Mohamud's hate comes from his namesake's

Observations on Mohamud's hate:

Politics Daily executive editor Carl Cannon asks what made the would-be Portland bomber Mohamed Mohamud hate enough to attempt the mass murder of fellow Americans. It's a good question, and I'm glad Cannon is asking it, but his answer is, as you might expect, a little obscure.

Cannon provides only one explicit answer: "The geographical answer is Somalia..." Well, okay, but what is it about Somalia? You wouldn't know from Cannon's column that Mohamud immigrated to the Untied [sic] States at the age of five.

What is it about Somalia that produced Mohamud's murderous rage? Cannon observes: "[T]he FBI affidavit filed Friday pursuant to Mohamud's arrest quoted the suspect as telling an undercover agent that he had been committed to jihad since he was 15 years of age."

How many five-year-olds possess murderous hate?

I remember my first mass murder; it was my last day of preschool. How 'bout you?

What was Mohamud's reaction to entering Kindergarten here? "Elementary school: So many infidels, so little time"?

What is the best that you can hope for from adherents to a religion the god and founder of which command the enslavement or slaughter of all who refuse the "invitation" to convert?

What can you expect from those following a religion where its "beautiful pattern of conduct" for those who want to please its god both preached and practiced genocide, pedophilia, rape, mutilation, torture, slavery, theft, extortion, religious and gender apartheid, polygyny, wife-beating, deceit, sedition, and treason?

Simply put, Mohamud's hate comes from Muhammad's hate:

"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).

"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).

Ibn Kathir says of this verse: "'Wage war' mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. Mischief in the land refers to various types of evil." So, Muhammad requires execution, crucifixion, or cutting off hands and feet from opposite sides for "disbelief."

Allah's elephants

Timothy Behrend offers the following in obfuscating for Muhammad's ideology from hell, claiming that someone merely relating the words and deeds of the genocidal pedophile and his followers misunderstands Islam.  (Allah will not be pleased!)

Timothy and his coreligionists will have to understand if non-Muslims lack interest in the details of satan's secret handshake; we care about neither the direction nor frequency with which they bow to the underworld; zakat is no "charity" when it's denied to non-Muslims but not to mujahideen.

Behrend trumpets:

[. . .] claims, "I am blind to nothing", all the while mistaking a pachiderm's [sic] toenail for the entire elephant.

My reply:

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is another example of the unintentional (and tragic) irony of Islam.

Not only do Muslims take after Muhammad in being the opposite of thick-skinned ("pachyderm") -- Who are you calling 'thin-skinned'? I'll kill you! -- but it is they who wish us to notice only Islam's extremities and not the fact that its extremists are not really "extreme" at all but merely emulating Muhammad's abhorrent example.

(I must apologize for using "extremists" for the reason mentioned above, a fact with which TB has never dealt honestly. I use the term here only because it suited a clever turn-of-phrase.)

A more accurate analogy would be an elephant claiming that a toenail alone is True Elephant and then, when you point out that the nail's only a nail and not an accurate representation of an elephant at all, responds with, "What are you, some kind of racist elephantophobe? Don't mention the trunk. Or the tusks. Not the tail! The ears! Don't say anything about the ears! Stop telling the truth about elephants, or I'll kill you!"

Perpetually propagandizing pachyderms prevaricate petulantly in promoting their pedophile prophet.

Question everything, but don't use skepticism as an excuse for denying the answers when you find them (or they find you)

One of the great intellectual crimes of the last one and one-half centuries has been the brainwashing of the West into making a false dichotomy between Faith and Reason. At least with regard to Christianity, it is not true that the two are mutually-exclusive; that one is based on Fact and the other emotion; that one is a matter of the heart and the other a matter of the mind; that one is objectively true and the other merely personal whim.

In fact, the Apostle Paul makes this point powerfully in declaring the obvious: If Christ has not risen from the dead, then our faith is futile and we Christians are to be pitied more than all men:

if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ . . . if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins . . . If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Corinthians 15).

Some reflections the nature and proper use of Reason, especially with regard to Faith, in response to a friend:

Official Roman Catholic teaching is that when the Pope defines a matter of faith or morals, he is infallible. (This does not mean that he doesn't sin or err in other matters, such as discipline or personal opinion).

I reject that doctrine, since it conflicts with the teachings of Christ: He tells the truth; it is up to us to recognize and admit that.  No office makes a man infallible in any matter; it is only to the degree that the Pope -- or any man -- speaks accurately the words of Christ that he speaks Truth.

As for Luther, he was a miserable sinner, just like every pope, you, and me. His value was that at a time when the western church taught officially that Christians could literally pay (cash) to remove sins, when the Church of Rome preached that God was a terrible, malevolent judge waiting to torment us in hell forever unless we could in some way satisfy His justice on our own merit (an impossible task), when those entrusted with the responsibility to preach faithfully His Gospel instead preached doctrines of hell, Luther rediscovered the clear teachings of Scripture.

He found that God's justice was not in treating us as our sins deserve, but in declaring all of us just (justified, innocent, righteous) in Christ, through faith in Him.

Though all of us sin daily and much and deserve God's wrath, God has had mercy on all of us by sending His Son to become flesh, die for our sins, and rise from the dead. In Christ, God reconciled the whole world -- all of us -- to Himself. He forgives our sins, rescues us from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all people, as the words and promises of God declare.

Luther was completely fallible (just like us); his great contributions were restoring to preeminence in the Church the true Gospel and reviving the teaching that unless something can be shown to be true from Scripture, it has no place as doctrine in the Church.

As for Mr. Jefferson, he was partly correct: We should question everything, but we should not use our skepticism as an excuse for denying the answers when we find them.  Or when they find us.

It appears from the quotation provided that Mr. Jefferson misunderstood the nature and purpose of Reason, since by definition, reason is a tool each man possesses to determine objective truth; an "Oracle given by heaven" comes from heaven and not from the mind of a man.  (If Man could discover from within all that God intended to communicate to us, then why would He send his Son?)

Some misunderstand Luther's comments on Reason being "the devil's whore;" he did not mean that we should reject the use of reason or the objective truth we determine with it and live in ignorance and superstition, but that we should put Reason in its proper place, which is as a tool that we use to determine fact, especially with regard to understanding the Scriptures as God intended.

Many Christians err in subjugating Scripture to their contra- or extra-Biblical, man-made "traditions" (as in Roman Catholicism and American Evangelicalism) or to their own Reason (as in American Evangelicalism as derived from Calvin; you may recall what Jefferson said regarding Calvin's god).  All of us sin, all of us err, and all of us have a responsibility to speak faithfully what God has revealed.  So we are responsible not only for the uprightness of our decisions but also the rightness of our declarations.

As for the First Amendment?  It opens the door to, invites in to supper, and then locks the door behind to shield from the wolves the skeptic, Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, Zoroastrian, animist, pagan, agnostic, atheist, and truly peaceful Muslim.

So, what specific objections are in the way, my friend?

If the foundation is solid, the structure will be sound

From here:

All law is the expression of someone's worldview; the American Constitution, which was set up to guarantee the protection of Individual Rights from all forms of tyranny -- was created by Christians (and a few others influenced heavily by Christianity).

Even Thomas Jefferson -- who apparently rejected the deity of Christ -- believed Christ's teachings to be the highest expression of morality and supreme to all others, used tax dollars to fund Indian education in Jesus' doctrines, and attended church services in Congress. He declared:

"The Christian religion, when divested of the rags in which they [the clergy] have enveloped it, and brought to the original purity and simplicity of it's benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind."

Such a system of government depends on the moral goodness, knowledge, and vigilance of its citizens. The recently-accelerated usurpation of our Constitution by power-hungry and condescending elected and judicial tyrants -- who believe that We the People exist to provide them power and position, rather than understanding that their position exists to protect our liberties -- is due not to any fault in our Constitution, but to the American people's ignorance, negligence, and greed.

By contrast, shari'a (Islamic law) -- which sacralizes and institutionalizes the vilest of atrocities, including pedophilia, torture, mutilation, slavery, rape, murder, wife-beating, polygyny, and religious and gender apartheid -- is founded on the words and deeds of Muhammad, whose example is considered by Allah a "beautiful pattern of conduct" for those who want to please it. This is why no Islamic nation with any form of shari'a enjoys spiritual, cultural, philosophical, moral, technological, or material prosperity, and those non-Muslim nations with Muslim populations of any significance endure constant turmoil, depredations, and every form of insecurity.

Feckless Obama covering-up launch of Chinese missile near Los Angeles?

Toxic children's toys are not the only things China's exporting to the U.S.:

[. . .]

Two governmental military experts with extensive experience working with missiles and computer security systems have examined the television video and conclude the mysterious contrail originating some 30 miles off the coast near Los Angeles did not come from a jet – but rather, they say the exhaust and the billowing plume emanated from a single source nozzle of a missile, probably made in China.

They further suggest the missile was fired from a submerged Chinese nuclear submarine off America's coast, and point out that the timing of the alleged Chinese missile shot coincided with an increasing confrontation between the U.S. and China, and was likely meant to send a message to Washington.

Indeed, the Federal Aviation Administration documents that there were no aircraft flying in the area at that time, the night of Nov. 8.

"The question that still must be answered is why NORAD's muted response was simply that North America was not threatened, and later our government approved the lame excuse that the picture recorded was simply an aircraft leaving a contrail," said retired U.S. Air Force Brig. Gen. Jim Cash.

A former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot and commander of an F-15 squadron and an F-16 wing, Cash was assigned to NORAD as an assistant director of operations at the Cheyenne Mountain complex near Colorado Springs, Colo., and is fully knowledgeable of NORAD procedures.

"There is absolutely no doubt that what was captured on video off the coast of California was a missile launch, was clearly observed by NORAD, assessed by a four-star general in minutes, and passed to the president immediately," he said.

Even more ominously, cautioned Cash: "We must question the timing of this shot across our bow. The president was abroad being diplomatic, which means trying to placate China which is becoming overly concerned with our handling a totally out-of-control deficit in spending."

[. . .]

Madsen, who today is an investigative journalist, said the Pentagon is working "overtime with the media and on the Internet to cover up the latest debacle. However, even some reporters who cover the Pentagon full-time are beginning to question the Pentagon's version of events ... over the skies west of Los Angeles."

Dr. Lyle J. Rapacki of Sentinel Intelligence Services, LLC, said the contrail incident off the Los Angeles coast is "fraught with peril" due to the defense systems and protocols in place that should have detected the alleged submarine.

"The decision to officially announce that North America was not threatened," he said, "and all the excitement was due to an aircraft leaving a contrail is a decision that reaches beyond the four-star general level and goes directly to a decision made by the commander-in-chief."

Why America is doomed

The problem with the German-Nazi/Islam-Islamism false dichotomy

I have a problem with the German-Nazi/Islam-Islamism analogy: It just isn't true.

"German" is a nationality and/or race, but "Nazism" was the ideology, and that was the problem. There were Catholic and Lutheran Germans who risked (and gave) all to protect their fellow Germans who happened to be Jewish.

"Islam" is the ideology Muhammad created. "Islamism" is the Western non-Muslim's confused or craven extenuation of what Islam actually is.

The terrorists who rape and behead innocent Christian schoolgirls, slice the breasts off the women of villages who answer "Muslim or Christian?" wrongly, and detonate their underwear ("Fruit of the Boom"?) in worship of Allah are practicing Islam the way Muhammad intended.

Historical, Qur'anic, traditional, mainstream Islam is the problem, and anyone who claims to follow it is one of its agents, whether or not they decapitate their Jewish neighbor, keep prepubescent nine-year-old sex slaves as "wives," or throw dirt into the wide-open mouths of their receptive Hindu dhimmis when they pay jizya.

A more accurate analogy in defense of "moderate" Muslims would be:

Not all Nazis worked the concentration camps.

Ego Ruderico

Rodrigo Díaz de Vivar (c. 1043 – July 10, 1099), "El Cid Campeador," "The Lord, Master of Military Arts" or "The Champion," would sign his name, "Ego Ruderico," which translates to "I, Rodrigo."

A nobleman and great warrior in occupied Spain, he was banished by Alfonso, had his services rejected by two other Christian rulers, and decided to go to the Moors.

After helping Alfonso come to his senses by leading Muslim armies in a crushing defeat of his combined Christian forces in battle, Alfonso called him back from exile, and the rest is historia.

La firma del Cid

Anderson Cooper calls Dr. Phil a "tea-******"

It wasn't "tea-partier."

Okay, not really, but he must have been thinking it, since Dr. Phil opposed Cooper's nanny-state mentality with common sense and basic morality: Parents are responsible for what their kids eat, not politicians.

Speaking of data, 100% of kids who ask their parents for Happy Meals . . . have parents.

If Muslims are merely the victims of "good white Christian folk," then why centuries of jihad in India?

Here's Islam exercising its Constitutionally-protected religious liberties on Hindus.

Strangely enough, the Muslims below said and did what Muslims waging jihad over the last fourteen hundred years throughout the West -- including today's schoolgirl-beheading, underwear-detonating, miniskirt-raping Muslims -- say and do.

I wonder, what's the connection?  Why all the violence against non-Muslims in India?  Could it be India's colonies in the Middle East?  (They didn't have any colonies there?)  Prejudice against non-whites?  (You mean, most Indians aren't "white"?)  George W. Bush?  (He wasn't born until the twentieth-century, and the jihad in India began in the eighth?)

No, the reason that Muslims rape, maim, enslave, and slaughter all around the world is because they all draw from Islam's "sacred" texts their inspiration and justification for jihad.

Notice the extraction of jizya -- and vile humiliation -- imposed on the conquered, "zimmi" (dhimmi) Hindus, and the binary option offered normally to polytheists: Convert or Die (emphasis mine):

The Sultán then asked, “How are Hindus designated in the law, as payers of tribute (kharáj-guzár) or givers of tribute (kharáj-dih)?” The Kází replied, “They are called payers of tribute, and when the revenue officer demands silver from them, they should, without question and with all humility and respect, tender gold. If the officer throws dirt into their mouths, they must without reluctance open their mouths wide to receive it. By doing so they show their respect for the officer. The due subordination of the zimmí (tribute-payer) is exhibited in this humble payment and by this throwing of dirt into their mouths. The glorification of Islám is a duty, and contempt of the Religion is vain. God holds them in contempt, for he says, ‘Keep them under in subjection.' To keep the Hindus in abasement is especially a religious duty, because they are the most inveterate enemies of the Prophet, and because the Prophet has commanded us to slay them, plunder them, and make them captive, saying, ‘Convert them to Islám or kill them, enslave them and spoil their wealth and property.’ No doctor but the great doctor (Hanífa), to whose school we belong, has assented to the imposition of the jizya (poll tax) on Hindus. Doctors of other schools allow no other alternative but ‘Death or Islám.'”

As I have stated in this blog repeatedly, of the 4 schools of Islamic law, only one (Hanafi) even allows Hindus the right to live. The 3 others simply say that Hindus must be killed if they refuse to convert. That is what this Kazi is telling Ala-ud-din. Note also that he says that Hindus are the worst in the eyes of Allah. This is because in the Kuran, the mushriqs (idolators) are considered the worst of the worst, fit to be killed immediately. Kuran 9:5 is very explicit about this "slay the idolators where ever ye find them..." We Hindus must never forget this - that our fate as per orthodox Islam is beheading.

Now you tell me that it is all in accordance with law that the Hindus should be reduced to the most abject obedience.” Then the Sul-tán said, “Oh, doctor, thou art a learned man, but thou hast had no experience; I am an unlettered man, but I have seen a great deal; be assured then that the Hindus will never become submissive and obedient till they are reduced to poverty. I have, therefore, given orders that just sufficient shall be left to them from year to year, of corn, milk, and curds, but that they shall not be allowed to accumulate hoards and property.”

So Ala-ud-din says that he has put into place measures (heavy taxation etc.) in order to reduce Hindus to abject poverty and keep them in a state of permanent debasement.

This was the status of Hindus under Islamic rule. Of course, our school textbooks, written by Marxist liars, will portray this period as a "great flowering of a syncretic culture." I leave it to the reader to judge for themselves what kind of "syncretic culture" our textbooks are talking about.

That last part's pretty funny.  Marxism in service to Islam.

I mean, it's not like a Muslim could ever become a Marxist, rise to power, and tax/spend/borrow a non-Muslim people into "abject poverty and . . . a state of permanent debasement," even giving a trillion dollars to a known jihadist government like Hamas, right?  Right?

You'd have to be a racist Islamophobe frightened of the bogeyman-under-the-bed to even entertain such an idea.  In fact, I'm probably a fascist imperialist who eats puppies just for posting this.

(But wait, Marxists love Islam.)

If someone won't believe Moses -- or their lyin' eyes -- then they won't believe even if Someone rises from the dead

Offered in response at a friend's excellent site:

one of the key claims of evolution -- namely, that the changes in life forms are the product of chance alone -- is not properly a scientific claim as it is not open to testing or verification.

The problem for Darwinian evolution is that all observation shows that it never occurs. Random genetic mutations happen, but they're normally harmful or fatal to the organism. They never add newer, more complex program/structure/function.

If Life is constantly evolving into newer, more complex forms, then how can anyone catch a coelacanth, a fish contemporaneous with the tyrant lizards?

If in five hundred million years, coelacanth evolved into . . . coelacanth, then how did some ape-like organism(s) evolve in only a few million years into Man?

The best Darwinists can do in defense of their creation myth is Lenski's E. Coli, and what do they show? After tens of thousands of generations, the bacteria evolved into . . . bacteria!

The Darwinists demonstrate their inability (or unwillingness) to deal honestly with facts also in how they address the T. Rex red blood cells discovered in Montana. At first, they did everything they could to avoid admitting that red blood cells were discovered in a fossil at least (according to them) 65 million years old. Then, rather than revise their assumptions with regard to dating, they instead suggested that protein has a longer shelf life than they realized!

(And really, moving the goalposts is all that's left to those who believe that Man arose accidentally from microbes by way of maggots, mice, and monkeys. That and name-calling.)

At what point of certainty do you accept a scientific finding?

Observable fact. Whether it's Science or Religion, without observable fact, all you've got is fiction.

No scientist observed the Big Bang (anyway, who's ever heard of explosions building things?). No Darwinist has ever observed abiogenesis (so much so, that they run from the topic). And no one's ever observed a bird hatch from a reptile egg.

Darwinism isn't Science, it's science fiction.

Yet we've got sixteen hundred years of eyewitness accounts of YHWH's intervening in human affairs -- culminating with the Crucifixion and Resurrection -- preserved by the societies in which they occurred.

Histories written, words recorded, monuments made, and worshiped as a god. Yet no one denies the historicity of Julius Caesar. Even allegedly-hostile, non-Christian history calling Christ a "sorcerer" acknowledges (unwillingly, no doubt) His miracles, and still the evolutionists mock.

Two thousand years ago, Paul observed that God's eternal power and divine nature are obvious in the Creation. If someone won't believe Moses -- or their lyin' eyes -- then they won't believe even if Someone rises from the dead.

Christians have no reason to be ashamed.  All have reasons to believe.

If national suicide is funny, then these guys are hilarious

Somehow, undermining civilization is funnier when it's someone else's society crumbling at the hands of its own citizens. Is it too soon to declare that the clowns in Washington (real and elected) have got to go?

Always insightful commentary from the gents at Power Line, this time on today's Rally to Reassure the Desperate:

Stewart called on the nation to move forward 'concession by concession,' the way cars yield to one another when they merge from two lanes into one. I don't watch Stewart's show, so I don't know whether he applied this model when President Obama was ramming legislation like health care reform through Congress without making any real concessions to Republicans (not even Olympia Snowe). I do know that Stewart is now criticizing Obama not for insufficient willingness to compromise, but for failing to be even more transformative than he has been.

Stewart also pressed his theory that the 24 hour pundit cycle is making it harder to solve 'our problems.' He offered no analysis to support the implausible notion that cable news and talk shows -- of mostly poor quality to be sure, but also lightly watched for the most part -- are having such an effect.

Stewart seems to be obsessed with punditry. But I believe it washes over the body politic as a whole either unconsumed or taken (as Stewart's performances are) mostly for its entertainment value. The causes, and the most interesting symptoms, of our polarization (if that's what Stewart is complaining about) lie elsewhere.

JOHN adds: 'Polarization' consists of us conservatives and other non-liberals--80 percent of the population--resisting Obama's and Stewart's left-wing agenda.

A question for Muslims

The Son of God committed no sin, spoke only the truth, healed the sick, raised the dead, died for the sins of the whole world, and resurrected.  He gave the world the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule and forgives all sins, rescues from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who trust in Him.

Christ does all this for you.

What about Muhammad?

ABC, YouTube describe abortion as "gruesome," "shocking," and "disgusting," protest having to show its conclusion

How long until those responsible for the disclaimers are fired for telling the truth?

If abortion is a "Constitutional right," if it is something to be protected, then why would viewing its product shock or disgust? Why do even its defenders consider it "gruesome"? Why would the television station protest that they were "forced" to air the ad? Why would they be reluctant to advertise a fundamental plank in the Democratic Party's platform?

The Left forces sexual deviance down throats of the public (it seems you can't watch a major network show or relevant news report without homosexual propaganda being pushed), and now it's found a new life partner in Islam (though it'll be shocked to find that its new lover is interested not in a long-term commitment but only mut'ah). Why not be proud of what they claim is a fundamental matter of equality and women's rights?  If they're only lumps of tissue and not children, why hide anything?

Because those are babies.

Serial child butchers' work exposed; supporters can't help but tell the truth about it:

"An anti-abortion candidate running for D.C. delegate to the U.S. House is airing what is arguably one of this election cycle’s most provocative TV campaign ads, featuring extremely graphic images of aborted fetuses.

The 30-second ad for Missy Smith will air 24 times on local broadcast network affiliates across the greater Washington, D.C., metropolitan area. It is so explicit that it's preceded by a 15-second warning that was added by the stations’ administrators.

Over gruesome images of bloody and lifeless premature bodies, Smith says she had two abortions but has turned against the practice.

“I was told it’s not a baby. They lied to me. They exploited me. Then I learned the truth and I’ve suffered for years,” she says. “And believe me I am angry. My heart has been ripped out. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Norton – they all support the murder of babies and the abuse of women by abortion. It’s time to make child killing illegal again.”

YouTube has pulled the video from its site, posting a notice that it amounted to “a violation of YouTube's policy on shocking and disgusting content.”

WJLA, the local ABC affiliate to first air the ad, noted in its disclaimer that the station was required to air the ad under federal law."

One holocaust exposed (if briefly; even the UK is less fiendish in its policy); now, if only the Source and Sustenance of 1400 years of holocaust can receive the same treatment. Nine years of hiding what Islam wrought on 9/11 and in nearly 20,000 documented terrorist attacks since then, amplified now in an apparently coordinated media propaganda push in defense of Islam.

Break the dam. Release the river!

The West self-censors in defense of the murderous, monstrous misogynist Muhammad

Geert Wilders endures prosecutorial persecution at the hands of his own government, and Juan Williams is fired and mocked publicly.  Their crime?  They told the truth about Islam (though I doubt Williams realizes what he intuitively understands about Islam; he too is now on the road to discovering Islam the way Muhammad intended).

In light of 9/11 and nearly 20,000 jihad attacks since then, Juan Williams' reaction to those emphasizing their Muslim identity on a plane is not only natural but rational. Their wardrobe choices indicate either their insensitivity, ignorance, perverseness, or intention.

Mr. Williams does err in this: McVeigh was neither Christian nor acting on Christ's commands. On the other hand, the 19 monsters who carried out 9/11 -- and all Muslims butchering, raping, and enslaving non-Muslims around the world for the last 1400 years -- do so in obedience to Allah's perfect, eternal word and in emulation of Muhammad's Allah-pleasing, "beautiful pattern of conduct."

There are moderate (or apostate, or heretical) Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate. The sooner we recognize that Muhammad's fascism is the antithesis of Liberty and the mortal enemy of all free people, the sooner we can defend ourselves effectively.

"kill the pagans wherever you find them . . . Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah . . . even if they are the People of the Book [Jews, Christians, and some others] until they feel themselves subdued and pay the jizya [poll tax; essentially protection money]" (Qur'an 9) is incompatible with "all men are created equal . . . they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness . . . ."

The truth will out.

Update: Pamela Geller observes saliently:

Williams is a liberal, and more times than not sides with the leftist/Islamic alliance. This is a lesson for the left, for the "queers for Palestine,' and the feminazis who stay silent in the wake of gender apartheid, clitorectomies, honor killings, etc. Know that you are next.

As long as the decent remain uninformed or silent, and as long as the perverse and the cowardly aid the enemy, we're all next.

Muslims and their Useful Idiot dhimmis coming out of the woodwork to defend NPR's jihad against Juan Williams

A leftist accidentally told the truth today. Not only that, but he's black. NPR CEO Vivian Shiller can't allow that, can she?

Offered in response to someone claiming that Juan Williams had it coming:

"Juan believes that it is bad for someone to see themselves in terms of their religion, and if they do that they are to be feared. That is the comment of someone who has not risen above their own racism"

First, Williams was not commenting on all religions, he was commenting on Islam. I doubt that nuns make him sweat.

Second, Islam is an ideology, not a race. That anyone repeats that canard speaks only to their ignorance or deceitfulness.

To both you and the earlier poster worried about her husband: Once Muslims stop murdering non-Muslims to shouts of "Allahu akbar!" non-Muslims will stop being nervous around them. Stop the genocide, rape, and slavery and POOF! No more "discrimination."

Islam advances without guns or bombs as its adherents wage their cultural jihad, and your children are the target

Considering the success Muslims have had infiltrating our government agencies, manipulating our media, and buying our politicians, it is clear that bin Laden and his less-subtle coreligionists acted recklessly. Without 9/11, America would have been boiled alive without a whimper.

Islam advances without guns or bombs as its adherents wage their cultural jihad, and your children are the target:

A reliable voting guide for this election

If you want a prosperous and free America, you need to cast the right votes this November.  There's one way to make sure that you get it right:

Find out whatever initiatives, propositions, candidates, etc. are supported by the unions -- especially the California Teachers Association -- and vote the opposite.

Burning the text responsible for nearly one and one-half millennia of genocide, pedophilia, rape, and slavery is "hate," but practicing such depravity -- that's religious liberty!

Obvious racists burning Qur'an.
Do they know something we don't?

I didn't endorse Terry Jones' (apparent) publicity stunt (if he were acting on his convictions, the pile of refuse would have burned), and I don't advocate burning books in general, but has anyone noticed that all during the Islamophilic media's fabricated controversy (in defense of the Ground Zero mosque; it was no coincidence) over his plan to burn Qur'an, those enlightened defenders of the oppressed ignored the genocidal, pedophilic elephant in the room?

"After condemnations from around the world, Jones called off the burning."

Who's calling off "kill the pagans wherever you find them . . . Fight those who disbelieve . . . even if they are the People of the Book [Jews and Christians, mostly] . . . Paradise [belongs to those who] fight in his cause, and slay and are slain" (Qur'an 9)?

The West's political and media "leaders" are so blinded by their suicidal ignorance, guilt, and self-loathing, their hatred of Christianity, and their need for approval that rather than condemn Muhammad's medieval* Mein Kampf, they attack those who oppose its martial, monstrous, misogynistic mandates.

It is up to us to inform the ignorant, fire the treasonous, persuade the moderate, expose the deceitful, and oppose the devout. Vigorously.

*Another expression of the West's hatred of its Christian past, Islamic barbarity is compared often to Medieval Europe or Christianity's "early days," not realizing (or caring) that Christ was raising the dead six centuries before Muhammad was a gleam in satan's eye.

Robert Spencer speaks plain truth in one of Islam's Useful Idiot dhimmi factories

From here:

Understanding Islam is not "hate," but defending Muhammad's depravity certainly is

In response to another lying in defense of hell:

What does it say about you, Conor, that you feel the need to lie about someone in defense of sacralized genocide, pedophilia, rape, and slavery?

A "bigot" is someone who hates prejudicially; especially a racial or ethnic group. What do I hate? Whom have I prejudged? What race is Islam, Conor? What race am I?

Speaking of actual hatred, it is Islam which is "bigoted" against all who refuse the "invitation" to convert, requiring the use of any means necessary to enslave or slaughter them. Islam's authoritative texts show Muhammad to be -- in addition to bigot -- pedophile, butcher, and tyrant. Why aren't you attacking him? At least then you'd be telling the truth.

Islam is a set of beliefs; as such we have every right to evaluate the moral rectitude of its doctrines and practice.

I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm willing to bet that if its practitioners stop beheading schoolgirls (Indonesia), raping and murdering children (Beslan), and using planes as missiles (America) in service to Allah, non-Muslims will stop pointing out those facts.

I hate someone's raping little, prepubescent nine-year-olds and claiming not only that a god required it, but that imitating that behavior is god-pleasing. Why don't you, Conor?

I'm intolerant of someone's murdering innocents to shouts of "Allahu akbar!" just because his victims "warred against Allah" only by virtue of being non-Muslim. Why aren't you, Conor?

Why don't you hate sacralized genocide, pedophilia, rape, and slavery? Why do you feel the need to libel those who do?

Whose side are you on, anyway?

Lying Reza Aslan hijacks 9/11 by obfuscating for the ideology which inspired it

Reza Aslan, part of the actual "hate group" whose members hijacked planes and used them as missiles on 9/11, plays on the Left's self-loathing and contempt for Western Civilization by attacking those who oppose Muhammad's murderous and incestuous ideology.

(It's no little irony that one of hell's salesmen would spread its lies at a site named after its chief occupant.)

In response to someone all-too-eager to be deceived by the shameless Aslan:

How suicidally-foolish one must be to deny obvious facts in service to an intolerant, hateful, murderous ideology which denies freedom of speech and conscience and equality under the law to females and non-Muslims.

It is neither hateful, racist, bigoted, nor irrational to oppose "sacralized" genocide, pedophilia, rape, slavery, and sedition in the name of Muhammad's deity.

Rather than aid the downfall of Western Civilization and the extinction of the liberties you enjoy, educate yourselves regarding an ancient existential threat renewed in our day. There may be moderate Muslims (if Reza Aslan is one of them, why is he attacking those defending Life and Liberty?), but Islam itself is not moderate:

"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).

"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).

Ibn Kathir says of this verse: "'Wage war' mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. Mischief in the land refers to various types of evil." So, Muhammad requires execution, crucifixion, or cutting off hands and feet from opposite sides for "disbelief."

"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).

"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).

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

Adding fuel to his bonfire in hell

Smells like roast pig prophet.

Raping a child is hellish enough. When your victim is someone you made your sex slave at Allah's ordaining when she was only a little, nine-year-old prepubescent child, you've reached a new level of depravity. And then you beat her for not trusting you. Why would she doubt?

Worst of all, because the execrable Muhammad claimed to be an Allah-pleasing example for all Muslims to follow -- and indefensibly perverse Muslims believe him -- all that he said and did is prescriptive for the faithful for all time. For 'Aisha and many other Muslim females, that meant and means a lifetime of child rape, sex slavery, polygyny, beatings, and discrimination, all with the threat of "divine" retribution if you complain.

But Liberals love the wife-beating pedophile, defending his brutality as legitimate religious expression protected by the First Amendment.

More on the misogynist from hell, here:

Muhammad b. Qais said (to the people): Should I not narrate to you (a hadith of the Holy Prophet) on my authority and on the authority of my mother? We thought that he meant the mother who had given him birth. He (Muhammad b. Qais) then reported that it was 'A'isha who had narrated this: Should I not narrate to you about myself and about the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him)? We said: Yes. She said: When it was my turn for Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) to spend the night with me, he turned his side, put on his mantle and took off his shoes and placed them near his feet, and spread the corner of his shawl on his bed and then lay down till he thought that I had gone to sleep. He took hold of his mantle slowly and put on the shoes slowly, and opened the door and went out and then closed it lightly. I covered my head, put on my veil and tightened my waist wrapper, and then went out following his steps till he reached Baqi'. He stood there and he stood for a long time. He then lifted his hands three times, and then returned and I also returned. He hastened his steps and I also hastened my steps. He ran and I too ran. He came (to the house) and I also came (to the house). I, however, preceded him and I entered (the house), and as I lay down in the bed, he (the Holy Prophet) entered the (house), and said: Why is it, O 'A'isha, that you are out of breath? I said: There is nothing. He said: Tell me or the Subtle and the Aware would inform me. I said: Messenger of Allah, may my father and mother be ransom for you, and then I told him (the whole story). He said: Was it the darkness (of your shadow) that I saw in front of me? I said: Yes. He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you? She said: Whatsoever the people conceal, Allah will know it. He said: Gabriel came to me when you saw me. He called me and he concealed it from you. I responded to his call, but I too concealed it from you (for he did not come to you), as you were not fully dressed. I thought that you had gone to sleep, and I did not like to awaken you, fearing that you may be frightened. He (Gabriel) said: Your Lord has commanded you to go to the inhabitants of Baqi' (to those lying in the graves) and beg pardon for them. I said: Messenger of Allah, how should I pray for them (How should I beg forgiveness for them)? He said: Say, Peace be upon the inhabitants of this city (graveyard) from among the Believers and the Muslims, and may Allah have mercy on those who have gone ahead of us, and those who come later on, and we shall, God willing, join you (Muslim, Book 004, Number 2127).

Math even an "academic" can do

A few lines in response to Timothy Behrend, a Muslim attacking those who rape, maim, and slaughter in Allah's name.  No, scratch that. He's attacking the Biblical God.

From here:

(Notice, dear readers, that Timmy isn't dealing with you honestly. He thinks you're idiots. Rather than address forthrightly the jihad ideology and its Source and Sustenance -- the command of Allah and the example of Muhammad -- he's deflecting, making a false moral equivalence between YHWH and Muhammad, and by implication, a false moral equivalence between Jews/Christians and his coreligionists, which is itself an admission of their depravity. Thanks, for helping out, Timmy!)

Are ancient Hebrews blowing up innocent Gentiles to shouts of "YHWH is great!"? Trying to equate the God of the Bible with your fellow Muslims . . . is that supposed to elevate Muslims, denigrate YHWH, or shame us into silence? (How sad.)

The God of Abraham is the God of Moses. The difference between the Exodus/Canaan and jihad is that the Creator of the universe has a right to punish sin and to preserve His people in anticipation of the coming Savior of all. The God of Moses is not a genocidal, pedophilic warlord promising fellow degenerates a cosmic brothel with perpetual virgins and "boys like pearls" if they kill or are killed fighting to expand his empire. The God of Moses is the one Who gave humanity the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule, not the one who "sacralized" their violation. He is the One Who became flesh, committed no sin, spoke only the truth, healed the sick, raised the dead, died for the sins of the whole world, and resurrected, commanding His people to love even their enemies. He is not the one who made a sex slave out of a little, prepubescent nine-year-old girl and claimed, "Allah made me do it."

One God gave His life to give heaven to all; one god gives heaven to those who take others' lives. The God Who punished sin by taking the firstborn of Egypt paid for the sins of all by giving up His One and Only Son. Even an "academic" can do that math, Tim.

You hoped that we would confuse the means for the end by focusing on your coreligionists' auto-detonating, not on the reason for their slaughtering non-Muslims, whatever the tactic. Of course, when Muslim armies are stronger, they use more conventional weapons of war. Terrorism is not the issue -- jihad is.

But of course, you knew that.

Everyone gets angry, but only one group of people flies planes into buildings while praising their deity

More from here, this time in response to the claim that one can use Qur'an and Sunnah to persuade others that violence in Islam's name is illegitimate, a strategy effective with the uninformed but not with those who actually know Islam's texts, tenets, and timelines.

Every verse from Muhammad speaking of peace toward non-Muslims has been abrogated (the doctrine of Naskh) by the numerous later verses of blood:

Naskh. As long as Muslims read Islamic 'sacred' texts in-context, you lose -- we lose -- every time.

So, 'turmoil' causes jihad? Everyone gets angry. Only one group of people fly planes into buildings while praising their deity, finding ample scriptural justification for their atrocities.

Claiming that jihad has nothing to do with Islam -- some might call that "really stupid"

In another feeble attempt to excuse Muhammad from responsibility for the hell he unleashed, a Muslim refers ambiguously to what his coreligionists do "in the name of Islam" as "really stupid."

The last time I checked, "boys being boys" did not include genocide, pedophilia, slavery, or treason.

Of course, I asked for clarification:

What do you call "really stupid"? Were they sticking their tongues into electrical outlets? Jumping off of garage roofs? Voting Democrat?

Or is that just your extenuating the evil practiced in obedience to Allah's command and in emulation of Muhammad's example?

And if those 'really stupid' acts are actually things like 'killing pagans,' 'striking terror into the hearts' of non-Muslims, or 'being harsh to unbelievers' -- all of which are Muhammad's commands -- then how is attribution to Islam anything but "valid"?

Answering the unthinkable question

Offered in response to an apparent Muslim who answered "Islam is as Islam does" with "christianity is what christianity does...child molester," implying that Christianity is "just as bad as Islam," or worse:

Analogies can be helpful in showing the essence of a thing, and one might add clarity here: If this were 1943, you'd be arguing to firebomb London since murder occurs in the UK, too, rather than admitting the inhuman barbarism of National Socialism and the need to defeat it.

Evil is found in all societies: All non-Muslims sin and not all Muslims butcher, rape, and maim their neighbors to shouts of "Allahu akbar!" But the issue is not idiosyncratic religious expression which varies by knowledge, zeal, resources, and opportunity and may or may not reflect accurately the will of a particular deity, but what a god requires of its followers as defined by its authoritative texts.

If Islam really is a "religion of peace" no more likely to inspire violence than any other faith, then fine. Nuns must be patted-down by hijab-clad TSA employees, and we've all got to get body-scanned at the airport because there's just no way in the world of predicting who's going to explode until they're trying to land the plane.

If, however, Islam is a system of beliefs that requires the utter depravity committed in its name around the world for the last fourteen hundred years, then you're suggesting that we ignore that explosives-laden elephant-in-the-room and base our self-defense on your assertion that Christians are "just as bad." (At least that's an admission that Muslims rape children.)

This is the unthinkable question: Is Islamic "extremism" condoned, encouraged, or commanded by the religion, or not? If jihad and shari'a are legitimate expressions of Allah's will and Muhammad's life, then your moral equivalences and tu quoques are not only false, but murderous.

When a Christian does evil, he or she does so in violation of Christ's commands. When a Muslim rapes little, prepubescent nine-year-old girls, he does so in emulation of Muhammad's example and with Allah's approval, for Muhammad boasted that Allah not only willed his raping the baby but declared his actions to be a "beautiful pattern of conduct" for those who want to please him.

(Did you catch that? Allah calls Muhammad's raping little children "beautiful." Will you condemn Muhammad's making poor, little, prepubescent 'Aisha his sex slave beginning when she was only nine-years-old? If not, why not?)

Jesus committed no sin, spoke only the truth, healed the sick, raised the dead, died for the sins of the whole world, and resurrected, commanding His people to love even their enemies and warning that "anyone who causes a little one to sin" would be better off having a large stone tied around his neck and being thrown into the depths of the sea.

On the other hand, Muhammad "pleased Allah" by committing genocide, pedophilia, rape, mutilation, torture, slavery, theft, extortion, wife-beating (commanded, at least), polygyny, religious and gender apartheid, the murder of critics, deceit, blasphemy, sedition, and treason, claiming that "the devil made me do it, and so will you -- or else."

We face an existential threat, one that has devoured civilizations for nearly one and one-half millennia. Defending Islam by attacking Christianity is not only irrational and immoral, it sends more Muslim souls to hell and advances hell-on-Earth for non-Muslims and Muslim apostates, women, and little girls.

Whose side are you on?

Update: Amazon's courageously deleted the above post.  Whom does that aid?

First-century Jewish-Roman historian Flavius Josephus confirms essential elements of the Apostles' testimony regarding Jesus of Nazareth

Jesus declared that if someone won't believe Moses, they won't believe even if Someone rises from the dead. For those who care about the truth and question honestly, the Prophets' foretelling and the Apostles' reporting should be enough; but if you need more, below is an authoritative, non-Christian, Jewish, Roman, extra-biblical historical reference to Jesus. Note that all three versions of the passage (one "reconstructed" -- that's scholar-speak for "I made stuff up!") confirm what the first Christians reported regarding Jesus.

Here's the first version of the passage from a Greek translation in which Josephus describes Christ as "wise," "a doer of wonderful works," "a teacher of men who receive the truth," attracting "many" Jews and Gentiles, and that "he appeared to them alive again the third day" (end notes in the original):

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Next is the same passage from an Arabic translation. This one adds "virtuous" to the descriptors. Even though a bit less personal in tone, it confirms the fact that His "many . . . disciples . . . reported that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion and that he was alive":

At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.

And for those who don't mind impugning the integrity of the Christian scribes who preserved Josephus' works, here is a "reconstruction" of the passage in a much more hostile tone. Even when mocking Christ and His followers, the same basic facts regarding Jesus are admitted: His miracles ("wizard of a man," "if indeed he may be called a man," "most monstrous of men," "having done wonders such as no man has ever done," "astonishing tricks"), His being called "Son of God" and "Messiah," His many followers ("seduced many Jews and many also of the Greek nation"), and His resurrection from the dead ("it seemed to them . . . he had appeared to them alive again"). Note also that even this fictional, antagonistic version of Josephus admits that the "divinely-inspired prophets had foretold -- these and ten thousand other wonderful things -- concerning him."

R. Eisler's "scholarly reconstruction":

Now about this time arose an occasion for new disturbances, a certain Jesus, a wizard of a man, if indeed he may be called a man, who was the most monstrous of men, whom his disciples call a son of God, as having done wonders such as no man has ever done.... He was in fact a teacher of astonishing tricks to such men as accept the abnormal with delight.... And he seduced many Jews and many also of the Greek nation, and was regarded by them as the Messiah.... And when, on the indictment of the principal men among us, Pilate had sentenced him to the cross, still those who before had admired him did not cease to rave. For it seemed to them that having been dead for three days, he had appeared to them alive again, as the divinely-inspired prophets had foretold -- these and ten thousand other wonderful things -- concerning him. And even now the race of those who are called 'Messianists'[*] after him is not extinct.

*"Christ" is Greek for the Hebrew "Messiah."

Why shouldn't his magnum opus receive the same honor as its author?

While I am not generally in favor of burning books, if any text does deserve a fiery end, it's Qur'an. Poetically, that's where Muhammad is, too.

Would anyone oppose a public burning of Mein Kampf? In 1943? Both Muhammad and Hitler were genocidally-anti-Semitic, wanted to rule the world, and preached a murderous, totalitarian, tribal supremacism. Yet Hitler was only a cheap, secular imitation of Muhammad. Adolf's six million Jews? Muhammad would call that "a start."

The only real difference between the two is that Hitler lacked Muhammad's "spirit" and imagination.* Since the genocidal pedophile cloaked his depravity in a stupid, paper-thin, obviously-false "religious" veneer, his hateful ideology has had a staying power that the fuhrer's lacked. In fact, Hitler lamented Germany's being a Christian nation rather than an Islamic one.

How can anyone call burning hell-in-a-book "disrespectful" or "boneheaded"? Why are both Left and Right trying to suppress anyone's defiance of evil? If "Americans" can burn American flags in acts of "patriotism," then why can't current and potential victims of Islam burn the book which slays them? When the epithet "Muslim" elicits the same shame, derision, and revulsion as does "Nazi," then the West will have preserved what is left of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, of equality under the law for all regardless of creed or gender.

*Since Muhammad feared that his first audience with the demon "Gabriel" indicated that he was demon-possessed, I do not doubt that the idea for Allah and Islam did not come originally from within. Considering the completely self-serving nature of later "revelations" -- Mu' wants a new wife, so Allah gives him permission -- it's hard to know just what was from his allah and what was his own creation. Of course, with sin, all one needs is a gentle nudge to get the ball rolling. Each time it gets a little bit easier to violate your conscience until eventually, you end up being something entirely different from what you thought or wished you were.

Sarah Palin protests burning the inspiration for 9/11, calling for tolerance of "sacralized" genocide, pedophilia, rape, slavery, and treason

Though I doubt she understands the implication of her advice.  Demonstrating the same well-intentioned but suicidal ignorance of Islam infecting so many in the West, Sarah Palin calls burning the text singularly responsible for 9/11 an "insensitive and . . . unnecessary provocation."  Funny, I thought putting a monument to the slaughter of innocents over their graves was "insensitive and unnecessary," not to mention the attack itself.

Would anyone complain about a public burning of Mein Kampf?  Why, then, are so many distressed about a public condemnation of the single most hateful document in human history?  Both Hitler and Muhammad were genocidally anti-Semitic, both wanted to rule the world, both sold their nations on the supremacy of their own tribes.  Muhammad's genius (if you can call a genocidal pedophile "smart") -- and Hitler's failure of imagination -- was that the murderous prophet couched his totalitarian and totally-depraved ideology of rape and murder in the garb of "religion," which has given Islam a staying power that no secular system can equal.

And Fox 11 News unintentionally aided the cultural jihad today by hosting two guests -- a progressive rabbi and a conservative legal expert -- who also defended Qur'an.  The "rabbi" equated the Florida pastor with Hitler, dredged up the Inquisition and Crusades, and referenced Maimonides as an example of a Jew persecuted by Christians but befriended by Muslims.  This is the height of self-destructive moral inversion, historical illiteracy, and tragic irony since Maimonides lamented the severe persecution of Jews carried out by Muslims, the first Crusade was called in response to a desperate plea for help from eastern Christians under siege for centuries by jihad, and the pastor is protesting the ne plus ultra of murderous hatred and intolerance, the source and sustenance of a "religion" commended by Hitler.

Time to cross off another completely nescient politician.  What can you expect when even our "experts" on Islam like Daniel Pipes, smart people on the Right like Newt Gingrich, and talk radios' stars like (the guests hosts for) Sean Hannity and Mike Gallagher continue to perpetuate the nonsensical and nonexistent distinction between Islam and "Islamism"?  There may be moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate.

Sarah Palin protests against defying tyrants and destroying copies of the inspiration for 9/11:

"Book burning is antithetical to American ideals. People have a constitutional right to burn a Koran if they want to, but doing so is insensitive and an unnecessary provocation – much like building a mosque at Ground Zero"

So, building a monument to the slaughter of three thousand innocents is the moral equivalent of destroying copies of the book which inspired, informed, and mandated their murder?

If that's the best we've got, we're doomed.

"It will feed the fire of caustic rhetoric and appear as nothing more than mean-spirited religious intolerance," she continued. "Don’t feed that fire."

The fire is fed by Qur'an, which contains open-ended, universal commands to use any means necessary -- including violence -- to make the world Islam, mandates death for apostates, and along with Sunnah encourages the murder of anyone who criticizes Islam.

You know, "mean-spirited religious intolerance."

Ms. Palin and the others cowering in the corner pleading, "Don't call Islam violent, or Muslims might kill someone!" are behaving in a very un-American way -- Why is anyone encouraging a free man to self-censor in deference to murderous tyrants, again?  What are we, French?  (At least they're banning something Islamic.)

"If your ultimate point is to prove that the Christian teachings of mercy, justice, freedom, and equality provide the foundation on which our country stands, then your tactic to prove this point is totally counter-productive."

That's a logical fallacy in the first place: Proving someone else intolerant doesn't prove yourself tolerant.  In the second, there was a time when Americans considered it a sacred duty to oppose tyranny.  And now our media, politicians, and even our military are telling us to compromise our freedom to burn stuff because our enemies might get mad.  What's next?  Shari'a courts in the U.S.?  Polygymy?  Jizya?  In that case, we're already following the mandates of shari'a, and the jihadists have won.

And as for General Petraeus's argument that burning Qur'ans will endanger our troops?  Don't they have guns?  Remove your suicidal Rules of Engagement and let the greatest military the world has ever known do its job.  Have our warriors bled and died so that Muslims can threaten us into silence?

As long as the Democrats' hope is in "People are fickle," there's "a glimmer of hope" for the Republic

Now that enough of the American people have awakened, Democrats appear to be distancing themselves from their core values, running away from the real-world effects of their shameless Statism and its Agent in the White House.

Don't be deceived: These politicians are not concerned about what's best for the nation, how many people they hurt with their oppressive, immoral, and irresponsible policies, enslaving our posterity, or what is morally good. They care only about maintaining their power.

In that respect, our elected tyrants are acting in perfect accord with their beliefs. White House Panicking Over Elections:

"Not only are they running away from President Obama, they're running away from being Democrats in some cases. In some races you actually see the Democratic candidates not really mentioning that they're a Democrat in their campaign ads," Cordes said.

Smith asked his guests to try to identify the source of the discontent: "From your experience on the Hill, have you heard any Democrats in private conversations say, 'You know what? We went down the wrong road. We went after health care. We went after so many other things on the Obama agenda as opposed to, in the end of the day, it's all about creating jobs?'"

The Obama agenda is our enemy's. It is bankrupting and disarming the Republic.

"Not only have we heard that, but we've been hearing it for months," said Cordes. "We heard it during the health care debate that dragged on for a year when the economy was so bad; they focused on health care and they focused on financial regulation.

Also known as "implementing socialism."

"Americans don't feel the impact of those pieces of legislation yet," she said. "There's a lot of frustration on Capitol Hill among Democrats who feel like the President led them down this path. They didn't all necessarily want to deal with health care. This was on the president's agenda, and then they felt like he kind of hung them out to dry."

That's poetic: Obama blamed Bush, and now Democrats are blaming Obama. It's too bad that these politicians' constituencies elected to Congress self-serving, unscrupulous sheep, rather than citizens.

And we are starting to "feel the impact of those pieces of legislation." That's why we're paying attention, and we're not happy.

"Not a single Democrat has run an ad in support of the health care bill since April," VandeHei noted. Cordes pointed out that Democrats are very unhappy about Mr. Obama's speech last week, only the second Oval Office prime time address in his presidency.

"What does he talk about? Not the economy, but Iraq," Cordes said. "And they say, 'No, we need to own the economy. If you’re going to use the power of your office to give a speech like that, talk about the economy."

VandeHei said the Republicans feel more powerful today than they've felt at any point in the last five or six years.

When Republicans had control of the White House and Congress, they behaved like Democrats. That's why those Republicans-in-Name-Only are out of power now and cannot be allowed back in office.

"On top of that, you have this enthusiasm gap that is killing Democrats."

Most Americans -- including Independents and some Democrats -- are not enthusiastic about destroying the greatest nation in the history of Man.

"If you look at the polling data from Gallup and from others, it shows that Republicans are fired up about this election. The liberal Democrats are not. They're not enthusiastic about it. When you have races that are decided by a couple hundred votes, in a House that can be very, very close, that matters," VandeHei said.

He also suggested that Democrats are much more pessimistic than they were merely three or four weeks ago. He cited a recent Gallup poll that showed Republicans with a 10-point generic edge. "They've been polling for 60 years. We've not seen a number like that."

That's good. The Republic's been around for more than two and one-quarter centuries, and it's never seen numbers like the Liberals have brought upon us, either.

Cordes pointed out that predictions show the Republicans can win 45 to 50 seats in the House, and they only need 39 seats to take control.

But VandeHei offered a glimmer of hope for President Obama and the Democrats.

"It's never too late," he said. "Think about how fickle we are in everything in life now, whether it's the cell phone that we choose or what we think about politics or what we do in our daily life. People are fickle.

"I still think you can start to pull people back," VandeHei said. "At the end of the day, it has to be that Obama has to find that magic. How can he get liberals to be as excited about him and about Democratic change as they were two years ago?"

Obama and his Congressional co-conspirators have gotten a lot of people excited about "Democratic change" this November.

And in 2012.

Obama's desire to use the fruits of your labor to increase his political power should come as no surprise

In 2001, the future president confused protecting the rights of the individual with stealing your property.  Notice his regret over the Supreme Court's not "break[ing] free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution," restrictions put in place to protect us from government.

Notice also his use of the mob ("political and community organizing and activities on the ground [. . .] the actual coalition of powers") to "bring about redistributive change."  If one gang in black robes doesn't get us, the other gang in street clothes will. Tyrants dress up their malice and greed as "serving the people," but they're really only serving themselves.

Watch out for socialists' ideas of "political and social justice."  It's anything but "just":

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK.

But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

Suicidally-ignorant bigots align with their future Islamic overlords in calling ivory "black" and agitating for freedom of beheading, child-rape, and slavery

An obviously principled defense of religious liberty . . . if you call "sacralized" genocide, pedophilia, rape, slavery, and treason "religion"

What more than blind hatred of Christianity -- and of America for retaining vestiges of its Christian founding principles, along with no small number of Christians -- spurs the godless left to rally in defense of "religious freedom" when the "religion" they're defending will take away not only their freedom, but their heads, their wives, and their daughters?

The truth is, when it is Christians or Jews expressing their religion freely (or engaging in just plain self-preservation, as in Israel's defense of its very existence or the effort to stop the Islamic house of ill-repute at Ground Zero) those defending the mosque now foam at the mouth about separation of church and state.

What in the world do socialists have in common with pseudo-religious, murdering tyrants?

And what race is Islam, anyway?

Deep down inside, many of these craven traitors must understand that when push comes to shove, and they've succeeded in diminishing the influence of Christianity in America so that Islam reigns, they'll be forced to make a choice: Convert, submit, or die.  And they must know that when that time does come, they're going to convert.  When faced with tyranny, cowards submit.  And being the tyrants that many of them are, they'll delight in having a chance finally to stick it to "Good white Christian folk" of every ethnicity.

But these Useful Idiot dhimmis and their Muslim puppet masters misunderstand the American spirit because they are not American in any meaningful sense of the word.  Americans do not submit. We do not surrender.  We will not stand by idly while the rabidly-ignorant-and-vicious savage those we love.

Look, she misspelled "dead."
Good Muslims make "dead" neighbors.

Notice how the treasonous, clueless media support the cultural jihad in America, a movement which will do away ultimately with their freedom of the press (not that they're using it lately for anything other than undermining the Republic): "which would include a prayer room;" as if having one means that Muslims obeying the word of Allah and emulating Muhammad's example didn't bring down the towers and exterminate the three thousand.

In other words, what comfort to non-Muslims is a "prayer room" when its occupants will be praying for our subjugation and humiliation or slaughter?  The mujahideen media gins up opposition to defense of the Republic by Americans opposing a monument to the nineteen and their murderous "god" at Ground Zero:

Opponents of the center, which would include a prayer room, say its proposed location is insensitive and fear it will harbor religious extremism. Those who back it cite the right to religious freedom and a need to promote tolerance and understanding.

Hundreds of opponents on Sunday chanted 'No Mosque,' sang patriotic songs and waved photographs of violent attacks by Islamic extremists.

One sign read: 'Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all the terrorists were Muslim.'

Around the corner, supporters chanted: 'We don't care what bigots say, religious freedom is here to stay.'

A supporter, retired school teacher Ilene Kahn, said: 'This has become a political tool to preach hatred. The peace-loving Muslims did not attack us.'

What Ms. Kahn doesn't realize is what every Muslim knows: The mosque represents imperialistic, triumphalist, militant Islam.  Also known as "just Islam."  Yet, besides Miss America -- who adds treason to lewdness in Muslim eyes; I can hear that fatwa coming, it's coming 'round the bend -- where are the "peace-loving Muslims" opposing the mosque?

Ali Akram, a local doctor who supports the project, said: "The people who say the mosque is too close to Ground Zero, those are the same people that protest mosques in Brooklyn and Staten Island and Tennessee and Wisconsin and California. What radius will they go for?

How 'bout Mecca?  But even then, that city belongs to the pagans from whom it was stolen.

Many in the crowd opposing the center were firefighters and construction workers, who carried signs reading: "This is Sacred Ground to New Yorkers."

And it should be to all non-Muslims of every religion and nationality.

One sign read: "Everything I Ever Needed to Know about Islam I Learned on 9/11."

That's pretty much it.

The mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv? Obama says, "Let's not jump to conclusions."

Just hours after a report declaring that, "The Obama administration has assured Israel that Iran's process of converting nuclear material into a working weapon would take at least a year," the little caliph has a reactor.

Bolton was right:

Iranian and Russian nuclear technicians made final preparations to start up Iran's first reactor on Saturday after years of delays, an operation that will mark a milestone in what Tehran considers its right to produce nuclear energy.

Nationwide celebrations are planned for the fuel loading at the Bushehr facility in southern Iran, while Russia pledges to safeguard the plant and prevent spent nuclear fuel from being shifted to a possible weapons program.

Well, there's nothing to worry about then, is there?

And how much you wanna bet those celebrations included shouts of "Allahu akbar!" and "Khaybar! Khaybar!"?

'The startup operations will be a big success for Iran,' conservative lawmaker Javad Karimi said in Tehran. 'It also shows Iran's resolve and capability in pursuing its nuclear activities.'

The West has not sought to block the reactor startup as part of its confrontations over Iran's nuclear agenda, a clash that has resulted in repeated rounds of U.N. sanctions against Tehran. Washington and other nations do not specifically object to Tehran's ability to build peaceful reactors that are under international scrutiny."

What does it mean when your allegedly-former-Muslim-in-Chief agrees with Muslim terrorists (Hamas) about a mosque at Ground Zero?

A devout Muslim believes that Qur'an is the perfect word of Allah and that Muhammad is a "beautiful pattern of conduct" for those who want to please him.  Since Muhammad and his deity commanded the imposition of Islamic law (shari'a) over all mankind -- using force when necessary -- then a devout Muslim must support the overthrow of all non-Muslim governments.  That includes our Constitution.

Being a former Muslim who attended Qur'an' classes for the best ("most devout") students and the "smartest president ever," then B. Hussein Obama knows exactly what he praises here:

Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it’ll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”

The Republic has elected to defend our Constitution and our borders someone who hearts Islam.  Here is what Barack Hussein Obama, our Chief Executive, the Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military the world has ever known, the Most Powerful Man on Earth, recites with "a first-rate accent" and describes as "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth . . . .":

Allah u Akbar
Ash-hadu alla ilaha illallah
Ash-hadu anna Muhammadan rasulullah
Hayya ‘alas-salat
Hayya ‘alal-falah
Allah u Akbar
La ilaha illallah

Allah is The Greatest
I bear witness that there is no lord except Allah
I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah
Make haste towards prayer
Make haste towards welfare [success]
Allah is The Greatest
There is no lord except Allah

"Allahu akbar!"; Where have I heard that before?*

*Muslims shout this when slaughtering non-Muslims.

Allegedly-former-Muslim-in-Chief aids jihad by playing into the hands of the little caliph

Imagine the prime minister of Great Britain negotiating with Hitler on the eve of World War II. What's that? He did? How did that work out?

Notice below the "fair-and-balanced" tone the author uses: "Mr. Ahmadinejad." It's a good thing our media treat the Iranian butcher with the derision he deserves.

Assuming that the allegedly-former-Muslim-in-Chief is not merely aiding the little dictator, Ahmadinejad will run circles around Obama and expose him for the pretender he is, here on the eve of a new Holocaust.

Barack Obama 'may be prepared to meet Iranian president’:

Earlier this month, Mr Ahmadinejad requested face-to-face talks with Mr Obama during the UN General Assembly meeting in New York. The White House had appeared to rule out any meeting.

However, in an interview with CNN, Gen Jones said “the door’s open” if the Iranians agree to resume talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

When asked whether Mr Obama may meet the Iranian leader, Gen Jones said: “Ultimately if we find a convergence of paths all things are possible.

With Obama "all things are possible"? The general certainly has a high opinion of his commander-in-chief.

More on the mosque at Ground Zero

Pat Condell offers his perspective here:



Wafa Sultan observes here.

A new mosque is now being planned in New York near "Ground Zero," two blocks from where the World Trade Center used to be. This mosque is headed by an Imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf, founder of the Cordoba Initiative, who proposes to convert the now-shuttered Burlington Coat Factory on Park Place into an Islamic Cultural Center which would contain a mosque.

It is crucial to study the supremacist ideology of Islam and to recognize, for example, that the building of a mosque especially at Ground Zero is viewed by Muslims as a decisive victory over the infidels in Islam's march to establish its ultimate goal: the submission of all others to Islam and to Sharia Law.

On a daily bases, in so many parts of the world, deadly attacks are perpetrated by Jihadists either against non Muslims or, frequently, against Muslims -- especially Muslim women. The terror type of Jihad, however, is only one way for Islamists to accomplish their mission of making the "Kafir," or infidels, submit to Sharia Law. Another method is, as the author Robert Spencer calls it, an insidious, creeping "Stealth Jihad."

While Mr. Shahzad is the impatient Jihadist who attempts to destroy the West through terror, there is also the second type of Jihadist, who is much more patient, and who employs the "Stealth Jihad." The Stealth Jihadis are subtle in their approach and take their time to accomplish the same objective of submitting us all under Islam and under Sharia Law.

Recently, two separate episodes highlight this gloomy reality. The first is the attempted bombing of Times Square by the Pakistani terrorist, Faisal Shahzad, called by Leon de Winter "The Foreclosure Terrorist" from an anchor at CNN who said, "It can be confirmed that his house has been foreclosed in recent years. I mean, one would have to imagine, that brought a lot of pressure and a lot of heartache on that family."

To someone who grew up in a Muslim country, as I did, this can only be seen as ludicrous. Perhaps there should be a formal Fatwa, or religious edict called the "Foreclosure Jihad." No doubt, those at Al Azhar University in Cairo - the epicenter of Islamic jurisprudence -- might like this idea: It is an effective way to conceal the true narrative of Islam.

According to the Center of the study of Political Islam (www.politicalislam.com), over the last 1400 years, Muslims have murdered roughly 270 million kafirs [non-Muslims]; 60 million Christians, 80 million Hindus, 10 million Buddhists and around 120 million African slaves. Until today, as far as we know, there has not been any official acknowledgement or official apology by any official Islamic organization for these atrocities. This calamity is not a modern day phenomenon. It has been taking place since Islam's inception 1400 years ago.

This is what Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, a few years ago, said at the Chautauqua Institution in New York:

"Seven centuries before the Declaration of Independence was written Shari'a Law was intended to protect life, religion, property, family and mental well being. This is why I assert that America is in fact a Shari'a compliant state".

The Imam avoids mentioning that Islamic Sharia allows, among other ruthless practices, to beat women to discipline them, and that Sharia also still sanctions slavery. Is that not a bit different from American set of laws? Does the Imam recommend that the US implement the previous two practices into our system to be a more "Sharia compliant state"?

The Imam also said, in Sydney, Australia, that "The US and the West must acknowledge the harm they have done to Muslims before terrorism can end."

The declaration of war on the West -- as Bin Laden declared initially -- was not, bear in mind, based on this "harm" allegedly done to Muslims, but on Hadith, [reports on the sayings and activities of Mohammed and his companions] of Mohammed in Al-Buchary:

"I have been ordered to fight and kill all mankind until they say no God except Allah and Mohammed is the prophet of Allah."

Read it all.

And found at Diana West's excellent site: