Too many coincidences for it to be coincidental

The Muslim Brotherhood -- whose stated goal is to bring down Western Civilization from within -- is seeking to usurp the Egyptian government in partnership with former IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, the "moderate" Muslim who duped the West with soothing talk of "dialogue" and "mutual respect" into doing nothing with Iran, a jihad state in pursuit of nuclear weapons.

How does a Muslim's aiding a Muslim terrorist nation gain Weapons of Mass Destruction deserve a peace prize, again?

Speaking of losing nations entirely to Islamic rule, just as Obama and his Goebbels in the media are trying to convince you that he's the new Reagan, GE's begun a campaign in "remembrance" of the great former president.  Yes, that GE.  Living-off-your-tax-dollars GE.  Just-absorbed-into-the-Obama-administration GE.

It's good to see that while the world burns, Obama's focusing his attention on what really matters.

Another Islamic revolution? For non-Muslims within the borders of Dar al-Islam, it's out of the frying pan and into the fire

Supporting a popular Muslim insurrection against a government allied to the U.S. worked so well in '79.  Unsurprisingly, devastating incompetence (treason?) in domestic affairs isn't the only thing that President Obama's borrowed from the rabid anti-Semite Jimmy Carter.

(Indeed, the allegedly-former-Muslim-in-Chief is trying to convince you that he's a president in the mold of Reagan, hoping that his presidency will follow the same course as the Gipper's. Well, Obama's reign is following the same script, only he's not playing the lead, he's playing the lead's predecessor.

We all knew Ronald Reagan. Obama's no Reagan.)

The American Revolution is the only time in human history that a people fought for its freedom, won it, and founded their new nation on the belief that the Creator gives irrevocably to all people the rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of moral Goodness (Happiness). This was possible as an expression of the will of the American people only because of what those people believed: They were the product of a fundamentally Christian civilization. (Even Thomas Jefferson -- often exhumed and paraded by the God-hating left as a "rebuttal" to simple statements of fact pointing out that America was founded as a Christian nation -- declared that he was a Christian in the only sense Christ intended, "sincerely attached to His doctrines in preference to all others.")

To expect (or wish for) an uprising in Islamic lands to result in something similar to our own is beyond wishful thinking; you can't expect a culture that considers "beautiful" and "Ideal" the words and deeds of a genocidal, pedophilic, megalomaniacal, emotionally-stunted tyrant to result in anything remotely resembling a free society. And "democracy"? When the people are ruled by Muhammad, democracy is only another path -- stupidly endorsed by the West's clueless and craven "leaders" -- to shari'a.  Our own recent history proves this.

In the '90s, President Clinton bombed Christians to aid jihadists.  In the last decade, President Bush used our best and bravest to enshrine shari'a in the new constitutions of Afghanistan and Iraq. (The latter's ancient Jewish population is gone and its Christians flee (when they can); those who remain are intimidated, abused, and murdered.) And today, President Obama supports an Islamic revolution in Arab Muslim lands (confirmed here); when it was the people of Iran protesting against a shari'a state, he was . . .  eating ice cream.

In Iraq, we removed a nominally-Muslim tyrant (Saddam worshiped himself more than Allah) and replaced him with a system of laws which sends Muslim souls to hell and creates hell-on-Earth for non-Muslims (and Muslim apostates, women, and little girls).

What reason do we have to believe that if successful, the current uprising throughout Dar al-Islam will result in anything more than moving its peoples -- especially its non-Muslims -- out of the frying pan and into the fire?

That tune playing in the salon? It'll be a dirge, if there's anyone left to mourn

A self-loathing, Islamophilic (probably more a case of "anti-Christian") "journalist" attacks those exposing the existential threat posed to the West by Islam, and the devout and the suicidal rush in to his defense.

In response to this piece of perverse and destructive dhimmi propaganda at Salon:

In one breath the author of this article describes opposition to "radical Islamists" as "Islamophobia."

Which is it? If some seek to slaughter in Allah's name and in accord with Muhammad's example, then how can anyone's opposition to their "sacralized" genocide (and pedophilia, rape, and slavery) be a "phobia"?

As for Ozzie's outright, bald-faced lie that Islam does not produce terrorists, that is exactly diametric to the truth: Muhammad commanded his followers to enslave or slaughter all who refuse the "invitation" to convert, himself declaring:

"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).

Not only do you have venomous Muslims deceiving the ignorant, but you have the crippling and libelous equating of Christianity and Islam:

It is intellectually-dishonest (and suicidally-foolish) to try to equate Christianity and Islam (though to those who declare that Islam is "just as bad" as Christianity, thanks for admitting that Islam is "bad").

It is true that human beings of all religious persuasions do evil, but it is not true that all religions inspire violence equally.

Christ 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.

On the other hand, Muhammad made "holy" the violation of all Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule, preaching and practicing genocide, pedophilia, rape, slavery, torture, mutilation, theft, extortion, religious and gender apartheid, wife-beating, polygyny, deceit, and blasphemy, claiming that "Allah made me do it, and so will you . . . or else."

No, the difference between Christ and Allah is literally the difference between Heaven and hell.

It's a memorial, not a campaign stop

Someone should tell President Obama that it is at the very least inconsiderate to use a memorial for murdered innocents as a kick-off to your re-election campaign. (T-shirts with a re-election slogan "Together We Thrive"? Indeed, the president ran to this photo-op like a schoolboy from his books, but to Ft. Hood and victims of jihad, to school with heavy looks.)

Can you recall the last time a pep rally erupted at a funeral? Besides Paul Wellstone's?

Me neither.

The Left leaped to libel so that they could character assassinate Sarah Palin and other conservatives by smearing them with culpability for the slaughter.  Now they're draining the corpses of every last drop of blood.

Disgusting.  Vile.  Wretched.

So, Muhammad doesn't inspire terrorism, but Sarah Palin does?

Let's get this straight: Direct commands from Muhammad to butcher everyone who resists his will have nothing to do with fourteen hundred years of Islamic rape, slavery, and genocide -- including 9/11 and nearly seventeen thousand attacks since then -- but one metaphor from Sarah Palin leads to mass murder.

When Nidal Hasan mowed down his fellow soldiers to shouts of "Allahu Akbar!" we were told to resist using our intellect (they called it "jumping to conclusions"). A politician is shot and leftist politicians and their Goebbels in the mainstream media leap immediately to, "Palin did it!"

Unbelievable.

Muslims own a millennium and a half of slaughter, rape, and rapine and thereforemust receive the benefit of the doubt, but an American who actually believes in America? "Get a rope!"

If craven, lying tyrants like the aptly-named Dick Durbin had taken the advice they give in defense of America and the West's actual enemies, they'd have discovered that the Arizona shooter was a "leftist pothead" who followed neither Palin, the Right, nor "God," but instead was a fan of MSNBC, the Communist Manifesto, and Mein Kampf, scared his teachers, couldn't string together a coherent thought, and laughed at the misery of others while joking about strapping bombs to fetuses in order to commit terrorism. And he was involved with the occult.

In other words, he was a good leftist and a potential Muslim.

But like Rahm Emmanuel said, "Never let a bunch of dead innocent Americans slaughtered by one of our own go to waste. Unless it's a Muslim doing the killing."*

So, what can we conclude from this tragedy and our "elites'" response to it? First, the Left knows no bounds in how far it will go in order to demonize Americans, using even dead children to achieve its political purposes. Second, if we are to use the Left's own "logic," marijuana, Communism, abortion, college, and the occult cause terrorism. Third, the Left are fiends. Fangs-with-human-gore-imbued fiends.

If you want to blame someone's "heated political rhetoric," blame Obama. He's the one who's spurred his followers to "get in their faces." He's demonized God-and-gun-clingers. And he's referred to "punishing" his political "enemies."

UPDATE: The lying Pima County Sheriff Dupnik could have stopped the killer but didn't:

Jared Loughner has been making death threats by phone to many people in Pima County including staff of Pima Community College, radio personalities and local bloggers. When Pima County Sheriff’s Office was informed, his deputies assured the victims that he was being well managed by the mental health system. It was also suggested that further pressing of charges would be unnecessary and probably cause more problems than it solved as Jared Loughner has a family member that works for Pima County. Amy Loughner is a Natural Resource specialist for the Pima County Parks and Recreation [. . .]

This was not an act of politics. This was an act of a mentally disturbed young man hell bent on getting his 15 minutes of infamy. The Pima County Sheriff’s Department was aware of his violent nature and they failed to act appropriately. This tragedy leads right back to Sherriff Dupnik and all the spin in the world is not going to change that fact.

UPDATE: Some more of the despicable Left's venom:

That’s exactly what Barack Obama said he would do to counter Republican attacks “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser Friday night.

Don't forget this:

Rahm Emanuel grabbed a steak knife, and he began rattling off a list of betrayers. And as he listed their names he shouted, ‘Dead! Dead! Dead!’ and he plunged the steak knife into the table after every name.

Or this:

Kos scrubbed it. Thankfully, several bloggers were able to capture screen shots of the post that used the word "dead" in relation to Rep. Giffords several times.

Diary headline: "My CongressWOMAN voted against Nancy Pelosi! And is now DEAD to me!" There are also several references to "dead" in the comment thread.

All of it now deleted - something Kos does on a regular basis when he wishes to change history. Kos also seems to have forgotten a posting of his calling for putting a "bullseye" on Giffords' district.

Even Olbermann's chagrined:

"Violence, or the threat of violence, has no place in our Democracy, and I apologize for and repudiate any act or any thing in my past that may have even inadvertently encouraged violence. Because for whatever else each of us may be, we all are Americans."

He should tell his boss.

UPDATE: The killer was a 9/11 truther and hated Bush. A Tea Party member if I've ever heard of one.

He became intrigued by antigovernment conspiracy theories, including that the Sept. 11 attacks were perpetrated by the government and that the country’s central banking system was enslaving its citizens. His anger would well up at the sight of President George W. Bush, or in discussing what he considered to be the nefarious designs of government.

*That is, of course, a reference to his urging his fellow statists to exploit every actual and potential tragedy.

Perhaps Timothy Behrend is right; maybe there really isn't "only one way to read" a text. (That would explain so many Muslims' struggles with premature detonation: They can't follow simple directions because there's "no one way to read" bomb-making recipes).

The always-posting-but-never-veracious Timothy Behrend does another little jig in defense of jihad:

[. . .] illustrates here that there is only one way to read the Qur'an and one way to read the Bible, and he happens to be the master of both. If your reading of the Qur'an differs from his own (based on a logic of cherry picking and tied to his Christian faith), that just means you don't understand Islam -- even if you've lived it your whole life.

And [. . .], you are equally informed about Mormonism, it seems. Joseph never claimed to be the "last prophet" as you put it. In fact, he was the first in this dispensation of time; since then he has been followed by 15 others, up to and including the current prophet and president of the LDS church, Thomas S. Monson. Is deliberate misrepresentation of Mormonism part of your personal (un)-Christian belief system in the same way as your pinched and shrill testimony of Muhammad and his teachings?

Timmy dances around the central issue with all the vigor of James Cagney, but with neither his skill nor style. It's clear: Timmy's no Jimmy.

Rather than address Muhammad's bloodlust (and just lust), Timmy obfuscates again, this time with ad hominem: "[. . .] is narrow-minded, intellectually-dishonest, self-centered, and illiterate," and diversion and self-contradiction: "You can't know Islam, but I know Mormonism."

How can Timmy imply that there's not "only one way to read" Qur'an and Bible, but then criticize another's comments on Mormonism, as if there's "only one way to read" Mormonism? You know folks, if your reading of Mormonism differs from Timmy's own (based on a logic of cherry picking and tied to his formerly-LDS-now-LSD'd faith), then that means you don't understand Mormonism. Or cherries.

So, Timmy, which is it? Can any person of at least normal intelligence and reading ability discover the facts of a religion's texts, tenets, and timelines, or not? If you say, "No," then you can't contradict anyone's characterization of Mormonism (or Islam), since you can't know either. If you admit that we can determine facts, then do what you've avoided so far: Address Muhammad's words and deeds honestly.

Did Muhammad begin raping little, prepubescent 'Aisha when she was only nine-years-old, or not? Did Muhammad command the faithful to "wage holy war" against "unbelievers" who refuse to convert or submit, or not? Did Muhammad have murdered those who mocked him, or not? Did Muhammad butcher prisoners of war and then rape and enslave their women and children, or not? Did Muhammad claim that Allah considered him a "beautiful pattern of conduct" for you to emulate, or not?

Maybe Timmy's right. Maybe we can't really know what an author means by reading what he writes.  Perhaps there really isn't "only one way to read" a text. That would explain so many Muslims' struggles with premature detonation: They can't follow simple directions because there's "no one way to read" bomb-making recipes.

Timmy, lie all you like, but Muslims have spent centuries explaining for the faithful just what Muhammad's words and deeds mean. And no, disputes over minutiae like the age at which one can be slaughtered for apostasy or the genocidal pedophile's proper immediate successor are little more than satan's secret handshake to us: Issues that Muslims kill each other over but mean nothing to rational human beings.

If you really believed that Muhammad's life was praiseworthy, you'd boast about his words and deeds.  That you feel compelled to avoid discussing them at all costs instead is all anyone needs to see that you're ashamed of Allah's apostle.

Allah will not be pleased.

Defending the rape, enslavement, and slaughter of non-Muslims in Allah's name isn't all it's cracked up to be

Some of the better responses (okay, my replies) to the immoral and criminally-nescient fluff piece in defense of Islam here which point out the scriptural and historical justification for jihad and shari'a keep disappearing. Strange.  Must be Islamophilic electrons.

(I know it's supposed to be a humor site, but that apologist isn't joking and regardless, there's nothing funny about lying in defense of the raping and enslaving of your women and children because they're the "wrong" religion.)


Why is it that both Muslims and non-Muslims who seek to protect the Religion of Perpetual Denial of Responsibility must resort not to defending Islam, but to attacking whomever is pointing out what Islam actually says and does?

Here are a few of their favorites:

1) [Insert religion here (usually Christianity, but the Jews -- the Jews! -- are gaining popularity nowadays] is just as bad (not realizing that they're admitting that Islam is "bad");

2) Hitler [McVeigh, or some other non-Christian] engaged in slaughter (failing to recognize the numeric disparity: One non-Christian monster vs. millions of Muslim ones. I suppose that for Muslim apologists and their Useful Idiot dhimmis, Mathematics just isn't their game);

3) Playing the victim, or European colonialism/poverty/George W. Bush causes jihad (despite the fact that Christians and other non-Muslims who are oppressed -- especially under Islam -- aren't beheading their neighbors while praising their deities);

4) Not all Muslims are terrorists (as if that means that Muslims are not raping, maiming, and butchering non-Muslims every day around the world in obedience to Allah and in accord with Muhammad's example).

Here is a response to the murderously-ignorant and kuffarophobic Julie's clueless defense of Islam. Enjoy!

Julie,

The implication that non-Muslim opposition to jihad and shari'a is somehow morally equivalent to someone holding a grudge for something that happened generations earlier is laughable on its face. Muslims are raping, enslaving, and killing now, today, and their atrocities are done in accord with their genocidal pedophile's teachings [and doings]. Undoubtedly, you've never studied Qur'an, hadith, nor sira.

Of course, not all Muslims are terrorists, but nearly all of today's terrorists are Muslim, and they've carried out more than sixteen thousand terrorist attacks since 9/11 alone. Just because all don't kill doesn't mean that those who do are "extremists hijacking a great world religion of peace."

As for "allah," you're right that the word can be used as a common noun to refer to any deity (you don't note this, but Arabic-speaking Christians use the term to refer to the God of the Bible), but we're unconcerned with YHWH, Vishnu, or Molech, since their followers are not blowing up worshipers of other religions at their holy places.

We're concerned with Muhammad's allah, because it requires its adherents to use any means necessary -- including violence -- to make the world Islam, a fact which serves to highlight the absurdity of your reference to ancient Israel.

A one-time, limited, Divine judgment for horrific crimes (including child sacrifice) and for warring against previously-defenseless Israel 3500 years ago is not the same as timeless, eternal, universal, open-ended allah-mandated rape, slavery, and slaughter carried out for the last nearly one and one-half millennia and currently.

Once 3500 years ago versus the last fourteen hundred years and now. Note the contrast.

As for your shamefully nescient tu quoques and false moral equivalences: "Christians did it too," "Christians would be strapping on bomb-vests," and "McVeigh! McVeigh!"?

Millions of Christians today suffer poverty and injustice (especially in Muslim lands). How often do we hear of poor and oppressed Christians beheading the daughters of other religions to shouts of "Jesus is LORD!"? But Muslims commit such crimes piously and with regularity.

Neither did early Christianity commit violence. Islam always has, and does so still. Why?

The reason is because Christ 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. What about Muhammad?

According to Islam's own "sacred" texts, he preached and practiced genocide, pedophilia, rape, slavery, torture, mutilation, the assassination of political opponents, religious and gender apartheid, wife-beating, polygyny, theft, extortion, deceit, blasphemy, sedition, and treason, declaring that, "Allah made me do it, and you will too . . . or else."

And McVeigh? He was no Christian. Phelps claims he is. To which of Christ's words or deeds can anyone point in justifying their actions? But Muslims every day point to numerous ayat and ahadith in defense of their crimes.

(As for the library at Alexandria, one historical source blames Caesar. Muslims also take credit for it. Don't be so eager to defame Christians in your defense of Muslim slaughter.)

How is it "vicious" to state plainly the fact that Islam advocates and practices genocide? Isn't it more "vicious" to command, preach, and practice genocide? Why are you attacking those merely exposing Islam's "sacred" texts? Why aren't you attacking those who actually believe those texts and put them into practice?

If one participant in a "cycle of violence" worships a god and prophet who require "holy war" against "unbelievers" until they convert, submit, or die, how do you expect that "cycle of violence" to end if its targets put down their arms? Your moral vanity results only in non-Muslims in either chains or the grave.

I hope you're just a Muslim obfuscating for Islam. Muhammad declared that "War is deceit," so I'd expect that from you. But if you're not, if you're just someone with so much murderous animosity toward Christians that you aid those you think are going to stick it to "good white Christian folk," then you're in for a rude awakening.

You really ought to study Islam's core texts, history, and current events. It's not Methodists or Korean War veterans setting off car bombs in front of places of worship, is it?

Does any Muslim possess it?

No, because if they do, they cease being Muslim. Or their "Islam" ceases being Islam.

From here, in response to more Muslim mendacity:

Honesty is always the best policy, right, Timmy?

Shari'a is not yet part of American legal code (no thanks to Oklahoma's Useful Idiot dhimmi Miles-LaGrange), but your coreligionists are using every means at their disposal to promote it within their respective spheres of influence. You know, things like foot baths in airports, prayer rooms in colleges, demonizing those who tell the truth about Muhammad, agitating for special rights for Muslims (wearing coverings where prohibited by law), attempting to enforce Islamic norms at the workplace (Swift and Disney, for example). Of course, you avoided mentioning the attempt to establish shari'a courts in Canada and the successful effort to implement Islamic law in the UK, which has allowed dozens of shari'a courts.

But that's not the problem, is it, Timmy? As is your habit, you're dodging the real issue, which is the content of shari'a. You know, wife-beating, pedophilia, the subjugation and humiliation of non-Muslims, death for apostasy, all those doctrines-of-peace-and-mutual-understanding.

Which leads us back to where it all began, your buddy, the genocidal pedophile Muhammad. Will you now, after all these many posts, finally have the courage, the decency, the humanity, to condemn his preaching and practicing genocide, child-rape, rape, torture, mutilation, slavery, religious and gender apartheid, spousal abuse, polygyny, theft, extortion, deceit, sedition, and treason?

A simple, "I do condemn them," will suffice.

Prejudice against Islam

In response to this post, Ray McIntyre offered this:

Let me see:

Muslims died in the WTC buildings. The Mosque is 2 blocks from the WTC ground Zero area. It is being built by a Sufi group, sufis are among those people that those who attacked the WTC attack, murder and whose graves they desecrate.

But I don't imagine this will dent your prejudice and fear.

Many are prejudiced regarding Islam. The question is, who is judging Islam unfairly and out of ignorance? Are those who've read its "sacred" texts "bigoted," or are those who know nothing of what Muhammad actually said and did misrepresenting the "great world religion"?

Here's my reply to someone in the latter group:

It is clear that even nine years after 9/11, nothing's "dented" your prejudice regarding Islam.

Despite propaganda to the contrary, Sufis do not reject jihad against non-Muslims*. No major school of Islamic jurisprudence does. If you want to find genuinely non-violent Muslims, you have to go to groups like the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama'at, who are persecuted as apostates by their more orthodox coreligionists, even in modern, moderate, Muslim nations like Indonesia.

To your ad-hominem-in-place-of-argument: Even if I were prejudiced and fearful, what does that have to do with what Muslims do in obedience to their god and prophet? What about what I've written is false? What does "two blocks" have to do with whether or not we should allow a trophy mosque at Ground Zero? (By the way, "Mosque at Ground Zero" was the name its backers came up with, not its opposition.)

If I quote Muhammad, then where is the "prejudice"? If I cite nearly one and one-half millennia of slavery, rape, and slaughter in Allah's name and in accord with Muhammad's example, where is the "phobia"?

Let's examine your logic a bit: Some Muslims who weren't flying planes died in 9/11. Does that mean that their coreligionists flying the planes weren't Muslim? Weren't trying to kill and terrorize non-Muslims? Weren't acting on the words and deeds of their "Ideal Man," the genocidal pedophile Muhammad?

Just the other day a Muslima suicide bomber killed dozens of her fellow Muslims. For fourteen centuries, Sunni have slaughtered Shia and Shia Sunni. None of that internecine violence negates the fact that Muhammad was a bloodthirsty, child-raping tyrant. In fact, Muhammad's words and deeds explain that violence.

So, why do you defend Muhammad's "sacralized" crimes against God and Man? Do you do so out of "prejudice" or "fear"?

*Al-Ghazali was “acclaimed in both the East and West as the greatest Muslim after Muhammad."

Here he is on jihad and dhimma (by way of Andrew Bostom):

"[O]ne must go on jihad (i.e., warlike razzias or raids) at least once a year . . . one may use a catapult against them [non-Muslims] when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them...If a person of the Ahl al-Kitab [People of The Book – primarily Jews and Christians] is enslaved, his marriage is [automatically] revoked . . . One may cut down their trees . . . One must destroy their useless books. Jihadists may take as booty whatever they decide . . . they may steal as much food as they need . . . .

"[T]he dhimmi is obliged not to mention Allah or His Apostle . . . Jews, Christians, and Majians must pay the jizya [poll tax on non-Muslims] . . . on offering up the jizya, the dhimmi must hang his head while the official takes hold of his beard and hits [the dhimmi] on the protruberant [sic] bone beneath his ear [i.e., the mandible] . . . They are not permitted to ostentatiously display their wine or church bells . . . their houses may not be higher than the Muslim’s, no matter how low that is. The dhimmi may not ride an elegant horse or mule; he may ride a donkey only if the saddle[-work] is of wood. He may not walk on the good part of the road. They [the dhimmis] have to wear [an identifying] patch [on their clothing], even women, and even in the [public] baths…[dhimmis] must hold their tongue…. [2] (From the Wagjiz, written in 1101 A.D)"

The three words of his obfuscation

It's an impenetrable mystery. The Attorney General of the United States says that he stays up at night worrying about the next terrorist attack, but he seems to care little about why Muslims kill, referring cluelessly to their motivation being "for whatever reason."

Shouldn't an attorney general have at least a mild curiosity about the cause of 9/11 and more than sixteen thousand terrorist attacks since then?

"The threat has changed from simply worrying about foreigners coming here, to worrying about people in the United States, American citizens -- raised here, born here, and who for whatever reason, have decided that they are going to become radicalized and take up arms against the nation in which they were born," he said.

In the last 24 months, Holder said, 126 people have been indicted on terrorist-related charges, Fifty of those people are American citizens.

"I think that what is most alarming to me is the totality of what we see, the attorney general said. "Whether it is an attempt to bomb the New York City subway system, an attempt to bring down an airplane over Detroit, an attempt to set off a bomb in Times Square ... I think that gives us a sense of the breadth of the challenges that we face, and the kinds of things that our enemy is trying to do."

Just who is "our enemy"? I'm stumped.

What possibly could be the common denominator between all these people trying to murder innocents? American citizenship?

Holder says many of these converts to al Qaeda have something in common: a link to radical cleric Anwar Al Awlaki, an American citizen himself.

That clears things up a bit; links to Awlaki cause terrorism. So, from where is he getting the teachings that turn men into bloodthirsty animals? Is a pajama-clad Awlaki in his basement just making things up?

Speaking of basements . . .

"The ability to go into your basement, turn on your computer, find a site that has this kind of hatred spewed ... they have an ability to take somebody who is perhaps just interested, perhaps just on the edge, and take them over to the other side," he said.

Do you have a basement? When you see a Christmas tree, is your first thought, "Kill!"? When you see a Nativity, do you immediately reach for your pants to detonate your underwear? Are you "just interested" in maiming and decapitating unbelievers? Does the sound of "Jingle Bells" cause uncontrollable, murderous rage to well up within you?

Me neither.

To combat the threat of Americans turning to al Qaeda and violence, the United States is monitoring scores of radicals and has set up stings to blunt the threat.

So, Homeland Security has narrowed down the list of potential terrorists to American citizens, people who use computers, and people with basements.

You know, the usual suspects.*

*It's curious that this time, Holder didn't include tea partiers, conservatives, returning military, the Founding Fathers, or octogenarians on his watch-list. Perhaps it was just an oversight.

Qatar funding jihad? Let's give them the World Cup!

It turns out that those Religionists of Peace keep funding those perverting their great world religion.

When it emerged that most of the 19 were Saudis, the argument against attacking Saudi Arabia was that they were criminals acting independent of -- and contrary to -- the will of their nation. That made sense . . . until I learned that the ideology which motivated their mass murder was the Islam created and sustained in Arabia, the "religion" which fuels and funds the jihad against us.

What kind of "ally" supports murdering and maiming its friends? Could it be that President Bush should have spent less time holding hands with the house of Saud and more time studying Qur'an and Sunnah? Perhaps President Obama should stop bowing and start telling the truth about the Islam of his youth, the Qur'an he studied, the source of the "prettiest sound on Earth at sunset."

As long as our "leadership" continues to obfuscate -- intentionally in Obama's case -- for jihad and shari'a and demonize those who tell the truth about them, we'll continue bleeding.

Saudi Arabia is the world's largest source of funds for Islamist militant groups such as the Afghan Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba – but the Saudi government is reluctant to stem the flow of money, according to Hillary Clinton.

"More needs to be done since Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaida, the Taliban, LeT and other terrorist groups," says a secret December 2009 paper signed by the US secretary of state. Her memo urged US diplomats to redouble their efforts to stop Gulf money reaching extremists in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

"Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide," she said.

Three other Arab countries are listed as sources of militant money: Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates.

The cables highlight an often ignored factor in the Pakistani and Afghan conflicts: that the violence is partly bankrolled by rich, conservative donors across the Arabian Sea whose governments do little to stop them.

The problem is particularly acute in Saudi Arabia, where militants soliciting funds slip into the country disguised as holy pilgrims, set up front companies to launder funds and receive money from government-sanctioned charities.

That's the problem, isn't it? Those "militants" aren't "disguised" as "holy pilgrims" at all. Rather, under Islam -- in obedience to Allah and in accord with Muhammad's example -- "militants" and "holy pilgrims" are one and the same.

One cable details how the Pakistani militant outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba, which carried out the 2008 Mumbai attacks, used a Saudi-based front company to fund its activities in 2005.

Meanwhile officials with the LeT's charity wing, Jamaat-ud-Dawa, travelled to Saudi Arabia seeking donations for new schools at vastly inflated costs – then siphoned off the excess money to fund militant operations.

Militants seeking donations often come during the hajj pilgrimage – "a major security loophole since pilgrims often travel with large amounts of cash and the Saudis cannot refuse them entry into Saudi Arabia". Even a small donation can go far: LeT operates on a budget of just $5.25m (£3.25m) a year, according to American estimates.

Saudi officials are often painted as reluctant partners. Clinton complained of the "ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist funds emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority".

But they do "treat terrorist funds emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority." That's why they're not stopping it.

Muslims, the Justice Department, petty liberal politicians (I know that's redundant), and your local community college are really going to hate this

In an obvious hate crime against South Asians, this group manages to violate several of the Islamo-Leftists' cardinal rules. Not only are these people singing an actual Christmas song (no nonsense about obese trespassers dressed in red or Muhammad, Buddha, and Gandhi as analogues for Christ -- Liam Neeson, what are you thinking?), but they did it in a fast food court, in public, and they look happy!

Freedom of speech, assembly, and (possibly) religion, all in one excruciating apocalypse.

Merry Christmas!

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.