Friday, June 30, 2006

Turky to West: Free Speech Not Good

Recep Erdogan has been accused of being an Islamist in his own secular Turkey. It is evident as to why. Erdogan has come to the EU and informed that too much Free Speech is bad.

Islamofascism hates Western Liberties and Freedoms because they KNOW that such concepts would undermine the unholy tenets of Mohammed. Liberty and Freedom would spell the end of Mohammedanism because the death cult would have NO attraction. Liberty and Freedom are a light that would eradicate the darkness of Islamofascism like a shining light from Heaven.

Hat tip to Infidel Blogger Alliance.

Islamofascist Concern, Not Islamophobia

A New Dark Age is Dawning blog posts a report on the rise of Islamophobia in Canada since the arrest of 17 Islamofascist terrorist wannabees.
Islamophobia on the rise in Canada

Incidents of Islamophobia are on the rise following the arrest of 17 Toronto-area men and boys on terrorism charges, Ontario human rights commissioner Barbara Hall says.
Islam attacks rising

The comments that follow are the real food for thought. The huge point that I appreciate is the Mohammedans in America and Canada are playing the victimhood card when the statistics do not prove the victimization.
Here are the comment posts as of my reading of A New Dark Age is Dawning:
Always On Watch said...
From the article:Members of the Arab and Muslim communities report numerous cases ranging from verbal harassment on the street to job firingsHere in the States, many such reported incidents have proven to be false, CAIR's claims notwithstanding.
1:08 PM, June 30, 2006

beakerkin said...
MarkI did check the FBI hate crime statistics. Muslims are more likely to perpetrate a hate crime then to be the victim. The last time I checked there were eight times more hate crimes commited against Jews and around six times more commited against Gay men. There were also far more crimes comitted against Blacks.Check the FBI hate crime stats and do note that small increases on low numbers provide a huge statistical jump but are meaningless.
2:20 PM, June 30, 2006

Mark said...
Beakerkin:A point well made, and a point well taken. I agree with you that when the statistics are small anyway, then the jumps, or increases, are meaningless.
2:37 PM, June 30, 2006

Mark said...
Always:I don't know how true these reports are; but I can well imagine that there has been an increase since the problems the Canadians have had with Jihadists recently.
6:34 PM, June 30, 2006

Jason_Pappas said...
verbal harassment on the street to job firingsNo beheadings? Wake me up when there’s real news. ;)
9:01 PM, June 30, 2006

Always On Watch said...
Beak makes an excellent point:I did check the FBI hate crime statistics. Muslims are more likely to perpetrate a hate crime then to be the victim.Muslims are into victimology. I weary of it.
9:06 PM, June 30, 2006

Always On Watch said...
LOL at Jason's comment!
9:06 PM, June 30, 2006

Amnesty For Sunni Insurgents

Charles Krauthammer is posting an essay on July 1, which I found at the The essay is an exposition on why Amnesty For Insurgents is a necessary evil in our effort in nation sculpting.

Whether Krauthammer admits it or not, he is a pre-eminent neocon intellectual. Krauthammer (as also I) was for taking out Saddam Hussein. Hussein was a threat to American National Interests.

The Neocon thing is to spread a democratic government that would be easier to deal with in the Middle East. That has been slow coming in Iraq; nonetheless it has been emerging regardless of or in spite of Democratic Party cut-n-run politicians.

The difficulty has been the lack of trust of a half-a-century of brainwashing of a Mohammedan populace. Whether it be Sunni or Shiite: religious and political propaganda machines have painted a horrible picture of Americans. Slowly and surely there is evidence that distrust is eroding in Iraq.

As Krauthammer is pointing out, it is time to toss some carrots for the rabbits to nibble on. Amnesty may be one carrot. Let us not get caught up in the savagery of the insurgence. Their mindset is to cast out the infidel, which is fueled by a little Islamofascism held over from Hussein's old Sunni buddies. The goal of the current Iraqi government is to transform the old mindset, it may take some time. So let us toss a few carrots to get some nibbles.

Global Hegemony: China VS America

China is boldly beginning to show off its military growth. Does anyone think that there is a purpose for that? China is a hugely populated nation that has been a Marxist/Maoist state since roughly 1948. It is a land with a rich cultural heritage that has included both empire and seclusion. The later cost China its internal integrity via eventual Western domination for several hundred years.

The Japanese Empire of pre-World War II demonstrated that an Asian Power could confront and compete with the West. After Mao tse Tung consolidated Chinese hegemony eliminating war lords and competitors (Nationalist Party Chiang Kai-Chek), China began a long overhaul of militarization.

China went nuclear and now they are going technological. Therein lays the challenge to America. China is a land with a bunch of people and a lack of resources to compliment its rising economy and military.

China may feel the expansionist need as did the Pre-WWII Japan did.

Similar thoughts on China HERE.

Ward Churchill Psycho Prof

Ward Churchill is an academic psycho representing the worst of the extreme fringe Left. Fortunately for moral Americans Colorado University - Boulder Chancellor Phil DiStefano has recommended that Churchill be TERMINATED. If words were music, that was sweet music to read.

Of course psycho prof has threatened to fight his ouster claiming he is being fired for ideological reasons. As is typical of the Left Churchill is living in a delusion thinking he can win a case. In fact his impending termination has zero to do with Ideology.

On Monday, DiStefano recommended that Churchill be fired for a pattern of research misconduct that includes plagiarism.

Did you read that! Not only is Churchill a psycho but he is a profoundly bad academic. Ward Churchill copies the work of others and publishes it as his own. Typical void of leftist thinking.

Mexico’s Self-Fashioned Messiah

A close election in Mexico is coming up. The candidate running from the current President's political party - Felipe Calderon - is being painted as a market conservative. President Fox has not been very helpful on illegal immigration so I would assume Calderon would continue that policy. Calderon’s opponent is Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador. Obrador is a mixed package that many believe may be a Leftist in the mold of Hugo Chavez. I wonder what the Leftist Obrador is thinking about illegal immigration to the US?

Chavez of Venezuela has oil to back up his Marxist anti-Americanism. Who would Obrador tax to get money for socialist programs in Mexico? Nearly a third of Mexico's economy is based on illegal aliens sending or spending money earned in the US. It would be appear to be a thorny issue to implement socialism based on the source of a significant amount of the Mexican economy.

Then there are the corruption issues of Mexico. That is the part that is making Obrador attractive to a Mexican electorate - "Mexico's self-fashioned Messiah." Obrador has given the impression that as President he put a dent in Mexican government corruption. That would be actually a good thing for Mexico and America.

So the key to American National Interests is what kind of Marxist would Obrador be if elected? Chavez unfriendly or possibly European style socialism that is friendly toward market economies and America.

Thursday, June 29, 2006

Swift Boat Veterans VS John Kerry (fans)

There are some indications that John Kerry is thinking about another run for the White House. In keeping with that deplorable thought, apparently Kerry's demonic godless supporters are gearing up for the mudslinging. The American Spectator reports that Leftists at Left Wing Huffington Posts have posted personal info (phone numbers & addresses) of some of the Swift Boat Vets. Accordingly the Leftist hate mongering against the TRUTH has began to harrass these true heroes.

Let us recall some of the comments from these true heroes who fulfilled their entire of duty AND departed Vietnam honorably without utilizing a technicality.

I asked Symmes what he thought about Kerry's character. He said, "John Kerry is utterly lacking in the character required to be commander in chief of this great nation. He served only four months and 12 days in Vietnam, when a normal tour of duty was 12 months. He left using an obscure Navy rule, and is the only officer I am aware of that left early ... He didn't fulfill his obligation then, and then he came home and betrayed the people he served with, and those in uniform, by lying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about ‘war atrocities' committed by American forces in Vietnam."

Symmes said, "All of us in Swift Veterans for Truth can attest that we never saw, participated in, or were aware of any atrocities committed in our area of operations during our twelve month tours of duty. With those vicious comments about his fellow servicemen, how can he lead a War on Terror where our current brave men and women are in harm's way in Afghanistan and Iraq?"

My thoughts about Kerry's hypocrisy in wanting to use for political gain his service in the war that he made it quite clear he despised also occurred to Symmes.

"Kerry's record is one of crass political opportunism," Symmes told me. "From Massachusetts, he joined the radical ‘Vietnam Veterans Against the War' (a group allied with Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden types) after his return from his short time in Vietnam. Due to his anti-war record he was defeated in his first run for Congress in 1972. He reemerged as a ‘war hero' in 1984 and won a US Senate seat."

Symmes said he got involved with the group as a result of Admiral Hoffmann's call, and an invitation to attend the initial Dallas meeting "to decide what to do about Kerry. Ultimately, though, I became involved because it was the right thing to do. None of us have anything to gain by our involvement, and due to the vilification coming, much to lose, but we are committed to getting the truth out about John Kerry." (From
article by Jeremy Reynalds August 9, 2004)

The Swift Boats are not to vilified, they should be given yet another medal for exposing a cut-n-run charlatan as John Kerry.

John Kerry has indicated he is going to publicize his official military record. The question is why did he not do so during his last Presidential campaign. The next question is this: Is Kerry waiting for the redacted and doctored up version to his records? He still has not made his medical and military records public. We are going two years since the last election and it will be 4 years in 2008. Something smells fishy about the release of documents.

Islamofascists Launch Chemical WMD?

There are many unconfirmed claims that the al-Alksa Martyr Brigrade has acquired chemical WMD. There are now reports that the Islamofascist wing founded by Yasser Arafat as psycho homicidal suicide assassins has launched chemically tipped WMD missiles into Israel. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) has denied this has occured (Reuters Version HERE).

The JunkyardBlog has an interesting speculation as to where potential chemical WMD might have come from. Could Saddam Hussein's chemical WMD have been transported to Syria then relayed to the psychos in so-called Palestine?

Of course the current key is the IDF has not detected any claims of launched WMD's into Israel. Certainly if there was any validity to that claim, Israel certainly would publicize it. It would be a huge justification for a major mobilization against Hamas. It would be time to teach Islamofascists a lesson in aggression if it were true.

Nonetheless, the chemical WMD scenario is good speculation.

Liberals Learn From Tokyo Rose

Tokyo Rose was part of the media propaganda machine of the Japanese used against American troops in the Pacific. The end in mind of the propaganda was to demoralize the American military via radio broadcasts.

Here is David Horowitz's take on the Ghost of Tokyo Rose:

Here's an item that's been traveling around the web:

Anyone who remembers anything about World War II or has studied anything about World War II will understand and remember that during World War II, the Japanese developed a way to demoralize the American forces. The Japanese psychological warfare experts developed a message they felt would work.

They gave their psychological warfare script to their famous broadcaster "Tokyo Rose" and every day she would broadcast this same message packaged in different ways, hoping it would have a negative impact on American GI's morale.

What was that demoralizing message? It had three main points:

1. Your President is lying to you.
2. This war is illegal.
3. You cannot win the war.

I sense that Horowitz's point is relative to the propaganda campaign by leftists within our nation, in particular the treasonous publications of the New York Times. The American MSM is pulling a Tokyo Rose!

Check Ann Coulter's similar conclusion HERE.

Wednesday, June 28, 2006

On A Deluded America

Libertarians can sometimes be funny. The staunch Libertarians feel an innate compulsion to define everything through the values system of Libertarianism. In this case Mr. Lewis is a Randian Libertarian, therefore he both agrees and criticizes author Diana West.

In agreeing with West, Lewis whole heartedly believes that the rules of engagement are executed to the degree that the enemy uses barbarism or not. West purports this is a necessary degradation of morality to achieve the military end - VICTORY.

On the other hand, Lewis is a good Randian and thus defines morality in Randian Objectivist terms. Lewis proclaims the means of defeating the enemy is not a debasement of morality but rather the execution of moral standards of "rational egoism."
There is an alternative, a morality that truly values human life, and pours its outrage and its weapons against the enemies of human life; it is called rational egoism. According to this code, acting to win a defensive war by any means necessary is a sublimely moral act—not a compromise with morality that is needed to remain alive, and not an act of debasing civilization in order to save it. It is morally good to destroy those who would start a global jihad to enslave millions to a dark-age theocracy, and to do so with the least possible risk to our own, valuable, people.

In essence this is the socially conservative humanistic approach devoid of morality based Judeo/Christianity. It is the very reason I left Libertarianism.

Something to consider though: It can be the rallying cry that unites secularists and the religiously Western oriented toward one unified strategy. That is a defeat of Islamofascist terrorism utterly and completely.

(Earlier in the week I posted Marc Schulman's agreement with Diana West.
READ IT HERE. John Lewis' critique is below.)

On a Deluded America

Posted by John Lewis
The Objective Standard: A Journal of Culture and Politics
Wednesday, June 28, 2006

Diana West has written a fiery op-ed that, on its face, seems to provide a well-needed antidote to the moral platitudes that are preventing America from ridding the world of savage brutes ("Deluded America," Washington Times, June 23, 2006). Certainly the defenders of America will be energized to read:
If we still valued our own men more than the enemy and the "civilians" they hide among—and now I'm talking about the war in Iraq—our tactics would be totally different, and, not incidentally, infinitely more successful. We would drop bombs on city blocks, for example, and not waste men in dangerous house-to-house searches. We would destroy enemy sanctuaries in Syria and Iran and not disarm "insurgents" at perilous checkpoints in hostile Iraqi strongholds.

Ms. West sees the central judgment that is needed to win a defensive war: that our people—our soldiers in particular—are worth more than savages and the "civilians" hiding them. The enemy of rational judgment, and a paralyzing moral premise, is egalitarianism—the idea that all people, cultures, and ideas are equal in value. Ms. West rails against this, but then—unfortunately, sadly, tragically—accepts this same premise herself. In World War II, she writes, we were forced to use horrific violence to defeat the Nazis:
For example, bombing cities, even rail transportation hubs, lay beyond civilized conventions, but these were tactics the Allies used to defeat Hitler. However justifiable, civilization crossed a previously unimagined and uncivilized line to save, well, civilization. Then there was Hitler's Holocaust—an act of genocide of previously unthinkable scale and horror. Who in the civilized world before Hitler had ever imagined killing 6 million people? And who in the civilized world retained the same purity of mind afterward? Civilization itself was forever dimmed.

To Churchill's great worry, which she remembers as "that if the civilized society is to prevail over the barbarous one, it will necessarily and tragically be degraded by the experience as a vital cost of victory," she says, emphatically and pessimistically, yes.
Civilization was forever dimmed-by whom? Both by the actions of those who gassed "inferior" races and by those who killed the gassers and set the victims free. What greater statement of moral equivalency between good and evil has ever been made? Civilization is dimmed by Auschwitz and the Third Army, by Hitler as well as Patton. "Civilization itself is forever dimmed—again" she writes of the brutal beheadings of two American soldiers by the jihadists—the "again" referring to Treblinka and Dresden, the Bataan Death March and Hiroshima. Aggressors and defenders—those killing to enslave the world and those killing the killers to set it free—each is degrading, because each breaks "the rules" of civilization.

This does not mean that we should not do what is needed to win, writes Ms. West; win we must. But at what price? "Do such tactics [such as torture of prisoners, or bombing civilians] diminish our inviolate sanctimony? You bet. But so what? The alternative is to follow our precious rules and hope the barbarians will leave us alone, or, perhaps, not deal with us too harshly. Fond hope." Do what is needed, she says, because that is the practical thing to do. To be moral is to follow rules that are supremely impractical.

To the "morally superior"—to those who agree that we are degraded when we resort to violence to end violence, but do not wish to be immoral—Ms. West's message is: get over it. Accept some degradation, because this is necessary in the world we are in. The conclusion is inescapable: we—all of us—are debased creatures, doomed by the very act of defending ourselves to fall to the same level as our attackers. The morally sanctimonious, of course, will answer that they would rather die than be immoral.

Unfortunately, even if written sarcastically—and morality is too important to be discussed in sarcastic terms—it is to the sanctimonious left that Ms. West grants the title "morally superior." This is a sanction they do not deserve. Their moral doctrine of egalitarianism elevates the evil over the good—which is why they rant with greater vehemence against an American soldier who humiliates a jihadist than against a jihadist who uses a pocketknife to behead an American. Why? Because they think that the soldier is worse than the jihadist. Why worse? Because the soldier is an apostate from the civilized (i.e., egalitarian) world, a superior fighter who fell from grace by using violence to end the jihad—which is the very premise that Ms. West accepts.

Man, then, has a choice: to die by failing to fight the jihadist, or to fall to the jihadist's level in order to live. We are failing to prosecute the war vigorously, Ms. West writes, because we want to be moral. But winning will require us to sacrifice our moral goodness, and to take a piece of civilization with us.

What I would like to say to Ms. West is that there is an alternative. It is not true that we must either degrade our own lives by saving them, or lose our lives in order to avoid debasement. We can save our own lives as an act of moral goodness. To do that we must withdraw the unearned sanction that was unjustly hijacked by the sanctimonious protectors of the jihadists. We must say loudly and clearly that their claims to moral superiority are a sham, and that they are immoral.

There is an alternative, a morality that truly values human life, and pours its outrage and its weapons against the enemies of human life; it is called rational egoism. According to this code, acting to win a defensive war by any means necessary is a sublimely moral act—not a compromise with morality that is needed to remain alive, and not an act of debasing civilization in order to save it. It is morally good to destroy those who would start a global jihad to enslave millions to a dark-age theocracy, and to do so with the least possible risk to our own, valuable, people.

Those who would end this war quickly, with overwhelming force, should stand up with proud moral certainty, and proclaim their moral rightness. We do not stoop to the jihadist's level when we kill him—we rid the world of him in the only way open to us, and make clear to his supporters the true meaning of jihad. It is only on these terms that civilization can flourish.

The idea that America descended into barbarism in the act of saving civilization is not true. It was the Japanese and the Germans who for three generations built societies based on military glory, and started world wars to aggrandize the state, the emperor, and the race. They had fallen into a state of moral debasement long before they bombed Warsaw and Nanking—and without any help from us. It was their ideas that degraded them and led to the war—not the other way around. The benefits to millions that followed the bombings of Dresden and Hiroshima—including the utter rejection of war by both societies—are available for all to see. The American victories, and the actions taken to achieve them, were good, morally good.

As I wrote in my article "The Moral Goodness of the Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima":
There can be no higher moral action by a nation than to destroy an aggressive dictatorship, to permanently discredit the enemy's ideology, to stand guard while a replacement is crafted, and then to greet new friends on proper terms. Let those who today march for peace in Germany and Japan admit that their grandparents once marched as passionately for war, and that only total defeat could force them to re-think their place in the world and offer their children something better. (The Undercurrent, April, 2006)

I wonder if Ms. West is being ironic at times. If she is saying that we descended into barbarism since 1946 by adopting a morally paralyzing sanctimonious egalitarianism, then I am with her—for moral egalitarianism is true barbarism. The practical result has been our unwillingness to beat the jihadists. But the cause of our moral paralysis is not our concern for morality, but rather our acceptance of the wrong morality. To save our own lives—and, incidentally, civilization—we need not less morality, but more. We must recognize a morality that values life enough to end the existence of those dedicated to its destruction.

Copyright ©2005-2006 The Objective Standard. All Rights Reserved.

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

Islamofascist Palestinians - NO RELEASE WITHOUT TRADE

82% of Palestinian-Arabs polled believe that the 19 year old kidnapped IDF soldier should not be given up without a prisoner exchange.

Think about it! That is over 2/3 polled that believe a soldier fighting to protect his homeland must be traded for murderers and butchers of innocent civilians.

Here is the News Brief from International Christian Embassy Jerusalem:
Palestinian majority: Don't release hostage
Eighty two percent of Palestinians think that the kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit should only be released in exchange for Palestinian prisoners, a survey conducted by the Palestinian news agency Ma'an reported on Tuesday. According to The Jerusalem Post's translation, only six percent of Palestinians believe that Shalit should be released immediately. The 19-year-old soldier, a French-Israeli, was abducted during the Hamas-led attack on an IDF post adjacent to the southern Gaza Strip early Sunday morning, in which two Israeli soldiers were killed.

These are a people of terrorists. The Palestinian-Arab are the most brainwashed group of people on planet earth. There mentality is violence and murder of Jews. If I was in Israeli government I would be developing a permanent plan to deal with people that hate Jews. It is time for the Jews of Israel to come up with their own "Final Solution."

The Miami Seven Islamofascists

I was watching Bill O'Reilly on Fox News the other night. He had two defense attorneys representing certain of the "Miami Seven." I found it alarming that the apparent defense strategy is that these Islamofascists did not actually commit any crimes. They just thought about it. O'Reilly pointed out that one of the Miami Seven was trying to make contact with what he thought was an al-Qaeda representative to commit to the cause of bringing down America.

One of the Lawyers retorted that was not a crime, it was entrapment by the FBI. I am with O'Reilly, who said it is conspiracy to commit a crime or crimes and thus is a crime.

I will not be surprised to discover that the ACLU or CAIR will weigh in for support for these Islamofascists who definitely had the goal of murder and mayhem.

The Stackelbeck blog on the web network had this to say:
Terrorist Cell Busted in Miami
The indictment of seven Muslim men in Miami for plotting to wage war against the U.S. is the latest blow against homegrown terrorist cells here in the West. It also comes on the heels of the arrests of 17 Muslim men in Canada earlier this month. Here's more, from AP:
To obtain money and support for their mission, the conspirators sought help from al-Qaida, pledged an oath to the terrorist organization and supported an al-Qaida plot to destroy FBI buildings, the four-count indictment charged.

[Cell leader Narseal] Batiste met several times in December 2005 with a person purporting to be an al-Qaida member and asked for boots, uniforms, machine guns, radios, vehicles and $50,000 in cash to help him build an "'Islamic Army' to wage jihad'," the indictment said. It said that Batiste said he would use his "soldiers" to destroy the Sears Tower.

... I firmly believe that the next attack on U.S. soil will originate not from a group directly linked to al-Qaeda, but from a homegrown group such as the one in Miami. They blend into American society easily, and are much harder to detect as a result.

I agree and disagree with Stakelbeck: Increasingly it is the home grown Islamofascist that is influenced by literature from Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Brotherhood (Egypt) that will take root as a cancer in America; however I also think lax immigration restrictions across the borders of Canada and Mexico will embolden Islamofascists to enter America.

The horror will be the union of agenda from Islamofascists from within and from without.

Crisis In Israel

Does anyone sense the duplicity on the part of the Palestine Authority? Hamas EXPLICITLY digs a tunnel to pop up on the Israeli homeland to wreak havoc and kidnaps an Israeli soldier. Abbas - the PA President - claims that Hamas has agreed to terms of the "Prison Document" which "IMPLICITLY" recognizes Israel right to existence.

It is not out of the realm of surprise that Abbas has talked Hamas to go along with this "Prison Document." The "Document" no where explicitly recognizes Israel's right to existence. It merely is a paper saying you give us something and we will leave you alone. The "something" is huge concessions of land for peace thinking. The offer will polarize Jewish politics. It will be the yearning for peace VS the love for the Land Israel (Eretz Israel).

The thing is the Islamofascist cannot be trusted any more than Hitler could be believed when he told Chamberlain he would go no further than Czeckloslavakia's Sudetenland. It was with Hitler, it will be a lie by Islamofascist terrorists within the PA.

Monday, June 26, 2006

Al-Aksa Brigades: We Will Arm Warheads With Chemical WMD

Hat tip to IRIS Blog.

Jerusalem Post reports that the Al-Aksa Martyr Brigades are prepared to use Chemical weapons on Israel if they invade Gaza.

Now why would Israel feel compelled to invade Gaza? That is an easy query to answer: It is because
Islamofascists have been hurling Kassam rockets into Israel. The Islamofascist also recently dug a tunnel from Gaza to kidnap an Israeli soldier. In a rare moment of militant action Olmert has said Israel will deal severely for the kidnapping.
Israel threatened on Monday to topple the Hamas-led Palestinian government unless a soldier seized in a militant raid was released alive as a rival armed group claimed to be holding the conscript.

The 20-year-old soldier, who also holds French nationality, was snatched in a brazen attack on an army post on the Gaza Strip border at dawn on Sunday in which two other Israeli servicemen and two Palestinian militants were killed.

Reuters provides news of Olmert’s anger:
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said on Monday he had put the army on standby for a major offensive against Palestinian militants in Gaza as officials tried to secure the release of a kidnapped soldier.

Olmert warned of a "comprehensive and protracted operation" after a raid into Israel on Sunday by militants including members of the ruling Hamas movement. The gunmen killed two soldiers and carried off a third. Two attackers were killed.

Enter Al-Aksa: tit-for-tat, you kill my dog I’ll kill your cat – Oh, I mean Al-Aksa said we will beginning arming chemical weapons.

Yeah, thanks for the warning! It sounds like it is time for Israel to pull an Ahmadinejad. By that I mean it is time to wipe so-called Palestine of the map, especially if they begin to utilize chemical weapons. Even the possession of such weapons would be a huge threat to the future security of Israel's citizens. The Islamofascist terrorist groups have shown no compunction or compassion for innocent civilians in the past, I know they will not if they actually have chemical weapons.

Suing Nevada High School For Violating First Amendment

Here is Brittany McComb's Story on

The Rutherford Institute is taking on the Nevada High School for cutting of McComb's mike during her Valedictorian speech. Her crime: a verses of Bible and one name - Jesus.

This is a blatant case of the Left inspired by the ACLU restricting free speech on the High School level. Do you think the High School or the ACLU would have prevented a Valedictorian from delivering a homosexual friendly speech? The answer is a resounding NO.
Founded in 1982 by constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead, The Rutherford Institute is a civil liberties organization that provides free legal services to people whose constitutional and human rights have been threatened or violated.
In other words, The Rutherford Institute takes on amoral relativist organizations such as the ACLU and homosexual rights activists. These kinds of Left Wing organizations have an agenda to marginalize Christianity to the point in which many of the Faith's key points of morality would be considered hate speech. Left Wingers have already succeeded in this marginalization in the EU and Canada. One can go to jail for preaching that a sin against is hate speech in those countries.

Haditha: The Latest.

Haditha is emerging as a huge rotten egg of reporting by the MSM. Were civilians killed? Yes. Were innocent civilians killed? Unlikely.

The facts that the MSM fail to report are showing that Haditha could be renamed "Insurgent City." This means two things: There is an element of popularity among Haditha citizenry and the insurgency uses men, women and children as human shields. This is a practice learned from the incarcerated god-father of Iraqi insurgency: Saddam Hussein.

What the MSM should be reporting is that the American military is doing what is necessary to win and bring optimum amount of our boys home alive. threads on Haditha: "More Evidence of Media Conspiracy," "Haditha Emerging as Next Rathergate" and the News Max Inspiration for this blog post.

Venezuela May Replace Saddam in Axis of Evil

Hugo Chavez of Venezuela may be replacing Saddam Hussein in the Axis of Evil. Old Hugo is getting real cozy with Iran and North Korea. RedState has the scoop:
Filling the vacancy in the Axis of Evil?

I have been mocked by some for my concern that the socialist dictatorships-in-training of Venezuela and Bolivia will follow in the footsteps of Cuba and become state sponsors of terrorism in Latin America. But it seems I am not alone in my worries--Chris Kraul of the Los Angeles Times is reporting that Hugo Chavez' increasing coziness with Iran and possible hosting of Hezbollah activities are raising many eyebrows in Washington. Other related issues are the rumored mining of uranium in Venezuela, and Mr. Chavez' known ties with the Colombian terrorist organization FARC.

And in an added twist, it appears that Mr. Chavez will be traveling to North Korea at an unspecified future date. Mr. Chavez claims that he's exploring venues for sharing technology and science, but a South Korean source was more blunt about the strong potential for a "missiles-for-oil" program, which would benefit both states.

This situation is of particular concern because Venezuela is campaigning against Guatemala to take the Latin American seat on the UN Security Council this October, which would give Mr. Chavez a tremendous opportunity to help Iran (and North Korea?) in any pending Council action regarding its nuclear program.

On Friday, the Wall Street Journal's Mary Anastasia O'Grady [subscription required] argued that a vote for Venezuela to join the Security Council would be tantamount to a vote for Iran--given the two countries shared values of "tyranny and aggression." Should Venezuela be successful in gaining a Council seat, "Latin America will have handed Iran a victory that is likely to threaten world peace."

Let us hope that the current regional trend against Mr. Chavez' increasingly dangerous bullying will continue, and Guatemala will get that seat. But perhaps all is not lost for Mr. Chavez. Even if his Security Council ambitions are thwarted, he may well gain membership in another exclusive international body in the not too distant future. Now Iraq no longer qualifies, I wonder when we should officially fill that vacant spot in the Axis of Evil with Venezuela?

Charlatans in the House of God

Many who come to this blog get upset with me for my stand for Christ and Christian morality. In light of those faithful critics I came across an essay that every Christian should read. Its focus is the chicanery that exists from many televangelists on American television.

This chicanery should be and is an embarrassment to Christians. It is embarrassing to me because most televangelists are of the background from which I come. I am gratified the essay is written by the editor of Charisma Magazine. The reason I am gratified is that Charismatics and Pentecostals take a lot of heat for their belief system of relying on the miraculous deriving from the Holy Spirit.

Without further adieu here is the article written by Lee J. Grady:


Fire in My Bones
By Lee J. Grady

A Crying Shame: Charlatans in the House Churches and ministries are employing bizarre gimmicks to raise money. What has happened to our discernment?

You’ve probably heard it on Christian television before. An evangelist opens his Bible, reads a Scripture and then suggests that you send an odd amount of money to keep your favorite program on the air for another month.

He begs. He pleads. He cries. And then he tells you that if you hurry and give right now, “while God is stirring the waters,” the Holy Spirit will reward you in an extra-special way.
“Those who use manipulation, strong-arm tactics or Scripture-twisting to get money are not going to release any form of blessing.”

I’ve heard different amounts suggested—such as $64.11, or $72.14, or $53.24, to correlate with some obscure Old Testament Scripture reference. The implication is that if you write a check for this magical amount, God will release some kind of special blessing on you, such as the salvation of loved ones or the quick sale of a house.

To the untrained ear this may sound like a formula for blessing. Actually it is more akin to superstition—or worse, witchcraft. It’s not even remotely biblical, but those of us in the charismatic movement are so used to tolerating such shenanigans that we think this is standard procedure for fundraising.

Some ministers who raise money for Christian television stations have succumbed to the infamous “debt reduction” tactic. It goes like this: “God says that if you will give a $1,000 sacrificial offering right now (God always seems to be in crisis mode in these situations), you will supernaturally get out of debt! The miracle anointing is here! You can release it by writing that check! And we take credit cards, too!”

Talk about voodoo economics. This kind of manipulation is actually against the law in Canada. The U.S. government allows American evangelists to get away with it, but that doesn’t mean it’s right. It is a spiritualized form of arm-twisting.

And believe it or not, it is getting more blatant and bizarre.

A widely traveled minister recently gave a message about what he called “the Boaz anointing” at a prominent church in Florida. He then invited anyone who wanted this “new” blessing to come to the altar, where gullible souls were encouraged to deposit a check for $1,500 in the basket. Apparently the Boaz anointing can be yours if you can afford this hefty price.

At another church in my city of Orlando, a self-proclaimed prophet said that he would have a personal word of blessing to pronounce over any person who could give $1,000 in the offering. That’s right—he was selling personal prophecies. Those who actually gave the amount (yes, some people actually fell for this charlatan) stood up to receive “words.”

I want to rip my shirt in half and throw dust on my head.

Why should we be surprised that the church in America is making such a weak impact on society when we are allowing greedy impostors to pollute our pulpits? They are no different than the sons of Eli, who took the people’s offerings “by force” so that they could spend it on their own selfish wants (see 1 Sam.2:12-16). They have fallen into the error of the sorcerer Simon, who offered to buy the power of the Holy Spirit so that he could impress people (see Acts 8:18-20).

And what happens to the people who buy into this craziness? I’ve heard some suggest that “God will bless anyone who gives,” even if they give to a crook. That’s hogwash. Seed must be sown in good ground if it’s going to produce. Those who use manipulation, strong-arm tactics or Scripture-twisting to get money, or who sell the anointing of God so they can buy clothes and houses are not going to release any form of blessing.

In fact, they just might release curses—of poverty, bankruptcy, fraud and confusion. Such dark forces actually follow ministries that have given themselves over to this spirit of financial manipulation. The Bible actually says that charlatans—those who follow the “error of Balaam”—will face a harsh judgment in the “black darkness” of hell (Jude 11,13).

What can you do about this? You don’t have to stop giving. God loves a cheerful giver, but He does not want us to give under compulsion. Nor does He want us to reward the modern sons of Eli.
Speak out. Confront those who misuse the Bible to dig for money. Change the channel. Get up and walk out. Give to ministries that focus on meeting real needs and maintain ethical accounting standards. This financial foolishness will end when all of us take a stand.

J. Lee Grady is editor of Charisma.

Sunday, June 25, 2006

Israel-Insider: Critical of Olmert

Polarization is ripping the Land Israel up. Desperation led an electoral to choose the Kadima Party created by Ariel Sharon. The old warrior had a stroke and so leadership fell to his deputy Ehud Olmert. Olmert has officially become the Prime Minister in Israel after Sharon's incapacitation.

The people of Israel have become so weary of terrorism: a fact of life in Israeli culture since before its inception back to nationhood in 1948. A confused electorate wholly divided by a multitude of Political Parties and pet peeve agendas swung to Kadima. It was not a huge majority by any means; however Kadima came away with the biggest percentage of votes. In a parliamentary system of democracy, that is all that matters.

Olmert is not the leader that Sharon was. Indeed, many questioned the huge change of mind of Sharon. It is not difficult to imagine the disillusion the religious minded are experiencing with Olmert. Under Olmert Israel is giving up land for the delusion of peace. It is under Olmert that a plan is being developed to re-divide Holy Jerusalem.

Hat tip Israel Insider.

Hamas Threatens Israel with the Chemical Weapons

Check this out from Israpundit:
by Omri Ceren
The first Muslim entity to strike Israel with unconventional weapons might not be the nation-state of Iran after all:
Hamas threatened to strike at IDF forces with chemical weapons if Israeli forces entered the Gaza Strip in pursuit of kidnapped soldier Cpl. Gilad Shalit, according to a Channel 2 report. The Security Cabinet convened an emergency session Sunday night to discuss an Israeli response to Shalit’s kidnapping in a Palestinian attack on an army post bordering southern Gaza in the early morning hours.

Presumably, they amassed these chemical weapons during the last few months that the international press kept reporting on their impending “moderation” (lots of moderates amass chemical weapons - haven’t you heard?) At this point, we’d post links to the LA Times, New York Times, and State Department sophisticates who have been droning endlessly about how Hamas can be talked into not being unrepentant terrorists (or, frankly, to Jimmy Carter’s idiocy). But it wouldn’t do any good - it’s not like the Palestinian public hasn’t been more or less steadfast in its rejectionism for the last decade and a half. And it’s not like opinion makers in the West haven’t been willing to shut their eyes and pretend otherwise.
The endless insistence that Israel is the roadblock to peace in the Middle East has never been grounded in any rational analysis. It’s fair to ask what it is grounded in.

So where did Hamas accumalate chemical WMD? Let's see ... Iraq seems to have some missing WMD. Iran might be a mystical supplier of chemical WMD.

It is all irrelevant of course, Hamas is a representative of The Religion of peace.

Saturday, June 24, 2006


Rick Moran of Right Wing Nuthouse takes on Marc Ash and Ash colleague Jason Leopold to task. Why? The reason is simple: became a primary source for the MSM claiming that Karl Rove had been indicted. Shortly thereafter Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald announced there would be NO indictment of Karl Rove. It was a TRUTHOUT lie based on the hate Bush/Conservative filter.

This is a huge example of Left Wing media filtering everything they write through a profound hatred of everything the Bush Administration. Even when the lie was shown to be a lie, TRUTHOUT proclaimed a Rove indictment was truth. This is highly typical and valid reason to not believe what is written in Leftist rags and blogs. It is merely words painting a picture of self-delusion.

TRUTHOUT claims to have reliable sources! Wow, they should get a better definition of reliable. Their sources suck!

TRUTHOUT then tries to cover their open back flap with a fabrication that Fitzgerald waved an indictment in front of Rove telling him to sell out VP Cheney or else. That is just another load of cow manure and horse crap. How do I know that? I know this because both Rove and Cheney are still employed in government positions. The former is un-indicted the later has not even had a whisper of impeachment proceedings.

Perhaps the left is learning from the age old Mohammedan practice of al Taqiyya.

Is It Time For A Constitutional Convention?

Gay Marriage Amendment Supporters Seek Constitutional Convention?
By Robert Novak
June 24, 2006
The National Ledger

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Supporters of a constitutional amendment to keep the courts from legalizing homosexual marriage, stunned by poor support in the recent Senate vote, are beginning a campaign for a constitutional convention.

The provision of the Constitution's Article V requiring such a convention if called by two-thirds of the state legislatures has never been used. Fear of throwing the Constitution open to general amendment has overridden support for specific issues. However, key advocates of barring gay marriages believe the constitutional convention strategy will keep the issue alive.

A recent memo circulated within the anti-gay marriage coalition lists Princeton Professor Robby George, Tony Perkins and Chuck Donovan of the Family Research Council, and conservative financial consultant Frank Cannon as favoring the strategy.

This is an excerpt from the top of this Robert Novak post in The National Ledger. This is an idea that its time has come. Conservatives and Liberals alike fear the Constitutional version of a National Constitutional Convention. The reason for the fear is the potential for changes that both sides of the political scale feel may not be able to live with.

A Convention may be called for a specific purpose; however a Convention might open the door to address everyone’s pet peeve.

I am no longer fearful of such a situation. There are definite issues the moral majority needs to address in this nation. The Leftists and irreligious are allowing morality to be steeped in Humanism and relativity. I hear all the time that not everyone has a Christian viewpoint and that the Christian viewpoint is archaic. While it might be true that not everyone has a Christian viewpoint, I believe the majority viewpoint in America is still a Christian one. Therefore a concept of what is and what is not archaic would only be valid to the irreligious and immoral.

It is time to take Humanistic and Left leaning Judges out of the equation of legislating American Law. The Judiciary is there to interpret law, not to create law.

It is time for the people of the States to decide moral issues of homosexuality, prayer, religion in public, abortion and so on. It is appalling that a huge majority of people may decide an issue by Initiative or by being a voting constituency of its Representatives and then have a Left thinking Judge strike the Law down.

Here comes the neoconservative in me. I am all for a loyal opposition, however some serious issues need to be addressed relating Presidential Appointments. For example instead of the Senate confirming an appointee, the framework should be debate and up or down vote. Screw the procedural hogwash relating to committee. If the person is not qualified, then vote the person down.

Yes, the time for a Constitutional Convention is needful.

© 6/24/2006 by John R. Houk

Infidel/Kafir Education

Hugh Fitzgerald provides a little education that every non-Mohammedan (the kafir) should know and understand. It is only in not understanding that there is an "appeasement" mentality toward American enemies - The Islamofascist.
Fitzgerald: Islam is not monolithic
June 24, 2006
Jihad Watch

Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald discusses the oft-repeated assertion:

We are told again and again, in various ways, that "Islam is not monolithic." Yes, we know. But we also know that the same passages in the same Qur'an, the Uncreated and Immutable Qur'an, the one dictated by Gabriel and taken down by an Arab amanuensis, are those which all Muslims read as the Word of God. And the Hadith (which is at least as important, to many Muslims, as the Qur'an), were long ago winnowed by the most authoritative muhaddithin, and have been ranked by them (e.g., Al-Bukhari and Muslim, as the two most authoritative of the Sahih Sittah, the six tippety-top ones). And what do those Hadith say about "Infidels" or "Jews" or "Christians" or "polytheists" or "jihad"? We can find out, easily. It is all online.

And we can find out as well what interpretive doctrines may exist -- in this case, that of "naskh" or "abrogation" -- which permits a reconciling of passages seemingly contradictory, which doctrine, alas, tells Believers that the earlier softer (so-called "Meccan") verses are cancelled, overruled (just as Plessy v. Ferguson is overruled by Brown v. Bd. of Education) by the much harsher, much more hostile and menacing later verses -- e.g. Sura 9. Are we to ignore the canonical texts of Islam because of local differences in food or dress or in the degree of syncretism (e.g. the marabouts of West Africa, or the syncretism of the much-persecuted "Anbangan" -- Geertz's word) among quasi-Muslims?

Not only are the texts the same, but when one examines, for example, the differences between the major sects -- Sunni and Shi'a and Ibadi -- one finds no difference in the topics that we must concern ourselves with. No difference in the necessity, the rightness, the duty of Jihad to spread Islam until obstacles to its dominance, all over the world, are removed, for Islam is to dominate and Muslims are to rule. That is right. That is just. That is in the nature of things. For all of us were born Muslims, and somehow were raised wrongly, so that when we become Muslims officially we do not "convert" but rather "revert" to Islam. For Western Infidel consumption, Muslims will also speak demurely now not of "reversion" but rather, nominally, of "New Muslims" -- use of the word "reverts" would raise awkward questions from Infidels that at this point Muslims would prefer not to answer.

And of course there are not only differences between Sunnis and Shi'a and Ibadi Muslims, but also in the role of a mystic approach -- that of Sufis, or those more recent sects deemed doubtful, by orthodox Muslims, such as the Ahmadiyyas (Qadianis), now forced in Pakistan to list themselves on official forms as non-Muslims, or the most interesting group, the followers of the Aga Khan, the Ismailis. I remember those weigh-ins, when the Aga Khan would then be presented with his weight in diamonds from loyal followers -- the kind of thing that used to be shown on a Gaumont newsreel, with the plummy-voiced announcer from yesteryear: Time Marches On! And furthermore, there are four schools of Jurisprudence in Sunni Islam -- Maliki, Hanbali, Hanafi, and I forget the fourth because I'm having so much fun.

Shafi’i. That’s it.

But here is the main point. They have differences -- for example, as to the kinds of hudud, or codes of punishment, to observe. They have differences based, for example, on whether or not Islam has been affected by, its edges worn down a bit by, the presence of a large number of non-Muslims. It is probably true to say that some Lebanese Muslims, because of the Christians, and some Indian Muslims, are less menacing in outlook then those of, say, Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or the Sudan. But the teachings that we care about are those which are all about Infidels. And those teachings do not and have not changed.

Of course there are some Muslims who do not subscribe to those teachings. But how do we know who they are? Of the ones who claim to be "moderates," which ones are and which ones are feigning? Which ones are telling the truth, but may, for reasons having only to do with personal setbacks (it need not be some element of foreign policy, or of politics at all, to trigger a reaction and a return to the full Islam, the Islam which divides the world between Believer and Infidel), become the "immoderate" Muslim who so rightly alarms us? Think of Hanif Kuraishi's "My Son the Fanatic."

Funny when it first came out, not so funny now. We can't take that risk. We shouldn't be expected to.

Besides, we have a duty to preserve or own legacy. We may all be rotten to the core. Many are. But we were handed certain things. Artifacts. Works of art. A tradition of free and skeptical inquiry that might yet allow us to survive. We have no right to simply throw over whatever was created by and for Western civilization, by people -- Spinoza and Hume, Michelangelo and Balthus, Jefferson and Lincoln and ten thousand others. Just look at the index alone in Jacques Barzun's "From Dawn to Decadence" and realize that those names are only a small fraction of those who created the West, and then compare that list with the usual Muslim dozen -- Avicenna, Averroes, Al-Razi, etc. For god's sake, look at the mental desert of Islam, the desertification every which way, the narrow channeling of artistic expression into Qur'anic calligraphy and architecture, with no sculpture, no painting of living creatures, hardly any music (certainly no equivalent to Western church music). Look at how the keepers of the belief-system of Islam discourage, and punish, the efforts of some at free and skeptical inquiry.

You may be willing to find solace in the obvious -- that Muslims are not prefabricated beings, identical in language, clothing, food, schools of Muslim jurisprudence, and so on. That is no consolation for me.

Because the Jihad duty remains the same, and the hostility -- inculcated by those Qur'anic passages, those Hadith stories, that example furnished by Muhammad. And what do you make of the role of Muhammad, clearly the main figure in Islam, with 83% of the texts devoted to him, 17% to Allah?

What do you make of the fact that he married a nine-year-old girl? What "context" would you like to put that in? Are you aware that virtually Khomeini's first act, when he came to power, was to lower the marriageable age of girls in Iran to nine? Do you know why? And what about the assassination of those who mocked Muhammad -- Asma bint Marwan, Abu Akaf? What about the beheading of the 600-900 bound prisoners of the Banu Qurayza? The attack on the inoffensive Jewish farmers, tilling their fields in the Khaybar Oasis? Or a hundred other grim details, of that Perfect Man, uswa hasana? What do you make of all that, since there are not various versions of Muhammad which various communities of Muslims accept -- there is only one, as there is the same Qur'an, and the same authoritative collections of "authentic" Hadith?

The assertion that "Islam is not monolithic" misses entirely the point. Islam, in everything that pertains to Infidels, is in fact remarkably "monolithic." And you can test this with the evidence of 1350 years of Jihad conquest. No matter where that conquest took place, no matter whether those conquered were Christians (of all kinds), or Jews, or Hindus, or Buddhists, or Jains, or Confucians, or anything else in this sublunary world, the treatment meted out to those subjugated non-Muslims was always and everywhere quite similar. Oh, a decent ruler, a ruler who was syncretistic, might make a difference. Akbar, for example. But why is gentle Akbar, who removed the Jizyah on Hindus and who no longer massacred them (some 60-70 million Hindus were massacred by Muslims), not revered but rather ignored or reviled by Muslims -- precisely for his mildness? It is Aurangzeb and Mahmoud of Ghazni who are revered. And in Iran the Shah and his father tried to, and for a while succeeded, in elevating the status, or at least protecting, Jews and Christians -- a protection that is hardly to be seen now that the Shah is gone.

No. Islam is not monolithic. But when it comes to the attitudes toward Infidels, and the observable treatment of Infidels by Muslims, it is disturbingly monolithic enough.

And that is what we, the Infidels, are worried about. And we see no reason to risk our societies, our advances, our art and our science, and our everything, on the slender and entirely foundationless notion that some "reformation" will somehow -- how, exactly? -- be achieved by Muslims living in, protected from retribution by other Muslims --- in the West.

The immutable and canonical texts, the 1350-year history of conquest and subjugation, and the observable behavior of so many Muslims in so many countries today, all tell us otherwise.


No can do.

Why Iraq WMD Finds Were Kept Secret

Here is some insight from the Strategy Page relating to the slow announce of finding WMD in Iraq. As you read it notice the key point: jeopardizing intelligence and aiding the enemy in locating cache of WMD.
Why Iraq WMD Finds Were Kept Secret

June 23, 2006: The revelation that Coalition forces have discovered about 500 shells containing chemical weapons (mostly sarin nerve gas and mustard gas) since 2003, most of which are pre-1991 Gulf War vintage, leads to the question as to why the U.S. waited so long to reveal this. The U.S. government has taken a beating for supposed failures to find weapons of mass destruction in the press, and from political opponents. There have been some discoveries that have made the news, most notably an incident in May, 2004, when terrorists used a 155-millimeter shell loaded with sarin in an IED. The shell detonated, exposing two soldiers to sarin nerve gas (both of whom survived and recovered). It is this attack that provides one explanation as to why many of the finds have been classified.

If the United States were to have announced WMD finds right away, it could have told terrorists (including those from al-Qaeda) where to look to locate chemical weapons. This would have placed troops at risk – for a marginal gain in public relations. A successful al-Qaeda chemical attack would have been a huge boost for their propaganda efforts as well, enabling them to get recruits and support (many people want to back a winner), and it would have caused a decline in American morale in Iraq and on the home front.

The other problem is that immediate disclosure could have exposed informants. Protecting informants who provide the location of caches is vital. Not only do dead informants tell no tales, their deaths silence other potential informants – because they want to keep on living. A lack of informants leads to a lack of human intelligence, and the troops don't like being sent out on missions while short on intelligence – it's easy to get killed. This has led to media coverage (particularly around "milestone" deaths) and ...

The biggest danger with intelligence is in its over-use. This might sound odd, but it is the biggest concern many decision-makers in wartime have to make. Protection of an intelligence advantage can be so important that it might require allowing an enemy action to go forward (like the 1940 bombing of Coventry – Churchill allowed that to occur rather than risk exposing the British ability to read German codes), or it might require high-level approval of a mission (like the 1943 operation in which Thomas G. Lanphier shot down the plane carrying Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto – the decision to attempt the mission was made by the Secretary of the Navy). In the world of intelligence, decisions are rarely simple, and easily answered. A great deal of consideration goes into the decisions based on the intelligence provided, and when to release the information to the public. – Harold C. Hutchison (

Did the New York Times Cross the Line Between a Free Press and Treason?

The New York Times reasoning for publicizing operations that compromise the national security in the War on Terrorism:
"The New York Times stood by its coverage saying editors had judged after careful deliberations that releasing the information served the public's interest."

Whose public interest was served? It was not in the interest of the public to have their security compromised. Hmm... I guess the public interest the Times was thinking of are Islamofascists with the intent of harming America and its non-Mohammedan citizens. Thank you NY Times for thinking of my protection and safety in providing intelligence to America's enemies. Maybe the next terrorist attack attempt will exempt the NY Times property, holding and employees for their efforts.

I think it is time for the US government and the Bush Administration to begin prosecution of treasonous acts of media leaks to an irresponsible MSM. If America is truly at war, then there are just some things that are not business as usual. Leaking disruptive information that benefits American enemies is something that cannot be tolerated.

Friday, June 23, 2006

Kafir Are Najis. Are You Kafir?

Brigitte Gabriel is President and founder of American Congress for Truth (ACT). Her e-newsletter is how I found this post.
Pre-Disposition to Hate

Muslims always say It's against Islam to kill an innocent person. BUT did you know that a non-Muslim is NOT considered innocent by Muslims? Muslims consider non-Muslims as najis and 'without sanctity' therefore NOT innocent. Note how the guy in this video makes that clear. American/British/Polish/French/German/ETC Foreign Policy? Dream on!


Najis Things

84. * The following ten things are essentially najis:

  • Urine
  • Feces
  • Semen
  • Dead body
  • Blood
  • Dog
  • Pig
  • Kafir (infidel)
  • Alcoholic liquors
  • The sweat of an animal who persistently eats najasat.

Kafir (infidel)

107. * An infidel i.e. a person who does not believe in Allah and His Oneness, is najis. Similarly, Ghulat who believe in any of the holy twelve Imams as God, or that they are incarnations of God, and Khawarij and Nawasib who express enmity towards the holy Imams, are also najis. And similar is the case of those who deny Prophethood, or any of the necessary laws of Islam, like, namaz and fasting, which are believed by the Muslims as a part of Islam, and which they also know as such.

As regards the people of the Book (i.e. the Jews and the Christians) who do not accept the Prophethood of Prophet Muhammad bin Abdullah (Peace be upon him and his progeny), they are commonly considered najis, but it is not improbable that they are Pak. However, it is better to avoid them.

108. The entire body of a Kafir, including his hair and nails, and all liquid substances of his body, are najis.

109. * If the parents, paternal grandmother and paternal grandfather of a minor child are all kafir, that child is najis, except when he is intelligent enough, and professes Islam. When, even one person from his parents or grand parents is a Muslim, the child is Pak (The details will be explained in rule 217).

110. * A person about whom it is not known whether he is a Muslim or not, and if no signs exist to establish him as a Muslim, he will be considered Pak. But he will not have the privileges of a Muslim, like, he cannot marry a Muslim woman, nor can he be buried in a Muslim cemetery.

111. Any person who abuses any of the twelve holy Imams on account of enmity, is najis.

Not all mosques are jihadi, but all jihadis come from a mosque.

The publicity of the home Islamofascists of Canada should be a huge wake up call for Americans. An article from Michael Ledeen explains: Wahhabi influence Jihadis are a growing concern in America as well. America is at war with a mostly stateless entity encapsulated in terrorists such as al Qaeda. Rogue states such as Iran are not brave enough to actually start a war. Although Iran pushes a lot of provocative buttons in propaganda hoping we will make the first move.

Islamofascists have already made their move. Multiple moves in which the Twin Towers in New York City and the Pentagon were extreme pinnacles of violence. Ledeen says we should be watching the Mosques. Leftists would decry and say, "What about First Amendment Rights to practice religion." My God if David Koresh and Bob Jones were a threat to society and community, these home grown Jihadi Mosques are even more dangerous. Let us be pro-active and place the violent in jail or deport those who are not citizens (or both). It is about homeland protection not politically correct detection.

Palestinian Religion of Peace - Yeah Right!

To its adherents the religion is known as Islam (i.e. submission). I am not an adherent so I prefer calling the cult by its founder's name Mohammed (thus Mohammedanism).

The particular brand of Mohammedanism practiced by terrorists is Islamofascism. Islamofascists are both Sunni and Shi'ite. The Shi'ite brand is best represented by the Imams and President Ahmadinejad of Iran. The Sunni brand is best represented from the Wahhabi of Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Brotherhood which can actually trace its roots to a Mufti from Jerusalem and Banna hooking up with Hitler's Gestapo. The Muslim Brotherhood actually developed a strategy for Islamofascist world domination and entitled it The Project.

This blood thirsty lineage follows a thread straight to Islamofascist terrorists known as Hamas. Is Mohammedanism peaceful? NO! The Religion of Peace as manifested by Hamas is a brutal adversary not only to Israel but to the West as well. The Liberals of the West are simply to blind to comprehend the violence of Islamofascism as fomented by its various terrorist factions.
American Congress For Truth

Hamas: Islam will conquer US and Britain
By Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook

Palestinian Media Watch
Hamas Video

A Hamas video just released on their web site focuses on the broader Palestinian Islamic ideology, promising the eventual conquering and subjugation of Christian countries under Islam. The way Israel ran from Gaza after terror is presented as the prototype for future Israeli and Western behavior in the face of Islamic force.

The video is a collection of statements by Hamas terrorist leader, Yasser Ghalban, killed last week by Palestinians, in the ongoing internal fighting.

To view this video, anticipating Islam's conquering of US and Britain, click here .

The following is the transcript of selections from the Hamas video:

We will rule the nations, by Allah's will, the USA will be conquered, Israel will be conquered, Rome and Britain will be conquered. The Jihad for Allah... is the way of Truth and the way for Salvation and the way, which will lead us to crush the Jews and expel them from our country Palestine. Just as the Jews ran from Gaza, the Americans will run from Iraq and Afghanistan and the Russians will run from Chechnya, and the Indian will run from Kashmir, and our children will be released from Guantanamo. The prisoners will be released by Allah's will, not by peaceful means and not by agreements, but they will be released by the sword, they will be released by the gun.

The video identifies itself as from the Al-Qassam Brigades Media Office. Al-Qassam Brigades is the name the Hamas calls its military wing. ( June 22 2006:

Al-Qaeda Video

The ideology is similar to the Al-Qaeda ideology, and this can be seen by viewing an Al-Qaeda video seen now on many sites on the Internet, likewise anticipating battles with other religions throughout the world. They Are Coming is 12 minute collection of scenes of Al-Qaeda's training around the world: Afghanistan, Iraq, Chechnya, Eritrea, Indonesia, Kashmir, Somalia, Philippines, UK, Algeria and Pakistan. This propaganda video addresses the American public with captions in English, images of dead and injured American soldiers, and threats such as: They Are Coming, Start digging your graves, and ends with a burning US flag.

Click here to see Al-Qaeda video.

Taking credit for the video is: Al-Qaeda's 'Jihad Media Battalion' June 2006.