Obama's "sensitive" to jihad's practitioners and their supporters but turns his back on their victims

The question is, "Why?"

When Presidents Clinton and Bush advanced Islam, it could be attributed to well-intentioned-but-suicidal ignorance. Being a[n] (allegedly) former Muslim and the "smartest president ever" means that Obama has no such excuse.

(How can any sentient, literate person not know even basic facts about jihad and shari'a and their foundation in Islam's "sacred" texts by now?)

What does it say about our allegedly-former-Muslim-in-Chief that he stalled for weeks on doing anything about bin Laden? That for sixteen hours, he "slept on" executing the final operation that successfully sent the Muslim hero to his virgins in hell? (Imagine his surprise) That if not for Leon Panetta, Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, and David Petraeus, UBL would have escaped again?

Why is Obama eager to both provide a proper Islamic burial to "not a Muslim leader" who "mass murdered Muslims" but not to capture or kill the monster responsible for thousands of dead innocents in numerous jihad attacks over the last three decades? What about Obama's mocking President Bush when declaring that capturing or killing bin Laden would be his number one priority, as if Bush was indifferent or distracted? (It's Obama who eats ice cream, golfs, and "sleeps on it" while the world burns.)

And why do we have to worry about enraging Muslims? Why are they offended at the death of one of those "extremists hijacking" their "great world religion of peace"? Why aren't they celebrating with us? Did we worry about whether or not genocidal, totalitarian, racist, Darwinist dabblers in the occult would be offended at what we did to Hitler? Were we sensitive to atheist, militant, anti-federal-government terrorists' feelings regarding McVeigh's end? Did we fret over how homosexual, cannibalistic, evolutionists would react to Jeffrey Dahmer's punishment? That's relief from Muslim Brotherhood propagandists you've been hearing, not righteous anger.

Muslims rejoice only over dead non-Muslims but not the jihadists who make them so.

Only the deranged, the perverse, and Muslims can ask, "what makes you any better than muslims who stone women for similar* reasons set out in the Bible?"

Could it be that . . . I'm not stoning anyone?

This is not about "being better than" anyone; we are all sinners deserving of God's wrath and dependent solely on His mercy in Christ. This is about telling the truth, by which souls are saved from hell and non-Muslims are saved from hell-on-Earth.

In reply to someone throwing Muhammad's hellish bathwater on the Baby:

Hi, I'm Richard and I think Islam . . . ,

Essentially, you're mad because you're not God. You don't like his definition of "sin" (thanks for admitting that). Fine. Create a universe, and then you can make up your own rules. Until then, can't you at least deal honestly with the Biblical texts? Do you misrepresent the Bible and its God out of ignorance only, or is it just pure cosmos envy?

(Let's see, you hate, defame, and blaspheme the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and His Christ, attribute sinful human qualities to God (God's "jealousy" is His desire for all to live, not a misogynist's possessiveness), make yourself your own god, and blame God for human evil. Are you sure you're not Muslim?)

If you really were concerned about the Problem of Pain and not just sniping, I'd point out that whatever evils and injustices you want to attribute to God, He endured the greatest evil and injustice of all, willingly sacrificing His own Son (Who willingly made the sacrifice) to pay for the sins of all. God reconciled men to Himself in Christ's body on the cross. The greater mystery is not why God allows suffering, but why He would suffer and die for a sinful humanity which rages against Him.

As for your "arguments" . . .

We have ample historical and archaeological evidence of Christ's words and deeds; what exists for the Greek or other pagan mythologies? Only the historically-illiterate can claim that Christ was a myth. Not even the most hateful liberal "theologians" do so. Not even Muslims.

Your characterization of Christians as "sheep who want to be enslaved and lead [sic] around by the nose" may be true of a lot of Christians, but that's because of human nature, not because of Christ. The greatness of Western Civilization (reaching its zenith in America) is due to Christ's words and deeds, as attested to by Thomas Jefferson, (possibly) Patrick Henry, John Quincy Adams, and Alexis de Tocqueville, to name a few:

"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." -T. Jefferson

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faith have been afforded asylum, prosperity and freedom of worship here." -attributed commonly to Patrick Henry

"And he [Jesus] declared, that the enjoyment of felicity in the world hereafter, would be reward of the practice of benevolence here. His whole law was resolvable into the precept of love; peace on earth – good will toward man, was the early object of his mission; and the authoritative demonstration of the immortality of man, was that, which constituted the more than earthly tribute of glory to God in the highest . . . The first conquest of the religion of Jesus, was over the unsocial passions of his disciples. It elevated the standard of the human character in the scale of existence . . . On the Christian system of morals, man is an immortal spirit, confined for a short space of time, in an earthly tabernacle. Kindness to his fellow mortals embraces the whole compass of his duties upon earth, and the whole promise of happiness to his spirit hereafter. THE ESSENCE OF THIS DOCTRINE IS, TO EXALT THE SPIRITUAL OVER THE BRUTAL PART OF HIS NATURE." -J. Q. Adams

"The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other; and with them this conviction does not spring from that barren traditionary faith which seems to vegetate in the soul rather than to live." -A. de Tocqueville

As for "God created evil," that's just a postmodern, atheistic way of blaming your parents for your own bad behavior. Because if someone does evil, then it must be the fault of whoever made him, right? (You do know that's what Adam did when he first sinned, don't you?) Why do you continue to attribute human evil to God? It's not God murdering, raping, and pillaging or causing the innocent to suffer.

You wonder why God "let[s] millions of innocent children starve to death in Africa while allowing us to live with abundance?" You admit your wealth; why aren't you doing something about it instead of whining and blaming God? You do know that most of those children starving in Africa are starving because of Islam, don't you? So, you're blaming God for non-Muslims suffering at the hands of Allah. Are you sure you're not Muslim?

As for straw men, I've set up none; you stated literally that "Jesus approves of slavery." That's ridiculous. You should be embarrassed.

The laws to which you object were for the nation of Israel only, whom YHWH delivered out of slavery in Egypt to be His own people. Perhaps you missed this little detail, but ancient Israel entered voluntarily into the covenant with YHWH; they agreed to obey all the laws He gave them through Moses. How can you complain about someone else's agreements entered into of their own free will? Since those laws were for ancient Israel only, if you don't like them, you don't have to follow them.

And that highlights one of the fundamental distinctions between Moses and Muhammad: Moses' laws were part of a contract and did not apply to those outside of Israel. In Islam, no one has a choice, anywhere, at any time, unless you call only conversion, slavery, or death "possibilities."

Providing means for dealing with a permanent global institution does not indicate approval or acceptance. (You see the same thing with divorce: God intended one man-one woman for life and hates divorce, but provides certain allowances for it because of the "hardness of men's hearts.") Since the Mosaic laws regarding slavery applied to only ancient Israel and not the non-Hebrew world, any implied or stated equivalence between the Mosaic Law and Islam is obviously ill-judged.

As for the commands to Christians regarding slavery, they are part of a larger principle, which is that Christians are to share the Gospel in word and deed no matter their station in life, the salvation of souls being more important than physical circumstances. That's why slaves who become Christians were told to obey their masters.

Where is the command to enslave? Nowhere. And you might remember that Jesus didn't lead an armed rebellion against the pagan Romans who oppressed Israel (as many expected); on the contrary, He taught His followers to honor Caesar. (And He happened to allow the Romans to murder Him for the sins of the world. What a mean god! He's just like Allah!)

And of course, unsurprisingly, you left out these declarations:

Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. (But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.) (1 Corinthians)

For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery (Galatians).

For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another (Galatians).

If Christ "set us free for freedom," then how can you say that He "approves of slavery"?

As for stoning, only the deranged, the perverse, and Muslims can ask, "what makes you any better than muslims who stone women for similar reasons set out in the Bible?" The question is absurd on its face. Those kinds of false tu quoques are trotted out regularly by Islam's apologists. Are you sure you're not Muslim?

You oppose ancient Israel's method of capital punishment. Of course, stoning is horrific. What form of taking someone's life isn't? So, what should Moses have done? Nothing? (I thought you wanted evil punished?) Where was he going to find a gun? At his local Wal-Mart? Where was he going to plug in an electric chair? Unless you oppose capital punishment, you can't complain about stoning when that was one of the few options available for execution.

As for the reasons for capital punishment and to whom it applied, the Mosaic Law did not sanction stoning women hypocritically or for being raped and not having four witnesses, as does Islam. The regulations under Moses were not a means for keeping a nation oppressed and subservient to a warlord's wishes. And you may recall an account of Christ saving a woman from stoning for adultery by pointing out the hypocrisy of her accusers. Does that need explanation?

A last point: Christianity -- the doctrines derived from the Biblical texts regarding the Messiah -- originated with Moses, not Nicea. That's a common Muslim lie.

Are you sure you're not Muslim?

*"Similar" is not "same." That's just another false moral equivalence and tu quoque.

Contrary to what the "experts" conclude, Obama's foreign policy is neither "a mystery," "incoherent," nor "demented." It's treason.*

Just like his domestic policy. (But's that's going too slowly for someone who's got only a few months left on his License to Bring Down America from Within.)

Reports this week show that B. Hussein's bombing of Libya to help its rebels is aiding Al Qaeda, who have joined them. That's no surprise to anyone who's been paying attention, since when Iranians protested against Islamic rule in Iran and were murdered in the streets, all Obama could muster was "Let's not get involved in others' internal politics. Where's the ice cream?"

Look at the facts: Obama's enforcing suicidal Rules of Engagement in Afghanistan. He's bombing Qaddafi in Libya to help a rebellion supported in word and personnel by Al Qaeda. He supported Mubarak's removal in Egypt, which has given the country to the Muslim Brotherhood; Egypt's Copts have gone from the frying pan and into the fire.

When President Bush was deciding what to do in response to the global jihad, his ignorance of Islam prevented him from recognizing the truth about our enemy, and he erred accordingly. Obama has no similar excuse.

If the "smartest president ever" who was raised Muslim and attended Qur'an classes does everything he can to aid the rise of Islamic rule throughout the lands of Islam, it's no accident.

It's treason.*

*Of course, for it to be treason, the allegedly-former-Muslim-in-Chief would have to have been American at some point.

Looking for imperfections in me might be easier than facing the truth about Islam, but it definitely isn't "better"

The following is offered in response to a well-meaning but suicidally-erring Tsaritsyn, here:

Thank you for your concern, Tsaritsyn. Allow me to share mine with you:

-Why do you believe that just because you don't personally know any Muslims who rape in emulation of Muhammad that Muslims don't rape in emulation of Muhammad?

-Why do you believe that just because you aren't personally aware of any Muslims raping in Allah's name that Allah doesn't command Muslims to rape non-Muslims (and Muslim women and little girls)?

-Why do you libel a "brother" in defense of Islamic genocide, pedophilia, rape, and slavery?

-Why do you believe that my telling the truth about Islam endangers my soul?

-Why do you freely call me a "hypocrite" -- for which you have no evidence -- but refuse to denounce genocide, pedophilia, rape, and slavery in Allah's name and in emulation of Muhammad, of which you have fourteen hundred years of evidence?

-If I've erred or lied regarding Islam, why don't you point that out? If I've told the truth, then why the character assassination?

It is ironic that you accuse me of hypocrisy for pointing out the manifold crimes against God and Man carried out in obedience to Allah and its genocidal pedophile Muhammad, since though you admit (reluctantly and obliquely) that Islam kills, instead of doing something about that, you attack . . . me. In other words, Muslims commit the vilest atrocities against non-Muslims (and Muslim apostates, women, and little girls) -- including your "brothers and sisters" about whom you claim to care so much -- and rather than speak and act in their defense, you condemn me for pointing out the evil committed against them!

You're confusing crimes committed by people regardless of (or contrary to) their own belief system with crimes committed by others in obedience to one belief system in particular. In other words, when a Christian murders, rapes, or enslaves, he violates Christ's commands. When a Muslim murders a non-Muslim or Muslim apostate in service to Islam, it is in fulfillment of Allah's mandates. Do you see the distinction?

Of course, all people commit evil. The problem is that rather than condemn genocide, pedophilia, rape, and slavery -- as any decent religion should -- Islam calls them "beautiful," "Allah-pleasing," and "the best deed after believing," when done in imitation of and in obedience to Muhammad.

And isn't that instructive? Christ declared that the Second Greatest Commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself. Muhammad declared that the second greatest deed is to war against unbelievers. Do you see that distinction?

I agree that my posts contain "anger." But since I'm merely quoting Muhammad and referencing Muslim activity in imitation of him, don't blame me, blame him and his followers. The bloodlust, rape, and rapine belong to Allah's apostle alone, for he commanded the faithful Muslim to butcher and enslave those who refuse the "invitation" to convert.

It takes a special kind of ignorance, depravity, or cowardice to equate hatred of evil with the evil itself. Does your god hate evil? If he does, then why are you worried about my spiritual condition and not your own indifference? If he does not hate evil, then why do you worship him?

If I am angry, what is the target of my anger? Could it be the wanton slaughter of innocents -- men, women, and children, young and old -- in obedience to a god and prophet who mock and blaspheme Christ and rape and murder His Bride, the Church? Could it be the Allah-Pleasing Example who beheaded the men of one Jewish tribe who had surrendered to him and then distributed their women and children to his men for rape and slavery? Could it be fourteen hundred years of violating little, prepubescent nine-year-old girls and declaring that "Allah made me do it, and so should you"? Aren't such crimes deserving of scathing attacks? The harshest condemnation? Withering rebuke?

So, what "plank" must I remove in order to condemn jihad and shari'a? Whom have I decapitated to shouts of "Jesus is greatest!"? Whose wives do I keep as sex slaves because a god told me that it makes him happy? Whose little ones am I warping into malevolent fiends in order to have them war against their own blood?

Not even the godless need any compass more than the innate knowledge of right and wrong God gives to all people to understand that it is immoral to murder, enslave, torture, and rape your neighbor. How much more should a Christian, whose God has given us the Ten Commandments, the Golden Rule, and His own Son for the forgiveness of our sins, recognize, expose, and condemn such barbaric evil?

Why don't you see this? Could something be obstructing your vision? Perhaps you ought to examine yourself: Why doesn't the wholesale slaughter of non-Muslims in Allah's name make you angry? Why do you not rage at the rape of non-Muslim women and children to shouts of "Allahu akbar!"? Why do you see the atrocities carried out daily in Allah's name around the world and work up indignation only for those who point out those atrocities?

And what should resorting to argumentum ad hominem show you about yourself? If I've met no, one, some, many, most, or all Muslims, does that negate what Muslims do in waging jihad? Does it ameliorate or negate Allah's brutal commands? How does the number of my Muslim family members, friends, acquaintances, co-workers, neighbors, or fellow citizens change what Muhammad commanded and practiced?

Even if I were the most hateful xenophobe, would that mean that three thousand innocents weren't murdered at Allah's command on 9/11? Would that mean that Muslims haven't committed nearly seventeen thousand terrorist attacks since 9/11 alone? Would that mean that Allah's slaves haven't butchered, raped, and enslaved non-Muslims around the world for the last nearly one and one-half millennia? That Allah doesn't require the enslavement or slaughter of all who refuse the "invitation" to convert?

You confuse individual religious expression for what a particular deity requires. You don't make this mistake when you're libeling me, but you make it easily enough when you're obfuscating for Islam. Why is that?

Christ commanded His people, "Be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect." How many Christians do you know who've stopped sinning? Sure, there might be some who claim that they don't sin anymore, but at the moment they do so, they've violated the Eighth Commandment. (For that matter, how many Christians do you know who can identify the Eighth Commandment?) Why should Muslims be any different?

Like adherents to any other creed, the individual Muslim may be ignorant of his religion's authoritative texts. He might know what his texts state but reject them (or portions of them) as human invention. He might know what his texts state and believe that the words are true but reject their applicability to his time and place. He might know what his god commands but ignore the parts he finds problematic. Or perhaps he knows and believes his religion but values his own life and comfort too much to act on his god's commands.

And there are two (worse) cases unique to Islam: The individual, apparently-peaceful Muslim may be exploiting a loophole provided by Muhammad which allows him to please Allah (though not as much) by supporting jihad in nonviolent ways. Or he might be practicing taqiyya, deceiving his non-Muslim neighbors to protect himself (or Islam) as circumstances dictate.

As for what to do? Admit the truth about Islam, and inform others. Resist the advance of shari'a in America. Elect politicians who understand and oppose it.

With regard to following Christ's example, did he obfuscate for, excuse, or ignore evil? To those whose sin He forgave did He say, "Don't worry about it. No, really. It's not wrong; it's just an alternative lifestyle choice. There's nothing to forgive"? Is Christ indifferent to the suffering of innocents? Does he ignore the murderer but attack the murdered?

More personally, if jihadists were about to rape your wife or daughters, would the Son of God want you to stand there wondering about the planks in your own eyes, or would he prefer instead that you act like a man and do something to protect those entrusted to your care? Christ chastised Peter's effort at His defense not because He was a pacifist (have you never read Matthew? The Pentateuch? Revelation?), but because His intention was to die for the sins of all, and Peter's reaction was an obstacle to that. Jesus submitted to human evil in obedience to His Father for the forgiveness of our sins.

I know Christ's warnings against an improper use of language. When I consider my own words, I tremble. As for "how he talked to people," please identify Who said the following:

"woe to you!"

"you devour widows' houses . . . ."

"you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves."

"blind guides!"

"blind fools!"

"You serpents, you brood of vipers . . . !"

"white-washed sepulchres!"

"how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?"

"den of thieves!"

"it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea."

"Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."

"I wish they'd go the whole way and emasculate themselves!"*

*That last one is St. Paul. You know the other Speaker.

You believe that "looking for imperfections" in me is "better, and harder" than defending all that you hold dear against the most vile totalitarian ideology in human history. It's a whole lot easier to attack and defame a Christian warning about the danger posed by jihad and shari'a than it is to defy those waging jihad and promoting shari'a, isn't it?

"Muhammad - the messenger of Allah - and those with him are harsh and stern against the disbelievers, but kind and compassionate amongst themselves" (Qur'an 48:29).

Our War of Self-Defense Against Allah is not about "harming" Muhammad; it's about preventing his followers from harming us in obedience to him

A brief clarification on why we fight from here:

I can't believe that you guys have the energy to continue discussing this topic for over a year with no progress in both sides! It's very simple, who wants to believe that Mohammed (PBUH) is the last prophet of Islam, that's cool. And who wants to believe that Mohammed (PBUH) is nothing but a cold murderer and rapist, that's also cool. Your own belief won't do any good or harm to him. So, let's stop discussing a topic we will never agree on.

Obviously, A. Hussien, Muhammad (HIUH) was both Islam's "last prophet" and "a cold murderer and rapist." That's according to your own texts.

We're not trying to "harm" the genocidal pedophile -- he's already some demon's perpetual virgin -- we're trying to prevent both Muslims from obeying and imitating Muhammad (HIUH) and self-loathing, suicidally-ignorant Useful Idiot dhimmis from aiding them.

Is there any doubt as to why Keith Ellison wants to avoid an honest examination of what leads Muslims to imitate Muhammad?*

In an interview in which he was a guest along with Representative Peter King, not-so-stealth agent-for-jihad Keith Ellison -- whose Minneapolis congressional district is "fertile recruitment ground" for Muslim terrorists headed to Somalia -- complained about King's (sham) hearings into why Muslims obey Muhammad's commands to murder and maim non-Muslims. (King himself dances around the truth by avoiding "jihad" and referring instead to efforts to "radicalize" American Muslims.)

According to a report on local news, while Ellison supports investigating the causes of "radicalization," he opposes a focus on Muslims.

That makes sense. Centuries of Buddhists blowing up and beheading non-Buddhists to shouts of "Gautama is greatest!" indicate the need to focus on someone other than Muslims, right? You'd have to be either perverse or suicidally-ignorant to endure attack-after-attack, day-after-day, year-after-year, century-after-century by one group of people and still deny the obvious.

Speaking of liberals, is it any surprise that an Islamophilic media which promotes CAIR as an honest source of information on Islam for non-Muslims would try to legitimize a Muslim politician whose hajj was paid for by the Muslim American Society of Minnesota? MAS -- along with dozens of other Muslim individuals and organizations within the United States -- is tied to Hamas founder the Muslim Brotherhood, whose stated goal is to bring down Western Civilization from within.

You remember the Brotherhood.  They're the tyrants invited by the allegedly-former-Muslim-in-Chief to rule Egypt.

Funny how that keeps happening.

*Alternative titles for this post: "1940s Europe to hold hearings on efforts to radicalize Nazis; Goebbels opposes focus on Hitler" and "Chickens to hold hearings on efforts to radicalize foxes in hen house; fox opposes focus on foxes"

To justify genocide, pedophilia, rape, and slavery, one needs only to point to Muhammad

In response to Tsaritsyn, who asks, "how is your view, or your argument any different [than those who misquote, propagandize, and stereotype]?"

I'm telling the truth. If not, point out my error.

And if I'm quoting the Islamic texts, what "only one interpretation" am I "assuming"?

How I understand the texts doesn't matter. What matters is how Muslims interpret them. The fact is, devout Muslims have traditionally understood Muhammad's words and deeds as recorded in Qur'an, hadith, and sira literally. Centuries of commentary on those texts explain, for example, that even disbelief is "warring against Allah." Al-Ghazali, the "greatest Muslim after Muhammad," affirmed the necessity of warring against and subjugating non-Muslims. This is why no major school of Islamic jurisprudence rejects offensive warfare against "unbelievers" who refuse both the "invitation" to convert and the demand for surrender and tribute. That's 99% of official Islam.

In speaking of Christ and Allah, I've had everything flung at me. But Abraham, the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad absurdum, ad nauseam, are merely false tu quoques, deflections, red herrings, distractions, as if those events -- even if they were proof of Christianity/Judaism being "just as bad" as Islam, which they are not -- negate fourteen hundred years of genocide, rape, and slavery in obedience to Allah and in emulation of his genocidal pedophile Muhammad.

In fact, those false charges from Muslims and their Useful Idiot dhimmis highlight the distinction between Christianity and Islam: When God commanded Abraham to offer his son Isaac as a test, did he command Abraham to kill other peoples' sons? But Allah promises paradise to those who kill and are killed fighting in its cause (Qur'an 9:111; no, that's not a typo).

As for the Crusades and Inquisition, where is the Biblical command for them? Nowhere. Period.

Besides that, the first Crusade was called in response to centuries of Christians under attack by . . . you guessed it! Islam. And the Spanish Inquisition? That was a reaction to eight hundred years of Islamic rule in Andalusia.

(I wonder, where did Christians get the idea to use political power in pursuit of religious goals? Could it have been from their Muslim overlords?)

No, only by misquoting Biblical passages can one justify evil with them; with Islam, to justify genocide, pedophilia, rape, and slavery, one needs only to imitate Muhammad.

As for anti-Semitic propaganda, where have I "twisted facts"? Which Jews are blowing up schools or beheading girls to shouts of "YHWH is greatest!"? Even if they were, to which Biblical text can they point in support of such barbarity? But the jihadists who butcher, rape, and maim every day around the world -- and have done so for the last nearly one and one-half millennia -- find ample justification for their crimes against God and Man from Muhammad's words and deeds.

"kill the pagans wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5).

Egypt's freedom-loving Muslims bring tanks, armored vehicles, live ammunition, and RPGs to war against . . . monks

For more than a millennium, non-Muslims have endured the ravages of jihad as their husbands, fathers, wives, daughters, sons, and civilizations were beheaded, raped, and enslaved by Islam.

How many of them wished -- prayed -- for the military superiority that the West possesses today? Yet our leaders obfuscate, bloviate, lie, and demonize in defense of Islam, including and especially our treasonous (allegedly) former-Muslim-in-Chief, who knows better.

We are at war. To those who would argue that we cannot become like our enemies, it's not your little girls being kidnapped, raped, and forcibly converted to the religion from hell. What will you do when those malevolent fiends are at your daughters? "Please, go ahead. I don't want to be like you"? This is the time for self-defense, not craven, self-righteous stupidity.

As bad as it was for the Copts under Mubarak, it's going to be hell from here on out. Egypt's Muslim army now wages open war on monks, from here:

Monk Aksios Ava Bishoy told activist Nader Shoukry of Freecopts the armed forces stormed the main entrance gate to the monastery in the morning using five tanks, armored vehicles and a bulldozer to demolish the fence built by the monastery last month to protect themselves and the monastery from the lawlessness which prevailed in Egypt during the January 25 Uprising.

"When we tried to address them, the army fired live bullets, wounding Father Feltaows in the leg and Father Barnabas in the abdomen," said Monk Ava Bishoy. "Six Coptic workers in the monastery were also injured, some with serious injuries to the chest."

The injured were rushed to the nearby Sadat Hospital, the ones in serious condition were transferred to the Anglo-Egyptian Hospital in Cairo.

Father Hemanot Ava Bishoy said the army fired live ammunition and RPGs continuously for 30 minutes, which hit part of the ancient fence inside the monastery. "The army was shocked to see the monks standing there praying 'Lord have mercy' without running away. This is what really upset them," he said. "As the soldiers were demolishing the gate and the fence they were chanting 'Allahu Akbar' and 'Victory, Victory'."

He also added that the army prevented the monastery's car from taking the injured to hospital.

Muslims trying to prove "out-of-context" only highlight what their genocidal pedophile preached and practiced

Implying error on my part, Fazeel Gareeboo actually quotes passages from Islam's "sacred" texts requiring the enslavement and slaughter of those who refuse the "invitation" to convert.

(Unfortunately, he has yet to denounce them.)

From here:

USC's MSA (an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose stated purpose is to bring down Western Civilization from within), lists the hadith in question as Number 25. As of January, 2006, when I saved a copy of their site (just in case the MSA decided to hide what their genocidal pedophile Muhammad actually said and did), the hadith in question was numbered "24":

Bukhari before the MSA changed its numbering

You'll have to ask USC's MSA why they changed it.

More importantly, you've verified that I've not misrepresented the texts. You've emphasized powerfully the fact that -- according to Muhammad -- the non-Muslim must confess Muhammad and his allah to "save his life and property" from him.

Now that you've admitted that Muhammad commanded and practiced offensive warfare against non-Muslims to make the world Islam, will you denounce those commands and example, Fazeel?

Not sure whom to support in Libya? Ask the Muslim Brotherhood

And then choose the tyrant opposing them.

It's a choice between Morgoth and Sauron. The frying pan or the fire. The lesser of two evils, literally.

From here:

"'The most influential Sunni Muslim cleric in the world' misunderstands Islam, calls on the warriors of Islam to murder Gaddafi."

"most influential Sunni Muslim cleric in the world" So much for "most Muslims don't believe that."

If 9/11 weren't enough -- and tens of thousands of other atrocities since then -- that tells you all you need to know about Islam.

And Obama for demanding you respect it.

Add "hatred of Christianity" to the list of reasons "Why nobody understands Islam"

The redoubtable Ronald Craig sees fit to throw the dirty bath water on the baby with this revealing bit:

"'Abrahamic' is one of Muhammad's lies."

Really? And "Christianity" is monotheistic. Please. LOL.

"Another example of those who hate Christianity so much that they'd ignore or otherwise facilitate the jihad against them[=it?]." (I think you meant "it" there.)

Nah, I hate human stupidity in general too much to waste time specifically on "Christianity". But yes, if you little spiritual sons of Abraham want to wipe each other out and can do it without dragging down the rest of the world with you (not in your plans, I know!), sure, I'd be more than happy to look the other way while you do so.

And seriously, all the hate-mongering you're engaged in? (Yeah, I know, you're just "defending" yourself. LOL!)

WWJD?

Here's my reply:

Speaking of "human stupidity," it's clear that you've wasted no time on either Christianity or Islam.

Here are a few points to consider:

-Christianity is not polytheistic: "Let us make man in our image" ("image" not "images"). "You shall have no other gods before Me." "Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one." "The Father and I are one." "baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit . . . " ("name," not "names").

Just because we can't comprehend YHWH's nature doesn't mean we can't apprehend His nature when He reveals it.

-If Muhammad had been a son of Abraham, he would have said and done what Abraham said and did. According to his own texts, Muhammad "sacralized" the violation of all Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule. Clearly, he was no son of Abraham.

-I did not mean "it." Jihad is being waged against you, but your antagonism towards Christianity blinds you to that.

-"you little spiritual sons of Abraham want to wipe each other out and can do it without dragging the rest of the world with you" indicates an utter ignorance of Islam. Even though you know nothing about Christianity, you ought to know by now that Islam is at war with the non-Muslim world, regardless of creed. You think you're safe, but Allah has special hatred for the godless like you.

-How is telling the truth about Muhammad -- whose words and deeds are actual hate; it takes a special kind of nescience (or perverseness) to confuse the two -- "hate-mongering"? No doubt, in your mind Churchill was hateful for telling the truth about Hitler before he began devouring Europe. Do you understand that, Ronald? Muhammad beheads fathers and rapes and enslaves their wives and daughters -- including prepubescent little girls -- and you're calling Christians "hate-mongers."

-We know what Jesus did. Unlike you, He never apologized for evil or conflated it with its resistance.

Deal honestly with the facts as they exist, Ronald.

"Amateurishness" or malice?

What must one conclude when every decision an allegedly-former-Muslim makes advances jihad against the non-Muslim world? When it was Presidents Clinton and Bush bombing Christians in defense of Muslims waging jihad, enshrining shari'a into the constitutions of two new "democracies" (how's that for oxymoronic?), and agitating for an Islamic Kosovo in the heart of Europe, one could reasonably conclude that they were merely clueless dhimmis either indulging their multiculturalist prejudice against the greatest civilization the world has ever known or operating on the suicidal misconception that Islam lends itself naturally to freedom. But President Obama?

How can the "smartest president ever" who:

-was Muslim,

-attended Qur'an classes as a child (was he illiterate and deaf?),

-has received and given aid to rabid Muslim anti-Semites (yes, that's doubly-redundant),

-attended a rabidly-anti-American "church" for twenty years, calling its anti-Semitic leader his "spiritual mentor,"

-expressed his determination to "stand with the Muslims" after 9/11,

-referred in an interview during his last campaign to "my Muslim faith,"

-described the Islamic call to prayer as "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset,"

-invited the Muslim Brotherhood -- whose stated purpose is to "bring down Western Civilization from within" -- to both his Cairo propaganda event and to govern Egypt,

-obfuscated and deflected when an Indian schoolgirl at another photo op in Dar al-Islam asked him about the meaning of "jihad,"

-works tirelessly to undermine the only decent nation in the Middle East, Israel, and

-is bankrupting and disarming the Republic

not know that he's aiding the advance of jihad and shari'a?

I hope that Niall Ferguson is right. Perhaps I'm giving Obama too much credit. Maybe he's only Another Liberal Fraud feigning competence while indulging a typically-leftist loathing of the West.

But if Obama really is as intelligent as his followers claim, then it's not "amateurishness" that leads him to help our enemies and abandon our friends, it's malice.

Niall Ferguson explains Obama's malfeasance alleged incompetence:

If this is what happens in a "moderate, secular" Egypt, wait 'til the Muslim Brotherhood's in power

CBS News' Lara Logan Assaulted During Egypt Protests:

"On Friday, Feb. 11, the day Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak stepped down, CBS chief foreign correspondent Lara Logan was covering the jubilation in Tahrir Square for a '60 Minutes' story when she and her team and their security were surrounded by a dangerous element amidst the celebration. It was a mob of more than 200 people whipped into frenzy.

In the crush of the mob, she was separated from her crew. She was surrounded and suffered a brutal and sustained sexual assault and beating before being saved by a group of women and an estimated 20 Egyptian soldiers."

Keep her in your prayers.

UPDATE: The Muslims were shouting, "Jew! Jew!" while they raped her for twenty to thirty minutes. How did CBS forget to print those little details? We mustn't confuse anyone with the facts, right, CBS? Can't throw a wet blanket on Obama's little rebellion, can we?

Just like Carter, who still doesn't understand that removing brutal dictators holding rabid Muslims in check only allows the rabid Muslims to take over.

Well done, CBS. Great job, Mr. President!

It's not the lack of integration that causes jihad, it's jihad that causes the lack of integration

Multiculturalism has become Islam's Trojan horse.

How can anyone expect not only the preservation and emphasis of distinctions between cultures but the degradation and denigration of our own (multiculturalism) to result in the assimilation and integration of non-Western cultures? Worse yet, what if one of those alien systems to which some are so eager to prove their tolerance actively seeks the destruction of the West?

The principle that all people deserve respect because they are created in the image of God is completely consonant with the American creed as both are founded on the Word of Christ. On the other hand, the idea that all ideologies deserve respect or possess a moral value equal to our own is discredited every day around the world by Islam. As Ibn Warraq observed:

"A culture that gave the world the novel; the music of Mozart, Beethoven, and Schubert; and the paintings of Michelangelo, da Vinci, and Rembrandt does not need lessons from societies whose idea of heaven, peopled with female virgins, resembles a cosmic brothel. Nor does the West need lectures on the superior virtue of societies in which women are kept in subjection under sharia, endure genital mutilation, are stoned to death for alleged adultery, and are married off against their will at the age of nine . . . ."

Cameron, Merkel, Howard, Aznar, and now Sarkozy --but not Obama! Why? -- Europe awakes to the challenge its forebears faced: The existential threat posed to it by Islam. Only this time, the barbarians are not at the gates; instead, they've been invited in (mass immigration), are living at taxpayers' expense (Socialism serving shari'a), and enjoy special rights under the law (hate speech laws punishing factual statements about Islam).

Note that below, "multiculturalism" now means Islam.

From here:

French President Nicolas Sarkozy declared Thursday that multiculturalism had failed, joining a growing number of world leaders or ex-leaders who have condemned it.

"My answer is clearly yes, it is a failure," he said in a television interview when asked about the policy which advocates that host societies welcome and foster distinct cultural and religious immigrant groups.

"Of course we must all respect differences, but we do not want... a society where communities coexist side by side.

"If you come to France, you accept to melt into a single community, which is the national community, and if you do not want to accept that, you cannot be welcome in France," the right-wing president said.

"The French national community cannot accept a change in its lifestyle, equality between men and women... freedom for little girls to go to school," he said.

But aren't all societies created equal? What sort of culture would endorse gender discrimination?

"We have been too concerned about the identity of the person who was arriving and not enough about the identity of the country that was receiving him," Sarkozy said in the TFI channel show.

That's because the West despises itself.

British Prime Minister David Cameron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Australia's ex-prime minister John Howard and Spanish ex-premier Jose Maria Aznar have also recently said multicultural policies have not successfully integrated immigrants.

Merkel in October said efforts towards multiculturalism in Germany had "failed, totally."

The comment followed weeks of anguished debate sparked by the huge popularity of a book by a central banker saying that immigrants, in particular Muslims, were making Germany "more stupid."

Who is more "stupid," the "stupid," or those who invite in the "stupid," subsidize their depravity, and excuse their barbarous anti-Semitism and predatory attitudes toward non-Muslim women?

Britain's Cameron last week pronounced his country's long-standing policy of multiculturalism a failure, calling for better integration of young Muslims to combat home-grown extremism.

I can save the U.K. several billions of pounds and thousands of innocent lives: It's not the lack of integration that causes jihad, it's jihad that causes the lack of integration.

He urged a "more active, muscular liberalism" where equal rights, the rule of law, freedom of speech and democracy are actively promoted to create a stronger national identity.

The prime minister, who took power in May 2010, argued that "under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and the mainstream".

He said this had resulted in a lack of national identity in Britain which had made some young Muslims turn to extremist ideology.

Here again, it's not the "lack of national identity in Britain" which makes Muslims turn to jihad; it's Britain's lack of national pride that has allowed Muslims to wage unopposed their cultural jihad.

Sarkozy said in his television interview Thursday that "our Muslim compatriots must be able to practise their religion, as any citizen can," but he noted "we in France do not want people to pray in an ostentatious way in the street."

Just like the hijab, it's not prayer that's a problem -- does anyone care if some Baptists or Buddhists were to pray publicly?  The problem is that Muslim masses overrunning public places is another slap in the face to their host society, another expression of Muslim superiority to their non-Muslim neighbors.

The problem is Islam.

French far-right leader Marine Le Pen late last year came under fire for comparing Muslims praying in the streets outside overcrowded mosques in France to the Nazi occupation.

Marine Le Pen said there were "ten to fifteen" places in France where Muslims worshipped in the streets outside mosques when these were full.

Europe has been a continent of Neville Chamberlains. It's time for some Churchills. He understood Islam:

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

"A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property -- either as a child, a wife, or a concubine -- must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

"Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science -- the science against which it had vainly struggled -- the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."

How can you trust the judgment of someone who's descended voluntarily from Christ (at least nominally) to Smith to Muhammad to Oblivion?

Self-described in 2005 as "an historical serial religionist - Catholic, Mormon, Muslim - and a current areligionist," Timothy Behrend demonstrates an Islamic zeal in hiding from non-Muslims until it's too late the truth about Muhammad. If he really is no longer Muslim -- someone who claims to be an expert on Islam yet calls an accurate summary of Muhammad's words and deeds a "risible, anachronistic caricature" can hardly be considered trustworthy -- then the good professor is manifesting instead the murderous ignorance and suicidal self-loathing of those non-Muslims whose hatred of Christianity leads them to defend hell rather than their own civilization.

[How can you trust the judgment of someone who's descended voluntarily from Christ (at least nominally) to Smith to Muhammad to Oblivion? (At least Oblivion doesn't necessarily behead innocents and rape little girls.) Below is my reply to another of his lies in defense of the genocidal pedophile, written when all signs pointed to his being still a slave to Allah.]

Whether Muslim, apostate, or just saboteur, Timmy Behrend works to be one reason Why nobody understands Islam:

Timmy defends the genocidal pedophile Muhammad, but attacks . . . pronouns!

Rather than condemn Muhammad's crimes against God and Man as recorded in his own "sacred" texts, he variously:

1) Errs grammatically -- if "them" is "meaningless," then Timmy would not have understood its relation to its antecedent; regardless, "them" is the objective of "they," which is the plural of several third person pronouns including "it."

2) Imputes falsely to me either racism for "inventing racist discourses" or ignorance for believing them;

3) Misrepresents America's suicidally-deranged efforts at self-defense against his braver coreligionists. Anyone paying attention would know that official American policy toward Islam is: "Great world religion of peace hijacked by extremists (if only that had been a pun!) . . . They're just like us . . . All people yearn for freedom . . . Don't jump to conclusions . . . Jihad has nothing to do with Islam . . . Let's give them a democracy!" on which we've squandered billions in treasure and priceless blood;

4) Defames Islam by calling its "beautiful pattern of conduct" a "risible . . . anachronistic caricature;"

5) Contradicts himself by claiming variously that no one can define Islam, no one knows what all Muslims believe, and "no Muslims believe it";

6) Defames Christ, Christianity, and America by confusing all three for "authentic Muslim beliefs" (which he says do not exist; see #5 above);

7) Libels Christians around the world;

8) Engages in more ridiculous tu quoque while demonstrating his utter ignorance of my religious beliefs; instead of throwing out slanderous accusations and hoping at least one will stick, why not deal with fact?

9) Calls my quoting of Muhammad's words and deeds -- which I condemn -- "dangerous for US society and the world at large," but excuses, dismisses, extenuates, and obfuscates for Muslims' quoting -- and actually practicing -- them.

Islam is an ideology, not a race. I merely quote, paraphrase, and summarize Muhammad's words and deeds -- and what his followers have done in devotion to him -- which is why no lie, no logical fallacy, no disgraceful misdirection is too base for Timmy to employ.

Timmy's a credit to his religion. Sorry, I meant "exemplar."

[And just in case Amazon deletes these:

Can't help but confuse categories, Timmy? Or is it just a pathological mendacity?

It's not "non-Christian displays of personal religiosity" that offend; it's personal displays of the most vile ideology ever sprung from hell. "Sacralized" genocide, pedophilia, rape, and slavery deserve only scorn. Derision. Obliteration.

Why don't they offend you, Timmy?

And:

Imposing special rights for Muslims -- to the detriment of non-Muslims -- is the essence of shari'a.]

If George Lucas can make Han Solo into a Boy Scout, he can make Jar Jar Binks a mime

From here:

If Lucas can change Han Solo's essence, then he can change it back. And if he can spend the time and money to redo copious special effects, then he can re-edit The Phantom Menace.

The Revenge of the Sith is closest to the originals in tone and quality; The Attack of the Clones (why that title? Why not "The Rise of the Emperor" or somesuch?) was fine as one continuous fight scene; but with Phantom, the only ones menaced were fans of the original trilogy. And anyone older than seven.

No plot development, no character development, Darth Maul squandered, and too much Jar Jar. If Alderaan had a choice between watching Phantom and a rendezvous with the Death Star, you know what they'd choose. Every time. Seriously, with every viewing of Menace, it's as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced.

If Lucas can make Han Solo into a Boy Scout, he can make Jar Jar Binks a mime. And give Phantom Menace a plot.

A glimmer of hope in Egypt?

Powerline has comments from a free Egyptian on the protests. I hope his side wins.

If it does, will the free people of Egypt be either willing or able to say, "No," to the Muslim Brotherhood and their coreligionists?

Now, just in case this isn't clear: This protest is not one made or sustained by the Muslim Brotherhood, it's one that had people from all social classes and religious background in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood only showed up on Tuesday, and even then they were not the majority of people there by a long shot. We tolerated them there since we won't say no to fellow Egyptians who wanted to stand with us, but neither the Muslims Brotherhood not any of the Opposition leaders have the ability to turn out one tenth of the numbers of Protesters that were in Tahrir on Tuesday. This is a revolution without leaders. Three Million individuals choosing hope instead of fear and braving death on hourly basis to keep their dream of freedom alive. Imagine that.

Senate report concludes that the sky is blue

"the FBI and DOD could have prevented the shooting if they had identified Hasan’s radical Islamist views . . . ."

No kidding.

The obvious problem with this is that the problem was always obvious. Or, it should have been to anyone with even a modicum of curiosity about the world . . . or a pulse. It takes a lot of work to ignore the hordes of data each day highlighting the infrangible link between Islam and mass slaughter, especially after 9/11 and nearly seventeen thousand jihad attacks since. Even without opening a Qur'an, a reasonable person would suspect that something isn't kosher about Islam.

Senators Lieberman and Collins reiterate the Big Lie by implying through their use of "-ists" and "-isms" that what Nidal Hasan preached and practiced that day at Ft. Hood was anything other than Islam-the-Way-Muhammad-Intended. Note their liberal use of violent puns (I guess they didn't get the memo; it's Lieberman and Collins, so yes, that's a pun of my own) and the Orwellian Islamspeak ("radical," "extremist," "Islamist") throughout:

A new Senate report on the 2009 Fort Hood shooting blames the FBI and Department of Defense for failing to recognize or act on alleged shooter Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan’s extremist views.

If Muhammad commanded, "kill the pagans wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5), then how are Hasan's views "extremist"?

The report, released today by Senate Homeland Security Committee chairman Joe Lieberman and ranking Republican Susan Collins, says the FBI and DOD could have prevented the shooting if they had identified Hasan’s radical Islamist views and disciplined or discharged him before the attack occurred.

Hasan’s radicalization to violent Islamist extremism but failed both to understand and to act on it,” the senators said in the report. “Our investigation found specific and systemic failures in the government’s handling of the Hasan case and raises additional concerns about what may be broader systemic issues.”

Having an allegedly-former-Muslim-in-Chief who calls the Islamic call to prayer "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset," refers to "my Muslim faith," lies at Al-Azhar about the "great world religion of peace," can't answer honestly a little girl's request for a definition of "jihad," and forces Socialism/Communism -- Islam's only secular friend -- down our throats might indicate "broader systemic issues," might it not?

"DOD possessed compelling evidence that Hasan embraced views so extreme that it should have disciplined him or discharged him from the military, but DOD failed to take action against him,” the report said.

At today’s press conference Lieberman noted that an instructor and a colleague had each referred to Hasan as “a ticking time bomb.”

“To me it’s infuriating that a member of our armed services who expressed such radical opinions to other members of our military was not discharged,” Lieberman said.

"Discharged"?  How about, "deported"? "Dispatched"?

“The Fort Hood massacre resulted because of what I would call a tragedy of errors – just one after another - by organizations that normally perform effectively. But in this case – for a host of various reasons and frankly some things that are hard to explain – just totally failed to act in a way that as you look back at the evidence with the clarity of hindsight just shouts out, ‘Stop this guy before he kills somebody!’ And he was not stopped.”

Lieberman vowed that the report would be used as a “blueprint” for reforms “so the next human ticking time bomb will be identified early and defused before the next deadly detonation.

That "blueprint" is called "Muhammad's words and deeds."

I've got a surefire, one-hundred-percent-guaranteed, take-it-to-the-bank method for identifying the "next deadly detonation": Look for the devout/orthodox/traditional Muslim. Anything less than that only ensures the attack.

Somehow, I don't think we'll be hearing that from either of the distinguished senators.

So much for clarity.

Muslims beheading the Left's fantasies about Islam, one journalist at a time

What, if anything, have our "unbiased observers," our professional opinion makers, learned from their experiences up-close-and-personal with Islam? Expecting masses grateful for Obama and the Left's shared hatred of Western Civilization enlightened multiculturalism and support for implementing shari'a their "democracy," what did they find?

Anderson Cooper punched in the head ten times. Christiane Amanpour threatened repeatedly by a man clearly barely able to restrain his rage (I've seen that face of Muslim civility before; he would have snapped if not for his friend's restraining him). Katie Couric "menaced" and shoved. An ABC News team nearly beheaded. A Fox News team "beaten severely."

Will they blame Islam, which inculcates both a deep and abiding hatred for all things non-Muslim and an autonomic resorting to threats and violence?  Or will they continue repeating the Big Lie, blaming instead Mubarak, poverty, President Bush, America, or the Jews?

And do you think that Anderson Cooper's noticed yet the stark contrast between the completely peaceful, respectful, and restrained protests of American patriots and the rage of the Muslim street? Will he apologize for his ridiculous and disgusting name-calling and begin to investigate just why the "Arab" world is on fire?

It is, by definition, treason

The Muslim Brotherhood's stated purpose in America "is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

And President Obama's helping them to take power in Egypt. 

The president of the United States is aiding those who are "eliminating and destroying Western Civilization from within."

Looks like they're off to a good start.

The balloon's on the other head now, Chris Matthews

If anyone knows balloon heads, it's Chris Matthews.

Ironically enough, the politician on Chris Matthews' show during his recent fit of name-calling attacking Michele Bachmann as a "balloon head" for rightly stressing the importance of the Founding Fathers' work toward the abolition of slavery was none other than Charles Schumer.

It turns out that the senator isn't smarter than a fifth-grader -- or even Chris Matthews -- as he misidentifies the United States' three branches of government with: "We have a House, we have a Senate, we have a president." [sic]

What are the chances of Chris Matthews calling him names?

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.