National Election for National Security

I have been highly critical of the fiscal behavior of Republicans in Congress over the last week 12 years. In my opinion, the Republicans were far more fiscally responsible as a minority party, fighting to hold down the Democratic Party's profligate spending. Instead, as a majority party, the Republicans spend and spend, egged on by the Democrats who want to spend even more.

If this election were about fiscal responsibility, I would vote against Republicans. But unfortunately, we have more important things to worry about.

The first and primary duty of our federal government is national security. Our national security is threatened by outside terrorists.

The cut-and-run Democrats seem entirely incapable of understanding the nature and extent of the threat to our national security. As a result, we have only one choice on November 7.

I will hold my nose and vote for the Republicans for Congress.

The BBC Hates America and Christians

A BBC internal memo tells all according to a report in LifeSite.

BBC Internal Memo Admits Anti-Christian Bias
Company executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals

By Gudrun Schultz

LONDON, United Kingdom, October 24, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The British Broadcasting Corporation has admitted to a marked bias against Christianity and a strong inclination to pro-Muslim reporting among the network’s executives and key anchors, in a leaked account of an “impartiality summit.”

The Daily Mail reported Sunday on the secret London meeting of key executives, called by BBC chairman Michael Grade and hosted by veteran broadcaster Sue Lawley. The report revealed that many senior executives are deeply frustrated with the corporation’s commitment to “political correctness” and liberal policies at the expense of journalistic integrity and objectivity.

BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals. They acknowledged that ethnic minorities held a disproportionate number of positions and said the BBC deliberately encourages multiculturalism and is more careful to avoid offending the Muslim community than Christians, .

Tossing the Bible into a garbage can on a comedy show would be acceptable, they said, but not the Koran, and if possible they would broadcast an interview with Osama Bin Laden, giving him the opportunity to explain his views.

“The BBC is not impartial or neutral,” said Andrew Marr, senior political commentator with the corporation. “It’s a publicly funded, urban organization with a abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias.”

Senior executives raised a chorus of complaints against the corporation for bias against the United States and strongly anti-national reporting. Justin Webb, Washington correspondent, said anti-American sentiment runs so deep in the corporation that the U.S. is treated with scorn and derision and given “no moral weight.”

“There was widespread acknowledgement that we may have gone too far in the direction of political correctness,” said one senior executive. “Unfortunately, much of it is so deeply embedded in the BBC’s culture that it is very hard to change it.”

Mary Fitzpatrick, who oversees the corporation’s “diversity” policies, said Muslim women readers for BBC News should be permitted to wear veils while on air, if they choose, after a female newsreader caused a stir by wearing a visible cross on air. Ms. Fitzpatrick also defended the BBC against internal accusations of selective reporting on issues critical of the black community.

Andrew Marr, in an interview with the Mail, said, “The BBC must always try to reflect Britain, which is mostly a provincial, middle-of-the-road country. Britain is not a mirror image of the BBC or the people who work for it.”

During the recent international upheaval over Pope Benedict XVI’s comments on Islam, the BBC was accused by media watchers of deliberately inflaming the Muslim community worldwide through biased and inflammatory coverage. Political commentator David Warren, writing for the Ottawa Citizen, said the BBC was “having a little mischief. The kind of mischief that is likely to end with Catholic priests and faithful butchered around the Muslim world.”

The international uproar led to retaliatory attacks in Israel against Christian churches and clergy, and the murder of a nun in Somalia.

Fatwah: OK to Hit Wives

New fatwa from Iranian Grand Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi. Read all about it in the international press: AKI.

IRAN: MEN CAN HIT THEIR WIVES, CLERIC SAYS

Tehran, 26 Oct. (AKI) - Iranian Grand Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi has issued a fatwa - a Muslim religious edict - saying it is legitimate for men to hit their disobedient wives. Shirazi, one of the leading clerics of the Shiite holy city of Qom, wrote on his website that "the Koran first of all advises a man to try and convince his wife to obey to him in a polite way and through advice, then by refusing to have sexual relations with her and, finally, if all this will have failed to make her reason, with physical punishment."

The punishment, the leading cleric said, "must be light and considered an exceptional event, like surgery in case of a serious illness."

Makarem Shirazi advised his readers against "physical punishment which leaves signs and wounds." Women, he axplained, "are masochistic and sometimes they have a crisis and need light physical punishment to get back to normal."

Azam Taleghani, daughter of the late Ayatollah Mahmoud Taleghani, one of the protagonists of the 1979 Islamic revolution, branded the fatwa as "an offence to women."

"It is not right to issue a fatwa based on texts written over one thousand years ago without taking into account today's reality," said Azam Taleghani, who runs one of Iran's leading feminists' associations. "If we learn that someone hits their wife on the basis of these statements we will report them along with Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi to the judicial authority of the Islamic Republic."

Who says Islam isn't good for women? (Heavy sarcasm.)

Mental Illness

A liberal is tolerant of others and the opinions of others. A liberal respects the views of those with whom the liberal disagrees. There is nothing tolerant about the American left.

I am talking about those unhinged folks that think – and loudly proclaim – that President Bush “lied” about his knowledge of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Ii am talking about those folks who think the Bush administration engineered the September 11 attacks on New York’s twin towers. I am talking those folks who would like to see President Bush assassinated and who delight in the idea of a film depicting his assassination.

I am talking about the people who shout down opposing opinions, like the hecklers at any Ann Coulter speech.

Such people seem immune to rationality and logic.

Take hecklers. They want to exercise their rights of free speech. But how does it further free speech to try to shut down the speech of those with whom you disagree?

The answer is that you have a right to free speech when it is your turn to speak. You do not have a right to free speech when it is not your turn to speak. People who shout down others whose turn it is to speak are hypocrites. One has a right to drown out opposing speech only if the speech is an incitement to riot or otherwise unlawful.

That is the answer to the hecklers, but what is the psychology? As far as I can tell, being on the far left is a form of mental illness that has yet to make it to DSM.

Veils Unveiled

If Muslims want to prove that they are enemies of our culture, they simply need continue wearing their veils or “Niqab.” Nothing in Islam requires women to wear the niqab. It has become a symbol of defiance and isolationism. When we see Muslim women in America wearing in the cop, we know that they really do not want to be part of the American culture.

Do they want to be branded as enemies of America? That is very sad if that is what they want.

They remind me of teenagers. Teenagers, fond of wearing weird garb, frequently are heard to complain, "It shouldn't matter what I wear. It should only matter how I am." The attitude is immature and foolish. In American culture, in every culture, people judge other people by the way they look. Anyone’s first impression is given by the way they look, what they wear, and how they groom themselves.

Labour leader Jack Straw in the United Kingdom was exactly right. In our culture, we assess people by their facial expressions. For people to get along in our culture, we need to see people's faces.

A judge in Hamtramck, Michigan, required a Black Muslim woman to remove her niqab before testifying in his court. He explained that we assess people’s truthfulness in part by their facial expressions. She refused to remove the niqab and accordingly lost her civil case.

So be it. I applaud the judge.

CAIR

Why isn't CAIR doing anything about Muslim hate crimes against innocent people? A look at the CAIR web site recveals a section entitled "Challenging Hate." But it contains no reference to or acknowledgement of Muslim hate or hate crimes committed in the name of Islam.

If CAIR were a sincere organization promoting goodwill, it would challenge hate in both directiosn, wouldn't it?

Sunday Attack Threat

Fox News says the government is pooh-poohing the threat of attacks on NFL stadiums this weekend. The Fox News story, such as it is, does not identify the purported attackers.

Does it need to?

Someone ask Rosie O'Donnell if she thinks it might be a threat from radical Christians.

Sunday Attack Threat

Fox News says the government is pooh-poohing the threat of attacks on NFL stadiums this weekend. The Fox News story, such as it is, does not identify the purported attackers.

Does it need to?

Someone ask Rosie O'Donnell if she thinks it might be a threat from radical Christians.

Muslims Kidnap Innocents to Punish Apostate

We are assured by the taqqiya specialists at Islamonline.net and other places that it is absurd to think that Islam prescribes death for apostasy in the form of conversion to Christianity. ("Taqqiya" is the revered institution of dissimulation or lying to further Islam.) Yet, once again, some Muslims are so upset that a convert to Christianity still lives, they have kidnapped an innocent person to exchange for the apostate. Why? Not to invite him to a party, you may be sure.

The convert: Abdul Rahman. To avoid imposing the death penalty for apostasy in Afghanistan, the Afghan legal system found him to be mentally incompetent. He was allow to escape under guard to Italy to avoid mobs of angry Muslims.

How can anyone respect a religion that breeds people like these kidnappers?

California's State Religion

In law school we were told not to read too much into the cases that the United States Supreme Court declined to take. The court took an average of 1 out of more than 700 petitioning to be heard. However, United States Supreme Court in the past has usually accepted those cases that not only had significant legal issues but were also of high public interest. In the last 10 days, the United States Supreme Court has declined to hear two exceptionally important, highly public cases.

Eklund v. Byron Local School District was one such case, I thought. In Eklund, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said that it was acceptable for California public schools to have children pretend to be Muslims and recite the Koran and prayers to Allah. So much for the separation of church and state in California when it comes to Islam.

Today, the United States Supreme Court has refused to hear the case of the Boy Scouts being discriminated against by the State of California. (Case name to be updated later). Apparently the State of California routinely allowed nonprofit groups free docking rights at a marina. However, since the Boy Scouts will not admit homosexuals or atheists for religions reasons, the State of California felt free to discriminate against the Boy Scouts. The California state religion of human secularism was established contrary to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

And no Supreme Court relief in sight.

Terrorist Detention Tactic: House Arrest

Does the government (of the U.K. this time) really need to be told that people who plot with others to kill innocents cannot be trusted? From The Guardian Unlimited

A suspected terrorist has escaped the authorities after being placed on a control order, in the latest embarrassment to hit the Home Office.

It was understood the man, who has not been named, escaped from a mental health unit and has been on the run for two weeks.

The British citizen was believed to have climbed through a window to evade staff at the London unit.

Control orders act as a loose form of house arrest, usually placing suspects under a curfew and requiring them to report regularly to police. The man now on the run will have been suspected of playing a role in international terrorism, possibly linked to al-Qaida groups.

So this person is a suspected terrorist and he was placed only under house arrest? Does that make anyone out there feel safe?

It was thought he was handed his control order on April 5.

His admission to the mental health unit is understood to have been a more recent development and would not normally have been part of the control order conditions.

A Home Office spokeswoman said: "Any breach of security will be investigated on a case-by-case basis. We do not discuss individual cases."

Control orders were brought in at the beginning of last year as a replacement for indefinite detention without trial or charge.

Sure is working well, isn't it?

The Home Office does not reveal the identities of people on control orders. The Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, Nick Clegg, said: "Since control orders were the government's flagship anti-terrorism measure, this is a huge embarrassment for them.

"As we have always made clear, the danger of control orders is that they short-circuit due process and keep suspects in a state of limbo. Our aim must be to get suspects into court and, where they are guilty, convicted.

"This should act as a spur for the government to develop more robust ways to get suspects into court in the first place, such as using intercept evidence."

I should hope they are embarrassed.

What is CAIR?

Let us be very clear. The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) may have issued a short series of releases, long, long ago (September 2001) condemning terrorism, but CAIR is not an anti-terrorist group.

It proclaims itself to be a “civil rights” group. Like any civil rights group, it wants nothing less than victimhood for its constituency. For without victimhood, CAIR has no reason for being.

It is irrelevant to CAIR that Muslims are not victims in America. To the contrary, in America, Muslims (along with everyone else) enjoy far more rights than in any Sharia-law jurisdiction.

OK. CAIR claims to be a “civil rights” group. But what is it really? In my view, CAIR is part of the soft jihad, Islamic hate campaign in America. “Soft jihad” is my tern for the campaign to subjugate everyone else (known as dhimmi status) to Islam.

How?

• By loudly complaining whenever anyone fails to show respect for Islam, despite its recent (and ancient) history of intolerance, violence and outrage.

• By falsifying “hate crime” statistics to intimidate non-Muslims;

• By trying to interfere with valid anti-terrorist activities through false civil rights claims;

• By failing to act in any way to protect America from Islamic terrorists

Muslims Again Prove Pope was Right

Muslims are working overtime to prove that the Pope was right about Islam being a religion of violence, intolerance, and hate. Another priest has been murdered, this time it was an Orthodox priest that has no connection with the Catholic Church headed by the Pope.

One can only wonder what the outraged Muslims have against joining the civilized world.

Women's Rights, Muslim Style

Get this. some Imam has issued afatwa that women have a duty to get married and raise children.

Outrageous? You bet, even in the Muslim world. How dare anyone suggest that women should not have the right to become suicide bombers.

Watch it here.

Keeping an Eye on Hate

A new Web site has launched, CAIR Watch, whose motto is "Keeping an Eye on Hate."

CAIR pretends to promote good relations between Americans and Muslims (some of whom are also Americans). It really preaches hate and promotes division.

Soft Jihad

The global jihad continues, but sometimes in softer forms than terrorist violence and suicide bombings. In Britain, Labour politician Jack Straw suggested, merely suggested mind you, that Muslim women would assimilate better into British society if they abandoned their veils. In British society, people relate better when they can see each other's faces.

The reaction to this mild suggestion? Muslim outrage, nonviolent this time, in the person of Haleema Hussein of the U.K. Muslim Public Affairs Committee, who demanded that Jack Straw should not be allowed to voice his opinion. See it here.

a substantially more rational viewpoint is expressed by Saira Khan in the London TimesOnline:

The growing number of women veiling their faces in Britain is a sign of radicalisation. I was disturbed when, after my first year at university in 1988, I discovered to my surprise that some of my fellow students had turned very religious and had taken to wearing the jilbab (a long, flowing gown covering all the body except hands and face), which they had never worn before and which was not the dress code of their mothers. They had joined the college’s Islamic Society, which preached that women were not considered proper Muslims unless they adopted such strict dress codes. After that, I never really had anything in common with them.

It is an extreme practice. It is never right for a woman to hide behind a veil and shut herself off from people in the community. But it is particularly wrong in Britain, where it alien to the mainstream culture for someone to walk around wearing a mask. The veil restricts women, it stops them achieving their full potential in all areas of their life and it stops them communicating. It sends out a clear message: “I do not want to be part of your society.”

Some Muslim women say that it is their choice to wear it; I don’t agree. Why would any woman living in a tolerant country freely choose to wear such a restrictive garment? What these women are really saying is that they adopt the veil because they believe that they should have less freedom than men, and that if they did not wear the veil men would not be accountable for their uncontrollable urges — so women must cover-up so as not to tempt men. What kind of a message does that send to women?

Read it all.

What is dangerous here is the demand by Muslims that Muslims, no matter what they do, should be above criticism by non-Muslims. That is a dangerous concept of free speech. It is a dangerous concept to a multicultural civilization.

Eklund v. Byron School District

By refusing to allow an appeal, the United States Supreme Court has now confirmed that the public schools may teach your children how to pray to Allah, but not to Jehovah or to God as taught by Jesus Christ.

California public schools had a role-playing teaching device on Islam. Students were encouraged to take Muslim names, to memorize Koranic verse and to pray to Allah. Outraged parents challenged the teaching in Eklund v. Byron School District in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On December 5, 2003, United States District Judge Phiyllis Hamilton ruled that the Byron School District program did not violate the First Amendment separation of church and state. the Nith Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that decision.

The parents and other interested persons (known as "amicus") asked the United States Supreme Court to review the decision. On October 2, 2006, the United States Supreme Court issued its order refusing to review the case.

Bottom line: Teaching Islam is OK in schools. Teaching Christianity or Judaism is not. At least in the Ninth Circuit.

Ex-Muslims Tell It Like It IS

From a most interesting website by ex-Muslims and about Islam:

"As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy." Abraham Lincoln

Thereupon I concluded: As I would not be a dhimmi, so I would not be a Muslim.
-- Ali Sina

The website is by Faithfreedom.org

More Beheadings Needed

So, who is insulting Islam today?

According to an AP report, Security agents have arrested 17 people allegedly trained in Pakistan to launch suicide attacks in Afghanistan:

Ansari said that militants in Pakistan encourage fighters to carry out suicide attacks by telling them that girls in Afghanistan are wearing un-Islamic clothes or studying subjects in school unrelated to Islam.

Both the 17 and the militants who trained them are telling the world that Islam is not tolerant!

They are insulting Islam! Behead them!

(See October 4 blog entry.)

Behead Those Who Insult Islam

So, who is it that is insulting Islam today?

How about someone who commits violence to protest that suggestion that Islam teaches violence? I suggest to you that each Pope-rage rioter insults Islam. Behead them.

How about someone that riots over a cartoon image of Muhammed, which holds Islam up to world ridicule for the overreaction. Behead those rioters.

How about the many conspirators in the 9/11/01 attack that killed 3000 innocent people and persuaded most non-Muslims that Islam is indeed a religion that preaches violence, thus insulting Islam? I think we can all agree that those co-conspirators should be beheaded.

How about those purporting to act in the name of Islam urging death to someone who converts to Christianity, which is a horrendous overreaction to a personal decision? Behead those who insult Islam by urging death for apostasy.

How about those Saudi officials who supply and educators who teach Saudi children from textbooks to that teach children to hate non-believers, thus debasing Islam in the eyes of the world? Behead those Saudi officials and educators.

How those who drive SUV’s into groups of innocent students (as at University of North Carolina) or who shoot up a Jewish center (Seattle) in the name of Islam, thus bringing Islam into disrepute? Behead those perpetrators.

Right?

Unsavory Congressional Behavior

The revelations that Republican Representative Tom Foley had unsavory internet communictions with underage Congressional pages is disgusting. The revelations that he was molested by a priest and that he is gay offer no excuse.

But the holier-than-thou Democrats are also creepy after the way they supported one of their own, Mel Reynolds, who had actual, physical sex with an underage page. See story here.

Wafa Sultan Interview

There is a most interesting Wafa Sultan interview on, I believe, Dutch television.

Ms. Sultan says that the cartoons that provoked violence were good, because Muslims need to break out of their box and hear what the rest of the world thinks. Muslims need to learn to listen to criticism of Islam, even criticism they do not like.

Ms. Sultan disagrees that there are moderate Muslims. She says there are cultural Muslims who are politically moderate. She says that Islam has two aspects, religious and political. The political aspect is violent. but Islam teaches that all aspects of it are holy. Still, she believes there is hope for Islam to peacefully co-exist in a multicultural world. She says it will take strong Islamic leaders to take Islam in that direction.

Watch it all.