Friday, December 29, 2006

Criticizing Islam

Diana West in the Washington Times lauds those who, in 2006, stood up to criticize Islam.

Personally I will not criticize Islam in today's entry. There is no need. The group behavior of Muslims in the name of Islam provides all the commentary necessary, for just a few examples:
  • Cartoon riots;
  • The murder of a Catholic nun in response to teh Pope's historical comments on the speread of Islam;
  • The reaction to Abdul Rahman converting to Christianity;
  • The 6 lying, flying imams (asking for seat extenders and not using them, not sitting in assigned seats, loudly praising Osama bin Laden);
  • Over 7000 terror attacks in the name of Islam since 9/11/2001. (For lists by year, Religion of Peace.)
  • And so many more in 2006 and before.
Actions speak louder than words.

Wednesday, December 13, 2006

Nancy Pelosi's Great Start

Nancy Pelosi's Top Blunders as Speaker of the House (to be):
  • Nomination of ethics-challenged John Murtha as House Majority leader.
  • Nomination of ethics-challenged Alcee Hastings (a man ineleigible for a security clearance) for chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
  • After running on a campaign to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations, immediately rejecting those recommendations with respect to the organization of the House.
  • Nomination of the intelligence-challenged Sylvestre Reyes as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee (after six years on the committee, including 9/11, he does not know whether al Qaeda or Hezbollah are Sunni or Shiite).
No doubt there are more to come from the champion of San Francisco values.

The Cure for Islamophobia

In the St. Petersburg Times, Dr. Adel Elkin suggests taht Islamaphobia can be treated and cured with education. Actually, the cure lies wholly within the Muslim world. Muslims have the power to cure Islamaphobia:
  • Stop vigilante beheadings of innocents (such as Daniel Pearl).
  • Stop vigilante beheadings of converts from Islam to other religions
  • Stop government sanctioned death penalties for converts from Islam to other religions
  • Stop rioting over minor slights, like cartoons
  • Stop issuing death fatwas over minor slights, like Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses
  • Stop commiting violent acts (rioting and shootings) when someone prominent suggests that Islam is a violent religion
  • Stop suicide - mass murders (bombings, flying planes into buildings etc.)
  • Stop teaching children to hate Christians and Jews (primarily done in the Middle East)
  • Stop engaging in disruptive behavior in airports (asking for seat extenders and not using them, not sitting in assigned seats, loudly praising Osama bin Laden)
  • Stop issuing death threats to the West in general
  • Stop chanting "Death to America"
  • Stop Middle Eastern imams relocated to the West from preaching hate in mosques
  • Stop speaking hate in Arabic while speaking love in English
  • Stop trying to persude non-Muslims that Islam is really a religion of peace and tolerance before stopping all the above -- it just sounds like taqiyya to us.
It is not a "phobia" if the fear is reality-based. In our mulitcultural society, we will love American Muslims for their efforts to do the above (contrasted with the work of CAIR) if the efforts are public and visible. If we do not see these efforts, Islam will continue to EARN the disrepsct and dislike of Western non-Muslims.

Monday, December 11, 2006

Peace and Tolerance?

Per Don Feder:

Consider the inter-connectedness of the following incidents, all of which took place in the past few months:

* In Indonesia, three Christian schoolgirls were beheaded.
* In Iraq, a Syrian Orthodox priest was kidnapped, tortured, and murdered.
* In Somalia, a nun was shot to death as she left the hospital where she worked, tending the sick and dying.
* In Lebanon, just days ago, a cabinet minister was assassinated.
* In Britain, authorities uncovered a conspiracy in which native-born Brits plotted to blow up several trans-Atlantic flights, killing as many as 3,000.
* In Afghanistan, suicide bombers are at work again.
* In Iraq, they never stopped. Additionally, the week before last, a group of worshippers were abducted from a mosque, doused with gasoline and burned to death in what’s described as “sectarian violence.”
* In France, a high school philosophy teacher is in hiding after very credible death threats following publication of a September 19th commentary in Le Figaro.
* Some 139 people died in riots in Nigeria, Libya, Pakistan, and Afghanistan – following the publication of Danish cartoons.
* Europe is experiencing the worst wave of anti-Semitic violence since Kristallnacht. The former director of the U.S. Holocaust Museum reports there an average of 12 assaults a day on Jews in Paris.
* In Kosovo, 90 percent of Serbs gave been ethnically cleansed from the province since 1999. The rest live in a state of siege.
* In Mumbai, India, a series of blasts killed almost 200.
* In Gaza, terrorists recently celebrated the latest “ceasefire” by raining more rockets on southern Israel.
* And the leader of more than a billion Catholics received death threats and demands that he convert after giving a speech in which he called for a balance of faith and reason, and quoted a 14th century Byzantine emperor.

What do the foregoing have in common?

Wednesday, December 06, 2006

No Prayer, No Head

Ya gotta love Sharia law when it means folks get beheaded for not praying 5 times a day. (Heavy sarcasm.)

But that is the way it will be in a town in Africa soon, according to the AP.

Read it all.

Moonbat Mental Illness

I have long wondered about liberals. their opinions are so often irrational as to border on mental illness, I thought.

They love government, so. How could any rational person think that government would be the ultimate in fairness? when has any government, anywhere been a paragon of fairness? No rational person could think that way.

How could any rational person claim to believe in free speech, but then shout down, drown out anyone who disagrees with them? How could any rational person think that free speech does not include insulting or uncomfortable speech?

Yet these strange beliefs are typical of today's liberals.

Now it is all explained in a new book by a psychiatrist, The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness. Liberals really are crazy.

Moonbats Behaving Like Jihadist Muslims

By now everyone who gets the news outside the MSM has learned about how the Saudis and other Muslim nations begin teaching hatred of Jews and Christians to children at very young ages.

Now we lean that the American moonbats are behaving like Muslims, teaching hatred of Christians and Republicans. See the chlling video here.

Child abuse.

Tuesday, December 05, 2006

Sharia Law

I think everyone agrees that most Muslims are not terrorists. Of those who are not, some additional percentage financially support terrorist works. Of the remainder, of Muslims, some percentage do not provide financial support, but secretly cheer terrorist efforts. Of the remainder of Muslims, I believe a majority of the sincerely peaceful Muslims support imposition of Sharia law on the world, including the United States.

To begin to understand Sharia law, there is an excellent blog, Sharia Law for Dummies. Read it here.

Thursday, November 30, 2006

NAACP Wants African-Americans Less Safe

This week, the NAACP joined the six psychological terrorists at Reagan national Airport protesting the removal of the disruptive imams from a US Airways flight. The NAACP's take is that the imams were victims of "racial profiling."

Memo to the NAACP: Islam is not a race. African Americans died on 9/11/2001, too. African Americans need to be safe when flying. Removal of persons engaging in disruptive and suspicious behavior (e.g., six slender people demanding seat belt extenders and not using them, and engaging in anti American threatening speech) is not profiling of any kind. It is a reaction to behavior.

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Alcee Out

Alcee Hasting will not be the chariman of the United States House of Representatives Intelligence Committee. In his statement about the opposition to the proposed appointment, Rep Hastings said, “Sorry, haters, God is not finished with me yet.”

Sorry, Mr. Hastings, the opposition was not about hate. It was about character. It was about the importance of entrusting our national security only to someone who could have a security clearance. It was about avoiding a person with a history of accepting bribes in such a sensitive position.

And, Mr. Hastings, God is not finished with any of us yet.

Intimidation in the Air

While I agree with the many that Ann coulter often goes too far, she is right on in her latest column on It begins:
Six imams removed from a US Airways flight from Minneapolis to Phoenix are calling on Muslims to boycott the airline. If only we could get Muslims to boycott all airlines, we could dispense with airport security altogether.
Read it all. I applaud US Airways. Do not let anyone desenistize us from the caution necessary to keep our airways safe.

Update: Call a spade a spade. These six individuals were engaging in psychological terrorism. Read more here.

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Tulsa Mosque Fights Moderation

A Mosque of the Religion of Peace and Tolerance boots out a member who wrote an opinion in a reader feedback forum of his local newspaper. His offense? He criticized Osama bin Laden and argued the Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance.

See the video interview here.

Tulsa World expires its articles, so we cannot bring you the entire article.

Monday, November 27, 2006

Robert Spencer Critics Explained

If you have been puzzled, as I have, about why Muslims accuse Robert Spencer of promoting jihadist theology among Muslims, we finally have a clear explanation. Hugh Fitzgerald explains:
For what is Islam but a belief-system that is uninterrupted by the workings of the individual conscience? In Islam, there is no mental freedom. You must submit. You must yield to the submission that Islam demands of its adherents. You cannot examine critically.
In other words, by revealing the Koranic teachings of jihad, previously ignorant Muslims must now slavishly follow them. Read it all.

Friday, November 17, 2006

Reality, Not Fantasy

Orson Scott Card is a fine fantasy/science fiction novelist. It turns out, he is an excellent political commentator as well:
I believe in two-party government. I especially believe in it when it prevents Congress from doing anything – because that prevents them from doing stupid things. Of course, the Republicans were already doing a fine job of keeping even one-party government in a permanent logjam. Plus, the Republicans were also proving themselves just as unable to remain worthy of power while holding it as the Democrats did during their decades of dominance from 1954 to 1994.
Read it all.

Thursday, November 16, 2006

Micheal Moore: What a Joke

Michael Moore wrote an unintentionally hilarious open letter to consertvative over the leection. Why is it hilarious? See my comments.

To My Conservative Brothers and Sisters,

I know you are dismayed and disheartened at the results of last week's election. You're worried that the country is heading toward a very bad place you don't want it to go. Your 12-year Republican Revolution has ended with so much yet to do, so many promises left unfulfilled. You are in a funk, and I understand.

Sorry, Mike, I am not disheartened. The Republicans betrayed conservative principles for years, became the big-spending, pork-earmarking party and got what they deserved.
Well, cheer up, my friends! Do not despair. I have good news for you. I, and the millions of others who are now in charge with our Democratic Congress, have a pledge we would like to make to you, a list of promises that we offer you because we value you as our fellow Americans. You deserve to know what we plan to do with our newfound power -- and, to be specific, what we will do to you and for you.

Thus, here is our Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives:

Dear Conservatives and Republicans,

I, and my fellow signatories, hereby make these promises to you:

1. We will always respect you for your conservative beliefs. We will never, ever, call you "unpatriotic" simply because you disagree with us. In fact, we encourage you to dissent and disagree with us.

Ha, ha. You’ll never sell that to major university presidents who routinely try to block conservative speakers from campus or who want to impose speech codes to stifle free speech.
2. We will let you marry whomever you want, even when some of us consider your behavior to be "different" or "immoral." Who you marry is none of our business. Love and be in love -- it's a wonderful gift.
You mean I can marry my dog? Ugh.
3. We will not spend your grandchildren's money on our personal whims or to enrich our friends. It's your checkbook, too, and we will balance it for you.
Has anyone told that to Abramoff’s Democratic recipients of largess?
4. When we soon bring our sons and daughters home from Iraq, we will bring your sons and daughters home, too. They deserve to live. We promise never to send your kids off to war based on either a mistake or a lie.
Thereby encouraging the worldwide jihad, because the jihadists will think they “won” in Iraq. Real smart.
5. When we make America the last Western democracy to have universal health coverage, and all Americans are able to get help when they fall ill, we promise that you, too, will be able to see a doctor, regardless of your ability to pay. And when stem cell research delivers treatments and cures for diseases that affect you and your loved ones, we'll make sure those advances are available to you and your family, too.
Enjoy the months of waiting for an appointment and hours of waiting in lines. Forget any healthcare treatment that is not mainstream, government–approved, pill-pushing.
6. Even though you have opposed environmental regulation, when we clean up our air and water, we, the Democratic majority, will let you, too, breathe the cleaner air and drink the purer water.
And you will do so by imposing unnecessary regulations that will make all costs of living extraordinarily high, substantially lowering everyone’s standard of living. Thank you ever so much.
7. Should a mass murderer ever kill 3,000 people on our soil, we will devote every single resource to tracking him down and bringing him to justice. Immediately. We will protect you.
You will do this by cutting and running if the going gets tough?
8. We will never stick our nose in your bedroom or your womb. What you do there as consenting adults is your business. We will continue to count your age from the moment you were born, not the moment you were conceived.
Yes , Michael, while many of us wish your mother had had an abortion, we know is would have been wrong. And aren’t you glad she didn’t?
9. We will not take away your hunting guns. If you need an automatic weapon or a handgun to kill a bird or a deer, then you really aren't much of a hunter and you should, perhaps, pick up another sport. We will make our streets and schools as free as we can from these weapons and we will protect your children just as we would protect ours.
Is it that liberals cannot read? The Second amendment is about the right to keep and bear military arms, because it is about a free militia.
10. When we raise the minimum wage, we will pay you -- and your employees -- that new wage, too. When women are finally paid what men make, we will pay conservative women that wage, too.
And you don’t care how many jobs it costs to do it!
11. We will respect your religious beliefs, even when you don't put those beliefs into practice. In fact, we will actively seek to promote your most radical religious beliefs ("Blessed are the poor," "Blessed are the peacemakers," "Love your enemies," "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God," and "Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me."). We will let people in other countries know that God doesn't just bless America, he blesses everyone. We will discourage religious intolerance and fanaticism -- starting with the fanaticism here at home, thus setting a good example for the rest of the world.
What is your plan for dealing with Muslim intolerance: rioting over cartoons, death for religions converts, stoning of homosexuals, suicide bombings of innocents, flying jet planes into buildings. We have heard NOTHING from the Democrats about dealing with Muslim religious intolerance.
12. We will not tolerate politicians who are corrupt and who are bought and paid for by the rich. We will go after any elected leader who puts him or herself ahead of the people. And we promise you we will go after the corrupt politicians on our side FIRST. If we fail to do this, we need you to call us on it. Simply because we are in power does not give us the right to turn our heads the other way when our party goes astray. Please perform this important duty as the loyal opposition.
See comment to paragraph 3. Get ‘em. I dare you!
I promise all of the above to you because this is your country, too. You are every bit as American as we are. We are all in this together. We sink or swim as one. Thank you for your years of service to this country and for giving us the opportunity to see if we can make things a bit better for our 300 million fellow Americans -- and for the rest of the world.


Michael Moore

Ha, ha. Good one, Micheal. Thanks for showing us how out of touch liberals really are.

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Why Robert Spencer is Important

Robert Spencer believes that the “true” and “pure” Islam as set forth in the Koran and the Haditha promotes violence against unbelievers.

It does not make any difference if Robert is right or not.

The jihadists who fly planes into buildings, who strap bombs around themselves and who drive SUV’s into groups of students think so.

There are imams in American mosques who teach that form of Islam.

There are imams in mosques all over the world who teach that form of Islam.

Until the Muslims who both believe and persuade their fellow Muslims otherwise, we are all in danger if we do not recognize the power of the violent form of Islam that Robert Spencer exposes on Jihadwatch and in his books (The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and The Truth About Muhammad).

Anyone, Muslim or nonMuslim, who dismisses Robert is simply sticking his or her head in the sand and denying the reality of the jihadists.

That is why Robert Spencer is important. We need to know the mindset of the jihadists, our enemy.

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

Democrats Victorious?

I am hoping to be pleasantly surprised by the Democratic reaction to yesterday's election. It would be refreshing -- an amazing -- to hear the Democrats acknowledge that there really is no mandate for their program. Shoot, they never articulated a program. The Democratic victory was nothing more nothing less than a Republican loss due to disaffection with the Republican program: big government spending and ineffective to nonexistent immigration reform.

Gloating by Democratic winners basking in the glory of the Republican defeat, insisting that there is a mandate, would simply demonstrate that the Democratic victors are sincerely out of touch with reality.

The Republicans Deserved to Lose

As I said previously, the Republicans abaindoned their stated ideals and spent like drunks and increased the nanny-state. No wonder they lost their base and lost the election.

And in Ohio, the outgoing Republican governor was probably the worst governor in Ohio history, criminally convicted to an ethic violation and tainted by a major financial scandal.

Monday, November 06, 2006

Backing a Bigot

From Austratlia's Herald Sun.

Backing a bigot
Andrew Bolt
November 03, 2006 12:00am

ANDREW Bolt writes: It's the code of the tribe: the worst of us is better than the best of you. We have urgent work to do if we want to save ourselves.
Excuses over. The disgraced mufti of Australia set Muslims a test last month and they failed.

That test couldn't have been easier: make Sheik Taj el-Din al-Hilaly pay for preaching that unveiled women invited rape.

Prove that Muslims can't be led by a man who says raped women must be "jailed for life". Prove we have nothing to fear from your faith.

Simple? Yet yesterday 34 Muslim groups signed a petition backing this bigot, while others plan a big rally for Sydney tomorrow, denouncing not Hilaly but the non-Muslims who criticise him.

The results are in: Islam here -- as represented by many of its leaders -- is now a threat.

What's more: our culture of self-hate makes us too weak to properly resist.

I know saying such things is hard on the many moderate Muslims I keep insisting are out there. I am sorry for that, but where in God's name are those people? How much longer must we wait for them to speak?
Read it all.

Thursday, November 02, 2006

Socialized Medicine Revealed

Somewhere along the way these countries [Europe and Canada] are redefined in the relationship between government and citizen into something closer to pusher and addict. And once you've done that, it's very hard to persuade the attitude to cut back his habit. Thus, the general acceptance everywhere about America is that the state should run your health care. A citizen of an advanced democracy expects to be able to choose from dozens of breakfast cereals at the supermarket, hundreds of movies at the video store, and millions of porno sites on the Internet, but when it comes to life-or-death decisions about his own body he's happy to have the choice taken out of his hands and given to the government.
From America Alone by Marc Steyn, page 45.

As for alternative medicine, under a socialized system, you are at the mercy of whatever view is prevailing in government on the effectiveness of such treatments.

Mainsteam? Or Moderate?

Out of the mouths of kindergarten teachers:
Islam is not only a religion, it is a complete way of life. Islam guides Moslems from birth to grave. The Koran and Prophet Mohammed's words at practical application of Koran in life cannot be changed..

Islam is a guide for humanity, for all times, until the day of judgment. It is forbidden in Islam to convert to any other religion. The penalty is death. There is no disagreement about it.

Islam is being embraced by people of other faiths all the time. They should know that they can embrace Islam but cannot get out. This rule is not made by Muslims; it is the supreme law of God. Please do not ask us Muslims to pick some rules and disregard of the rules. Muslims are supposed to embrace Islam in its totality.
-- Nazra Quraishi, Kindergarten Teacher, in Lansing State Journal (Michigan), July 5, 2006, as quoted in America Alone by Mark Steyn at page 81, emphasis added.

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

John Kerry Remark

I agree with Bill O'Reilly that Kerry was not intending to slam the troops when he said if kids did not get an education, they might end up in Iraq.

He was intending to slam President Bush's intelligence, just as he said.

However you cut it, the remark was mean-spirited and unworthy of civil debate. If he thought his intended remark was a joke, he does not belong in the public arena.

Update: I watched the video of Kerry's remarks in context. The "joke" was planned and canned. After listening, I am no longer sure who he was intending to slam.

The guy is mega-creepy.

Tuesday, October 31, 2006

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.

Friday, October 27, 2006

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 ( - 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.

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.)

Thursday, October 26, 2006

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.

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

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.

Thursday, October 19, 2006


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?

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

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 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?

Monday, October 16, 2006

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.

Friday, October 13, 2006

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.


• 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.

Thursday, October 12, 2006

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.

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

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.

Thursday, October 05, 2006

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

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.)

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

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.


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.

Tuesday, October 03, 2006

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.

Thursday, September 28, 2006

Liberals and Sleep

The so-called "liberal (actually leftist) world is a tough one. The latest study. shows the following about liberal vs. conservative sleep patterns:
Among his findings, Kelly Bulkeley discovered that liberals are more restless sleepers and have a higher number of bizarre, surreal dreams -- including fantasy settings and a wide variety of sexual encounters. Conservatives' dreams were, on average, far more mundane and focused on realistic people, situations and settings.
Gosh. It has always seemed to me that liberals were lucky. They don't even need to be asleep to have "bizarre, surreal dreams." They merely need to be talking politics.

Wednesday, September 27, 2006

Rioting for Ramadon

I don't know much about how Ramadan is historically celebrated, but in Brussels, it is celebrated by rioting according to the Brussels Journal.

Any ideas on how to invite Mulsims to join the civilized world?

National Intelligence Hoop-de-Doo

I really don't get the hoop-de-doo about the leaked and then released National Intelligence report on the relationship between terrorism and the war in Iraq.

The Democrats have gotten all frizzy about the report's conclusion that the United States invasion of Iraq made Muslims mad. OK, we did it and they are mad.

The Republicans are upset, understandably, that Pravda West aka the New York Times and its ilk, won't tell people that that report says that success in Iraq will discourage future jihadists. Of course it will. People of every culture prefer to be associated with a winner, not a loser. Jihadists don't want to waste their deaths, but want to know their suicide deaths bring Islam closer to military victory.

No surprises really. So why all the hype? The Democrats look backward to lay the blame game. The Republicans look forward to what do we need to do now. Wouldn't any rational person have to agree with the Republicans on this one?

Tuesday, September 26, 2006

Lives versus Principles

I don't have the answers, so I am just going to pose questions.

A suspected Islamic Jihad terrorist picked up by police within the United States. The police suspect that a person has engaged in illegal, terrorist activity that after an investigation, could be prosecuted. The police also believe that the suspect has information that if divulged, would save hundreds if not thousands of lives. If the police torture the suspect, any information received would be tainted. Any future investigation of the suspect for his or her terrorist activity would be compromised. No confession obtained under torture would be useable. It is likely that the suspect would go free under the American system of justice. The question is, should the police be permitted to torture the suspect to obtain the information that would save lives?

Given the same situation, but the suspect is not a United States citizen picked up by the United States military in a foreign country. We are not at war with any country and the suspected terrorist was not wearing a uniform of any country. Should the military be permitted to torture the suspect to obtain the information that would save lives?

If the United States condones torture in any circumstance, don’t we compromise our principles, our moral high ground? Is the saving of lives worth the damage to our national reputation? Should pragmatism control over principle?

Does it make any difference how many lives would be saved?

Does it make any difference if one of the lives were one of your children?

Thursday, September 21, 2006

Scantily Clad Women Worse than 202 Dead.

Muslim logic.

Quote without comment:
"So, if I am asked which is more dangerous, naked women or the Bali bombs [which killed 202 people], then my reply is of course those women in skimpy clothes," Antara quoted [alleged terror leader Abu Bakar Bashir] as saying at a public rally calling for the imposition of Islamic law in Indonesia.
Source: International Herald Tribune.

Democrats Defending Bush

Congratulations to Representatives Nancy Pelosi and Charlie Rangel for defending President Bush over the nasty remarks of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

The angry defenses by Democratic representatives Pelosi and Rangel were right on target. Both of them have serious disagreements with President Bush. But they rightly take umbrage at a foreign president coming to United States soil for the purpose of insulting our president.

Good for them. It is good sense. It is good politics. Their outrage is right, just, and appropriate.

As for Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, remember that Citgo Petroleum Company is owned by Venezuela. Personally I boycott Citgo.

Update: Huga Chavez's remarks should serve as a warning to Nancy Pelosi and Charlie Rangel and their comrades that their frequent unhinged remarks about the president uncourages foreign potentates to equally unhinged criticism of the U.S.

I have no problem with reasoned disagreement internally. A loyal opposition is healthy. Unhinged hate-speech by home-grown leftists about the president and his policies reaps ill rewards internationally.

Desperate for Moderate Spokespeople

From a Columbus Dispatch editorial today about the Pope's remarks:
The West cannot comprehend why these believers fail to see the illogic of their violent acts. If they don’t want people to think they’re violent, why resort to violence?

Regardless, if such dangerous conflagrations are to be avoided — if, for example, Christian holy sites across Italy are ever to be able to relax the extraordinary security measures they’ve taken since the incident — the West must better understand the siege mentality that inspires such Muslim outrage.

That doesn’t mean the West must capitulate to irrationality and surrender the right to speak freely. It does mean that Western leaders should look harder among the many strains and styles of Islam for the moderate thinkers who might be able to bridge the gap.
The West is desperate to find moderate Muslim spokespersons. They are so very hard to find. Is it because they fear for their own and their family's safety if they were to speak out in moderation?

This blog has lauded the few moderate Muslim spokesperson that have expressed themselves in public. America, Europe and the world need more of them.

Columbus Dispatch Poll on Islam

The Columbus Dispatch
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
The Hot Issue: Do you believe that mainstream Islam encourages violence against nonbelievers?
65% Yes
35% No
The Columbus Dispatch conducted this online poll, and solicited comments. Although nearly wo-thirds of the respondents answered “yes,” many of them included thoughtful comments distinguishing between mainstream Islam and mainstream American Muslims. Many said the mainstream American Muslims were peaceful and tolerant despite the teachings of Islam.

Those who said “no” clearly confused mainstream, peaceful tolerant Muslims with mainstream Islam. They are, fortunately, different.

Most Muslims in America are decent, peaceful and tolerant people. They accept jihad only as a personal struggle. However, it is undeniable that Islam contains many violent adherents. Those who engage in violent jihad have been killing innocents. They are trying to destroy the American way of life. They are trying to impose Islam upon the world by the sword.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is part of the problem. It definitely is not part of the solution. Rather than promote strong relations between Muslims and non-Muslims, CAIR promotes victimization of Muslims. Regardless of the truth or falsity of any crimes in which Muslims are victims, according to CAIR, the crimes are hate crimes. As a result, CAIR serves violent jihad, not peace. It seeks to drive a wedge between Muslims and non-Muslims in America.

If it were the purpose of CAIR to promote peaceful relations between Muslims and non-Muslims, CAIR would position itself as fighting terrorism at all levels. CAIR would accept the obvious. CAIR would recognize that Islam has produced terrorists. They are not a majority of Muslims, but it cannot deny that Islam produces terrorists. CAIR should publicly denounce the elements of Islam that continues to produce terrorists. CAIR should work to position American Muslims as denouncing all terrorist activity in the name of Islam. CAIR should openly organize opposition to Islamic terrorists, even if that means informing to the authorities about terrorist activity and terrorist rhetoric within mosques.

Without that, CAIR and other American Muslims send the message that the brotherhood of Muslims is more important than the lives of innocent victims of terrorism.

Wednesday, September 20, 2006

CAIR Fails to Condemn Muslim Violence

The sun rises in the east. Grass is green CAIR fails to condemn Muslim violence over Pope's remarks.

In case you did not know, CAIR is the "Council on Islamic American Relations" that annual publishes false statistics on supposed hate crims against Muslims.

CAIR's website is full of whining about the pope's remarks. Although a press release on the site sayd the proper response is for "dialogue" between Catholics and Muslims. But, nowhere does CAIR actually condemn Muslim violence over the remarks (which incidentally have been greatly overblown in the retelling).

The failings of CAIR are well articulated in the Philadelphia Inquirer commentary by Omran Salman.

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

Religion of Peace Exemplified

If Islam is a religion of peace, why are Muslims alway rioting about trivial insults?

If Muslims really wanted to persuade the world that Islam is a religion of peace, wouldn't they make a point of behaving in a peaceful manner?

Do Muslims understand that killing people and committing other violent acts in the name of Islam raises doubts in the minds of non-Muslims whether Islam is really a religion of peace?

Of course, I guess there is nothing more peaceful than death. Is that the intended message?

Update: Message to the Muslim communities of the world: You will inevitabely be judged by the rest of the world by your actions. Respect is earned, not given on demand. Love is earned, not given on demand. Trust is earned, not given on demand.

Know the Enemy

There has been a very interesting exchange this morning in various blogs discussing Islam versus Christianity and whether it is important to remind the non-Muslim readers what the Koran says about violence.

Bryan Preston begins the discussion.

Bill at INDC Journal provides a thoughtful response.

Dean Esmay offers a response that is considerably less thoughtful.

Robert Spencer, in his intelligent way, pretty much rips Dean Esmay's response to shreds using, oh my, facts and logic.

As for me, I understand that most Muslims do not buy into violent Jihad, at least not for themselves. They do want respect for their religion from the rest of the world. Unfortunately, too few are willing to openly oppose the Jihadists, I suppose, out of fear for their own safety.

Violent Jihadists are the enemy of the United States and all non-Muslims everywhere. To fight any enemy, one must get inside the enemy's head. One must know what makes the enemy tick. Osama bin Laden and his fellows have not been shy about telling us what make them tick. It is the plain language of the Koran. They reject the non-violent interpretations. We need to understand where they are coming from, because we need to defend ourselves.

Defenders of Islam miss the point. It is the interpretation by the violent Jihadists that is killing innocent people. Because they read it in the Koran and in the Hadith and because the Muslim religions leaders will not unite in opposition to that interpretation, violent Islamic Jihad is a danger to each of us.

Monday, September 18, 2006

Needed Message to Muslim Americans

From Australia's Herald Sun worth quoting in full. This message desparately and urgently needs to be sent from President Bush to our American imams.

The Howard Government's multicultural spokesman, Andrew Robb, yesterday told an audience of 100 imams who address Australia's mosques that these were tough times requiring great personal resolve.

Mr Robb also called on them to shun a victim mentality that branded any criticism as discrimination.

"We live in a world of terrorism where evil acts are being regularly perpetrated in the name of your faith," Mr Robb said at the Sydney conference.

"And because it is your faith that is being invoked as justification for these evil acts, it is your problem.

"You can't wish it away, or ignore it, just because it has been caused by others.

"Instead, speak up and condemn terrorism, defend your role in the way of life that we all share here in Australia."

Mr Robb said unless Muslims took responsibility for their destiny and tackled the causes of terrorism, Australia would become divided.

Mr Robb, the parliamentary secretary for immigration and multicultural affairs, said it was important for migrants to learn English.

"I see as critical the need for imams to have effective English language skills -- it is a self-evident truth that a shared language is one of the foundations of national cohesion," he said.

On the eve of Mr Robb's release today of a discussion paper on a new citizenship test, the chairman of the Government's Muslim Reference Group, Dr Ameer Ali, said Opposition Leader Kim Beazley's idea of a values test was silly, as was the need for a universal English test.

He called for an orientation program for new migrants akin to a university student's orientation week.
We are constantly told that it is a small minority of Muslim extremists that are conducting their violent Jihad. I accept that. But, it is the the majority of non-violent Muslims who need to be outspoken against the Jihdists and who need to quell the violence in the ranks of their own brethren.

Read literally, the Koran, the Hadith and the life of Muhammed can incite violence. But there are other interpretations, such as that expressed by Alykhan Velshi. We don't hear voices like those of Mr. Velshi often enough. And I suspect these voices are not often enough heard within the mosques, either.

That is why Mr. Bush needs to speak as plainly and directly as Australia's Andrew Robb.

"Behead Those Who Call Us Violent"

Let's see.

A Christian killed in Irag.

A Nun, Sister Leonella Sgorbati, shot on the back.

Catholic priest missing in Baghdad.

Anglican church firebombed.

An Iraqi group has threatened retaliatory attacks on Rome and the Vatican.

A Somali cleric has called on all Muslims to kill the Pope.

Yet still, somehow, the Pope thinks that Islam promotes violence. How could he ever think such a thing?

Friday, September 15, 2006

Muslims Riot to Protest Violence Accusation

Pope Benedict XVI suggested that Muhammed spread Islam by violence and that spreading religion by violence is wrong and not God's way. So what happens?

Muslims decide to protest with violent riots.

How dare the pope accuse Islam of being violent!

Rosie O'Donnell Strikes ... Out

I feel the irrational need to defend Christianity. (It is only feeling the need that is irrational.) Yesterday, the news reported that Rosie O’Donnell made a statement that radical Christianity is just as dangerous as radical Islam. I am astounded.

As I think about it though. I have no idea what she means by radical Christianity. I have never heard of it. I'm not sure anyone else has either.

The most radical thing I've ever heard out of Christianity would be the statement by Pat Robertson saying that hurricane Katrina was a result of America's immorality. Was that radical Christianity? Unlike radical Islamists, I don't think Pat Robertson succeeded in killing anyone over that statement.

Hey Rosie, how many Christians have flown airliners into skyscrapers recently? How many have been involved in carrying out bomb plots against inncent civilians? How many have driven SUV's into crowds of innocent people to see how many they could kill and injure?

Maybe Rosie O'Donnell she was just throwing up a nonexistent strawman to be politically correct. But she is an admitted lesbian. Doesn't she realize the serious consequences of being homosexual in an Islamic society? Sharia law mandates death for homosexuals.

I guess it just proves that Rosie O'Donnell is simply a tinfoil-hat nut. I should not have been surprised.

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

A Courageous Muslim Voice

Thank you, Emilio Karim Dabul, for your courage to speak out and to speak the truth.
Five years after that awful day, it's time for all Arab-Americans, and Arabs around the world, to protest against Islamic fascism, to raise our voices - and, where necessary, our arms - against these tyrants until their plague of terror has been driven from the face of the earth forever.
Muslim Arab-Americans should be, must be, the solution to Islamic terrorism in this country.

We need more outspoken voices like that of Mr.Dabul.

CAIR, are you listening? Or are you too busy with Jihad?

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

CAIR Falls Flat -- Again

I had to check out the web site for the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). The web site is astoundingly insensitive to the whole 9/11 issue.

There is a small, barely findable September 10 press release about CAIR "leaders" rubbing shoulders with national leaders of other faiths by joining an upcoming interfaith unity march in Washington on September 11. In other words, it was about CAIR's self-aggrandizement, not really about 9/11.

There was no condemnation of Islamic terrorists for hijacking the religion.
There was no expression of sympathy or sorrow for the 9/11 victims.
There was no pledge of support for anti-terrorism efforts.

If you want to know where CAIR stands, just look at its web site and ignore its feeble oral protests. CAIR is all about portraying Muslims as victims. Period.

Welcome to the jihad.

Tin Foil Hat Brigade

The tin foil hats of New York City's moonbat population celebrated 9/11 guessed it...blaming George Bush.

See more photos from el Marco here.

This has to be one of the goofiest conspiracy theories in history of the world. There is no mystery about who was responsible. The bad guys admitted it and there is loads of evidence to support the admission.

There is no reasoning with the unhinged left.

More Threats from Al Qaeda

Al Qaeda continues to issue threats according to the lates from the Associated Press.

Where are the moderate, peaceful Muslims in America? Oh yes, "counterprotesting" the hanging of the #1 terrorist in effigy.

Monday, September 11, 2006

Osama Hanged in Effigy

When anti-terror activists hanged Osama bin Laden in effigy yesterday, by all accounts the local Muslim community acquitted themselves abysmally.

The protesters chanted "Remember 911" and No more Jihad." what did the local Muslims do? The became "counter protesters." Countering the threat of antiterrorism, maybe? How is antiterrorism something to protest?

The Muslim community behavior, unfortunately, was all too revealing. It is sad really. We wish the Muslim community would behave in a manner to join antiterrorism efforts, not protest them.

How can we feel safe if Muslims will not join antiterrorism efforts?

Simple. We cannot. And we cannot trust those who will not consistently fight terrorism and denounce terrorists like Osama bin Laden.

9/11 Never Forget -- Never Submit

Never forget.
Never forget the victims.
Never forget the terror.
Never forget who our enemies are.
Never forget to be constantly vigilant.

Never submit to terrorists or their allies.

They are still trying to kill us.

And, unfortunately, the Muslims in America seem determined to avoid consistent condemnation of the terrorists leaders, as demonstrated by a "moderate" mosque at the hanging in effigy of Osama bin Laden yesterday. See Jihadwatch for a report on the demonstration and the mosque's, uh, unsupportive reaction.

Friday, September 08, 2006

What is Wrong With the Democrats?

I have been pretty disgusted by the Republican rule in Congress, with its immense pork-laden spending. But the behavior of the Democrats and their nutcase supporters on protecting us from terrorists makes me wonder which is worse.

I hate to say it, but I have to go with the benefits of protecting innocent lives from terrorists over the detriments of the Republicans’ runaway spending.

Who can respect the elected Democrats? They have behaved like big babies over ABC’s 9/11 dramatization. If a Democratic administration is not portrayed as perfection personified, Democrats are wailing. Listen, you DNC Dumbos, no one was perfect in letting 9/11 happen. No one. Shut and watch TV.

I truly do not understand why Democrats do not seem to understand that the war on terrorists is important.

Listen up, Democratic politicians:



Why do these simple facts seem to escape so many (but thankfully not all) Democratic politicians?

Tuesday, September 05, 2006

When Muslims are Truly Americans...

It is reported that Muslims are feeling disenfranchised because of the way that America is trying to defend itslef from that branch of Islam that has killed thousands of innocents and threatens to kill more?

What can American Muslims do?

It is easy. Become part of the solution, rather than part of the problem. America's first Muslim ambassador addresses the solution in the Washington Times. (Registration may be required to view.) He said,
If Muslims are to gain the full confidence of non-Muslim Americans they must come forward whenever they sense an extremist presence in their midst. If anything, we must go the extra mile in these suspicious times.
Read the entire editorial.

Friday, September 01, 2006

Not an Islamic Terrorist

Good news. The San Francisco lone terrorist was not terrorizing in furtherance of Islam. He was just nuts. See Michelle Malkin analysis.

Still, the FBI gets it wrong when a lone nut case kills or injures in the name of Islam. It is still terrorism, even without a formal connection to a terrorist organization.

Thursday, August 31, 2006

Why the Left Loves Islam

I have really been struggling to understand why the left wingers seem to give Islam a pass, even though radical Muslims are trying to kill them (and the rest of us non-Muslims) in the name of Islam (but only if we wonÂ’t convert). I finally figured it out.

They are birds of a feather!!!

The radical Muslims riot over cartoons and motor vehicle accidents and believe that killing thousands of innocents will persuade the remaining non-Muslims that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance and that Allah is good.

In other words, they are violently unhinged. And so is the American left as Michelle Malkin has documented.

Wednesday, August 30, 2006

What is a Terrorist?

I guess we learned from the FBI that terrorist acts are only terrorism if the terrorist is specifically affiliated with a known, government recognized terrorist organization. Thus, when Omeed Aziz Popal reported told police that he is a terrorist acting in the name of Islam, by FBI definitions, he is not.

Gee. I think he would know.

After driving his SUV into a number of people deliberately, the San Francisco police are simply calling it multiple assaults. See San Francisco Chronicle.

When Joel Henry Hinrichs blew himself up outside and Oklahoma State University football game, we can now understand why the FBI did not identify it as an act of terrorism. He had no known it ties to any government-recognized terrorist organization.

I want to trust the government. But I cannot trust the government’s definitions.

Tuesday, August 29, 2006

Women's Interests Need Protecting NOW!

Islamic terrorism affects everybody. Jihadists have indiscriminately targeted men, women, children, Christians, Jews, atheists, Rotarians, suburbanites, city-dwellers and other innocents. Logic would suggest that everyone should be serious about fighting terrorism, because everyone is a target, even moderate Muslims.

The radical Islamists ultimately seek to impose Islam upon the world and rule the world according to Shari’a law. Shari’a law specifically imposes unreasonable burdens upon women:

1. A man may easily divorce his wife, but not the other way around.
2. Men may beat their wives if the wives do not respond to oral correction.
3. Women must be covered in public.
4. In court, a woman’s testimony is worth half the testimony of a man.
5. To prove rape, there must be four Muslim male eyewitnesses, but if there is no conviction, the woman may be penalized for adultery.
6. Homosexuality s forbidden and punishable.

So, where are the feminists in the fight against Islamic terrorism?

To find out, I explored the National Organization for Woman (NOW) web site. I reviewed the NOW issues. I found exactly one of probably a hundred issues that addressed anything having to do with Islam. And that issue was about pressuring George Bush to get gender equality in the then-proposed Iraqi Constitution (It is: Article 14).

None of the others addressed or recognized any dangers to women from radical Islam.

Don’t they read the papers? They can’t exactly like Shari’a law. Is it that NOW leadership can’t see past their hatred of George Bush to recognize their own interests?

I urge women to contact NOW and tell them that radical Islam threatens women and that it should be made an issue -- NOW!

Friday, August 25, 2006

More Peace and Tolerance

More Islamic death threats against an individual. His crime? He owns a Christian television station in Palestine. His appeals to government authorities for protection reportedly go unheeded.

The death threats are not just words. A Molotov coktail has been thrown against his home. Asia News reports the story.

Ya Gotta Love that Islamic Tolerance!

Islam, the religion of peace and tolerance. That would explain the death threats by Islamics against a Malaysian woman who converted to Christianity eight years ago AND against her lawyer who represents her in seeking the right to marry the Christian man she loves. The NY Times reports. (Requires free registration to view.)

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

Still Missing

Fox News Channel reporter Steve Centanni and freelance cameraman Olaf Wiig, kidnapped in Gaza more than a week ago, are still missing.

Has the MSM had equivalent coverage for these reporters as for MSM reporters previously kidnapped? I am sure some blogger will be researching it.

The kidnapped reporters need our prayers.

Update: According to the AP, they appear to be alive, but the kidnappers have made a 72 hour demand for an exchange for "Muslim prisoners."

Monday, August 21, 2006

Passenger, Protect Thyself

Airline passengers have begun taking responsibility for their own safety by refusing to fly when there are suspicious Muslims on board. British passengers here. Russian passengers here.

The Muslims involved, presumably innocent, have only the Muslim brethren to blame. After all, there is a large group of Muslims (yes, not a majority) trying to kill us.

August 24 update: The British press, who euphemistically calls Middle-Eastern Muslims "Asians," reports that the two men in one of the above incidents were upset that their suspicious actions resulted in the British passenger revolt. Read it here. What do you think? Do you support the fearful passengers? Or the "Asians?"

Arabic Prayer on Airplane? Keep Silent!

A Muslim radiologist used poor judgment when he prayed aloud in Arabic aboard a passenger aircraft. See CBC News article. Now he wants compensation from the airline.

If he were an intelligent as I would want MY OWN radiologist to be, he would realize that prayers in Arabic (which may or may not have been recognized as prayers) were likely to alarm other passengers. It was bad judgment on his part.

I would rather the airlines err on the side of caution. After all, today's terrorist threats are from Muslim terrorists. Blaming the airline and raising a public stink ultimately aids the terrorists.

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

Sharia Family Law for the U.K.?

From the U.K in The Independent:
Muslim leaders have urged Ruth Kelly, the Secretary of State for Communities, to support Islamic family law in Britain to stop youths joining Islamic extremists.
What does this mean?

Under Sharia law, a man may beat his wife, but only if she fails to conform to his verbal correction. A man may have four wives. A man may divorce his wife by repeating three times, "I divorce you." The wife has no such opportunity. A Muslim woman may not marry a non-Muslim.

isn't this all "family law?" Is this what they want when they ask for Sharia family law for U.K. Muslims to keep youths from strapping themselves with explosives to kill innocent people? To stop killing innocents, they need the right to beat their wives etc.?

Would it also stop them from rioting over cartoons and other silliness?

When is Torture OK?

According to the The Guardian, much of the information that stopped the London airplane terrorists came from torture of an informant.

When is torture OK? In this case, hundreds to thousands of lives were apparently saved based upon information derived from torture. If the only information supporting the arrests were derived from torture, I would have to decry it. An accuser under torture is inherently unreliable, unless.... Unless the information extracted from the tortured individual is confirmed by other means.

We can have no faith in convictions based upon confessions extracted under torture. No court should condone such activity.

But when torture is necessary to save many, many innocent lives, because the tortured person is plotting death (or even knows of the plot and refuses to help), I have trouble dredging up sympathy for the villain.

What happens, though if we condone torture as a means to extract information about terrorist activities? Will we be torturing innocent people before we can determine that the information extracted was false?

I don't know. I hate the idea of torture. But worse than the torture of an evil plotter of human misery, I hate the human misery he or she would create if left untortured.

No Terrorist Link

Per CNN.comThe FBI declares that they can find no terrorism link to the three Texas "Palestinian-Americans" arrested in Michigan after buying nearly 1000 cell phones and discarding the chargers (presumably with a chip useful for bombs). However, what "links" are necessary to make someone a terrorist?

Michigan prosecutors are sticking with terrorism charges.

I am not pre-judging these individuals. I am saying that IF they were intent on blowing up or disrupting a bridge in Michigan, they don't need specific links to al-Qaeda, Hamas, or Hezbollah to make them terrorists. IF they planned acts to harm innocent civilians in the name of an ideology (Islam in this case), they are terrorists.

For that matter, there were three of them. IF guilty of such plans, they were and are a terrorist organization of at least three people.

But what about the lone gunman in Seattle or the lone SUV driver who killed or aimed to harm in the name of Islam? It seems to me that they are terrorists, even if they acted alone, without the support of a specific terrorist organization. (We will leave the question whether Islam is a terrorist organization for another day.) Planning an act of terror in the name of an ideology is terrorism, whether the perpetrator is alone or conspiring with others. Isn't it?

A Voice of Reason

"I have no doubt that there are many issues which incite people to loath government policies but not to strap explosives to themselves and go out and murder innocent people.

"There is no way of rationalising that.

"I think it is very, very dangerous when people who call themselves community leaders make some assumption that somehow that there's a rational connection between these two things."
--U.K Foreign Office Minister Kim Howells in response to a letter from British Muslim leaders urging changes in government policy to prevent further terrorist activities. Source: BBC News.

Monday, August 07, 2006

Enemies of Islam

Don't go to Afghanistan and share the love and miracles of Christ:

Afghanistan deports Christian Koreans, cancels peace festival

KABUL: Afghanistan has ordered hundreds of South Korean Christians to leave the country yesterday, accusing them of seeking to undermine Islamic culture and trying to spread Christianity.

Members of a South Korean non-governmental organisation, called the Institute of Asian Culture & Development, had prepared for a ’peace festival’ set for this weekend.

A member of the Korean group has said that the festival has been cancelled at the request of the Afghan government, Agence France-Presse reports.

Spokesman for the group Sung Han Kang said that Interior Ministry officials said they were being deported for their own protection, not due to security fears.

Meanwhile, Interior Ministry spokesman Yousef Stanezai said that although the Koreans came with tourist visas, their activities showed they had a different agenda.

"The programme was against the Islamic culture and customs of Afghans," he said, adding they have been told to leave the country as soon as possible.

The South Koreans came to Afghanistan a month ago to provide computer and business training, medical and dental care and arrange sports activities in five cities, he said.

"It was rumoured among the people they have plans to convert the people to Christianity," said Faiaz Mhrain, the governor’s chief of staff.

However, Kang stated that although the Institute of Asian Culture & Development has a Christian background, they have no intentions to win converts.

In western Herat province, provincial authorities put about 200 Koreans on a bus and deported them to Uzbekistan on Wednesday, a top provincial official said.

According to the South Korean-based Institute, some of the visiting Koreans have U.S. or Canadian citizenships, and there were 600 children among the visitors.

Kang confirmed the Koreans were deported but said they were sent to Iran.
Perhaps the South Koreans were lucky. At least the Afghanis did not kill them as enemies of Islam. Does not the Koran say at Surah 9.5:
[S]lay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush...

Peace! Tolerance! What a Religion!

How could Christians ever forget that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance. Unless, of course a Christian drinks from a Muslims-only water fountain:
Christian Stone Mason Beaten For Drinking Water From Public Facility

By Sheraz Khurram Khan
Special Correspondent for ASSIST News Service in Pakistan

LAHORE, PAKISTAN (ANS) -- A Christian stone mason received critical injuries, including dislocation of his shoulder after he was seen drinking water from a public facility, by a Muslim man on June 6 (Tuesday) just outside the eastern city of Lahore, the Pakistan Christian Post (PCP) has reported.

Nasir Ashraf, the Christian mason was working at the construction site of a school. The trouble for him began while he was returning to the site. Confronting him with anger the Muslim man asked him as to why he drank water from the public facility by using a glass that was placed at the water tank.

“Why did you drink water from this glass since you are a Christian?” the PCP quoted the Muslim man as asking Nasir.

“The man accused the mason of polluting the glass and proceeded to destroy it. The Muslim man then summoned a crowd by shouting, “This Christian polluted our glass,” and encouraged them to beat him up”, the PCP report said.

“The crowd began beating Nasir, eventually pushing him off a ledge. The fall dislocated his shoulder, broke his collarbone in two places and knocked him unconscious,” it said.

Friday, August 04, 2006

Tell it to Hezbollah!

What do you think of Hezbollah using civilians as shield and faking photographic opportunities?

Tell it directly to Hezbollah! No kidding! Clickable email address here:

Moonbat Logic Part 1

This is the first in a series of posts on that oxymoron: moonbat logic. Today, we have:

Goldstein v. Frisch (coming to a courthouse near someone)

The tormenter of blogger Jeff Goldstein is a moonbat named Deborah Frisch. After making ugly public comments that any reasonable person would take as threatening Mr. GoldsteinÂ’s children, Ms. Frisch resigned her job as an adjunct professor at University of Arizona and continued her awful blog-baiting with nasty sexual references to Mr. Goldstein, his wife and children. Although even fellow moonbats told her she had gone overboard and was an embarrassment to liberals everywhere, Ms. Frisch refused to cease her nasty attacks on Mr. Goldstein and his family. Mr. Goldstein has now apparently brought legal action.

Of course, Ms. Frisch thinks herself somehow the victim because Mr. Goldstein actually posted, or left posted, her comments on his blog. Ms. Frisch thinks Mr. Goldstein should pay her damages. (At last report, it appears that no lawyer can be found to pursue her weird claim.)

Thursday, August 03, 2006

Muslims Acting Like Muslims

There are moderates in Islam, but Islam itself is not moderate as has been so frequently shown by Muslims themselves. This time, credible death threats to a moderate Muslim force him to hide from the public limelight to protect his family. His crime? Insulting Islam by expressing moderate views. Jihad Watch has the story from Canada's Globe and Mail along with commentary.

With the consistently violent history of Islamists, is there any hope in the near future for Muslim tolerance of a multi-cultural society?

Wednesday, August 02, 2006

Staged Photojournalism

Forbes reports on the controversy surrounding apparently staged photos of dead children after the recent Qana bombing. Comments bolded and in brackets are mine.
The AP said information [What information? Why don't you tell us?] from its photo editors showed the events were not staged, and that the time stamps could be misleading for several reasons, including that web sites can use such stamps to show when pictures are posted, not taken. [Which falls short of saying that the time stamps are misleading in this instance.] An AFP executive said he was stunned to be questioned about it. [How dare anyone question the media elete!] Reuters, in a statement, said it categorically rejects any such suggestion. [Because?]

"It's hard to imagine how someone sitting in an air-conditioned office or broadcast studio many thousands of miles from the scene can decide what occurred on the ground with any degree of accuracy," said Kathleen Carroll, AP's senior vice president and executive editor.[Yes, it is hard to imagine how Ms. Carroll, sitting in her air-conditioned office can decide the photos were not staged.]

Carroll said in addition to personally speaking with photo editors, "I also know from 30 years of experience in this business that you can't get competitive journalists to participate in the kind of (staging) experience that is being described."[So, what kind of photo staging can you get competitive journalists to engage in?]

Photographers are experienced in recognizing when someone is trying to stage something for their benefit, she said. [Yet, they need to picture to make a deadline, so they shoot anyway?]

"Do you really think these people would risk their lives under Israeli shelling to set up a digging ceremony for dead Lebanese kids?" asked Patrick Baz, Mideast photo director for AFP. [Yes.] "I'm totally stunned by first the question, and I can't imagine that somebody would think something like that would have happened." [Another "How dare anyone question...."]

The AP had three different photographers there who weren't always aware of what the others were doing, and filed their images to editors separately, said Santiago Lyon, director of photography. [Increasing the likelihood that they were duped by staged pictures, I guess.]

There are also several reasons not to draw conclusions from time stamps, Lyon said. Following a news event like this, the AP does not distribute pictures sequentially; photos are moved based on news value and how quickly they are available for an editor to transmit. [Someone delayed sending photos of the number one news story of the day? Are we supposed to believe that?]

The AP indicates to its members when they are sent on the wire, and member Web sites sometimes use a different time stamp to show when they are posted.
So, we eagerly await the response of the news media to the outside offer to examine the timestamps. Of course, none of this explains the other anomolies, such as changes of clothes by Mr. Green Helmet between pictures, or the fact that Green Helmet did the same display of bodies to photographers in the 1996 attacks.

Gender Silliness