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.

Gender Silliness