A MUSLIM VICTIM OF 9/11

Dear Gabriel,

We know there are many Muslims in America who do not subscribe to the ideology of political Islam, the advance of jihad, and the imposition of sharia law.

This past Sunday, a courageous Muslim spoke out against the Ground Zero Mosque in a column in the Washington Post (see below).

The buzzing opposition to the Ground Zero Mosque continues to grow, with some polls show opposition now over 60%. Media coverage continues to grow.

This has become, and rightly so, a high-profile national issue, which is why we continue to put out emails about it. Islamists and their politically correct allies are desperately trying to smear anyone who opposes the Ground Zero Mosque. They know they are losing the national debate on this. And as you saw in your email on Saturday, the New York City bus company is censoring a media campaign about the Ground Zero Mosque.

The Ground Zero Mosque is not a done deal. We must keep the pressure on!

***

A Muslim victim of 9/11: 'Build your mosque somewhere else'

By Neda Bolourchi
Sunday, August 8, 2010

I have no grave site to visit, no place to bring my mother her favorite yellow flowers, no spot where I can hold my weary heart close to her. All I have is Ground Zero.

On the morning of Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001, I watched as terrorists slammed United Flight 175 into the South Tower of the World Trade Center, 18 minutes after their accomplices on another hijacked plane hit the North Tower. My mother was on the flight. I witnessed her murder on live television. I still cannot fully comprehend those images. In that moment, I died as well. I carry a hole in my heart that will never be filled.

From the first memorial ceremonies I attended at Ground Zero, I have always been moved by the site; it means something to be close to where my mother may be buried, it brings some peace. That is why the prospect of a mosque near Ground Zero—or a church or a synagogue or any religious or nationalistic monument or symbol—troubles me.

I was born in pre-revolutionary Iran. My family led a largely secular existence—I did not attend a religious school, I never wore a headscarf—but for us, as for anyone there, Islam was part of our heritage, our culture, our entire lives. Though I have nothing but contempt for the fanaticism that propelled the terrorists to carry out their murderous attacks on Sept. 11, I still have great respect for the faith. Yet, I worry that the construction of the Cordoba House Islamic cultural center near the World Trade Center site would not promote tolerance or understanding; I fear it would become a symbol of victory for militant Muslims around the world.

When I am asked about the people who murdered my mother, I try to hold back my anger. I try to have a more spiritual perspective. I tell myself that perhaps what happened was meant to happen—that it was my mother's destiny to perish this way. I try to take solace in the notion that her death has forced a much-needed conversation and reevaluation of the role of religion in the Muslim community, of the duties and obligations that the faith imposes and of its impact on the non-Muslim world.

But a mosque near Ground Zero will not move this conversation forward. There were many mosques in the United States before Sept. 11; their mere existence did not bring cross-cultural understanding. The proposed center in New York may be heralded as a peace offering—may genuinely seek to focus on "promoting integration, tolerance of difference and community cohesion through arts and culture," as its Web site declares—but I fear that over time, it will cultivate a fundamentalist version of the Muslim faith, embracing those who share such beliefs and hating those who do not.

The Sept. 11 attacks were the product of a hateful ideology that the perpetrators were willing to die for. They believed that all non-Muslims are infidels and that the duty of Muslims is to renounce them. I am not a theologian, but I know that the men who killed my mother carried this message in their hearts and minds. Obedient and dutiful soldiers, they marched toward their promised rewards in heaven with utter disregard for the value of the human beings they killed.

I know Ground Zero is not mine alone; I must share this sanctuary with tourists, politicians, anyone who chooses to come, whatever their motivations or intentions. But a mosque nearby—even a proposed one—is already transforming the site from a sacred ground for reflection, so desperately needed by the families who lost loved ones, to a battleground for religious and political ideologies. So many people from different nationalities and religions were killed that day. This site should be a neutral place for all to come in peace and remember. I believe my mother would have thought so as well.

The Iranian revolution compelled my family to flee to America when I was 12 years old. Yet, just over two decades later, the militant version of our faith caught up with us on a September morning. I still identify as a Muslim. When you are born into a Muslim family, there is no way around it, no choices available: You are Muslim. I am not ashamed of my faith, but I am ashamed of what is done in its name.

On the day I left Ground Zero shortly after the tragedy, I felt that I was abandoning my mother. It was like being forced to leave the bedside of a loved one who is dying, knowing you will never see her again. But I felt the love and respect of all those around me there, and it reassured me that she was being left in good hands. Since I cannot visit New York as often as I would like, I at least want to know that my mother can rest in peace.

I do not like harboring resentment or anger, but I do not want the death of my mother—my best friend, my hero, my strength, my love—to become even more politicized than it already is. To the supporters of this new Islamic cultural center, I must ask: Build your ideological monument somewhere else, far from my mother's grave, and let her rest.


Neda Bolourchi lives in Los Angeles.

ISLAM TO CONQUER AMERICA

A REFUGEE FROM THE MUSLIM Middle East thinks he has discovered Islam's 20-point plan for conquering the United States by 2020—a plan revealed in the latest issue of Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.

On the other side of the mountain, the cat is playing. Here's a snippet we found in the comment section of a Washington Post article suggesting that risk-tolerant China is investing heavily in Iraq as US companies stand pat. This, as the US is drained of its fortune in war while others swoop in to partnership the real business of nation building..

The Chinese are smarter than we Americans. While we are engaged in wars all over the world, some openly some not so openly, the Chinese seek to make friends and useful business connections. While the US supports useless sanctions against Iran, the Chinese are all over Iran making deals. Some Americans think the Chinese are Communists. They are communists in name only. First and foremost they are interested in business.

The US throws money away in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere on military spending or bribes to win influence and our national debt continues to grow. We get nothing from this type spending. The Chinese, using "soft power" are doing business and making money which they are spending to make China a better place for the Chinese. They are building highways, airports, rail lines, schools, factories, hospitals and rapidly improving life for their people. At the same time the US standard of living is dropping so fast that you can see it by driving through most US.

Can the American powers be this stupid? Perhaps not, as another quipster's hypothesis suggests. We've probably got a hush-hush deal with China; that in order to pay off US debt, we'll use our military to open up markets for them and call it even.

It's kind of like sometimes when you get in debt to the Mob, and they cut you a deal that you can work it off by helping them out with "collections" if you're a tough guy.

We shoot 'em, you loot 'em...

NICE HAIRCUT

Here's an adept adaptation gone viral of a famous poem about the Nazis by Pastor Martin Niemöller—Muslim Outrage:

At first, the Muslims were outraged by cartoons, but I didn't speak up because I wasn't an artist.

And then the Muslims were outraged by history books and news, but I didn't speak up because I don't read much.

And then the Muslims were outraged by women who weren't completely veiled and hidden, but I didn't speak up because I'm not a woman.

And then the Muslims were outraged by the practice of other religions, but I didn't speak up because I'm not very religious.

And then the Muslims were outraged by the existence of Infidels so when they came for me … there was no one left to speak up.

The last line is the ultimate goal of Islam the rest are just steps towards that goal. But atmospherics are beginning to turn. Imagine where Western societies should be a decade from now. More Muslims no doubt will make demographic advances in Western societies some ten years from now but non-Muslims will be even more informed and disgruntled by the surly, superior doctrines and behaviors of the Mohammedans by then.

For Islam to be eventually assigned to oblivion, it is imperative that huge numbers of Muslims see the light and leave their fraudulent faith. We must remain confident this will happen. The more one examines Islamic doctrine and the life of Mohammed, the more unacceptable each becomes for both non-Muslim and Muslim alike.

Knowledge is power and the only path to extinguishing revolutionary Islam in long term.

Alternatively, once the West finds its sea legs in this new paradigm, may not involve "consigning Islam to oblivion" but merely managing it as best as possible through global quarantine—an indefinite war without end, but finally one where we will have the clear advantage, once we wake up and discard the so-called political correctness that rules today.

And part of that waking up process involves the realization that most Muslims will never reform; coming to a mind that cannot really absorb the uniqueness of the full horror of that Islam bestows upon its willing victims, the Muslims; a people who truly, deeply, sincerely love all the evil and dangerous tenets of Islam and who are truly, deeply, sincerely fanatical, paranoid and hateful of all non-Muslims; a people who are hopeless, who will never, in numbers sufficient to solve our problem with Islam, live up to our Western Classical Liberal ideal of universalism where all humans must be, at heart, pro-human, and not anti-human, and if the conditions are right, any anti-human will reform and see the light, wholly rejecting the cult of death they know as Islam.

All other non-Western peoples show sufficient capability of living up to that ideal (some less than others perhaps), but Muslims are not merely the worst of the lot on the same scale, as a group they are off the scale. Unique. In terms of philosophical, psychological, and political science implications, we may say, mytho-poetically, that Muslims qua Muslims exist to kill and be killed.

LET 'EM EAT UPSIDE DOWN CAKE

“Surely something must be terribly wrong with a man who seems to be far more concerned with Jews building houses in Israel than with Muslims building a nuclear bomb in Iran.”
—Burt Prelutsky

WE ARE TOLD NOT TO CAST ASPERSIONS. We are told not not to stereotype. We are told not to assign blame to all Muslims for the strife, hatred and violence their cousins in the Islamist branch of the family tree produce. Sounds fabulously fair, doesn't it? However we are also asked to collectively categorize ALL Tea party marchers as middle-aged, wealthy, white racists who hate having a black president and want poor black and brown people to suffer.

NYC Mayor Michael's Bloomberg's pathetic remarks immediately after the car bomb was discovered are pathetic enough, but seem mild compared to the snarky scolding he issued this morning after the Islamic identity of the bomber was revealed.

Where is all that anti-Muslim backlash our politicians and CAIR keep warning us against? Have some cake...

We are instructed that it is in our best interest as part of the human race to send our money to poorer nations, to stop living in large homes, to cut down on our "carbon" footprints and to accept the science we are shown. We are told this by people who buy huge homes and make tons of money and resolutely disregard dissent.

And this administration, we are told, has a "boot to the neck" of British Petroleum?

Here, have some more cake...

HOLDER AND OBAMA IGNORE SUBPOENA

"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...

TURNING BACK THE BEAST

"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!"
—Mohammed

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.

PARSING THE FAILED STATE CONUNDRUM

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.

WORLD PEACE AT A GLANCE

HAPPY 2010 WISHES to all our silent readers, and yes, we have them as our Live Feed attests, but thankfully few are the ones who actually waste theirs or our precious time begging to differ, or in announcing themselves in any number of other less tedious ways...

But in a slow kickoff of the new year of Two-Fisted Quorum (despite the plethora of pungent events of late of which the national media has covered in various degrees of detail), here are a few skewered bits that may have missed your perusal:

Congressional Democrats scheme to push universal voting rights...

China announces new restrictions on its own band of merry Muslims...

Top dozen "media scares" of the past ten years. And you say the conspiracy isn't real?

Former NYC Mayor Ed Koch, inspired by a hard-hitting piece by Charles Krauthammer threw a crush punch at the Obama administration's mishandling of the recent terror attacks on US soil at Fort Hood and Detroit air space. One question Koch, a Democrat who supported Bush in '04 and Obama in '08, raised is why aren't we honoring those who brave men and women who stopped these two catastropes in their tracks? Where indeed?

So, let's piece together the few narrative threads we are offered by the mainstream media. Any Muslim who snaps and shows his true colors is merely an isolated case of an otherwise gentle soul getting his "buttons pushed" while those unfortunate enough to be caught red-handed with "terrorist ties" are part of some Tiny Minority of Extremists™ and surely not representative of mainstream Islam. So no matter how much regurgitated Qu'ran-speak is spewed out by Muslims, it is never representative of the whole. Must be a riot to have the mainstream media and western governments in one's hip pocket.

Ever wondered why you sometimes confuse "inalienable rights" with "unalienable rights" when pondering our Declaration of Independence? Read this for personal resolve. Note Jefferson's choice.

IDEOLOGY AND STRATEGIES OF GLOBAL JIHAD

Dear Gabriel,

Our friend and esteemed colleague Dr. Walid Phares comments below on the unprecedented acceleration of jihadist terror plots we have seen in the past few weeks, the latest in Springfield, Illinois.

Dr. Phares will be presenting a session entitled "The Ideology and Strategies of Global Jihad" at the American Congress for Truth national conference webcast on November 7th.

This conference, entitled "Radical Islam's Threat to America," is available FREE of charge to all elected officials, their staffs, and members of ACT! for America and American Congress for Truth. Log on to Act For America to find out more information and how you can participate.

And please pass the word about the conference to every elected official you know.

As we noted last week, we believe there is a correlation between the Obama administration's accelerated "outreach" effort to the Muslim world and the increase in terrorist plots. Within the world of jihadist Islam such efforts are viewed as weakness. They reinforce the supremacist political ideology shared by jihadists and, in doing so, embolden them.

What's more, these efforts send a message to the so-called "moderate" Muslims that the "strong horse" (to quote Osama bin Laden) they should get behind is, indeed, the jihadists.

Warning: The Jihadists are mushrooming inside America

Dr. Phares writes...

It is unprecedented in American counter terrorism annals: in one day the nation was dealing with three separate Jihadist plots to blow up civilian and other targets inside the Homeland. Although the cases were addressed at different time periods by the FBI and other agencies, nevertheless, the thickening web of Terror attempts breached the crossing line of US national security. This week, authorities revealed three conspiracies by American Jihadists: Michael C. Finton, a 29-year-old man who wished to follow the steps of American-born Taliban John Walker Lindh, was arrested after trying to detonate what he thought was a bomb inside a van outside a federal courthouse in Springfield, Ill.

Hosam Maher Husein Smadi, a 19-year old Jordanian national was arrested after placing what he believed was a bomb at a downtown Dallas skyscraper. But perhaps the most troubling case is of Afghan-born Najibullah Zazi who set up shop in suburban Denver, scouting the Web and visiting beauty supply stores in a hunt for chemicals needed to build bombs for Al Qaeda. Sources called the alleged plot one of the most significant terror threats to the U.S. since 9-11. Add to the list the North Carolina Jihad cell, led by Saifullah Boyd, which was planning on attacking civilian and military targets across the country.

The immediate question raised by an increasingly worried public is about the connection between all these terror cases: are they all connected? While law enforcement and certainly judicial authorities proceed in a bottom up reasoning, that is to build the case for a global connection between all what is happening with the help of legal evidence, analysts in the field of counter terrorism and conflict are already realizing the meaning of what is happening inside America.

In my book Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies against America (2005-2006), I clearly projected that Jihadists, individuals and cells will be mushrooming and expanding inside the United States within few years from then and that they will precisely do what they are trying to do now. I have also projected how large they will become, with time. It was a simple deduction: if the Government doesn't counter this ideological growth, Jihadists will keep coming. And in fact they kept coming, spreading crossing the barriers of ethnicities, races, nationalities and geographical frontiers.

The Jihadists committed to harm the US, and based inside our borders, are now by the hundreds. When I suggested this fact on CNN in 2006, and reiterated it on Oprah's show so that the public realizes what is to come, I raised a few eyes brows. Now unfortunately, we are meeting the cells of Jihadism in our cities and little towns, and sadly the expectation is that we will see more, and we may unfortunately not be able to stop them all from reaching their goals.

The North Carolina cell, the New York subway plot, the Dallas attempt, the Illinois case, added to the previous cases of the shooting of a soldier in Arkansas, the precedent New York cells, Georgia's young Jihadists, all the way back to the infamous Virginia paintball network, if anything gives us the genome of what is morphing inside the country—a vast body of dispersed cells with at least one binding force—the Jihadi ideology. The question thus is to find out who is propagating the doctrines of Jihadism: who is funding it; who is protecting the indoctrination operation which leads naturally to the rise of homegrown or foreign linked, lone wolves or packs of Jihadists, Terrorists. That is the real question: where is the factory?

What should the US Government do? Well, it must first of all come to the front of the threat and lead the nation against it. This is not a matter of only local police or law enforcement efforts. President Barack Obama and Congressional leaders from both parties must give this spreading plague a top priority—for if one of these groups is successful, our national economy will crumble again, or at least will be wounded even more severely, let alone the human consequences of terror.

Americans are watching with great concerns, these terror plots being revealed. They expect their elected officials to address these fears before the worse happens.

OBAMA SOWS MIDEAST WHIRLWIND

From Frank Gaffney, Jr., an esteemed analyst for the Center for Security Policy, dated Jun 01, 2009, I received this letter warning us of those dire circumstances most of us who follow US foreign policy already realize, namely that the persistently barnstorming POTUS is boxing our own nation and our staunchest Middle East ally, Israel, into an impossible standard where self-defense is not about safety but about survival. However, Mr. Gaffney makes several other newsworthy disclosures.

Read for yourself:

FROM THIS VANTAGE POINT [Jerusalem], two events this week appear to be ominous straws in the wind, warnings of a "man-caused" maelstrom that may inexorably plunge the Middle East into another, potentially cataclysmic war.

The first is the fact that Israel feels obliged to undertake an unprecedented, country-wide civil defense exercise this week. At one point in its course, every man, woman and child in the Jewish State is supposed to seek shelter from a simulated attack of the kind Iran may shortly be able to execute against it.

The second is President Barack Obama's latest effort to reach out to the Muslim world, this time on June 4 from one of its most important capitals, Cairo. There, he is expected to make an address that will reiterate his previous statements on the subject—pronouncements that, unfortunately, can only have been interpreted by his intended audience as acts of submission.

If past is prelude, the President of the United States will: apologize yet again for purported offenses against Muslims by his country; promise to be respectful of Islam, including those who adhere to its authoritative, if virulent, theo-political-legal program known as Shariah; and enunciate diplomatic priorities and initiatives designed to reach out to America's enemies in the region, while putting excruciating pressure on its most reliable ally there, Israel.

This pressure has become more palpable by the day. It has taken various forms, including: U.S. stances adopted at the United Nations that will serve to isolate Israel; blank political and even financial checks for Palestinian thugs like Mahmoud Abbas; diminishing U.S.-Israeli cooperation on intelligence and military matters; and the withholding from Israel of helicopters (and perhaps other weaponry) being provided to Arab states.

Perhaps the most chilling example of this coercive pressure so far, however, was originally reported in the Israeli paper Yediot Aharonot and given international prominence by my esteemed colleague and Jerusalem Post columnist, Caroline Glick. According to these accounts, in a recent lecture in Washington, U.S. Army Lieutenant General Keith Dayton, the American officer charged with training Palestinian military forces in Jordan, made a shocking declaration.

In Ms. Glick's words, "[Gen. Dayton] indicated that if Israel does not surrender Judea and Samaria within two years, the Palestinian forces he and his fellow American officers are now training at a cost of more than $300 million could begin killing Israelis." She went on to note that neither the general nor the Obama administration seemed to find this prospect grounds for rethinking the wisdom of such a training-and-arming program. In fact, her column observed that Defense Secretary Robert Gates "just extended Dayton's tour of duty for an additional two years and gave him the added responsibility of serving as Obama's Middle East mediator George Mitchell's deputy."

Taken together with the U.S. administration's refusal to come to grips with what truly is the most serious threat to peace in the Middle East—Iran's rising power and growing aggressiveness, reflecting in part its incipient nuclear weapons capabilities—the stage is being inexorably set for the next, and perhaps most devastating, regional conflict.

Whether the signals Mr. Obama is sending are intended to communicate such a message or not, they are going to be read by Israel's enemies as evidence of a profound rift between the United States and the Jewish State. In this part of the world, that amounts to an invitation to an open season on Israel.

It is hard to believe that the Obama Middle East agenda enjoys the support of the American people or their elected representatives in Congress. Historically, the public and strong bipartisan majorities on Capitol Hill have appreciated that an Israel that shares our values, that is governed democratically and that is in the cross-hairs of the same people who seek our destruction is an important ally. Quite apart from a sense of moral and religious affinity for the Jewish people's struggle to survive in their ancient homeland, most of us recognize that it is in the United States' strategic interest to stand with Israel.

It is worrisome in the extreme that Mr. Obama does not appear to share this appreciation. To those who worried about his affinity for the Saudi king and Islam more generally and his longstanding ties to virulent critics of Israel like Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi and former Harvard professor-turned-National Security Council staffer Samantha Power, the President's attitude is not exactly a surprise. His administration's posture may have been further reinforced by Arab-American pollster John Zogby's recent Forbes Magazine article arguing that friends of Israel made up John McCain's constituency, not Obama's. (This raises an interesting question about the sentiments towards Israel of the 78% of American Jews who voted for the latter in 2008.)

My guess, however, is that, as the implications of President Obama's Mideast policies—for the United States as well as Israel - become clearer, he is going to find himself facing the sort of popular and congressional revolt that has confronted him in recent weeks on Guantanamo Bay. The question is: Will such a reaffirmation of American solidarity with and support for Israel come in time to prevent the winds of war being whipped up by Mr. Obama's posturing and rhetoric—and driving Israelis into bomb shelters—from wreaking havoc in the Middle East, and perhaps far beyond?

Not hardly. Just a day after his warm massage of His Majesty in Saudi Arabia, and on the heels of his suggestive distortion that America is one of the largest Muslim nations (after declaring that the US was no longer a Christian nation) in the world, the truth-challenged but egregiously adored POTUS gave his much anticipated speech in Cairo this morning, brimming with bogus remarks about the nature and history of Islam. To his credit, however, he did concede in rather soft terms that he believed Israel had a right to exist as an independent state.

Such a marvelous concession after all these years from such a marvelous gamer. Unfortunately, he also suggested that Iran had a right to "peaceful nuclear power" which as we all know is a red herring given the evidence Iran has provided that it wants to extinguish the nation of Israel with one mighty blow, and liquidate every remaining infidel Jew in the necessary clean-up. Frankly, this is not an acceptable solution, Mister President.

HONORING THOSE WHO HAVE DIED

The first thing to know about World War II is that it was a big war, a war that lasted 2,174 days and claimed an average of 27,600 lives every day, or 1,150 an hour, or 19 a minute, or one death every three seconds. One, two, three, snap. One, two, three, snap.

In an effort to get our arms around this greatest calamity in human history, let's examine 10 things every American ought to know about the role of the U.S. Army in WWII.

The U.S. Army was a weakling when the European war began in earnest on Sept. 1, 1939, with the German invasion of Poland. The U.S. Army ranked 17th among armies in size and combat power, just behind Romania. It numbered 190,000 soldiers. It would grow to nearly 8.5 million by 1945.

When mobilization began in 1940, the Army had only 14,000 professional officers. The senior ranks were dominated by political hacks of certifiable military incompetence. Not a single officer on duty in 1941 had commanded a unit as large as a division in World War I. The Army's cavalry chief assured Congress that four well-spaced horsemen could charge and destroy an enemy machine-gun nest without sustaining a scratch.

The U.S. Army for a long time after we entered the war was not very good. Part of the WWII mythology is that all the brothers were valiant and all the sisters were virtuous. War is the most human of enterprises, and it reveals every human foible and frailty, as well as human virtues: cowardice and tomfoolery, as well as courage and sacrifice. The Greatest Generation appellation is nonsense.

In the first couple years of American involvement the Army was burdened with clearly inferior equipment and commanders. Those first couple years of war required a sifting out, an evaluation at all levels within the Army of the competent from the incompetent, the physically fit from the unfit.

It has sometimes been argued that in an even fight, when you matched one American battalion or regiment against a German battalion or regiment, the Germans tended to be superior, the better fighters. But who said anything about an even fight? Global war is a clash of systems. What matters is which system can generate the combat power needed to prevail, whether it's in the form of the 13,000 Allied warplanes available on D-day; the 10:1 American advantage in artillery ammunition often enjoyed against the Germans; or the ability to design, build and detonate an atomic bomb. What matters is which system can produce the men capable of organizing the shipping, the rail and truck transportation, the stupendous logistical demands of global war.

Germany could not cross the English Channel, which is only 21 miles wide, to invade Britain. The United States projected power across the Atlantic, the Mediterranean and the Pacific and into Southeast Asia and the Indian subcontinent. Power-projection, adaptability, versatility, ingenuity, preponderance—these are salient characteristics of the U.S. Army in WWII.

Read it all.

This is an important essay penned by Rick Atkinson for the Pittsburgh Post Gazette. Every young American whose mind has been mismanaged with great liberal skill needs to understand a few facts about her own nation. Please take a few minutes of your post-modernist attention span, and give Atkinson's full essay a chance to sink into your slippery post-American sensibilities. Our brave young men and women who died in WWII as well as other conflicts in which the nation stood battle deserve your consideration. Let's not continue to confuse the cold harsh reality as demonstrated by Dick Cheney this week with the rose-colored wishful thinking of President Obama.

We are now engaged in another war with an enemy just as pernicious as Nazi Germany. We must again stand firm and undivided against our enemies and produce this victory over a totalitarian machine. But like in those early days of WWII, America begins from a weak position, a position that the Islamic enemy exploits with well-honed strategic genius.

America this time staggers from a system whose industrial base has been abandoned in favor of an argumentative human resource and legal infrastructure that has been allowed to deteriorate. This war is not about silly romantic notions of relative values or moral egotism. This is about defeating an enemy that that been quite outspoken on the one hand that it wants to conquer, enslave, or annihilate the sorry House of the West, while on the other hand sends in its oil-rich infiltrators with manipulating claims of being either stealth allies and trading partners of the West, as well as relentlessly demanding victims of Western hospitality at every twist and turn in playing the system of political correctness to its own dualistic endgame.

Stand up. Be counted. Liberty must be defended, or it WILL be lost.

THE NEW COPPERHEADS

THE COPPERHEADS were a vocal group of Democrats in the northern and midwestern United States who opposed the American Civil War, wanting an immediate peace settlement with the Confederates. The name Copperheads was given to them by their opponents, the Republicans, because the venomous, although not usually deadly, copperhead snake can strike without warning (unlike a rattlesnake), and because some wore copper pennies as identifying badges. Although the Democratic party had broken apart in 1860, during the secession crisis Democrats in the North were generally more conciliatory toward the South than were Republicans. They called themselves Peace Democrats.

The most flamboyant spokesman for these "Peace Democrats" was Ohio's Clement L. Vallandigham.. Although the 13th Edition of The American Pageant makes a distinction between those termed Copperheads and those who agitated at the extreme end of the coalition called "Butternuts" (for the color of the Confederate uniforms).

During the American Civil War (1861-1865), the Copperheads nominally favored the Union and strongly opposed the war, for which they blamed abolitionists, and they demanded immediate peace and resisted draft laws. They wanted Lincoln and the Republicans ousted from power, seeing the president as a tyrant who was destroying American republican values with his despotic and arbitrary actions.

Even in an era of extremely partisan journalism, Copperhead newspapers were remarkable for their angry rhetoric. Wisconsin newspaper editor Marcus M. Pomeroy called Lincoln "fungus from the corrupt womb of bigotry and fanaticism" and a "worse tyrant and more inhuman butcher than has existed since the days of Nero... The man who votes for Lincoln now is a traitor and murderer... And if he is elected to misgovern for another four years, we trust some bold hand will pierce his heart with dagger point for the public good."

Some Copperheads tried to persuade Union soldiers to desert. They talked of helping Confederate prisoners of war seize their camps and escape. They sometimes met with Confederate agents and offered money. The Confederacy encouraged their activities whenever possible. Most Democratic party leaders, however, remained national patriots and resisted Confederate advances.

I don't know about you, but this description of the Copperhead Democrats strikes me remarkably close to a description of today's peace activists and their political strategies. Again, it's the Republicans who find these "copperheads" most repugnant at a time that such deliberate undermining compromises our nation's troops and puts our national security in peril against an avowed enemy. The fact is that we can't even properly name our enemy in this war as a result of becoming unequally yoked (think Saudi Arabia, Pakistan) with major forces within that enemy camp even as America endures and sacrifices to address the abject oppression, slavery, and other well-documented atrocities occurring under the Big Umbrella of Islam, by fighting it.

Perhaps it is time is to withdraw from the world stage long enough to restore our nation physically and psychologically in preparation for this war that has followed us right into our own universities and neighborhoods. Because it will take everything we've got.

Most Copperheads actively participated in politics. On May 1, 1863, former Congressman Vallandigham declared that the war was being fought not to save the Union but to free the blacks and enslave Southern whites. The Army then arrested him for declaring sympathy for the enemy. He was court-martialed and sentenced to imprisonment, but Lincoln commuted the sentence to banishment behind Confederate lines. The Democrats nevertheless nominated him for governor of Ohio in 1863; he campaigned from Canada but was defeated after an intense battle. He operated behind-the-scenes at the 1864 Democratic convention in Chicago; this convention adopted a largely Copperhead platform, but chose a pro-war presidential candidate, George B. McClellan. The contradiction severely weakened the chances to defeat Lincoln's reelection.

One thing should be evident. Today's vociferous political tenor is not new to this country. But we must ask ourselves to consider the enormous stakes today. In this clash of civilizations made impossibly vulgar by an unbridled, multicultural, politically correct feeding frenzy wading knee-deep into the nuclear age, we may not survive many more ill-intentioned mistakes by those who side with the enemy.

For those of you who don't think history repeats itself, here's something to chew. At the 1864 Democratic convention, Vallandigham persuaded the party to adopt a platform that declared the war a failure and called for negotiations with the Confederacy.

FROM MOHAMMED TO AYN RAND

IN A SPLENDID FRONTPAGE.COM piece, David Swindle, free lance writer, film critic, and blogger, interviews the former Muslim cartoonist Bosch Fawstin, creator of the fascinating anti-jihadist superhero character Pigman. It's time for Americans to inform themselves, grow bold, and take a stand, each in his or her own way wherever one can against the stealth jihad creeping into every continent on the globe, bringing the promise of sharia law with it. Here's a taste of what Mr. Fawstin is doing in this direction:

DS: What prompted you to abandon Islam? Could you discuss the circumstances behind that decision?

BF: I didn't so much abandon Islam as fade away from it, and I didn't have much faith to lose to begin with. It's tough to say you've left something if you've never really embraced it. Hugh Fitzgerald is right in saying "the atmospherics of Islam" can affect even the least devout Muslim in a detrimental way. A strong thrust within Islam is to see any and all things outside of Islam as worthless, most particularly non-Muslims. When we did go to mosque there was never any real sense that something important was taking place. The majority of us who were involved in this pretense had no idea what to do, unless we followed the imam's prayer moves (and many in attendance were fooling around anyway). "Islam" was the name of the thing that was held as 'the good' in my household, and it was that vagueness which helped keep it at bay. It was only when I started taking morality seriously that I realized Islam had nothing to offer me.

DS: You say that Islam had nothing to offer you. What did you find that did? What are the schools of thought and who are the thinkers who have most influenced you and your work?

BF: I found Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism, first by watching the film version of The Fountainhead, and then by reading her novels and nonfiction works. I felt at home reading her work. It was the first time in my life that I saw the concept of morality being taken seriously outside of religion. A morality that was based in reality and had more to say about life on earth, freedom and the individual than anything I had read before. It was only fitting that my favorite storyteller in comics, Frank Miller, was also influenced by her work, as was another favorite of mine, Steve Ditko, who has spent most of his career expressing Objectivist ideas through his work.

DS: Now that we know a bit more of the background behind your work lets discuss some of the specific pieces in ProPiganda and the ideas they depict. One of the most challenging, interesting illustrations in the book is the “They Say We Say” image on page 43. It's an illustration of a point you elaborate on in the book's essays: the enemy is Islam, the so-called moderate Islam of the West is not really true Islam at all. This strikes me as one of the most important ideas in the book. It's also one of the most controversial. Could you elaborate on this idea for those new to your work?

BF: They say Islam, we say anything but Islam, leaving the troubling impression that the enemy's religion is something other than Islam. There is no "Political Islam" or "Totalitarian Islam" that is distinguishable from Islam itself. Islam is normatively political and totalitarian. We have evaded the true meaning of Islam in the name of respect for religion. But we cannot avoid the consequences of doing so. Mohammed was a Muslim and his religion was Islam; he was not an Islamist practicing Islamism. He was a Muslim who practiced Islam and engaged in its violent Jihad, forcing Islam into a world it failed to get into on merit. And any Muslim who is peace-loving and tolerant is by implication condemning their violent, intolerant "prophet" and the means by which their religion was spread. How Islam spread tells us exactly what Islam means. When the moral standard for an entire culture is a bad guy who crossed the line as a way of life, it explains why his most devout followers are the most violent among Muslims. We can try our best to stay clear of Islam, but Muslims have proven that they will never keep Islam to themselves unless they are forced to. It is a faith that sanctions any evil against those who are not part of it. Our not calling this evil by its name, Islam, is sanctioning it and leaving ourselves at the mercy of those who will stop at nothing to bury all we hold dear.

DS: This understanding of Islam would represent a pretty fundamental shift in the American approach to the War on Terror. Currently US policy from the President down has held that Islam is not the enemy, that Islamic terrorists represent a perversion of Islam, and that the US is not engaged in a war with Islam. The ideas of ProPiganda turn that approach on its head, flipping each proposition 180 degrees: Islam is the enemy, Islamic terrorists are merely acting as Mohammad did, and that we actually are fighting a war against Islam. What implications would such a shift in ideas yield toward how the United States deals with this threat? In one of your essays you challenged President Bush for his "quarter-assed response to 9/11." Would it simply be a matter of getting more aggressive? Do we need to fight the War on Terror Pigman style?

BF: If 2,996 American politicians were murdered on 9/11, do you think Washington would have been interested in exonerating Islam and allowing this enemy to kill again? We all know the answer. Our politicians are so disconnected from the American people, that they now do everything but their job. If they can't defend us, they're good for nothing. They think that their job in this war is to win hearts and minds that already belong to Islam. And while they dispassionately wage a war on "terror", not jihad, they allow the two greatest state sponsors of jihad terrorism, Saudi Arabia and Iran, to remain in business. For now, our government goes big on us and small on jihad, while telling us that we are not fighting a war against Islam, even though Islam is fighting a war against us.

Ayn Rand said, "To fear to face an issue is to believe that the worst is true." And the worst is true about Islam, which is why no one in our government challenged Bush's famous anti-reality check, "Islam means peace." We have gone from the terribly named "War on Terror" to the now even more euphemistic "Overseas Contingency Operation," while the enemy has stuck with the same jihad for over a thousand years.

Those who've sworn to defend us have decided that there are more important things to them than defending us. As I wrote in my introduction to ProPiganda, "Our leaders have decided that, while the protection of America is optional, the defense of Islam is absolute." Our government has waged war the way the enemy wages peace and has never given the enemy a reason to end jihad. This enemy has been out for blood for over a thousand years. Obama, following in Bush's compassionate war mode, is hoping that the enemy tires in the face of our unused power. But they will never tire of spilling our blood; this is what they do, what they've always done, and they have always counted on their savagery to help them overcome all odds against those they conquered. So yes, we need to fight the War on Jihad, Pigman style. Above all, we need to follow the truth to wherever it may lead in order to show us what must be done. We need to terrify the enemy by saying and doing the once unthinkable against them and all they hold dear. You will see what I mean in The Infidel.

Read it all.

IT'S THE IMMIGRATION, STUPID!

As the United States announces that it will take in more than 5,000 Iraqi refugees now living in Syria, Brenda Walker of VDARE takes umbrage at the idea of persistent immigration of Muslims into our nations is in the best interests of the West. The article is rich in detail, and peppered with informative links. Here's a taste, sans its original links:

IF THERE IS ANYTHING that should make Americans' blood run cold about immigration, it is the sight of Europe—and Britain, the home of Western civilization—being buried by millions of Muslim colonists. Europe is just hoping against hope that Islam isn't going to explode into massive rioting (or worse), or impose total cultural Islamification.

Major jihadist terror occurred in London (July 7, 2005, killing 52 and injuring 700) and in Madrid (March 11, 2004, killing 191 and injuring 1841). Yet cowardly politicians continue policies of appeasement, which hostile Muslims correctly apprise as the fatal weakness of a culture too pacified to defend itself.

Some Europeans already accept the coming Eurabia. One Dutchman, mourning the future loss of Europe was quoted by Paul Belien as saying, "I am not a warrior, but who is? I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it."

Well, that's honest. But how about less self-pity and more directed anger? Many Americans I know in the patriotic immigration reform movement had a come-to-Jesus moment of awakening from passivity, turning to resolve to save the country.

Did America encourage Europe's socialist pacifism by protecting it too well, starting after the Second World War? Perhaps. Having your freedom handed to you on a plate is no way to appreciate its value.

Other causes of the continent's tragic downfall are rooted in recent history. They include business' desire for cheap labor (so familiar!), a trendy belief in secular multiculturalism as a replacement for Christianity and apparent ignorance of Islam's long-standing enmity toward Europe.

Now the triumphs of Tours and Vienna are being trampled by immigrants, entering mostly legally. It's a wonder the Muslims bother with terrorism at all when demography is working so well for them.

Read it all.

EVERY LIFE ON THE PLANET

HERE IS A NASTY QUIP FROM a savvy follower of Islam who calls himself Yemenman—in response to a March 2 Jihad Watch article in which Dutch legislator Geert Wilders is quoted as proposing the withdrawal of all hate speech legislation in Europe, and instead, proposing a European First Amendment.

I don't think this will pass. First of all, in Islam, Rasulullah (peace and blessings be upon Him) is very highly regarded. Not like Jesus or Moses are regarded in their respective religions, Muhammad is the red line you non-Muslims cannot cross.

How can you regulate the situation, say the Danish cartoon situation, if a billion people are boiling mad? Do you go on TV and say, hey, remember the First Amendment? or would you go around the Arab street telling people, "of course hate speech needs to be protected, otherwise why protect speech at all?" This logic works in a liberal, academic setting, but if people's basest emotion (of raw love to the Prophet) are hurt, then get ready for backlash. Causing anger might be "protected" in your fancy Western notion of freedom, but Islam goes straight to human nature and understands it. That is why hate speech is NOT protected in Islam -- it goes against the nature of human. Those who do nothing while their beliefs are trampled (or having their icons dipped in urine, for example) have a thin instinct of survival. They won't last another century.

That's why Islam will prevail. It cuts through all bullshit about freedom and goes straight to human nature. That's why Islam conquered the world barely 200 years after Muhammad's departure. People know that Islam is the real thing, not some theoretic framework made up by philosophers.

I hope this convinces you all that any efforts like those mentioned by Goat Wilders above are doomed to fail. You cannot suppress human nature. Islam is the solution. Aslam Taslim!

Putting aside Yemenman's mockery of the free speech and human nature arguments, the one aspect of his discourse that rings true is his supposition that because the Muslims do indeed intently believe, are taught to believe, are beaten into submission to believe that defending the honor of their "prophet" is their number one priority in life, this strength of focus will outweigh and ultimately defeat the soft "turn the other cheek" impulses of the Western Christian and free speech peoples. Given the dhimmi behaviors of our Western governments, one may easily grant Yemenman this point, not as ultimately true in fact, but at least, as an example of rational thought.

End of compassion for the Islamic barbarians.

Enter the Third Wave of Crusaders with superior technology and awakened masses. Now do the math. Much death and destruction, enough to go around to touch the core of every life on the planet.

Bottom line is this. Freedom is not free. Now is the time for all good men and women who value liberty and freedom of speech and reject totalitarian oppression whether it be from Leftists in your own government or Islamic barbarians armed and dangerous on your heels, to throw off the shackles of reluctance and indifference and finally take a stand for our way of life.

THE SPECTACLE OF RACE TWITTERING

In the national debate on Islam, oops, that's right there is none, but here is an honest perspective by Mark Quinn who frequently comments on what most in the West ignore—the obvious nasty nature of Islam.

ONE OF THE MOST frustrating things about the whole debate about Islam and its destructive influence around the world is this notion of racism, perpetuated by the extreme left (liberals) and the extreme right (Muslims), who as we know are all in bed together in some unholy union.

No, it is not correct to call Islam a race. However, if you take a look at the originators of Islam, the Arabic people, you will find no greater example of culture-wide and institutionalized racism. Most of us are extremely frustrated, for instance, when we see the speed with which Islam is growing among people of sub-Saharan African decent. We listen to their naive claims, planted by Muslims, that Islam is the true faith of Africa. We tell them the Arab people enslaved them for centuries, that the entire slave trade itself would have been nil if not for the Arab brokers who started it all. And yet they don't want to listen. The Arabs did far more than practicing "racism" against African people. It was a lot closer to genocide.

And yet, here we are, people who see a legitimate threat from Islam, and we have to endure being called racist when in fact we're the most liberal, modern people in the world. By "we" I mean people in western societies. We intermarry with each other on a fairly regular basis, we provide equal opportunities for people of all races, religions and genders, and generally speaking, we're happy to pull all the strengths of all the cultures of the world to make ours better and unique. I don't think there are too many of us on this forum who would throw a fit if we saw a member of our own race dating a member of another, or if we were working alongside someone from another race.

Now go and try to date a young Muslim woman. Best case scenario, the father would forbid it. Worst case scenario, your bride would be a head shorter.

I'm not so naive to think racism is non-existent in the world. I've seen a lot of prejudice among east Asians with regard to interracial dating. I myself come from an Italian-Irish background, and I know a lot of Italian-American fathers who wouldn't even allow their kids to have black friends come over. But two points on this. First, every decade that seems to fade more and more. Second, there's no such thing as institutionalized "honor killing" in the world at large. Islam might not have strict guidelines about racism, but I think I've made a point about their gross intolerance.

That's why this whole debate is so frustrating. If it wasn't for terrorism, if it wasn't for Jihad, if it wasn't for calls for Sharia Law, if it wasn't for endless demands for special treatment and consideration, if it wasn't for riots over cartoons, any of us would welcome the Muslim people into our societies with open arms.

How many Muslim societies would welcome us, even if we settled in their countries and conducted ourselves more quietly and unobtrusively than so many mice? Go ask the Copts that question, or the Kurds.

So here we are, having to endure this ridiculous argument that we're racist or intolerant, when in fact we've made a gargantuan effort to appease anyone and everyone who settles in our part of the world. Meanwhile, Muslims are an affront to everyone they encounter, and even as they plot our demise in their mosque services and literature, they preach about how horribly intolerant we are.

You almost feel like banging your head against a wall. It's like living in the Twilight Zone.

A LEARNING OPPORTUNITY FOR PEACENIKS

Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.) will be holding a Washington DC rally on March 8 at the front of the Capitol Reflecting Pool beginning at 1 PM to address the global challenge of women oppressed and killed in the name of Islamic supremacism. Word is that the leaders of this group will demand that our legislators recognize the threat to women around the world by this supremacist ideology.

Excellent development. And as one particular conservative radio host might say, this is shaping up to be a fabulous "learning opportunity" for many of the peace junkies and other assorted pavement stompers to actually discover that not everyone thinks about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness the way they think, not even close, and that strong and principled opposition to those people might actually be a good thing.

Even unto war.

WILDERS GIVES SPEECH IN NYC

"Our enemies should know: we will never apologize for being free men, we will never bow for the combined forces of Mecca and the Left."

Those penetrating words crown the marvelous Geert Wilders' speech given at the Four Seasons in New York City on February 23. Wilders is the the stalwart Dutch parliamentarian who was recently turned back from entering Great Britain due to pressures from a leading Islamic leader in that country. Here is the entire speech:

Thank you. Thank you very much for inviting me. And—to the immigration authorities—thank you for letting me into this country. It is always a pleasure to cross a border without being sent back on the first plane.

Today, the dearest of our many freedoms is under attack all throughout Europe. Free speech is no longer a given. What we once considered a natural element of our existence, our birth right, is now something we once again have to battle for.

As you might know, I will be prosecuted, because of my film Fitna, my remarks regarding Islam, and my view concerning what some call a ‘religion of peace’. A few years from now, I might be a criminal.

Whether or not I end up in jail is not the most pressing issue; I gave up my freedom four years ago. I am under full-time police protection ever since. The real question is: will free speech be put behind bars? And the larger question for the West is: will we leave Europe’s children the values of Rome, Athens and Jerusalem, or the values of Mecca, Teheran and Gaza?

This is what video blogger Pat Condell said in one of his latest you tube appearances. He says: “If I talked about Muslims the way their holy book talks about me, I’d be arrested for hate speech.” Now, Mr. Condell is a stand-up comedian, but in the video he is dead serious and the joke is on us. Hate speech will always be used against the people defending the West—in order to please and appease Muslims. They can say whatever they want: throw gays from apartment buildings, kill the Jews, slaughter the infidel, destroy Israel, jihad against the West. Whatever their book tells them.

Today, I come before you to warn of a great threat. It is called Islam. It poses as a religion, but its goals are very worldly: world domination, holy war, sharia law, the end of the separation of church and state, slavery of women, the end of democracy. It is NOT a religion, it is an political ideology. It demands your respect, but has no respect for you.

There might be moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam. Islam will never change, because it is built on two rocks that are forever, two fundamental beliefs that will never change, and will never alter. First, there is the Quran, Allah’s personal word, uncreated, forever, with orders that need to be fulfilled regardless of place or time. And second, there is al-insal al-kamil, the perfect man, Muhammad the role model, whose deeds are to be imitated by all Muslims. And since Muhammad was a warlord and a conqueror we know what to expect. Islam means submission, so there cannot be any mistake about it’s goal. That’s a given. It’s fact.

This is Europe 2009. Muslim settlers calling for our destruction, and free speech on trial. All this is the outcome of a sick and evil ideology, the ideology that is weakening us, the surrender ideology of cultural relativism. It believes that all cultures are equal, and therefore Islam deserves an equal place in the West. It is their duty, the left thinks, to facilitate Islam. This way the cultural relativists paradise comes within reach and we will all be happy, and sing kumbaya.

The forces of Islam couldn’t agree more. Islam being facilitated by government is their agenda too. But they see it as jizya, the money dhimmis pay in order not to be killed or raped by their Muslim masters. Therefore, they happily accept the welfare cheque or the subsidies for their mosque or the money governments donate to their organizations.

This is just one example of cultural relativists and Muslim settlers having the same agenda. There is another. Islam considers itself a religion and therefore we are not permitted to criticize it. The left agrees. Although it hated Christianity for decades, now that Islam appears on the scene, they suddenly change course and demand ‘respect’ for something they call a religion.

Again we see the left and Islam having the same agenda: it is a religion, so shut up.

This all culminates in a third coming-together: nor the left nor Islam is in favor of criticism. In fact, given the opportunity, they would simply outlaw it. Multiculturalism is the left’s pet project. It is actually their religion. Their love of it is so great, if you oppose it, it must be hate. And if you say it, it is labeled hate speech. Now here is something the Islam can agree on.

This is the essence of my short introduction today: where the left and Islam come together, freedom will suffer.

My friends, make no mistake, my prosecution is a full-fledged attack by the left on freedom of speech in order to please Muslims. It was started by a member of the Dutch Labour party, and the entire legal proceeding is done by well-to-do liberals, the radical chic of Dutch society, the snobbish left. Too much money, too much time, too little love of liberty. If you read what the court of Amsterdam has written about me, you read the same texts that cultural relativists produce.

How low can we go in the Netherlands? About my prosecution, The Wall Street Journal noted: “this is no small victory for Islamic regimes seeking to export their censorship laws to wherever Muslims reside”. The Journal concluded that by The Netherlands accepting the free speech standards of, “Saudi-Arabia”, I stand correct in my observation that—I quote—“Muslim immigration is eroding traditional Dutch liberties”.

Now, if the Wall Street Journal has the moral clarity to see that my prosecution is the logical outcome of our disastrous, self-hating, multiculturalists immigration policies, then why can’t the European liberal establishment see the same thing? Why aren’t they getting at least a little bit scared by the latest news out of, for example, the UK. News that tells that the Muslim population in Britain is growing ten times as fast as the rest of society. Why don’t they care?

The answer is: they don’t care because they are blinded by their cultural relativism. Their disdain of the West is so much greater than the appreciation of our many liberties. And therefore, they are willing to sacrifice everything. The left once stood for women rights, gay rights, equality, democracy. Now, they favour immigration policies that will end all this. Many even lost their decency. Elite politicians have no problem to participate in or finance demonstrations where settlers shout “Death to the Jews”. Seventy years after Auschwitz they know of no shame.

Two weeks ago, I tried to get into Britain, a fellow EU country. I was invited to give a speech in Parliament. However, upon arrival at London airport, I was refused entry into the UK, and sent back on the first plane to Holland. I would have loved to have reminded the audience of a great man who once spoke in the House of Commons.

In 1982 President [Ronald] Reagan gave a speech there very few people liked. Reagan called upon the West to reject communism and defend freedom. He introduced a phrase: ‘evil empire’. Reagan’s speech stands out as a clarion call to preserve our liberties. I quote: If history teaches anything, it teaches self-delusion in the face of unpleasant facts is folly. What Reagan meant is that you cannot run away from history, you cannot escape the dangers of ideologies that are out to destroy you. Denial is no option.

So, what should we do? Is this a good moment for freedom-loving people to give in or to change course? To all-of-a-sudden start singing praise of Islam, or proclaiming there is such a thing as a moderate Islam? Will we now accept the continuation of Muslim mass immigration to the West? Will we appease sharia and jihad? Should we sacrifice gay rights and women rights? Or democracy? Should we sell out Israel, our dearest ally, and a frontline state of Islam?

Well, my humble opinion is: No way, Jose!

I suggest to defend freedom in general and freedom of speech in particular. I propose the withdrawal of all hate speech legislation in Europe. I propose a European First Amendment. In Europe we should defend freedom of speech like you Americans do. In Europe freedom of speech should be extended, instead of restricted. Of course, calling for violence or unjustly yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre have to be punished, but the right to criticize ideologies or religions are necessary conditions for a vital democracry. As George Orwell once said: “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear”.

Let us defend freedom of speech and let us gain strength and work hard to become even stronger. Millions think just like you and me. Millions think liberty is precious. That democracy is better than sharia. And after all, why should we be afraid? Our many freedoms and our prosperity are the result of centuries of endeavour. Centuries of hard work and sacrifice. We do not stand alone, and we stand on the shoulders of giants.

Late December 1944 the American army was suddenly faced with a last-ditch effort by the Germans. In the Ardennes, in the Battle of the Bulge, Hitler and his national-socialists fought for their last chance. And they were very successful. Americans faced defeat, and death.

In the darkest of winter, in the freezing cold, in a lonely forest with snow and ice as even fiercer enemies than the Nazi war machine itself, the American army was told to surrender. That might be their only chance to survive. But General [Anthony] McAuliffe thought otherwise. He gave the Germans a short message. This message contained just four letters. Four letters only, but never in the history of freedom was a desire for liberty and perseverance in the face of evil expressed more eloquently than in that message. It spelled N – U – T – S. “Nuts”.

My friends, the national-socialists got the message. Because it left no room for interpretation!

I suggest we walk in the tradition of giants like General McAuliffe and the American soldiers who fought and died for the freedom of my country and for a secular and democratic Europe, and we tell the enemies of freedom just that. NUTS! Because that’s all there is to it. No explanations. No beating around the bush. No caveats.

Our enemies should know: we will never apologize for being free men, we will never bow for the combined forces of Mecca and the left. And we will never surrender. We stand on the shoulders of giants. There is no stronger power than the force of free men fighting for the great cause of liberty. Because freedom is the birthright of all man.

ANN COULTER

WITHOUT RESORTING TO HER USUAL banter of sarcasm and low blows, Ann Coulter still softens no punches in making her viewpoint perfectly clear to Hardball's Chris Matthews, apparently filmed off-location in sunny Florida.

IGNORANCE AS A POLITICAL POINT OF VIEW

RATIONAL THOUGHT OR FACTS are the only tools we have to combat political Islam. On the basis of facts and logic, the kafirs beat the dhimmis and the Muslims, every time. But rational thought is being declared an enemy of the Newstate. The Newstate is the government, the media, and the universities. They all work as one team now. The war against political Islam has become a war to preserve the remnants of rational/critical thought. It is the purpose of the Newstate to eliminate critical/rational thought and analysis. The battle is not with Islam; the battle is with us and how we think.

There is a rational basis for discussing Islam, but people do not want a rational basis because they really don’t want to open the box and look inside. There is a profound fear of actually looking into the eyes of Mohammed and knowing the mind of Islam. Fear, because we feel ourselves to be in the position of a spouse who has suspicions that their partner is cheating on them. If they found out that their suspicions were true, they would have to do something, so it seems better not to know. To keep us from asking questions and wanting to know, the Newstate has declared knowledge about Islam is to be called bigotry.

We just don’t do that, you know, discuss Islam. It is not proper behavior. Bigots don’t like Muslims. Isn’t being afraid of Islam called Islamo-phobia? Exerting critical thought about Islam gets you labeled as mentally and ethically ill. The primary weapon of the Newstate against knowledge is name-calling and insults.

To have knowledge about political Islam is a crime against the Newstate.

It is a crime because the authority of the Newstate has decreed it to be so. The genius of the Newstate is knowing that if facts are made a civil crime then critical thought cannot begin. For this reason, the media never, but never, connects the dots of what is happening with political Islam.

We are beginning to mimic the thinking process of Islam. Islam does not allow critical thought, because critical thought is based upon doubt. Doubt might cause you to ask questions like: “Why was Mohammed having the heads of 800 male Jews cut off? Why were the women and children sold in wholesale lots to get money for financing jihad?”

The Newstate has decreed what knowledge is allowed and what knowledge is forbidden. We have lists of ideas that cannot be argued in public without some sort of censor. Go to any university, newspaper or government agency and see if you can discuss:

The role of Islam in world slavery

In a women’s studies class, see if you can discuss how Sharia law oppresses women around the world

The history of dhimmi

The Islamic annihilation of Buddhist culture in Afghanistan

The role of political Islam in the Israel/”Palestinian” war

See if there is any critical thought about Islam anywhere in the school, newspaper, or government agency

See if you can get the local paper to run any articles on the above. Maybe National Public Radio will do a segment. Not! If you try to get the Rotary club or a local church to talk about any of these and you will find no forum. No one wants to know. You better not talk about it at work, either. If Human Resources hears about it you will be in deep bigot country.

Everybody knows this is at the same cultural level of knowing not to “break wind” in public. You just don’t talk about Islam in public territory. It is like telling N-word jokes. It’s not done.

We call this constraint of public discourse political correctness. Islam has a word for political correctness—haram, meaning it is forbidden. The Newstate now enforces what is allowed (halal) and what is forbidden (haram). Islamic knowledge has always been authoritative and now the Newstate is demanding the authority to tell us when to speak or not to speak. So, the Newstate enforces haram for Islam.

Freedom of speech and the speech of dissent is fading. America is in the beginning phases of authoritarianism. Universities are becoming centers of authoritarian knowledge—not centers of analytic and scientific reasoning. Critical or analytic thinking demands looking at all sides of a question. One of the most important questions of the 21st century is how do we deal with political Islam. But no university teaches any subjects on Islamic slavery, the Islamic annihilation of Christianity or Hinduism, Jews as dhimmis, or any suffering that Islam causes.

The very basis of all Islam—the Sunna, the Sira (Mohammed’s canonical biography), the Hadith (his traditions) are not taught. Oh, you might study a verse or a hadith, but not a systematic study.

If we speak out against political Islam, we are called bigots. But the charge of bigotry is a morals charge. We, who know, are called immoral. We are not factually wrong, but morally wrong. Why is it that knowing the life and traditions of Mohammed makes someone immoral, while not knowing the Sunna makes you morally superior? Why has ignorance become a valid point of view?

All of the doctrine of Islam is found in the Trilogy of Koran, Sira, and Hadith
. If you have not read these then you have not read both the foundation and the entirety of Islam. Why should any official, professor, priest, rabbi, preacher, or media pundit have any right to speak at all until they have read the basic material? Why should ignorance be a leadership quality?

America was founded based on arguments and debates, but now dissent is becoming morally wrong. For example: The New York Times is backing the suppression of Geert Wilder’s movie Fitna. In a shame and a disgrace, the Times condemns the man. They condemn him because he is offensive and insulting. Offensive to whom? Not to me. And they never once asked any questions about whether what he says is true. Truth is no defense against forbidden knowledge, haram. Instead they say he is the equivalent of a European redneck. They attack the messenger and not that facts. They don’t want to know about or look at the facts. Why is it that Islam can be offensive, but I can’t? Where are we are we headed here?

I am more afraid of the ACLU and the Federal government than I am of Islam. The Newstate is beginning to act as a partner with political Islam. Whatever political Islam demands, the Newstate will deliver. The Newstate has decreed that ignorance is the acceptable political point-of-view. And those who represent facts and critical thinking will be punished and condemned as moral criminals and enemies of the Newstate.

At this critical juncture, you have two choices. You can choose ignorance, fear and not being a bigot to please the Newstate. This means being a dhimmi (a kafir servant of Islam). There is another path, the path of knowledge, critical thinking and defending your civilization by telling truth about political Islam. You can choose fear, ignorance and cowardice, or you can choose critical reasoning, knowledge and courage. It is your choice. If you choose courage and knowledge, first ground yourself in some of the truth of the doctrine by reading Mohammed’s biography. It is sacred literature and will do more for you to understand Islam more than any other single thing.

Also check out the information on citizenwarrior.com, and join ACT! for America.

—Bill Warner

The ugly truth is that Islamic Supremacy is what we continue to highlight here. Islamic presumption is plain and clear: Their version of Allah (Arabic word for improper noun, GOD) owns everything, and by extension, those following him can pencil themselves at the top of this new world order. They hide the fact that Islam is not just a religion but a TOTAL SYSTEM.

It is a theocracy consisting of:

A RELIGIOUS SYSTEM that subjugates all people and holds them by a combination of fear and pie in the sky sexual and feasting after-life hyper indulgence. An easy sell to sell to bored males 18-30 years old.

A FINANCIAL SYSTEM that forces 2 1/2 percent of all banking profits to go to Islamic 'charities' and a forced poll tax foisted upon conquered peoples as an alternative to being killed or conversion to this SYSTEM.

A POLITICAL SYSTEM that uses the religious notions of the Koran as a trojan horse to usher in an intolerant totalitarian system contrary to established laws and freedom based on our US Constitutional rights.

One group, Muslims of America claims to be nonviolent, saying in a recent statement that its honored leader Sheik Gilani, founder of the parent group of MOA called al-Fuqra "does not condone nor teach us to condone violence, especially against the innocent."

Raids by police, however, in 1992 and 1993 on a 101-acre Muslim commune in central Colorado turned up bombs, automatic weapons, ammunition and plans for terrorist attacks. At least two of the communes—in New York and California—have shooting ranges. The US State Department, rarely a font of public revelation, has admitted that al-Fuqra seeks to purify Islam through violence.

For a blow by blow of how the SYSTEM plays itself out click here.