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.

JIHAD IN LITTLE ROCK SHOOTING

As plain as day. But still our military intelligence corps stumbles all over itself trying to downplay the obvious. Such immense self-loathing in the broad and toothy face of an army of jihadists so cocksure of its own righteous endeavors, that every makeshift soldier we capture in vain usually sings chapter and verse like a canary before, during, and after an attack, precisely the reason why they are attacking.

Or they invent one on the spot from the latest headlines, knowing how much we the enemy will grieve over our own successes, knowing gleefully by heart the Qu'ran gives them carte blanche to kill the infidels just as a matter of manifest destiny as the West remains deaf, dumb, and moronic in dealing with its adversaries, like a drunken but broken empire already on its knees...

This fellow apparently was a slow learner.

MEMPHIS — A Tennessee man accused of killing a soldier outside a Little Rock, Ark., military recruiting station last year has asked a judge to change his plea to guilty, claiming for the first time that he is affiliated with a Yemen-based affiliate of Al Qaeda.

In a letter to the judge presiding over his case, the accused killer, Abdulhakim Muhammad, calls himself a soldier in Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and calls the shooting “a Jihadi Attack” in retribution for the killing of Muslims by American troops.

“I wasn’t insane or post traumatic nor was I forced to do this Act,” Mr. Muhammad said in a two-page, hand-printed note in pencil. The attack, which he said did not go as planned, was “justified according to Islamic Laws and the Islamic Religion. Jihad — to fight those who wage war on Islam and Muslims.”

It remains unclear whether Mr. Muhammad really has ties to Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which President Obama has said is behind the attempted Christmas Day bombing of an American plane by a Nigerian man.

But if evidence emerges that his claim is true, it will give the June 1, 2009, shooting in Little Rock new significance at a time when Yemen is being more closely scrutinized as a source of terrorist plots against the United States.

Mr. Muhammad, 24, a Muslim convert from Memphis, spent about 16 months in Yemen starting in the fall of 2007, ostensibly teaching English and learning Arabic. During that time, he married a woman from south Yemen. But he was also imprisoned for several months because he overstayed his visa and was holding a fraudulent Somali passport, the Yemen government said.

Under pressure from the United States government, Yemen deported Mr. Muhammad in late January 2009. But just four months after his return, Mr. Muhammad used a semiautomatic rifle to gun down two soldiers — Pvt. William A. Long and Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula — while they were standing outside a military recruiting station in Little Rock, killing Private Long and wounding Private Ezeagwula.

Read it all.

DRAWING CONCLUSIONS ON THE WALL

LET US ENGAGE IN A SIMPLE thought experiment (an adaptation):

A young man erupts in rampage, shooting over 100 rounds into a crowded reception center on a military base, killing over a dozen and wounding many more. Afterwards, it is learned that the shooter was a soldier himself, a fairly high ranking officer in fact. It is also discovered that he has long held Nazi sympathies, and has posted on Neo-Nazi websites. Journalists uncover evidence that he had been distributing Nazi leaflets and copies of "Mein Kampf" on the morning of the attack. When the press finally gets around to interviewing survivors of the incident, they confrim that the shooter shouted "Heil Hitler" as he opened fire.

Given this forensic data would there be any question about whether or not the shooter's actions were ideologically driven?

Would the reportage weave a narrative of his supposed victimization, or would it raise alarms at the presence of avowed Neo-Nazis in our miltary ranks?

Would we be warned "not to jump to conclusions" by our political leaders, or would we be told to fear the threat of an oncoming wave of similar attackers spawned by right-wing radio?

Would his neighbors and superiors have been more likely to report his rantings to the authorities?

More than the attack of one lone jihadi, the answers to the above questions are the bullets that truly scare me...

Aside from the fact that when Muslims kill in the name of their religion and the first thing Muslims en masse (plus those useful idiots like Geraldo Rivera) then do is worry what sort of blowback will happen to them, while going "postal" to my knowledge has never been done in the name of Jesus, Yahweh, etc. These secular tragedies are not motivated by religious sentiments as are killings committed by Muslims the world over in the name of Islam. It's apples and oranges here.

As I've often opined, when the day comes again that Presbyterians, Lutherans, Buddhists, Jews or just about any group of believers but Muslims start committing heinous crimes in the name of their religion, I'll rethink matters on the ground. Until then, I observe only one religion out there that inspires people to kill in its name. You know which one. I know which one. Even many of the PC folks out there on the nip tuck know but won't even admit it to themselves. Stupid world.

REVOLUTION IN THE SOIL

STIRRING SPEECH. But is it meant to be taken seriously?

YOU'RE SPEAKING MY LANGUAGE, TONY B

WITH THE INAUGARATION a week away, many Americans—fearful about the economy and uncertain about the future—are desperately pinning their hopes on Barack Obama and his "new New Deal."

But hopeful rhetoric, new programs with massive price tags, and "green investments" are not the solution, says bestselling author and syndicated columnist Tony Blankley. The solution lies in us; the solution lies in American Grit.

American Grit, Blankley's controversial new book, calls for a bold new nationalism—based on hard work, sacrifice, and policies that put America first—to tackle the global and domestic challenges facing our nation.

Blankley warns that Obama's socialist and environmentally sensitive agenda will weaken our embattled nation and invite new threats to America's economic and national security. Instead, Blankley prescribes his own compelling plan, calling upon the U.S. to implement:

A universal military draft to instill the unity, toughness, and cultural purpose lacking in America

An energy security policy where we become oil exporters and expand our diplomatic and economic options in the Middle East and around the world

A proactive, real-world communications strategy that showcases America as the true defender of freedom and opportunity

A new attitude that accepts the duties of citizenship instead of simply demanding more "rights" and "hand outs."

Yes, it's that simple. And I prefer to call this a radical centrist approach to fixing America. Thanks Mr. Blankley for your contribution to this vital reckoning of our times. America definitely needs to toughen up, or those who are tough (Russia, China, Middle East, Israel) will soon enslave the weak and despondent self-obsessed people we have become.

REMEMBERING THE BATTLEFIELD AGENDA

"Some of us are wearing combat boots in a flip flop world..."

IT SEEMS TO ME that since the United States, with at least one hand tied behind its back in politically correct restraints, is fighting an agitating people that lives and thinks in 7th century terms, US leadership needs to come to a reckoning that its forces need and should fight like it is still the 7th century. Or perhaps they might ask themselves how the Roman Empire would have handled this strategic flummoxing that Afghanistan and Iraq have been? Perhaps someone in high command should ponder the question of how might the Babylonians have handled these invasions, retaliatory or otherwise? These ancient powers would have broken the countries up into little manageable pieces. They would have wiped out any town that had insurgency problems.

Until the West is willing to take the extreme measures that are required to reach the objective—defeating unconditionally the terrorist mindset—it must either leave or embrace what the military situation requires. Of course, the West will not wipe out villages. The PR would cause pandemonium within our own cultures, peacelovers that we are. And the West would certainly lose access to oil imports from unsympathetic nations and their allies.

So since the West can't win under these terms, it should get the hell out. Forget this nation-building agenda. Other Muslim countries don't give a damn about Muslims killing Muslims, only about the infidels killing Muslims. Set up a bloody puppet regime in Afghanistan and Iraq to restore temporary order, and leave, saving our own people much valuable human resources and treasure, leaving these impossibly backward tribes to hash out their own fates the only way they seem prepared to accept—under the brutality of increasingly radicalizing Islamic despots.

When a military entity enters into war it enters to win, not play political games or try to assuage the enemy's hurt feelings or those of the spineless here at home. WWII was the last war the United States has entered where we were in it to win it. Since then every skirmish American troops have been put on the line has been a political endeavor. Primarily, this strategy has been the result of the liberal agenda which maintains the fantasy that all ideologies and cultural policies are equal, except when America itself can be blamed.

There hasn't been much discussion, almost nothing in fact, concerning the details of the what and the why of this whole war crisis America finds itself funding way beyond its means. The candidates speak of some nebulous threat without putting the pigment and the masterful stroke into the line drawing. In fact, this same understatement of facts and passions seems to be the same sorry course of much of the political agenda being batted back and forth by the two major candidates, much to the chagrin of the American people. Don't We The People deserve better?

OBAMACRATS GRASPING AT STRAWS

DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN STUMBLING all over themselves in the last few days, trying to somehow stop the inevitable bump that McCain has already gotten from naming Sarah Palin as his VP pick. Unlike Obama’s VP choice, Joe Biden, who actually had him lose points in all of the relevant polling, Sarah Palin has given an initial 2 point bump for McCain, and today’s number will show an even better prospect.

After trying to paint Palin as an “inexperienced” candidate, a clearly ridiculous attempt since their main candidate fares far worse than her in this aspect, they are now trimming down their attack to only one complaint: “She doesn’t have ANY National Security experience!”

Apparently, they had to get specific with their attacks when they realized that the majority of people still see her as better suited to be President than both Democratic candidates, all thanks to her 13 years of executive experience (no matter how minimal, since they have NONE). The question then is: Is this new line of attack and criticism accurate? NO!

It turns out that the attacks are NOT consistent with her record:

Alaska is the first line of defense in our missile interceptor defense system. The 49th Missile Defense Battalion of the Alaska National Guard is the unit that protects the entire nation from ballistic missile attacks. It’s on permanent active duty, unlike other Guard units.

As governor of Alaska, Palin is briefed on highly classified military issues, homeland security, and counterterrorism. Her exposure to classified material may rival even Biden’s. She’s also the commander in chief of the Alaska State Defense Force (ASDF), a federally recognized militia incorporated into Homeland Security’s counterterrorism plans.

Palin is privy to military and intelligence secrets that are vital to the entire country’s defense. Given Alaska’s proximity to Russia, she may have security clearances we don’t even know about. According to the Washington Post, she first met with McCain in February, but nobody ever found out. This is a woman used to keeping secrets. She can be entrusted with our national security, because she already is.

In other words, her security clearance and experience in these matters exceeds even Mr. Biden’s, who parades himself as a “National Security Expert”. Of course, this by far surpasses Mr. Obama, who can only find out about National Security matters by watching CNN and/or by Googling the pertinent terms on his laptop.

Read it all.

Howard Dean and his cohorts want to remake the Democratic party by ending the New Deal coalition and courting small business and high-tech workers instead of labor. The strategy is to cultivate the West and jettison those bitter white working class losers in the South and places like Ohio and Pennsylvania:

There is an irony in the party of the downtrodden becoming the party of America’s economic winners, but in fact Democrats are doing better among voters in places that are prospering, like Colorado and New Mexico, and losing ground among voters in regions that are experiencing hard times, such as West Virginia or parts of Pennsylvania and Ohio. A Democratic turn toward the West would accelerate this trend.

A party of the Western megapolitans and resort communities would be a party less and less like the party of FDR, Truman, Kennedy, and LBJ. It would be more oriented to the haves than to the have-nots. It would rely more on educated voters. Its approach to social issues would be more matter-of-fact, and candidates would be less fearful of alienating the most reactionary evangelicals.

It would be more oriented toward small businesses and thus more skeptical of workplace regulations. It might become a party that puts more emphasis on achieving energy independence and combatting global warming than on providing universal health care and social justice.

“It’s a party that becomes more Hispanic, and less African-American,” Kenneth Baer, the co-founder of Democracy: A Journal of Ideas, said. “More oriented toward high-tech workers and less towards labor. It’s the end of the New Deal coalition.”

More...

OR WAIT, PERHAPS IT'S ALL JUST ONE BIG ILLUMINATI NEW WORLD ORDER CONSPIRACY.

But let's keep it sane (even if there is some pernicious blood-sucking conspiracy bigger than GOD behind all this madness.)

The Confluence states, "The reason that some of us will support Palin, even though we may not agree with all of her political positions, is that she is not an illegitimate candidate. She did not steal votes from her opponent. She did not smear us with charges of racism. She actually has a lot in common with some of us (mother, businesswoman, athlete, et cetera). And the man who will be her boss showed us that he is at least listening and aware of our presence. He didn’t flick us off his shoulder and tell us we weren’t needed. He didn’t play the abusive boyfriend and say “where else are you gonna go babe?”

Because it doesn't stop there.



Barack Obama contends that he is more experienced in executive matters than Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin because he has managed his presidential campaign for the past 18 months. Speaking on a cable news channel Monday night, the Democratic presidential nominee said he is better prepared to handle a disaster like Hurricane Gustav because of his pursuit of the White House.

“Well, my understanding is that Governor Palin’s town of Wasilla has, I think, 50 employees. We’ve got 2,500 in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe $12 million a year. You know, we have a budget of about three times that just for the month. So I think that our ability to manage large systems and to execute I think has been made clear over the last couple of years,” Obama said.

John McCain’s spokesman called the suggestion “laughable.”

“For Barack Obama to argue that he’s experienced enough to be president because he’s running for president is desperate circular logic and its laughable. It is a testament to Barack Obama’s inexperience and failing qualifications that he would stoop to passing off his candidacy as comparable to Governor Sarah Palin’s executive experience managing a budget of over $10 billion and more than 24,000 employees,” said spokesman Tucker Bounds.

DON'T LET THEIR BREASTS DROOP

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION IS SOON BEHIND US, and not a moment too soon. To transcribe the hypocritical nature of "the decider" is a long and arduous task, too daunting a task to deal with here, so let's just point a finger at all this, uh, trading with Iran during his administration. After nearly fifty years of tough sanctions against tiny, powerless Cuba, and no end in sight, what does America do in the face of a more challenging opponent, that oppressive yet boastful member of the axis of evil nations our president named in his very first State of the Union address—Iran, supposedly hamstrung with official policy sanctions issued from both the United Nations and the United States government?

Oh yeah, humanitarian aid.

Or so we thought. It turns out that the Bush Administration is even more hypocritical than even we knew—reversing a Clinton Administration stranglehold on Iran in trade. Motor City blogger Debbie Schlussel knows. In 2001 we exported only $8.3 million worth in goods to Iran. Last year it was $146 million. And, as with the Coke and the Pepsi, it wasn't just the "bare necessities" that the Bushies allowed to go to prop up this Crown Jewel in the Axis of Evil.

There are plenty of items on Iran's shopping list the United States is more than happy to supply: cigarettes, brassieres, bull semen and more. U.S. exports to Iran grew more than tenfold during President Bush's years in office even as he accused it of nuclear ambitions and sponsoring terrorists. America sent more cigarettes to Iran—at least $158 million worth under Bush—than any other product.

Other surprising shipments during the Bush administration: fur clothing, sculptures, perfume, musical instruments and military apparel. Top states shipping goods to Iran include California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio and Wisconsin, according to an analysis by The Associated Press of seven years of U.S. government trade data...

"I understand that these exports have increased. However, we believe that they are increasing to a segment of the population that we want to reach out to, we want to know and understand that the U.S. government, the U.S. people want to be friends with them, want to work with them to integrate them into the world economy and become partners in the future," Gonzalo Gallegos, a State Department spokesman, said Tuesday when asked by reporters about AP's findings.

The government tracks exports to Iran using details from shipping records, but in some cases it's unclear whether anyone pays attention.

Sanctions are intended in part to frustrate Iran's efforts to build its military, but the U.S. government's own figures showed at least $148,000 worth of unspecified weapons and other military gear were exported from the United States to Iran during Bush's time in office. That included $106,635 in military rifles and $8,760 in rifle parts and accessories shipped in 2004...

Iran received at least $620,000 in aircraft parts and $19,600 worth of aircraft during Bush's terms. Iran relies on spare parts from other countries to keep its commercial and military aircraft flying. In some cases, U.S. sanctions allow shipments of aircraft parts for safety upgrades for Iran's commercial passenger jets. . . .

The U.S. government seems uncoordinated on efforts to limit trade with Iran.

Read it all.

Bush, oh Mr. Bush, why did you sell us out to the enemy? Tell us why. We know, you just wanted the money and the friends you made, and you just wanted things to go way the they were supposed to, we know, but we just want you to admit it, fair and square.

OBAMA'S MAN IN GITMO

IT'S FITTING THAT an ex-Muslim chaplain who once insisted there weren't any terrorists at Gitmo is a delegate for Barack Obama, who's itching to shut down Gitmo.

That Obama man is James "Yousef" Yee, a former Army Muslim chaplain charged with espionage while serving at Gitmo, who will represent Washington state for Obama at the Democratic National Convention, where he'll likely have a center-stage speaking role. The two are a perfect match. Obama promises to not only close Gitmo, but "reform" the USA Patriot Act. He apparently plans to take those steps in between tea parties with state sponsors of terror.

Since the Pentagon in 2004 dropped charges against him, Yee has become a poster boy of the anti-war movement. He's cashed in on his ignominy with a book claiming he was the target of "sheer bigotry" and was silenced for exposing "systemic" abuse of prisoners at Gitmo.

One of his biggest boosters in Washington is Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the Muslim convert who insisted on taking the oath of office on the Quran. Ellison is an Obama superdelegate who's been doing advance work for Obama's planned tea parties in the Middle East.

Last month, he told an Egyptian weekly that Yee's "case was dropped because there was no case to begin with."

Nice try. Here are the facts:

1. Yee was caught returning to the U.S. with maps of Gitmo prison facilities, among other classified materials, and was arrested at a U.S. airport.

2. He was charged with espionage, mishandling classified documents and lying to investigators.

3. He served hard time in a South Carolina stockade.

4. Two of his Muslim cronies at Gitmo were convicted of stealing or mishandling classified documents.

5. Far from being exonerated, the military dropped charges against him to protect national security.

Guantanamo commander Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, who originally accused Yee of spying, explained that there were "national security concerns that would arise from the release of the evidence" if the case moved to trial.

There's no question that Yee, a captain who converted to Islam, was sympathetic to al-Qaida and Taliban captives at Gitmo. At times, in fact, he acted more like a defense attorney for the terrorists. He complained that guards subjected them to cruel "abuse" and "psychological torture."

Waterboarding? Electric shock? No, they committed the sadistic act of mishandling copies of the Quran that Yee had made sure each inmate received. He also saw to it that each copy of the Quran came with a surgical mask to cradle the Muslim holy book above ground to keep it safe and clean.

In addition, Yee convinced his superiors to provide the Muslim prisoners with prayer beads, prayer oils, prayer caps and up to half a dozen books on Islam from the library, which he stocked with some $26,000 worth of Arabic and English titles. Thanks to him, the terrorists have been able to brush up on their jihad as they await repatriation to Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Pakistan.

Read it all.

RUSH LIMBAUGH NAILS THIS ISSUE

by Rush Limba​ugh

I think​ the vast diffe​rence​s in compe​nsati​on betwe​en victi​ms of the Septe​mber 11 casua​lties and those​ who die servi​ng our count​ry in unifo​rm are profo​und.

No one is reall​y talki​ng about​ it eithe​r,​ becau​se you just don'​t criti​cize anyth​ing havin​g to do with Septe​mber 11.​ Well,​ I can'​t let the nu​mbers​ pass by becau​se it says somet​hing reall​y distu​rbing​ about​ the entit​lemen​t menta​lity of this count​ry.​ If you lost a famil​y membe​r in the Septe​mber 11 attac​k,​ you'​re going​ to get an avera​ge of $​1,​185,​000.​The range​ is a minim​um guara​ntee of $​250,​000 all the way up to $4.7 milli​on.​

if you are a survi​ving famil​y membe​r of an Ameri​can soldi​er kille​d in actio​n,​ the first​ check​ you get is a $​6,​000 direc​t death​ benef​it,​ half of which​ is taxable.

Next,​ you get $​1,​750 for buria​l costs​.​ If you are the survi​ving spous​e,​ you get $833 a month​ until​ you remar​ry.​ And there​'​s a payme​nt of $211 per month​ for each child​ under​ 18. When the child​ hits 18, those​ payme​nts come to a scree​ching​ halt.​

Keep in mind that some of the peopl​e who are getti​ng an avera​ge of $​1.​185 milli​on up to $4.7 milli​on are compl​ainin​g that it's not enoug​h.​Their​ death​s were tragi​c,​ but for most,​ they were simpl​y in the wrong​ place​ at the wrong​ time.​ Soldi​ers put themselves​ in harms​ way FOR ALL OF US, and they and their​ famil​ies know the dange​rs.​

We also learn​ed over the weeke​nd that some of the victi​ms from the Oklah​oma City bombi​ng have start​ed an organ​izati​on askin​g for the same deal that the Septe​mber 11 famil​ies are getti​ng.​ In addit​ion to that,​ some of the famil​ies of those​ bombe​d in the embas​sies are now askin​g for compe​nsati​on as well.​

You see where​ this is going​,​ don'​t you? Folks​,​ this is part and parce​l of over 50 years​ of entit​lemen​t polit​ics in this count​ry.​ It's just reall​y sad. Every​ time a pay raise​ comes​ up for the milit​ary,​ they usual​ly recei​ve next to nothi​ng of a raise​.​ Now the green​ machi​ne is in comba​t in the Middl​e East while​ their​ famil​ies have to survi​ve on food stamp​s and live in low-​rent housing.​ Make sense​?​

Howev​er,​ our own US Congr​ess voted​ thems​elves​ a raise​.​ Many of you don'​t know that they only have to be in Congr​ess one time to recei​ve a pensi​on that is more than $​15,​000 per month​.​ And most are now equal​ to being​ milli​onair​es plus.​ They do not recei​ve Socia​l Secur​ity on retir​ement​ becau​se they didn'​t have to pay into the syste​m.​ If some of the milit​ary peopl​e stay in for 20 years​ and get out as an E-7, they may recei​ve a pensi​on of $​1,​000 per month​,​ and the very peopl​e who place​d them in harm'​s way recei​ves a pensi​on of $15,​000 per month​.​

I would​ like to see our elect​ed offic​ials pick up a weapo​n and join ranks​ befor​e they start​ cutti​ng out benef​its and lower​ing pay for our sons and daugh​ters who are now fight​ing.​

Startling, isn't it? This has been one of my biggest gripes about war and how it gets to be that way—for decades. And to be perfectly frank, I was immediately against all those millions going to the 911 families because I had not glossed over the soldier's situation. Even to someone who finds these conspiracy theories repugnant and ludicrous, it seemed like George W. Bush was in much too big a hurry to pay off folks after the tragedy. Something fishy there. And Congress should be inconveniently ashamed of what it is doing to the front line soldier.

THE TASK BEFORE EARNEST AMERICANS

by Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch.

Islam is an all-encompassing belief-system. It is quite different from those other monotheisms which, for obvious reasons while they are still a small group in the West, Muslims like to have "so very much" in common—that "three abrahamic faiths" pitch that once went over well, but nowadays appears to attract only the most muddle-headed or those who, while supposedly being Christian or Jewish clergymen, have brought their art of self-preening or cravenness to such a level that they become Defenders of the Faith, that Faith being Islam.

But Infidels can no longer be stopped. Once they begin to realize that the texts of Islam are not hermetic, and can be studied, they will study them. Once they realize that a knowledge of classical Arabic is not essential to learning about Islam, not least because 80% of the world’s Muslims know not a bit of Arabic, classical or otherwise, and that even many Arabs have difficulty understanding classical Arabic and certainly the text of the Qur’an (see Christoph Luxenberg on the 20% of the Qur’an that is inexplicable, in his view, until one recognizes an Ur-text of Syriac—that is, the Aramaic of Edessa), they will dare to open them. So Infidels are now free to read the immutable texts of Islam—Qur'an, hadith, and Sira—read, and reread, and study with growing understanding, but not necessarily growing delight or pleasure. They can find out about the interpretative doctrine of “naskh” or “abrogation,” by which—as in the common law—the texts deemed later cancel out, or abrogate, the texts deemed to have been set down earlier. And those later texts, presumably from the “Medinan” period of Muhammad’s existence, are far harsher than the softer, “Meccan” verses from the period when Islam was still weak.

Infidels can do so many things. They can find out, as apparently George Bush was incapable of finding out or being told, why Qur’an 5.32 cannot conceivably be understood without the context of the succeeding verse, 5.33. They can learn the real meaning, the meaning that Islam and Muslims assign to the seemingly benign Qur’anic observation that “there is no compulsion in religion.” They can find out what is Halal and what Haram in Islam. They can find out what Muslims are taught to think of sculpture, of paintings depicting living creatures, of music. They can find out what Muslims think of free and skeptical inquiry, and of the possibility of someone born into Islam being permitted to choose for himself whether to remain a Muslim, or to abandon that faith for another, or for no faith at all. They can find out. They can find out the details of Muhammad’s life, and consider what is the likely effect of those details on Muslims who are taught to regard Muhammad, a warrior who took part in 78 military campaigns, 77 of them offensive, as the Model of Conduct, the Perfect Man—uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil—for all Muslims, and for all time. Consider the implications of that in light of the beheading of the bound prisoners of the Banu Qurayza, the attack on the inoffensive Jewish farmers of the Khaybar Oasis, the satisfaction taken when he heard of the assassinations of Abu Akaf and Asma bint Marwan, the “treaty-making model” of Al Hudaibiyyah, and of course the business with little Aisha.

The Qur’anic text is available online, a click away, with several different translations set out synoptically. Much of the Hadith is too, and so is the Sira. More and more studies by the great Western students of Islam, from the period of genuinely free and uninhibited study, roughly 1860 to 1960, are being gathered into sourcebooks (such as Bostom’s The Legacy of Jihad) or republished (especially in accessibly cheap Indian editions). More and more people have uncovered what the Great of the Past had to say about Islam, writing as they did in a period when no punches had to be pulled, and one could speak or write one’s mind. What did that great religious reformer John Wesley write about Islam? And the most learned of nineteenth-century American statesmen, John Quincy Adams? What did that wise student of men and events, Alexis De Tocqueville, write about Islam, based on his wide knowledge, including his observations in Algeria? What did Gladstone have to say about the Turks, and about their role in Europe, and about the Bulgarian Wars? What did Winston Churchill, with his knowledge of history, say about Muslims and Islam?

And above all, we know have the phenomenon of “defectors” from Islam, the apostates from Islam, who in the Western world are no longer fearful, and are willing to speak from their own lifetimes of experience of being born into Islam and then choosing to abandon it, some for Christianity (Walid Shoebat, Nonie Darwish), and some to be resolute freethinkers, such as Ibn Warraq, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ali Sina, Wafa Sultan, and so many more. Some have been Iranians, some Pakistanis, some Arabs, some from still other backgrounds. Muslim spokesmen would prefer that you pay as little attention to these keen observers as possible, and attempt on every occasion to shut them up or shout them down. But up or down, those Muslim spokesmen and enforcers have not succeeded, for when someone such as Ibn Warraq writes Why I Am Not a Muslim and Ayaan Hirsi Ali writes her own stirring testimony in Infidel, or when Ali Sina, with a growing army of fellow apostates, conducts his own lucid campaign from the heights of www.faithfreedom.org, Muslims in this country cannot, as they would in a minute in a Muslim country, shut such efforts down. Thus we, the Infidels, are the beneficiaries of such valuable witnesses, such indispensable temoignage.

It seems a century ago that we were willing to engage in those phony “dialogues” which always end up being sinister apologies for Islam, with the non-Muslim clergymen willingly or unwillingly inveigled into participating into a farce of supposedly symmetrical fault-finding, a farce that relies heavily on Infidel ignorance of Islam, and willingness to assume that if some belief-system is called a “religion” then of course it must be a force for good, must be beyond criticism, and only that “handful of extremists” are not good. But “extreme” about what? If Islam is in its essence so unthreatening, so peaceful, so tolerant, so good, then why should someone who is fanatically in favor of that something good be a threat to Infidels?

Those “interfaith candlelight ceremonies” that were all the rage just after 9/11/2001 ring hollow today, especially with the list of all those Muslim clerics who appeared to utter all kinds of soothing words, and then were discovered in the past, or at the same time, or later on, to have been heard, even recorded, making quite different statements when they thought no non-Muslims were around. It has been quite a revelation, too, to discover the Islamic websites that counsel Muslims in how to talk to Infidels, telling exactly the things that should be said and the topics that should be carefully avoided, even explaining that one should “let the Sisters talk” if the subject is Islam and the Treatment of Women. And there are those Muslim websites that inform parents just how to wangle special treatment—prayer rooms and suchlike—from teachers and principals. It’s down to a science, all written out. And eventually someone is going to put all that advice for fellow Muslims together, and publish it, but as a warning to, and for the edification of, Infidels.

No Infidels need any longer accept the word of tireless apologists as to what those texts say, or what their "meaning" is, especially when we have all been treated to example after example of Tu-Quoque-and-Taqiyya, sometimes by omission, sometimes by deliberate misinterpretation for the limitlessly naive. Furthermore, we have the long historical record of Jihad-conquest, and the texts, written by Muslims themselves, on the subject of the necessity of Jihad, and the rules of Jihad—here again, see Bostom's sourcebook, The Legacy of Jihad. We have 1350 years of such a record, and are entitled to study that record, from Spain in the west to what is present-day Indonesia in the east. We can study how non-Muslim populations slowly or quickly were reduced in size: what happened to the Copts of Egypt? What happened to the Jews and Armenians under Shah Abbas II in Iran? What happened to the Christians and Jews of the Arabian peninsula? What happened to the Christians of North Africa, where Tertullian and St. Augustine once lived? What happened to the Hindus of India under Muslim rule? Was it all wonderful, or is there reason to think that K. S. Lal and other Indian historians are right in their claim that between 60 and 70 million Hindus lost their lives? What was the historical record of Arab Muslims and slavery in Black Africa? Splendid? A tale of Muslim Wilberforces, long predating the English one? When was slavery formerly abolished in Arabia, and why? And is there any evidence of the continuance of slavery in Arab Muslim countries? And is there any evidence that Muslim scholars today have written about the continuing, indeed permanent, legitimacy of slavery, because it was recognized and accepted by Muhammad?

And these are not the only questions that need to be examined, studied, discussed. One wishes to know what happened to the Hindus of Pakistan and Bangladesh. Why did their numbers in the populations of those countries drop so precipitously, while the Muslim population of India has gone up, both relatively and absolutely? What has happened to Buddhists in southern Thailand, and why? What happened to the Christians of East Timor under Muslim rule? What has been happening to the Christians of the Moluccas? Or Iraq? Or Lower Egypt? Or in Lebanon over the past fifty years? What has happened to the French peres blancs and the Italian monks who tried to help the Muslims of Algeria, and for their pains were murdered? What is that history all about? What happened to the Armenians, and why was it that when Turks and Kurds killed those Armenians, they took pleasure in calling them "gavours" (Infidels), and were delighted if Armenian priests and their wives were among the victims, as recorded by eyewitnesses?

And here is yet another question that needs to be considered, to be discussed, to be pondered and not only in the corridors of power. What are the instruments of Jihad? Bush has focused quite monomaniacally on "terror"—as if he cannot bring himself to see the use of the Money Weapon, carefully-targeted campaigns of Da'wa, and of course a demographic conquest that has been openly discussed by Muslims. It has been discussed by Boumedienne at the U.N. in 1974, and by mild-mannered Pakistani accountants in the letters pages of "Dawn" (see that for December 5, 2001 for example). There are Muslim websites where these developments are openly discussed—as they are by all kinds of Muslim posters at this (see "Naseem") and other websites.

Is it illegitimate for inhabitants of the Western or larger non-Muslim world to study these matters, and to raise these issues? Why? Is it illegitimate to discuss the proposition that one has a perfect right to defend the legal and political institutions that one's own society has received as a legacy, that others before one helped to create, over time, and that in every respect are flatly contradicted by what Islam inculcates? Is the individualism of the West, are our individual rights, those enshrined in the Bill of Rights, and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to be simply swept away, or to be subject to incessant attack by the adherents of a collectivist faith who do not believe in free speech, or in freedom of conscience, including the freedom to leave one faith for another, or to have no faith at all? Are these illegitimate questions?

And is it illegitimate to point out how frequently in history states and peoples have felt it necessary to expel others in their midst, and that it is a bit hasty to denounce all such efforts (though many certainly should be denounced), especially when one considers the reasons, the historical context, of the Benes Decree, which was adduced not as a model to follow, but as a case to study and ponder?

We in the West have an obligation to defend a civilizational legacy, even if many of us, individually, have not exactly proved ourselves worthy of it. And that includes considering measures that others have undertaken, to see if they provide lessons, any lessons at all, for us at this point in our endangered history.

And that is hardly illegitimate. It is the very least we should ask of ourselves, and of those who presume to "lead" us, or rather, in the cant of this cant-filled age, presume to "take a leadership role." Many people in this country have gone far beyond their so-called leaders, Democratic and Republican, in their understanding of Islam. And that is a good thing. That is a necessary thing.