Thursday, April 29, 2010


"A group of politicians deciding to dump a President because his morals are bad is like the Mafia getting together to bump off the Godfather for not going to church on Sunday."
Russell Baker

THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION SAID TUESDAY it would provide more information to Congress about the Fort Hood shootings but continued to defy a subpoena request for witness statements and other documents.

After reading the presentation on Islam that Major Nidal Hasan gave to his professional colleagues, one even mildly educated in the form can easily declare the assassin's appeal to the massacre was classic Islam; in other words, there was nothing remotely 'radical' about it.

His testament to Islam is clearly stated in the Qu'ran, with supporting Hadiths and Sira— Islam's core texts prescribing an Islam that has been has carried out for almost 1,400 years throughout most of Europe, north and central Africa, the Near and the Far East, and is now making its way into the Americas with unfortunate ease success, thanks to a hapless host strategically softened by a lack of political will maintained by the treachery of the multiculturalist's creed.

Make no bones about it, Islam is a violent, intolerant, seditious, degrading ideology because its founder was a warlord and mass murderer; therefore, the conduct of those committing Jihad is entirely in keeping with the 'inspiration' of Muhammed whom the Qu'ran calls "an excellent model of conduct" and "an exalted standard of character".

There are two compelling reasons why the Left does not want people to know the facts about Islam and Muhammed, in particular:

if most people knew the full facts of his life, and what he did and taught, the public everywhere would not only refuse to tolerate Islam, the public would also refuse to tolerate the craven, cowardly surrender of our freedoms to this cult, wholly rejecting our accommodation to Muslims demanding acquiescence to their Sharia law in our own lands.

That crystalized moment of clarity would lead to demands that Islam be condemned and perhaps even lead to an indictment of all Muslims, easing the way to deportation, however ugly or painful the process.

Adherents to Islam belong to an ideology that mandates death for apostates, a status that denies the individual full freedom of speech and conscience. Islam also mandates for wife-beating (Qu'ran 4:34), polygamy, female genital mutilation and pedophilia. The Qu'ran allows for child brides by stipulating that a man can divorce a wife who is too young to have begun menstruating and, most damning of all, because Muhammed is recorded in at least 12 Hadiths as having married Aisha when she was 6 and consummated it when she was 9 and he was 54. Islam also mandates for death for homosexuals and adulterers. Most of these mandates are found within either the Qu'ran itself or the Hadiths of Bukhari.

None of this is acceptable to Americans or to any Westerners of good conscience, and so the Left helps to silence any discussion of Islam. The second reason is that the Left itself hates the West, despises Christianity with a vengeance and is exceedingly jealous of capitalism in its frothing pursuit of social justice as defined by its patron saints, Marx and Mao, and thus uses the alien, hostile ideological force of Islam as shock troops in its assault, especially since part of Islamic Jihad involves 'emigration' (hijra) which historically is a stepping stone to Jihad and along with its demographic swell, paves the way for demanding compliance with Sharia and eventually dominating non-Muslim areas.

Neither Republican or Democrat officials are fulfilling with honor the critically important job we have hired them to do.

It’s easy to see without looking too far
That not much is really sacred...

Therefore, it is our mandate as an informed citizenry to be more vigilant in the future when we select our leaders and representatives. This mandate informs is the Tea Party inertia. Americans must quit the finger-pointing and stand tough with the times we now find ourselves nearly in breach of destiny as we stumble among ourselves as orphans and widows of the constitutional framework our founding fathers so struggled to conceive, having lost both the spirit and perspiration that helped American sons and daughters defeat the Nazis and the Japanese aggressors just a few generations ago.

It's a sad state of affairs when President Barack Obama has plenty of time to launch an attack against a state government law and tamper with the US Army's prayer service and host Muslim entrepreneurship summits despite his repeated rebuffs of his own supposed faith, but is willing to DEFY a subpoena request to protect what? a killer? or some information he and his administration don't want to be outed? Doesn't it seem that somebody has all its chips invested in this "angry white men are the biggest terror threat to America" meme?

For the clear-thinking patriot, with each passing incident at high levels of this government, only one conclusion can be reached. We are being governed with heavy hand by a dangerous administration, who, along with the horde of pugnacious sycophants who still support it, will continue to press their destructive agenda forward. Are we calling for an impeachment process? No sir, that would be premature, but we can surely hear the tumbleweed rumblings just down the road, and I fear what wreckage we should meet should things turn even more sour than they are in our government corridors today. The bottom line is simple: we must every one of us, Tea Party or not, demand a far greater standard of leader...

Labels: , , , , , ,

Sunday, April 25, 2010


"I see pieces of men marching, trying to take heaven by force;
I can see the unknown rider, I can see the pale white horse"

Bob Dylan

The fight in this country is not between left and right, but between liberty and tyranny. Big government Hamiltonian progressivism vs small-government Jeffersonian democratic-republicanism.

It's nothing new. It's as old as the Nimrod vs Abrahamic styles of government.

Ron Jones, The Jones Family

I remember early fall 2000, sitting in a fast food joint eating my burger when I overheard two old men chatting about the upcoming election. Neither were rock solid in their decision yet, although they seemed poised to split their vote between Bush and Gore. However, I heard one of them say that he didn't think he could vote for Bush because he didn't think that Americans should elect dynasties, pointing out the Kennedy family example with the presumption America would have been better off without that particular dynasty. They begin to act like kings, he added.

I left amused and enlightened by their conversation but voted Bush the younger that year. Will political truth always remain so compromised I wonder...

Gabriel Thy

Labels: , , , , ,

Friday, April 23, 2010


"Now Jesus don't like killin'
No matter what the reason's for,
And your flag decal won't get you
Into Heaven any more."

John Prine

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth;
I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Yeshua the Nazarene

I have been made victorious by terror!"

A CIVILIAN EMPLOYEE at the Camp Lejeune Marine Base in North Carolina has won his battle to display anti-Islamic decals on his van while driving on the base.

Jesse Nieto, whose son was among 16 sailors killed in the 2000 terror attack against the USS Cole, had used the windows of his car as a place of tribute to his son. He displayed a gold star (a symbol of death in combat), a combat action ribbon, and the message: “Remember the Cole, 12 Oct. 2000.”

But Mr. Nieto also used his vehicle to express his opinion of those who killed his son. Decals proclaimed: “Islam = Terrorism,” “We Died, They Rejoiced,” and a picture of the US flag with the words: “Disgrace My Countries [sic] Flag And I Will [defecate] On Your Quran.”

He also displayed a decal picture of Calvin (from the Calvin and Hobbes cartoon) urinating on a cartoon illustration of the Prophet Mohammed. The Mohammed illustration was a re-creation of one of the cartoons that provoked Muslim protests against a Danish newspaper and sparked an assassination plot against the cartoonist.

After seven years with these messages on his car, someone on the base complained. Nieto was ordered to remove them. He removed the most offensive decals, but was later cited again for violating a base traffic regulation that prohibits the display of “extremist, indecent, sexist, or racist messages” on motor vehicles.

Nieto, a Marine combat veteran, decided to fight back. In a lawsuit filed in federal court in North Carolina he claimed a First Amendment free speech right to express his opinion of Islam and Islamic terrorists.

Government lawyers countered that a military base is not an open public forum like a town hall meeting or a public park. The base commander is entitled to enact and enforce reasonable restrictions on speech when open debate or protests might disrupt the military’s mission, they argued.

Nieto’s lawyer, Robert Muise of the Thomas More Law Center, countered that government restrictions of speech must be viewpoint neutral and not just aimed at silencing speech critical of Islam.

He argued that the base regulation would not ban decals praising Islam, only those critical of Islam.

Last week, Senior US District Judge Malcolm Howard ruled for Nieto. He said the base regulation was not being enforced in a neutral manner and was therefore unconstitutional as applied to Nieto.

“The fact that [Nieto’s] message may be extremely offensive to some is not a sufficient basis for banning [his] decals,” Judge Howard wrote.

“While the military may have greater leeway in restricting offensive material in furtherance of securing order and discipline among its troops,” he said, “it may not do so in a manner that allows one message while prohibiting the messages of those who can reasonably be expected to respond.”

To Nieto, the fight was about more than just protecting free speech, Muise said. “Here is a Marine dad who lost his son to terrorists,” the lawyer said. “It is not just the First Amendment, for him it is more. For him it is the way he is mourning the loss of his son.”

Muise said the case was a result of “political correctness run amok” on a military base. “What is refreshing, is that the judge saw through this political correctness nonsense and applied the law straight up,” he said.

Reprinted with relish from the April 7, 2010, online issue of the Christian Scientist Monitor. Author is Warren Richey.

And a special thanks to the continuing good work emanating from the Thomas Moore Center in its legal fight and push back for free speech against the CAIR-backed Islamicists who seek to destroy the West from within.

Judge Malcolm Howard is also to be commended for his perceptive decision in the Nieto case. Seems simple, but in this poisonous PC multiculturalist environment, even the simple is being turned on its head in order to weaken in thetruggle against the advancing enemies of statism and Islam.

Labels: , , , , , ,


Well, first he's in the background, then he's in the front,
Both eyes are looking like they're on a rabbit hunt.
Nobody can see through him,
No, not even the Chief of Police.
You know that sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace.

Bob Dylan

We live in a political world
Where courage is a thing of the past

Bob Dylan

WHILE THE PENTAGON DUMPS on Franklin Graham, here's a clarifying article from the Washington Times which shows us who's running the show nine years after the atrocities of September 11...

Since all of Guantanamo's inmates, mirabile dictu, happen to be members of the same famed band of Muslim extremists, the Army has seen fit to distribute Korans. So far, so good, I guess. But the Army doesn't just distribute its Korans like any other religious book. That is, the Bible may get passed around, rifled through, dropped, tossed and stuffed into hotel room drawers. But not the Koran. According to Army policy, the standard operating procedure is: "Handle the Koran as if it were a fragile piece of delicate art."

What's going on here? By official order, a whole lot of "respecting the dignity of the Koran." According to Section 6-5-c(3), should a Koran need to be removed from a detainee's cell—you know, carried somewhere—and the detainee is personally unable to move it (best option), and the Muslim chaplain, librarian and interpreter are also unable to move it (second-best option), then the U.S. Army guard, as a very last resort, may take action—but only "after approval by the DOC (who notes this in the DIMS)."

Then the insanity really begins. The guard is directed to don "clean gloves ... in full view of the detainees prior to handling." He must use "two hands ... at all times when handling the Koran in a manner signaling respect and reverence." Why "respect" alone isn't abundantly sufficient isn't mentioned. While signaling two-handed respect and reverence, however, the guard must be mindful that "care should be used so that the right hand is the primary one used to manipulate any part of the Koran due to the cultural association with the left hand."

It goes on. There's more "reverent manner," more instructions for conveying the book inside a "clean, dry detainee towel." The cockeyed picture is clear. But it doesn't explain what's going on.

At first glance, this scene may seem to exemplify a bizarre excess of good manners, an absurdly obsequious respect for a largely foreign faith. Since when does the United States specifically direct its soldiers to show two-handed "reverence" in the handling of any religious book? But it seems to me that there's more behind this charade. The "clean gloves" and "detainee" towels are the tip off. The fact is, under Islamic law, non-Muslims are deemed unfit to touch the Koran. That much is generally known. What is not usually considered is the reason: According to the Islamic law, we are unclean.

The term is "najis." On the multilingual Web site of the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani, the leading Iraqi Shi'ite cleric, there is a catalogue of Islamic laws ( This includes a list of "najis things." There are 10, beginning with an assortment of excretions and body fluids—obvious stuff that really shouldn't need special mention. On the "najis" list with urine, feces, etc., are the pig, the dog and the "kafir." That means the Christian, the Jew, the unbeliever in Islam—and chances are, the Gitmo guard.

In effect, then, with its official policy of clean gloves and detainee towels, the military is promoting, enabling and accepting the Islamic concept of najis—the unclean infidel—a barbarous notion that has helped fuel the blood lust of jihad and the non-Muslim subjugation of dhimmitude. Our soldiers are many things: self-sacrificing, bold, loyal and true. They are not unclean.

Is this political correctness run amok? Not exactly. It's something else again, a new threat from within that needs vigilant redress. PC is about victimology, the elevation of perceived victim groups to the canonical pantheon. The Gitmo rules are more blatantly about surrender, a voluntary, self-extinguishment, a spreading condition of denial of what is right and worth standing for. Not what you expect from the United States Southern Command.

One doesn't have to be a Franklin Graham or even a Jesus Christ fanatic to recognize that this unfortunate move by the Pentagon only fuels the taqiyya-inspired oil-financed Islamic ascendancy increasingly marked by bolder and bolder encroachments into weakened kafir territories witnessed globally, territories crippled with jihad.

Mr. Graham is nobody's fool. We can applaud his unapologetic stance in choosing truth and love over submission to the duplicitous and wicked death cult as Islamic forces slither its power tentacles into every nook and cranny it seeks to paralyze, torture, and dominate with its sharia impulses...

What is the purpose of pretending that Christianity with all its faults is not diametrically opposed to Islam with all its faults. There's no reason to extrapolate here again what we can only interpret as pure evil, given the historical record, and as the History Channel puts it, history being made every day.

Muslims? Dunno. I'll take them as I find them, but with a strong dose of caution, not so much with a wink but with a scowl. Humans are the hardware. Ideology is the software, Evil gets its juice from many dark places? But in the case of the Religion of Peace, it's the ideology, stupid.

We don't have to return to the Inquisition days when bad acts were performed in the name of Christianity. The contrast between modern Christianity and Islam couldn't be more stark. Right now, this very day, tens of millions of Muslim women and young girls, and in some places, young boys, live in terror of the men of Islam.

Muslim females are subjected to unbelievable oppression while being treated as little more than chattel. Islam, as practiced every single day across the planet, sanctions female genital mutilation, honor killings, public flogging of women, and many more brutal, disgusting and degrading acts against women and children. All religiously and tribal sanctioned, without question for over 1400 years.

These terrifying acts against their own families and tribesmen are not anomalies. There is no freedom of choice, or protection by the law. This terror is the law, sharia law, the deeply ingrained by-product of a sick and perverted cult founded by a sick and perverted warlord from the seventh century.

The veracity of our time is the current struggle between Islam and the Western world where Judeo-Christian principles are dominant. All religions are not equal and are certainly not deserving of equal respect.

Our moral codes originated in religion. The Western world owes an immense debt of gratitude to the Judeo-Christian tenets which undergird our societies and way of life. Life is always a work in progress.

Look at how Muslim infiltration into Great Britain and France has divided those countries. Radical Islam must not be allowed to establish a beachhead in the United States. We should be comforted instead by the belief that most Americans would fight to the death to stop this madness disguised as the perfect religion called Islam. The election of Barack Obama and his shape shifting radical policies has placed our nation at the greatest peril we have faced to date as a free nation, bar none. May God be with us.

Pointed threats, they bluff with scorn
Suicide remarks are torn
From the fool’s gold mouthpiece the hollow horn
Plays wasted words, proves to warn
That he not busy being born is busy dying

As some warn victory, some downfall
Private reasons great or small
Can be seen in the eyes of those that call
To make all that should be killed to crawl
While others say don’t hate nothing at all
Except hatred

It’s easy to see without looking too far
That not much is really sacred

Bob Dylan

You talk about day
I'm talking 'bout night time
When the monsters call out
The names of men
Bob Dylan knows
And I bet Alan Freed did
There are things in night
That are better not to behold
Marc Bolan

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, April 20, 2010


DR. ALAN KEYES IN ROUSING SPEECH taunts crowd to leave the comforts of yesterday and stand up against those who would seal their fates by trampling on the US Constitution...

Labels: , , , , ,

Saturday, April 17, 2010


Democracy don’t rule the world,
You’d better get that in your head.
This world is ruled by violence
But I guess that’s better left unsaid.

Bob Dylan

"Politics should be the part-time
profession of every citizen who would
protect the rights and privileges of free
people and who would preserve what is
good and fruitful in our national heritage."

Lucille Ball

Another formidable essay by Hugh Fitzgerald at Jihad Watch...

FOR SEVEN YEARS, SUCCESSIVE American administrations have squandered men, money, materiel, morale (both civilian and military) in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan-Pakistan, wars whose goals—something to do with keeping or making these places unified, prosperous, and above all, preventing them from becoming "failed states" (a strange new and fashionable phrase, that is never defined but simply employed as if its significance were obvious) because then, you see, it doth follow as the night the day that as "failed states" they will become putty in the hands of Al Qaeda, which will move in, lock stock and barrel, and the United States will be unable to do a thing about it, then or at any time in the future.

Meanwhile, Muslims attack and kill non-Muslims in the southern Philippines and southern Thailand; the ISI-backed terrorist groups, slightly quieter after the Mumbai murders, have not been disbanded or weakened in any way by the Pakistani military; the zamindars and generals still share power and still exhibit the same sly meretriciousness toward the Americans as they inveigle ever greater amounts of military equipment, and money, and keep on producing weapons-grade plutonium, that is essentially paid for by American taxpayers. Saudi Arabia continues to spend its tens of billions all over the world paying for mosques, madrasas, campaigns of Da'wa, and propaganda churned out, in part, by armies of Western hirelings, some directly and some indirectly employed on behalf of Saudi Arabia and Islam; in American universities Muslims hire and promote each other, or the occasional non-Muslim willing collaborator, in academic departments devoted to the Middle East or to Islam, and in some Ivy League schools, there have been disturbing reports as to how one or two Muslim faculty members can prevent any open discussion of Islam in its historical context, or subject it to scholarly (i.e., unworshipful) study, and they can do this, sometimes, by even threatening to call on local Muslims to enforce such a ban.

The peoples of Western Europe are now enduring, or suffering, the consequences not of undifferentiated "immigration" but. rather, of Muslim immigration—and the American press hardly begins to touch this topic, to sink beneath the surface of things, and everywhere, the indigenous Europeans regret bitterly the heedlessness of their own political and media elites in allowing in so many Musims over just a short time—the last 20-30 years—and the fact that, because of this large-scale Muslim presence, life for those indigenous non-Muslims who live in societies,and countries, created entirely by non-Muslims (and none of their artistic, literary, musical achievements or political and religious freedoms for one minute conceivable under Islam), has become far more unpleasant, unsettled, expensive, and physically dangerous than would be the case without that large-scale Muslim presence.

The West does not have to squander trillions in these idiotic ventures to save Muslim states and societies from the consequences—political, economic, social, intellectual, and moral—of Islam itself. Indeed, it should not do so. And the fact that so many European countries are now unwilling to contribute to the American Building-the-Bridge-Over-the-River-Kwai project, one that is being conducted by the military who are given a task, but whose highest officers are apparently unwilling to question the efficacy and sense of that task, should give one pause. Why, for example, do those, such as Geert Wilders, who sense most keenly the danger of Islam infiltating and encroaching from within, are the least keen on sending soldiers to Afghanistan, to engage in what they rightly recognize as a snare, and a delusion?

Those countries that are part of the West, or part of the Rest—for the world-wide Jihad is a war of Islam against not the West but against All the Rest, and its ideological promptings are those contained in the Immutable and Uncreated Qur'an, as supplemented or glossed by the Hadith and the Sira, the sayings and deeds and biography of that Perfect Man, Muhammad—need to figure out what Islam, taken straight up and not on the rocks, not diluted by local custom or the ability of some Muslims not to take to heart what the texts teach (though at any point anyone still calling himself a Muslim may revert to that old-time religion, the faith straight up, with dangerous consequences for non-Muslims)—means, and intelligently construct a defense that relies mostly on allowing the pre-existing fissures—sectarian, ethnic, economic—within the Camp of Islam to widen, merely by doing nothing to prevent this.

And the other task—the one that is shown in the colossal failure, over many years, to deal effectively with the nuclear project of the Islamic Republic of Iran—is to make sure that no Muslim state, no Muslim group, no Muslim groupuscule, anywhere in the world, gets its hands, in posse or in esse, on weapons of mass destruction. It should by now be obvious that nothing except military force will stop the Islamic Republic of Iran in its determination to acquire nuclear weapons. Those who did not read what Ayatollah Khomeini wrote, and who thus abandoned the Shah and accepted Khomoeini's ascent to power— what worse group could one imagine being in control of American policy toward Iran than Gary Sick, William Miller (an early promoter of Khomeini), Zbigniew Brzezinski (that fake "realist" so ignorant of Islam and so determiinedly hostile to Israel), Jimmy Carter (ditto, but with an added holier-than-thou belief in the sheer goodness of a "fellow man of faith"—as he addressed Khomeini in a letter)—have not been sufficiently mocked, and their recent ideological heirs, the ones who believe in diplomatic maneuvering and cajoling long after it has run its course, will regret that they did not deal with the nuclear project of the Islamic Republic of Iran when they could.

And it is intolerable as well—flabbergastingly foolish—for the Obama administration to have done everything they possibly can to discourage and prevent Israel, willing—as it has been so many times in the past (bombing the Osirak reactor and then the Syrian nuclear installation, forcing Syrian tanks back from Jordan so as to rescue King Hussein of Jordan, warning Arab rulers of terrorist plots against them).

It should be the United States, and not little Israel, that as a world power and leader—if it saw itself correctly—of those resisting Jihad, should be dealing with the Iranian nuclear project. The claim that this would "only set back the Iranians by a year or two" is unproven, and in any case silly. The mere demonstration of American willingness to destroy major parts of such a program would not result in a renewed effort by a now at long last chasteneed Islamic Republic of Iran, for if the Americans showed themselves willing to attack once, it would be clear that they would be willing to attack again, and in all kinds of places—the port of Um Qasr, for example, or destroying the Iranian navy in the Gulf, or aiding Kurds in northwestern Iran and in another pocket in northeastern Iran, and Arabs in Khuzistan, and perhaps even suggest to the Azerbaijan government that the Americans wouldn't mind, as they did in 1946 with the Red Army, an expansion into northern Iran, to "re-unify" the Azeri people. All kinds of things are possible, but the very idea that an attack on Iran's nuclear project could only be a one-time thing, and that there would be no effect on the Islamic Republic of Iran—which, if it does acquire nuclear weapons, will never be dislodged by its domestic opponents, some of whom at long last realize this, though they cannot openly call for a Western attack on the nuclear project lest they be accused of treason.

It's madness and if, in a year Iran does acquire nuclear weapons, even the folly of the Bush Administration with its crazed and messianic sentimentalism—and the way in which so many policy-makers allowed themselves to be inveigled by Shi'a exiles such as Ahmad Chalabi, and failed to grasp the nature of Iraq and what would inevitably happen—will seem not quite so bad, for the Obama Administration, prompted by a different kind of naivete, but exhibiting the same willful ignorance about Islam, will have outdone even the Bush Administration. And its entire foreign policy will be seen to have been idiotic, and lie in ruins. For some, that will be a grim consolation. For others, more sensible, it will be no consolation at all.

Labels: , , , , ,

Tuesday, April 06, 2010


"I have a habit of comparing the phraseology
of communiqués, one with another across
the years, and noting a certain similarity
of words, a certain similarity of optimism
in the reports which followed the summit
meetings and a certain similarity in the lack
of practical results during the ensuing years."

Margaret Thatcher

"Politics: A strife of interests masquerading
as a contest of principles. The conduct of
public affairs for private advantage."

Ambrose Bierce

WITH REGARD TO THE RECENT UPROAR in Davenport, Iowa, where the town fathers in their mid-western wisdom decided to rename the traditional Good Friday to Spring Holiday, thus causing local and national outrage, columnist Dennis Prager has offered up a concise summation of what is a self-evident trend now creeping across America.

1. There really is a war against Christianity.

Leftism functions as a secular religion, and its adherents understand that the major obstacle to the dominance of leftist policies and values is traditional religion, specifically Christianity. With the demise of Christianity in Western Europe, leftist ideas and values came to dominate that continent. America, the most religious industrialized democracy, remains the great exception.

2. Why not abolish Christmas?

If a religiously diverse population and the separation of church and state demand abolishing government recognition of Good Friday, why not treat Christmas similarly and rename it "Winter Holiday"? This was asked of Mr. Hart, the Civil Rights Commission chairman. His response, in the words of ABC, shows the level of thought that is characteristic of the politically correct: "The commission, he said, discussed changing Christmas, but decided enough other religions celebrate Christmas, too. Hart, however, could not name one."

3. Civil-rights organizations are not about civil rights.

The ACLU and other left-wing organizations that have noble-sounding civil-liberties and civil-rights names have a problem similar to the one the March of Dimes had once polio was conquered: What to do now? Civil liberties and civil rights are extraordinarily well-protected in America. If the ACLU and the innumerable civil rights commissions ceased to exist, and a few smaller and politically neutral groups took their place, civil liberties in America would benefit. As is obvious from the Davenport example, these groups do not really function as civil-rights or civil-liberties organizations. They are organizations that promote left-wing agendas. And no leftist agenda is greater than minimizing the influence of Judeo-Christian religions, specifically Christianity, on American life.

4. Good Friday as an American holiday reminds Americans that this is a religious society.

Leftism opposes America's three great values – what I call the American Trinity (see, for example, my video on the American Trinity at – "E Pluribus Unum," "Liberty" and "In God We Trust." The left uses diversity and multiculturalism to undermine E Pluribus Unum ("From Many, One"). It substitutes equality (of result) for liberty, and the powerful state for the powerful free individual. And it seeks, perhaps above all, to replace "In God We Trust" with a secular society and secular values. If it had a motto, it might be "In Science (or Secularism) We Trust." The elimination of Good Friday as an American holiday is just one more such battle in this war.

5. Non-Christians offended by Good Friday as an American holiday are narcissists.

The left tells us that non-Christians are offended by the government celebrating Good Friday. As a Jew, permit me to say that any non-Christian offended by Good Friday or Christmas gives new meaning to the word "narcissist." To seek to erase the name Good Friday is an exercise in self-centeredness and ingratitude that is jaw-dropping. We non-Christian Americans live in the freest society in human history; it was produced by people nearly every one of whom celebrated Good Friday, and we have the gall to want to rename it?

6. PC (Political Correctness) should be renamed OTL (Offends the Left).

Most Americans will characterize the Davenport attempt to rename Good Friday "Spring Holiday" as political correctness. That it is. But the term itself is politically correct. Like everything PC, the term itself hides its true meaning, which is leftism. Political correctness is invariably produced by the left. The term, therefore, should not be PC; it should be OTL, "Offends the Left." It is very unfortunate for America that it isn't. Americans would have much greater clarity as to the Second Civil War now taking place – from San Francisco to Boston to, yes, Davenport, Iowa.

Mr. Prager's six point firing line spotlights precisely why the Left remains so fond of Islam. Both ideologies consistently pretend to be easily offended while simultaneously playing the "superiority" and "victimhood" cards.

The American political scene and each of the thousands of well-documented Muslim sharia and jihadist atrocities spanning the globe by both US allies and US enemies that—under duress of policy—are routinely ignored by the so-called mainstream media, bear witness to this fact.

This dualistic morality is further corrupted when these players also exhibit absolutely no self-consciousness much less remorse at the outrage and the offense they level at those with whom they disagree.

If you doubt these assessments laid out against the backdrop of the recent FBI arrests of so-called Christian militia up in Michigan, I suggest we talk turkey.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,