother's breasts.
I was cast on You from before I was born; from My mother's womb You have been My God.

Don't go far away from Me -- trouble is near, and there's no one to help Me.
Many bulls gather around Me; strong bulls from Bashan surround Me.
They come for Me with mouths opened wide -- lions tearing and roaring.
I am poured out like water, and all My limbs are torn apart.
My heart is like wax, melted within Me.
My strength is dried up like a piece of broken pottery; My tongue sticks to My jaws.
You are placing Me down in the dust of death.
Dogs gather around Me; a gang of villains surrounds Me.
They have dug holes in My hands and feet.
I can count all My bones.
They watch; they gloat over Me.
They divided My clothes among themselves and throw dice for My garment.

But You, O LORD, don't go far away; O My Strength, hurry to help Me.
Save My life from the sword, My one life from the clutches of a dog.
Save Me from the lion's mouth and from the horns of the wild bull.

You answered Me!

I will spread Your fame among My brothers; I will praise You in the congregation:

"You who fear the LORD, praise Him!
All you descendents of Jacob, glorify Him!
Fear Him, all you descendants of Israel!
For He did not despise or abhor the Sufferer's suffering, nor hide His face from Him.
But when He called to Him for help, He listened to Him."

For You I give thanks in the great congregation; I do what I vowed before those who fear Him.
Let the humble eat and be satisfied, and those who go to the LORD for help praise Him -- may you live forever!

In all parts of the world people will remember and come back to the LORD; all the families of the nations will worship You because the LORD is King and rules the nations.

All the rich people in the world will eat and worship, and all who go down to the dust, who can't live, will bow before Him.
He Himself will not grant to them life.

There will be descendants that serve Him when those of a coming age are told about the Lord.
They will come and tell a people still to be born about His righteousness -- He has done it!

Isaiah 53

Who has believed what we told them?
And to whom has the LORD's mighty working been revealed?

He grew up before Him like a shoot from a stock, like a sprout from a root in dry ground.
And when we saw Him, He had no form or beauty to make us want to look at Him; or pleasing appearance to make us delight in Him.
He was despised, forsaken by men, a man of sorrows who knew suffering.
People covered their faces so as not to see Him.
He was despised, and we thought nothing of Him.

Surely He has taken on Himself our suffering and carried our sorrows, but we observed that God had stricken, smitten, and afflicted Him.

And certainly He was pierced for our transgressions and crushed for our sins;
By His punishement, we were saved, and by His wounds we were healed.

We have all gone astray like sheep.
Every one of us has turned to to go his own way, and the LORD has punished Him for the sins of us all.

He was oppressed and mistreated without opening His mouth.
Like a lamb He was led away to be slaughtered.
Like a mother sheep is silent before the men who cut off her wool, so He doesn't open His mouth.
After He was tried as a prisoner, He was then taken away.
Who in His time even considered that He was cut off from the land of the living and struck down for His people's sins?
They assigned Him a grave with criminals and with a rich man in His death, though He hadn't done any crime or said anything deceitful.

Yet the LORD planned to crush Him and slay Him.
After He has sacrificed Himself for guilt, He will see those born to Him and will enjoy a long life.
And so by Him the LORD will succeed in what He wants to do.

Because of the toil of His soul, He will see the light and be satisifed.
By His experience My righteous Servant justifies many by taking on Himself the heavy load of their guilt.
Because of this I will give Him many people as His share; and He will divide the spoil with the mighty because He pours out His life in death, lets Himself be counted with sinners, while He takes on Himself the sins of many people and intercedes for the wrongdoers.

The trouble with Barack Hussein Obama

No, it's not that he is Muslim. He says he's Christian.

The problem is the sympathies his alliances imply (let alone his extreme Socialism).

Robert Spencer warned that though not a Muslim, some would promote Obama as being able to "work with" Islam. Not too long ago, one of the Democrats campaigning for him made that observation publicly. Obama himself has expressed his willingness to "talk" to Allah's monsters, including Iran.

So, what are Obama's problematic ties?

-Muslim parent and grandparents

-Muslim education in Muslim Indonesia

-Muslim siblings

-Muslim terrorist Kenyan village-thug-in-chief-as-ally

-Neighbor to -- and beneficiary of real estate "favors" from -- a criminal connected to a Muslim millionaire "donor"

-A wife who hates America (who complains about debt while living in a million-dollar home and married to a Senator)

-A pastor of twenty years who also hates America

As Daniel Pipes notes here, the Irreverend Jeremiah Wright of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ not only blames America for 9/11, he echoed an earlier, more famous, America-hating, racist Muslim, Malcolm X, who claimed that America deserved President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

For those charges, he was expelled from the Nation of Islam. What do you have to do to get kicked out of the Nation of Islam?

And what of Wright's anti-Semitism? Will Obama remain silent on this?

It turns out that Obama was present at Wright's "Blame America" sermon. Recall also that he uninvited his pastor to attend one of his first major campaign events.

Even more troubling, Obama's only strength -- his calm and personable demeanor -- is a facade masking the kind of racism and hatred displayed by his mentor. In his own work, B. Hussein O. confesses that he manipulates whites by speaking calmly and pretending to care, but under that mask is a deceiver who exalts black nationalism above all else.

Obama has expressed racist sentiments, calls "mentor" a raving, racist lunatic, and has covered it up and lied about it. What else is he hiding?

And where's Oprah? Ignoring it, like she ignores Islamic tyranny?

(Update: Apparently, Oprah distanced herself from Wright some time ago. Good for her.)

Originally posted 3/15. Updated 8/20 for clarity.

Slavery acknowledged and abolished ultimately by Christianity

From here, in response to doubt about what the Scriptures say regarding slavery.

The spread of the Christian religion resulted in the abolition of Slavery as a global institution (it exists still under Islam).

The belief that all people have a Divine right to Liberty is powerfully expressed in the words of the American Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

God is not indifferent to the injustice of slavery. His word makes it clear that His intention for Man has always been Liberty:

-God created the first man and woman free.

-His Commandments protect an individual's life, reputation, and property.

-He came down to save His people from slavery in Egypt.

-The Mosaic Law recognized the ubiquitous and permanent nature of the "peculiar institution" and legislates to ameliorate its effects.

-The New Testament urges respect and dignity among fellow Christians, reminding the enslaved believer that he is truly free and the free believer that he is Christ's slave.

-Believers are to be content in whatever their circumstances at the time of their conversion (even if in slavery, for the goal of the Christian life is to bear witness to the Son of God; millions of slaves in armed rebellion would have done little to promote the Gospel).

-They are urged to gain their freedom, if possible.

-And though speaking of the greater freedom from sin, death, and the devil, we are told, "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free."

Those who seek to justify slavery from the Biblical texts must misrepresent them to do so.

Ezra Levant resists Islamic tyranny while UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon aids it

Add one to the list of those who understand there's a problem with Islam, and two to the other list, that of Muslims terrorizing those who refuse to submit to Allah and their Appeasing and Useful Idiot Dhimmis.

Even if Ezra Levant doesn't fully understand the theological foundation of Islamic violence against non-Muslims, women, and apostates, at least he has the sense to admit what his lyin' eyes tell him: Muslims are harming, killing, and threatening to harm and kill non-Muslims, and they're manipulating our own governmental bodies to silence those resisting the slow jihad against the West.

Here is an article on Muslims under attack by one of their co-religionists, Syed Soharwardy, founder of the Calgary-based Islamic Supreme Council of Canada, and founder of Muslims Against Terrorism (unsurprisingly, Soharwardly defines "terrorism" -- like so many Muslims -- as "non-Muslims defending themselves against Islamic tyranny" -- here's a taste of his perfidy). Syed filed a complaint against Levant with the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (HRCC), hoping to decapitate Ezra's unalienable Rights to Freedom of Speech and of the Press.

Even better, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon:

"promised in Dakar to 'fight against those who want to justify violence against the religion.'

"'We will fight against those who want to justify violence against the religion and promote understanding among the Alliance of Civilisations. We will strengthen cooperation between the OIC (Organisation of the Islamic Conference) and the United Nations in this area (religion),' Ban said.

He delivered his speech at the opening of the two-day 11th Islamic Ummah summit in Dakar, Thursday.

The Alberta HRCC, the UN Secretary General, President Bush, and The Three Who Would Be King (his remaining potential replacements). By refusing to tell the truth about Islam and thereby preventing our taking proper steps to defend ourselves against it, the West's so-called leaders are complicit in Allah's crimes against humanity.

Why mock Islam? There are so many reasons, beginning with heresy, genocide, murder, pedophilia, rape, slavery, mutilation, deceit, theft . . .

Allah made "holy" Mohammed's most depraved, vile, and enthusiastic violations of God's Laws (for an interesting reflection on those, see the last three paragraphs of this article).

Another god before YHWH? Blaspheme His name? What Sabbath? Murder? Pedophilia, rape, polygamy, sex slaves, and homosexual rape? Theft? Deceit? Covet?

Mohammed got 'em all.

Not only did he violate these Commandments, Mohammed enslaved or slaughtered those who refused to submit to his heresy and he taught his followers to do the same.

What does Allah think of all this? He loves it: "Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah" (Qur'an 33:21).

Here are Ali Sina's comments:

Mocking is a very powerful way to convince those who are unwilling to think to do it. Shame is a great motivator.

Muhammad suffered from malignant narcissistic personality disorder. His followers, to the degree that they emulate him, think like him and try to behave like him, have entered into his narcissistic bubble universe and have become narcissists by extension. This happens to all cultists. In all cults, the insanity of the guru reflects on the followers who surrender their intelligence to him and follow him unquestioningly and brainlessly.

The narcissists feel grandiose and self-important. They want to be acknowledged without commensurate merit. They want recognition and preferential treatment. They expect respect without feeling any obligation to reciprocate. They get their sense of self- importance by putting you down, criticizing you, decrying your world and disparaging your values, but you are not allowed to slight them. It is okay for them to violate your rights, abuse you and even kill you, but you are not supposed to mistreat them in the slightest way. In fact, they demand privileges that are not available to others. What they want is your submission. That is what Islam is all about – submission.

Never comply

The narcissists are bullies. They should not get what they want or they become emboldened and demand more. They will never be satisfied. The more you give in, the more demanding they become. They can never have enough narcissistic supplies. It is a mistake to give in to their caprices and comply with their demands.

The narcissist takes himself too seriously. He lacks self-esteem and what he dreads most is humiliation. For him, image is everything. He attacks you, verbally, physically, or both. He highlights your faults and belittles you. By doing so he feels better about his own failures. He hides behind a false image of self righteousness. That image must be destroyed and the way to do that is through ridicule.

Charlie Chaplin knew the great power of ridicule. A strong opponent of racism, in 1937 Chaplin decided to make a film on the dangers of fascism. As Chaplin pointed out in his autobiography, attempts were made to stop the film being made: “Half-way through making The Great Dictator I began receiving alarming messages from United Artists. They had been advised by the Hays Office that I would run into censorship trouble. Also the English office was very concerned about an anti-Hitler picture and doubted whether it could be shown in Britain . But I was determined to go ahead, for Hitler must be laughed at.” (Charles Chaplin, My Autobiography- 1964)

Just like in the thirties, today there are many useful idiots who defend Islam, apply censorship and try to silence its critics. These fools must be put to shame too.

Do not underestimate the power of ridicule. This is not a laughing matter. Mock Muhammad and Islam as this will eventually help the Muslims get rid of their cult. They must feel embarrassed for calling themselves Muslim.

This therapy works. I have seen it work many times. Intelligent people, who at first defend Islam, feel embarrassed to be called Muslims, once they see the stupidity of this cult, and claim they are not Muslims. They try to dissociate themselves from it. At first this distancing may not be heartfelt, but the very fact that they prefer to hide their real sentiment about Islam because they are embarrassed of it is the first step -a very important one - for them to leave Islam in reality. It is just a matter of time that they cut their umbilical cords from it and get rid of this cult completely.

Today Muslims become angry if you ridicule their faith, but once they are free from this bondage of the mind they will thank you for it.

Ridicule Islam and ridicule those who defend it. Put to shame the appeasers and the useful idiots even if their name is Charles Windsor or Bill Clinton. Expose the stupidity of Islam and laugh at its ignorant supporters.

Islam will become history once the asininity of it becomes so obvious that any person with intelligence feels embarrassed associating himself with it or defending it.

In not a very distant future, calling a person "Muslim" will be seen as an insult and one could be seriously offended if he is called that, just as today one is offended if he is called a "Nazi."

Speaking of false information

A comment just submitted here in response to adel aldalali:

First of all, the Nazis were christians and not Muslims. The affair in the Darfur region of Sudan is among Muslims and not Muslims vs Christians. and after all the USA (Christian state) wiped out two million Vietnamese few decades ago, more than 600,000 Iraqis are dead and more to die, let alone the thousands in South America under the name of fighting communisim.

It's the the queen of Spain who forced people to change their faith or be expelled from their homes after eight hundreds years of peace and harmony under Islamic rule where mosques, synagogs, and churches stood next to each other. It's the cursaderes who butchered jews and muslims when they conquered jerusalem. and to the contrary Saladin the muslim warrior who won jerusalem back again shown nothing but mercy and peace even to those who had blood in their hands. and many more examples.

How dishonest of you!

First, that any of the Germans who supported Nazism were Christians means they should have known better, because Christ forbids the evil they committed. Second, when Christians commit such barbarity, it is contrary to their God's commands. When Muslims slaughter non-Muslims who refuse to submit to Allah, it is in accord with their god's commands and their false prophet's example. Third, Hitler was no Christian. He despised the faith for its "weakness," but admired Islam. [Fourth, Islam allied itself with Nazism, with even the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem touring Hitler's works and exhorting its agents to work diligently killing Jews.] Finally, the several millions killed by Nazism is what Islam calls, "a start."

How many have been butchered by Allah over the last nearly one and one-half millennia? Hundreds of millions? Billions? How many enslaved? Maimed? Raped, just as Mohammed said and did?

With regard to Sudan, your comment is, unsurprisingly, only half the truth. Islam had been slaughtering Black Christians and animists [there] for years before concern about Darfur became fashionable.

As for the wars against Communism, those were wars against tyranny and for Liberty. Being Muslim, you naturally find that offensive.

In Iraq, Coalition forces removed a brutal dictator who oppressed, tortured, and exterminated many Muslims. Why do you not thank America and its allies? The deaths today of any innocent Musilms is due to their (and your) co-religionists.

Finally, Spain had to fight for nearly eight centuries to regain its freedom from Islamic tyranny, the first Crusade was called to defend fellow Christians under siege for centuries by Islam, and you can hardly call a monster serving his own self-interest "merciful."

ABC, Primetime, and John Quinones have a bad case of Islamophobia

What else can explain the fact that from their site they systematically remove comments containing the word of Allah and the example of Mohammed, quoted directly from Islamic sources, but allow misleading pro-Islamophobia comments to remain? What do they fear? What have they got to hide?

It has become a running joke regarding ABC's judgment when it comes to national security. After several stories exposing vulnerabilities in sensitive targets around America (including the ease with which a person can access nuclear facilities at several universities), it should come as no shock that Primetime aired recently a vile propaganda piece aiding those who would replace our God-given rights with sharia, just as their god and prophet command.

ABC is aiding the slow jihad in America.

This story begins a few days ago when John Quinones and ABC aired a Primetime: What Would You Do? segment in which two actors -- one a woman wearing a hijab and the other a non-Muslim employee behind a counter -- play out a scenario in which the Muslima is attacked verbally on racial and religious grounds and refused service. The reactions of bystanders are examined.

The only time one hears "jihad" during a network broadcast, and it's uttered by a (fictional) bigot. Such a caricature demonizes those (rightly) repulsed by the tyranny of Allah, and it makes victims out of Muslims wearing a symbol of tyranny and genocide more wretched, abhorrent, vile, and enduring than a swastika.

John Quinones has accomplished several things with this piece:

He has implied that those who understand and oppose jihad and the totalitarian, genocidal, and malevolent components of Islamic theology and law are ignorant and racist "Islamophobes."

He has implied that Muslims are innocent victims of intolerance and persecution just like -- as some commenting on the segment stated -- "blacks, fat people, and the handicapped."

He has attempted to suppress the viewer's reasonable and necessary defense response against Islam.

He has made it clear that he's never examined Qur'an, ahadith, and Sira (if he has, then he is either a closet Muslim, suicidal, or perverse).

He has made one wonder whether or not his Muslima co-ed from Illinois exploited his desire to uncover injustice.

As of this writing, ABC has allowed one or more of its administrators to remove over two thousand, two hundred comments exposing the depravity and brutality of an ideology which has waged war against non-Muslims for 1350 years. Accounts used to post those texts are blocked.

Allowed to remain have been numerous posts from one or more Muslims lying about their religion. Their comments -- even today's newest -- repeat the same misleading themes, sometimes almost verbatim. I wouldn't be surprised if it is the one with administration rights and one or two of their co-religionists doing the commenting.

(Coincidentally, a glowing article on Mr. Quinones appears in Cross & Crescent, which is ironic, since Muslim apologists for jihad often equate the two religions to make non-Muslims familiar with Christianity less resistant to -- and critical of -- Islam. The article notes his desire to uncover "social injustice." Unfortunately, that noble impulse combined with a multiculturalist, politically-correct fantasy about The Ideology Which Shall Receive No Criticism makes him susceptible to manipulation by apologists for it.)

Instead of aiding the slow jihad against America with Muslims-As-Victims propaganda, why not expose the commands of Allah and the example of Mohammed requiring offensive warfare against all who refuse to submit?

Why not interview regarding Islam Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, Ali Sina, Walid Shoebat, Brigitte Gabriel, or Robert Spencer?

Is it ABC's official policy to deceive the public regarding Islam? If so, why? If not, who is responsible for this propaganda effort?

Attempts to alert ABC to what is occurring have generated no response. Who will warn Mr. Quinones that by fabricating scenarios which demonize those who oppose Islamic tyranny and censoring those who expose it, he is aiding the usurpation of the very rights of freedom of speech and of the press which have provided him the success he enjoys?

For an American organization to air falsehoods about Islam and then silence those who expose the truth about that monstrous belief system is treason.

ABC should restore all deleted posts and fire publicly the persons responsible. It should dedicate an entire program examining who is misrepresenting Islam: those who point out the command of Allah and the example of Mohammed, or those who hide those "sacred" texts and attack those who expose them.

So far, ABC has given a victory to CAIR, the MSA, and other liars for Allah.

Clarity is what we need. ABC's obfuscation and censorship aids our enemies.

Freedoms of Speech and of the Press threatened by CAIR, apologists for Allah

A California judge cites Freedom of Speech to defend CAIR's efforts to destroy that very right.

Besides Larry Elder and Michael Savage, what major talk-show host has demonstrated the intellectual integrity and moral fortitude to tell the truth about Islam? Not Rush, not Hannity, not Glenn Beck, not Hugh Hewitt (though a good friend tells me he's getting closer to the truth).

What politician? Sue Myrick, Geert Wilders, and (formerly) Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Whether or not you appreciate Savage, it is not one person or one radio program under attack by apologists for Allah.

Your very rights to Freedom of Speech and of the Press are threatened, and their enemies must be defeated decisively or every other Right you cherish will eventually fall.

How can CAIR and their cohorts (ISNA, MSA, MPAC, the 75% of American mosques preaching hate against non-Muslims, etc.) be allowed any quarter at all in any non-Muslim nation? How can any non-Muslim defend such tyrants?

A judge in California has taken under advisement a request by the Council on Islamic-American Relations to dismiss a lawsuit filed by radio talk show host Michael Savage.

The San Francisco-based talker originally accused the organization of copyright violations, but later amended the action to include allegations the group "has consistently sought to silence opponents of violent terror through economic blackmail, frivolous but costly lawsuits, threats of lawsuits and abuses of the legal system."

The action in U.S. District Court in Northern California also charges CAIR with using extortion, threats, abuse of the court system, and obtaining money via interstate commerce under false and fraudulent circumstances – calling it a "political vehicle of international terrorism" and even linking the group with support of al-Qaida.

The federal government, in fact, recently named CAIR, based in Washington, D.C., as an unindicted co-conspirator in an alleged scheme to funnel $12 million to the terrorist group Hamas.

The lawsuit was the subject of court hearing today, and according to a report from the Associated Press, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston said she was "leaning toward tossing out" the action.

She did say she likely would allow Savage's lawyer to submit a revised complaint to keep the case alive, the report said.

Savage's attorney Daniel Horowitz said the copyright claim was valid because CAIR used Savage's material "for purely commercial purposes," but the judge said she found free speech arguments persuasive.

As WND has reported, CAIR has been associated with a disturbing number of convicted terrorists or felons in terrorism probes, as well as suspected terrorists and active targets of terrorism investigations.

"Groups like CAIR have a proven record of senior officials being indicted and either imprisoned or deported from the United States," said U.S. Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., co-founder of the House Anti-Terrorism/Jihad Caucus.

Savage and Horowitz, a celebrity civil rights attorney, are trying to use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act to make the case that "CAIR and its co-conspirators have aided, abetted and materially sponsored al-Qaida and international terrorism."

CAIR launched a campaign against "The Savage Nation," as the program is called, using extended audio clips of the show to make the case that advertisers who supported the talker were actually endorsing "hate speech" against Muslims.

Savage turned the tables on the activist group by initially suing for copyright violation of the show's material, then expanding the case.

Among the charges is that CAIR is "part of a deliberately complex and deliberately confusing array of related organizations" and that its "organizational structure is part of a scheme to hide the illegal activities of the group, funding, the transfer of funds and to complicate investigation of the group."

Other highlights of the suit:

* "CAIR is not a civil rights organization and it never has been. - CAIR was and is a political organization that advocates a specific political agenda on behalf of foreign interests."

* "The copyright infringement was done to raise funds for CAIR so that it could perpetuate and continue to perform its role in the RICO conspiracy set forth in Count Two and to disseminate propaganda on behalf of foreign interests that are opposed to the continued existence of the United States of America as a free nation."

* "CAIR would have to register as a foreign agent if their activities were not hidden under the false claim that they are a civil rights organization that enjoys tax-exempt status."

* "CAIR was tied to terror from the day it was formed. The group was incorporated on or about 1994 by Omar Ahmad and Nihad Awad. Both men were officers of a terror organization known as the 'Islamic Association of Palestine.'"

* "CAIR's parent group, IAP, was founded in or about 1982 by Musa Abu Marzook. Marzook was IAP's ideological leader and controlling director from the date of its founding until shortly after his deportation from the United States in 1997. At all time relevant, Marzook was an operative of, and/or affiliated with, the 'Harakat al-Muqawamah al-Islamiyyah,' or 'Hamas.' Hamas is an international terrorist organization."

* In 1998, "CAIR demanded the removal of a Los Angeles billboard describing Osama bin Laden as 'the sworn enemy,' asserting that this depiction [was] 'offensive to Muslims.'"

* In 1998, "CAIR denied bin Laden's responsibility for the two al-Qaida bombings of American embassies in Africa. CAIR's leader Ibrahim Hooper claimed the bombings resulted from 'misunderstandings on both sides.'"

* "On October 5, 2001, just weeks after 9/11, CAIR's New York office sent a letter to The New York Times arguing that the paper had misidentified three of the hijackers and suggesting that the attacks may have been committed by people who were impersonating Arab Muslims."

* "CAIR further exploited 9/11 as it put on its website a picture of the World Trade Center in flames and below it a call for donations that was linked to the Holy Land Foundation website." The Holy Land Foundation, the suit charges, is "a terror organization."

* "CAIR receives significant international funding. For example, in 1999 the Islamic Development Bank gave a $250,000 grant to CAIR to purchase land for a national headquarters. In 2002, the World Association for Muslim Youth, a Saudi government-funded organization, financed distributing books on Islam free of charge and an advertising campaign in American publications. This included a quarter page in USA Today each Friday, for a year, estimated to cost $1.04 million. In 2003, Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal donated $500,000 to distribute the Koran and other books about Islam in the United States. In 2005, CAIR's Washington branch received a donation of $1,366,466 from a Saudi Arabian named Adnan Bogary. In 2006, Sheikh Hamdan bin Rashid Al Maktoum, deputy ruler of Dubai and UAE minister of finance and industry, financed the building of a property in the U.S. to serve as an endowment for the organization. This gift is thought to generate income of approximately $3 million a year."

* "The role of CAIR and CAIR-Canada is to wage PSYOPS (psychological warfare) and disinformation activities on behalf of Wahabbi-based Islamic terrorists throughout North America. They are the intellectual 'shock troops' of Islamic terrorism."

* "The Council on American-Islamic Relations is a Muslim Brotherhood front organization. It works in the United States as a lobby against radio, television and print media journalists who dare to produce anything about Islam that is at variance with their fundamental agenda."

* "CAIR has links to both Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. Terrorism expert Steven Emerson has stated before Congress that CAIR is a front for Hamas."

Savage's case also cites another suit against CAIR filed by the estate of John P. O'Neill, the former head of security for the World Trade Center. It alleged a RICO conspiracy involving CAIR led to the 9/11 attack.

"Throughout this period," the Savage suit alleges, "CAIR conspired to support terrorism and to obfuscate the roles of the various participants and conspirators in Radical Muslim Terrorism, and/or al-Qaida and/or the International Islamic Front for the Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders, which conspiracy culminated in the 9/11 attack."

It continues: "The pattern of racketeering activity conducted by CAIR is separate from the existence of Radical Muslim Terrorism, and/or the al-Qaida, and/or the International Islamic Front for the Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders, but was a necessary component of the 9/11 attack. The RICO enterprise conducts terrorism all over the world; the racketeering activity conducted by CAIR funds that activity, which activity culminated in the 9/11 attack."

CAIR has claimed a host of companies have stopped advertising on Savage's show as a result of its boycott campaign.

However, an investigation by WND shows some of those boycott victories are questionable. In one announcement claiming Universal Orlando Resorts "drops 'Savage Nation' ads," CAIR stated: "Advertisers that have already stopped airing, or refuse to air commercials on 'Savage Nation' include AutoZone, Citrix, TrustedID, JCPenney, OfficeMax, Wal-Mart and AT&T."

But AutoZone told WND the CAIR campaign had nothing to do with its advertising decision, and it had chosen not to advertise on any radio talk shows – of all parts of the spectrum – years before the CAIR effort.

CAIR officials declined to respond to WND queries about why it is listing companies as part of its boycott campaign that say they have not participated in the boycott.

Officials of Talk Radio Network, Savage's syndicator, confirmed to WND that companies including AutoZone and JCPenney never advertise on such programs.

"We do not sponsor syndicated radio talk shows," AutoZone spokesman Ray Pohlman told WND. "We have customers of all shapes and sizes and political persuasions. For us to sponsor [any radio talk shows] wouldn't make any sense."

But that policy is years old, and wasn't changed at all by CAIR's effort, he said.

"What I will tell you is the CAIR organization did, in fact, contact the marketing department [of AutoZone.] We responded with our full advertising policy which clearly states that we do not advertise on radio talk shows," he told WND.

The clip used by CAIR from Savage's material included: "I'm not gonna put my wife in a hijab. And I'm not gonna put my daughter in a burqa. And I'm not getting' on my all-fours and braying to Mecca. And you could drop dead if you don't like it. You can shove it up your pipe. I don't wanna hear any more about Islam. I don't wanna hear one more word about Islam. Take your religion and shove it up your behind. I'm sick of you."

The Savage suit says comments like that are taken out of context.

The suit seeks damages equal to the ongoing donations from CAIR supporters "who expect CAIR to act in this manner in exchange for continuing financial support" as well as "actual damages according to proof."

Perhaps this is the context to which Savage's suit alludes:

"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 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).

The West's so-called leaders are self-seeking, ignorant cowards in service to Allah

President Bush pressures Israel to show "restraint" in punishing those responsible for killing their innocents.

Our media remain silent as the Religionists of Peace use their own children as shields against Israeli self-defense.

European politicians and media line up against Geert Wilders's exposing the truth about Islam.

Our FBI extends the brainwashing of its agents for Allah.

The West's so-called leaders are self-seeking, ignorant cowards. Doing what our political, media, and academic elites should be doing, here is Wafa Sultan on Al-Jazeera telling the truth about Islam:

"All religions and faiths, throughout the history of humanity, have been subject to criticism and affronts. With time, this has helped in their reform and development. Any belief that chops off the heads of its critics is doomed to turn into terrorism and tyranny. This has been the condition of Islam, from its inception to this day. Islam has sentenced [its critics] to prison, and whoever crosses the threshold of that prison meets his death. The Danish cartoons have managed to break down the first brick in the wall of that prison, and to open up a window, through which the sunrays enter, after a lengthy darkness. The Danish newspaper exercised its freedom of speech. Liberties are the holiest thing in the West, and nothing is more important. But if Islam were not the way it is, those cartoons would never have appeared. They did not appear out of the blue, and the cartoonist did not dig them out of his imagination. Rather, they are a reflection of his knowledge. Westerners who read the words of the Prophet Muhammad 'Allah has given me sustenance under the shadow of my sword' cannot imagine Muhammad's turban in the shape of a dove of peace rather than in the shape of a bomb. The Muslims must learn how to listen to the criticism of others, and maybe then they will reexamine their terrorist teachings. When they manage to do so, the world will view them in a better light, and consequently, it will draw them in a better light. The reactions of the Muslims, which were characterized by savageness, barbarism, and backwardness, only increased the value of these cartoons, and gave them more importance than they merited, simply because they proved that these cartoons were true, and that the message they were conveying was true. The Muslim is an irrational creature ruled by instincts. Those teachings have deprived him of his mind, incited his emotions, and reduced him to the level of an inferior creature that cannot control himself or react to events rationally."

[. . .]

"Why are they ["Palestinian" Muslims] upset about what is going on in Gaza, while the Koran says to them: 'They shall kill and be killed.' So here they are – killing and being killed. What's wrong with that?"

". . . you know that you cannot separate Islam from politics. Islam is not a religion, but politics. You must let me express my views the way I want. When you called me, you didn't say I was not allowed to discuss Islam or the Koran. Islam says to them that they will 'kill or be killed', and here they are—killing and being killed. So what's wrong with that? They want to be martyred and to meet their black-eyed virgins, and Israel is merely helping them get what they want. What's wrong with that? If you want to change the course of events, you must reexamine your terrorist teachings, you must recognize and respect the right of the other to live, you must teach your children love, peace, coexistence, and productive work. When you do that, the world will respect you, will consider you in a better light, and will draw you in a better light."

". . . I can denounce the Palestinians and the Israelis alike. Hamas chose this path, and you have to pay the price for your choices. When you decide you want peace – I am sure that Israel wants peace, but as long as you keep reciting those teachings, which are full of hatred, rancor, and terrorism, you will be unable to make peace with others. You must recognize and respect Israel's right to live. You must teach your children love, peace, and coexistence. Only then will there be peace."

[. . .]

"Why do you want me to deny historical documents that confirm that the Holocaust took place? If there was no proof, I would deny it. But I cannot deny history, knowledge, and documents confirming that the Holocaust indeed took place. Why do you want me to deny the facts?"

[. . .]

"Can you as a Muslim deny the massacre of the Jews of the Bani Qureyza tribe, by Muhammad and his followers?"

[…]

"How can someone who believes in killing people who do not pray possibly criticize liberties in the West? This is a farce. What past is he [apologist for Allah] defending? Is he defending the invasions and lootings?"

". . . polygamy, beheadings, chopping of heads and feet on alternate sides, accusing people of heresy, and drinking camel urine, as a cure for all ailments – is this the past he is defending?"

Would that our president spoke as plainly.

Declaration Against Genocide

From here. Sign it.

Declaration Against Genocide

There is a genocidal movement afoot in the world. Its advocates are legion, its resources prodigious, its atrocities mounting. But Americans still pretend that it doesn't exist.

Genocidal outrages are now an everyday occurrence in Africa. In the Middle East the murder of entire ethnic and religious groups is an obsession that inspires terrorist armies and heads of state. In the full glare of the global spotlight, Iran's Ahmadinejad, Hezbollah's Nasrallah, and Palestinian leaders are calling for the obliteration of the Jewish state. From the goose-stepping soldiers of Hezbollah, Syria and Iran to the broadcasts of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion on al-Jazeera and Egyptian TV, homage is paid to the Nazi past by radicals in the Muslim world. In their sermons and public proclamations the most virulent Jew-hatred is trumpeted since the dark of days of the Second World War. And unlike the Nazis they do not conceal their malevolent goal.

Yet there is little or no response from the rest of us: no universal condemnation and outrage, no common call for resistance. Worse, excuses are made for the bearers of the hate. If only the "Great Satan," which is America, and the "Little Satan," which is Israel, will but change their policies, then the death sentences that have been pronounced against their citizens will be rescinded and the world can be at peace. Thus is blame transferred to the targets of the hate. It is time to oppose the complicity of silence. It is time to unite in condemning the hatred that is a blight on our times; it is time to repudiate the calls for genocide that darken our human horizon. Therefore we are submitting this Declaration Against Genocide to student governments, to campus human rights organizations, to Muslim Students Associations and to individuals in the academic community, to join us in drawing a collective line in the sand against barbarism and to declare ourselves for civilization and hope.

Whereas genocide – the murder, or plan to murder, an entire people – is a crime against all humanity;

Whereas genocide is a crime that has metastasized in the modern era, leading to the murders of millions of Armenians, Cambodians, Tutsis, Sudanese, Bosnian Muslims and others;

Whereas the largest and most devastating genocide on record is the Holocaust of European Jews;

Whereas a new genocide of the Jews is being called for by Islamic leaders in the Middle East;

Whereas global forces are being mobilized by the Iranian regime to eliminate the Jewish state;

Whereas the genocide of the Jews is called for in texts understood by some Muslims as authoritative and echoes through sermons in some mosques today, and is proclaimed by certain leaders of the Islamic religion;

Whereas Catholicism and other Christian denominations have condemned the Holocaust and repudiated anti-Jewish pronouncements that have stained their religious past;

We call on all Student Governments and campus Muslim groups to:

1. Condemn and repudiate the Hadith which reads: "The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time [of judgment] will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews and kill them; until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!" Sahih Muslim book 41, no. 6985

2. Condemn and repudiate the Hamas Charter which says: “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it”

3. Condemn Ahmadinejad who has said “The accomplishment of a world without America and Israel is both possible and feasible."

4. Condemn Hezbollah and its leader Hassan Nasrallah who has said:

"The Jews are a cancer which is liable to spread again at any moment."

"There is no solution to the conflict except with the disappearance of Israel."

“If they all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.”

5. Affirm:

* The right of all people to live in freedom and dignity

* The freedom of the individual conscience: to change religions or have no religion at all

* The equal dignity of women and men

* The right of all people to live free from violence, intimidation, and coercion

We call upon all campus political, cultural, ethnic and religious groups to stand with us in opposing all forms of religious supremacism, violence and intimidation.

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