Mohammed Loves Gay Marriage. Huh?

Mohammed Loves Gay Marriage. Huh?

Well, not exactly. But there’s some strange stuff going on here. It has been nearly impossible for conservatives to understand how leftist gay activists can be so tolerant of a religion which condemns them to rather grisly deaths. Now, several Muslim organizations in the West have begun to buzz about “gay marriage” not being any of their business. Homosexuality requires a death penalty, but maybe gay marriage is OK in the decadent West. Or something like that.

Muslim tolerance of gay marriage is about as mystifying as gay support of Islamist causes. Or is it? Marriage makes strange bedfellows (or was that politics?). The religion of peace spends considerable time promoting itself as the world’s largest charitable organization passing out loving gifts to fellow Muslims and the world in general. That way you won’t notice it has a bad habit of lopping off heads and blowing up skyscrapers.

The Islamists have learned a lot about propaganda and how to attain one goal by pretending to support an entirely different one. Do the Jihadis actually support gay marriage? Hardly—but if they can help to get the Western definition of marriage changed in relation to the sex of the partners, then there’s no logical reason to forbid traditional Islamic marital practices such as polygamy (and perhaps even child-marriage). Once you’ve eliminated sex as an issue, why not eliminate numbers or age as restrictions?

The loathsome Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has actually cluck-clucked at gay marriage in the West, but that’s those crazy degenerate Christians, Jews and pagans. Now CAIR is becoming an advocate of Western-style “tolerance.” They may not approve of gay marriage, but shucks, if that’s what the law allows in non-Muslim lands, so be it. In the Arabic versions of CAIR’s message, there remains the minor detail of beheading, hanging, or burying homosexuals alive. But those are eliminated for consumption in the West.

To date, there has been unanimity among the American federal government and all fifty state governments that polygamy must remain illegal. But that’s what the prevailing view was about gay marriage just a few years back. The Islamists see gay marriage as the camel’s nose (or some body part) under the tent. Some states have gotten courts to declare traditional marriage unconstitutional discrimination. In other states, the legislatures or the people have voted in favor of gay marriage. Our Islamist-friendly President went from opposing gay marriage to ordering his Attorney General not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act.

Whether the issue of same-sex marriage remains one of religious freedom or becomes a simple matter of leaving marriage to the clerics and same sex unions to civil law, the Islamists are seeing the extreme advantage of having non-traditional Western domestic unions embraced by constitutions, the law, and the majority of citizens. And thus the sudden public face of “tolerance” in the Western Islamic leadership.

CAIR spokesman Moein Khawaja said the following after New York legalized same-sex marriage last year: “Easy to support gay marriage today because it’s mainstream. Let’s see the same people [who advocated for same-sex unions] go to bat for polygamy. It’s the same argument.” Funny. That’s the same thing former Senator and former Presidential Republican primary candidate Rick Santorum warned about just a few years back. Nobody of any importance will criticize a sincere Islamist, but when Santorum said it, he was almost universally ridiculed.

Once the barriers are down, what’s left to stop the centuries old practice of polygamy and child-marriage? Who would have the right to criticize or ban communal marriage? So I’ll go Santorum and Khawaja one step further. No law should forbid marriage between loving companions, which explains why there are a lot of nervous-looking sheep out there. Is bestiality the new “love that dares not speak its name?” And how long will it be before it becomes mainstreamed? But that's another story altogether.

For now, the questions are many. Will America relax its traditional standards to allow polygamy on grounds related to religious tolerance of sharia law? Will gays and lesbians then demand equal rights to polygamy? Will radical feminists demand the right to polyandry? Will Hugh Hefner come out of a coma long enough to demand the right to marry all his Playmates? Enquiring minds want to know.

Well, not exactly. But there’s some strange stuff going on here. It has been nearly impossible for conservatives to understand how leftist gay activists can be so tolerant of a religion which condemns them to rather grisly deaths. Now, several Muslim organizations in the West have begun to buzz about “gay marriage” not being any of their business. Homosexuality requires a death penalty, but maybe gay marriage is OK in the decadent West. Or something like that.

Muslim tolerance of gay marriage is about as mystifying as gay support of Islamist causes. Or is it? Marriage makes strange bedfellows (or was that politics?). The religion of peace spends considerable time promoting itself as the world’s largest charitable organization passing out loving gifts to fellow Muslims and the world in general. That way you won’t notice it has a bad habit of lopping off heads and blowing up skyscrapers.

The Islamists have learned a lot about propaganda and how to attain one goal by pretending to support an entirely different one. Do the Jihadis actually support gay marriage? Hardly—but if they can help to get the Western definition of marriage changed in relation to the sex of the partners, then there’s no logical reason to forbid traditional Islamic marital practices such as polygamy (and perhaps even child-marriage). Once you’ve eliminated sex as an issue, why not eliminate numbers or age as restrictions?

The loathsome Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has actually cluck-clucked at gay marriage in the West, but that’s those crazy degenerate Christians, Jews and pagans. Now CAIR is becoming an advocate of Western-style “tolerance.” They may not approve of gay marriage, but shucks, if that’s what the law allows in non-Muslim lands, so be it. In the Arabic versions of CAIR’s message, there remains the minor detail of beheading, hanging, or burying homosexuals alive. But those are eliminated for consumption in the West.

To date, there has been unanimity among the American federal government and all fifty state governments that polygamy must remain illegal. But that’s what the prevailing view was about gay marriage just a few years back. The Islamists see gay marriage as the camel’s nose (or some body part) under the tent. Some states have gotten courts to declare traditional marriage unconstitutional discrimination. In other states, the legislatures or the people have voted in favor of gay marriage. Our Islamist-friendly President went from opposing gay marriage to ordering his Attorney General not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act.

Whether the issue of same-sex marriage remains one of religious freedom or becomes a simple matter of leaving marriage to the clerics and same sex unions to civil law, the Islamists are seeing the extreme advantage of having non-traditional Western domestic unions embraced by constitutions, the law, and the majority of citizens. And thus the sudden public face of “tolerance” in the Western Islamic leadership.

CAIR spokesman Moein Khawaja said the following after New York legalized same-sex marriage last year: “Easy to support gay marriage today because it’s mainstream. Let’s see the same people [who advocated for same-sex unions] go to bat for polygamy. It’s the same argument.” Funny. That’s the same thing former Senator and former Presidential Republican primary candidate Rick Santorum warned about just a few years back. Nobody of any importance will criticize a sincere Islamist, but when Santorum said it, he was almost universally ridiculed.

Once the barriers are down, what’s left to stop the centuries old practice of polygamy and child-marriage? Who would have the right to criticize or ban communal marriage? So I’ll go Santorum and Khawaja one step further. No law should forbid marriage between loving companions, which explains why there are a lot of nervous-looking sheep out there. Is bestiality the new “love that dares not speak its name?” And how long will it be before it becomes mainstreamed? But that's another story altogether.

For now, the questions are many. Will America relax its traditional standards to allow polygamy on grounds related to religious tolerance of sharia law? Will gays and lesbians then demand equal rights to polygamy? Will radical feminists demand the right to polyandry? Will Hugh Hefner come out of a coma long enough to demand the right to marry all his Playmates? Enquiring minds want to know.

Mohammed Loves Gay Marriage. Huh?

View Detail

Saudi Arabia Burning

Saudi Arabia Burning

News Update: Santorum has withdrawn from the race, but no endorsement yet.

Two days after Easter, it seemed appropriate to have a little chat about our “friend and ally” Saudi Arabia. We all know that Saudi Arabia is hostile to Christianity. Many of us first realized how hostile during the first Gulf War when the Saudis. ”

The beleaguered protectors of the Holy Sites reached out pleading hands to the United States, crying: “Save us from Saddam Hussein. Save us. Oh, and by the way, when you get here don’t even think of celebrating Christmas.
For decades now, the Saudis have forbidden the building of new Christian churches in Saudi Arabia, and the penalty for a Muslim who converts to Christianity remains death. But that’s simply not enough for the purveyors of the religion of peace. So the Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdulaziz al-Shaikh, chief cleric of the Saudi kingdom, has issued a fatwa that remedies that deficiency. He has called for the physical destruction of all Christian churches within the confines of the oil-rich, freedom-poor nation.

The fatwa was picked up by Islamist news stations in other parts of Jihadistan, but so far the Saudi king’s state-controlled media have not reported on the latest round of Islamic religious tolerance. Saudi king Abdullah does not want his phony interfaith “dialogue centers” in Europe endangered by the cleric’s move. He may also fear that the current robe-kissing, deep-bowing American president will be defeated in November and replaced by a new commander-in-chief with a backbone. It should also be noted that if the monarch were truly interested in interfaith dialogue he might open a center or two in his own kingdom.

On March 30, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had a private meeting with the king, in which the topic was allegedly the miserable state of women in the sand kingdom. It is also rumored that she brought up the fatwa, but that remains unconfirmed. If she did discuss the matter with the king, he must have replied “shut up, foolish woman” since nothing has been heard from State since.

The news concerning the fatwa first came out in the Kuwaiti newspapers. Kuwait’s parliament was kicking around the idea of a ban on new church construction to match Saudi Arabia’s. They invited al-Shaikh to speak on the topic, but the chief Saudi cleric figured it was a dandy time to go that one step farther and propose the destruction of existing churches as well.

The grand mufti speaks officially only for the Saudi Muslim state, and then only after consultation with the king. But al-Shaikh was taking advantage of his position as chief cleric for the home of the sacred cities of Mecca and Medina, a position which gives his words significance outside the Saudi realm. It’s likely no coincidence that he made his decree known in a neighboring Muslim state which was considering banning all Christian churches. Although he has no authority outside Saudi Arabia, this message was addressed to all Muslims. It will have an effect, even in those states where Sunni-Shiite rivalries are vicious. Even mass murderers are know to occasionally rally around a common cause such as destroying Christian places of worship. Take Egypt and Lebanon for starters.

Think of it this way. The Pope is the single most influential Christian in all of Christendom, but his secular authority does not extend beyond the territorial limits of the Vatican, and his religious doctrine cannot be enforced outside the Roman Catholic Church. Still, anything he says is going to be taken note of by his fellow Christians. If the Pope declared that the doctrine of transubstantiation must be enforced throughout the Christian world, Protestants would take little note of it.

But what if the Pope announced an official decree (called a “bull,” something very similar to an Islamic fatwa) requiring the destruction of all mosques in Italy, the home of Roman Catholicism? And what if he did so in an address to the British Parliament? You can let your imagination run wild with that. But two things are sure. The secular authorities would declare the bull to be in violation of civil law, and many Christians would be horrified.

But in theory, at least, it would be an order to Italian Catholics, an encouragement to Catholics elsewhere in the world, and a call to arms even for many Protestants. With or without the support of the majority of Christians, trouble would soon be in the offing among those who are scarcely able to tolerate Islam in their homelands now. Medieval Popes did something very similar. The generic term for it is The Crusades.

In reality, of course, the current Pope is a real man of peace, as opposed to Islam and its major clerics who are advocates of the phony religion of peace. So don’t expect any Papal calls for mosque demolitions. In Saudi Arabia and adjacent lands, religious tolerance is honored more in the breach than in the observance. But at least until this fatwa came along, there was a small pretense that Islam was not out to destroy or reduce Christianity into submission.

And let us remember, that the Arabic word “Islam” does not mean “peace.” It means “submission.” Islamists and weak-kneed non-Muslims would have you believe that the word means “voluntary submission to the will of Allah.” Would that it were true, but the words of the grand mufti prove otherwise.

News Update: Santorum has withdrawn from the race, but no endorsement yet.

Two days after Easter, it seemed appropriate to have a little chat about our “friend and ally” Saudi Arabia. We all know that Saudi Arabia is hostile to Christianity. Many of us first realized how hostile during the first Gulf War when the Saudis. ”

The beleaguered protectors of the Holy Sites reached out pleading hands to the United States, crying: “Save us from Saddam Hussein. Save us. Oh, and by the way, when you get here don’t even think of celebrating Christmas.
For decades now, the Saudis have forbidden the building of new Christian churches in Saudi Arabia, and the penalty for a Muslim who converts to Christianity remains death. But that’s simply not enough for the purveyors of the religion of peace. So the Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdulaziz al-Shaikh, chief cleric of the Saudi kingdom, has issued a fatwa that remedies that deficiency. He has called for the physical destruction of all Christian churches within the confines of the oil-rich, freedom-poor nation.

The fatwa was picked up by Islamist news stations in other parts of Jihadistan, but so far the Saudi king’s state-controlled media have not reported on the latest round of Islamic religious tolerance. Saudi king Abdullah does not want his phony interfaith “dialogue centers” in Europe endangered by the cleric’s move. He may also fear that the current robe-kissing, deep-bowing American president will be defeated in November and replaced by a new commander-in-chief with a backbone. It should also be noted that if the monarch were truly interested in interfaith dialogue he might open a center or two in his own kingdom.

On March 30, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had a private meeting with the king, in which the topic was allegedly the miserable state of women in the sand kingdom. It is also rumored that she brought up the fatwa, but that remains unconfirmed. If she did discuss the matter with the king, he must have replied “shut up, foolish woman” since nothing has been heard from State since.

The news concerning the fatwa first came out in the Kuwaiti newspapers. Kuwait’s parliament was kicking around the idea of a ban on new church construction to match Saudi Arabia’s. They invited al-Shaikh to speak on the topic, but the chief Saudi cleric figured it was a dandy time to go that one step farther and propose the destruction of existing churches as well.

The grand mufti speaks officially only for the Saudi Muslim state, and then only after consultation with the king. But al-Shaikh was taking advantage of his position as chief cleric for the home of the sacred cities of Mecca and Medina, a position which gives his words significance outside the Saudi realm. It’s likely no coincidence that he made his decree known in a neighboring Muslim state which was considering banning all Christian churches. Although he has no authority outside Saudi Arabia, this message was addressed to all Muslims. It will have an effect, even in those states where Sunni-Shiite rivalries are vicious. Even mass murderers are know to occasionally rally around a common cause such as destroying Christian places of worship. Take Egypt and Lebanon for starters.

Think of it this way. The Pope is the single most influential Christian in all of Christendom, but his secular authority does not extend beyond the territorial limits of the Vatican, and his religious doctrine cannot be enforced outside the Roman Catholic Church. Still, anything he says is going to be taken note of by his fellow Christians. If the Pope declared that the doctrine of transubstantiation must be enforced throughout the Christian world, Protestants would take little note of it.

But what if the Pope announced an official decree (called a “bull,” something very similar to an Islamic fatwa) requiring the destruction of all mosques in Italy, the home of Roman Catholicism? And what if he did so in an address to the British Parliament? You can let your imagination run wild with that. But two things are sure. The secular authorities would declare the bull to be in violation of civil law, and many Christians would be horrified.

But in theory, at least, it would be an order to Italian Catholics, an encouragement to Catholics elsewhere in the world, and a call to arms even for many Protestants. With or without the support of the majority of Christians, trouble would soon be in the offing among those who are scarcely able to tolerate Islam in their homelands now. Medieval Popes did something very similar. The generic term for it is The Crusades.

In reality, of course, the current Pope is a real man of peace, as opposed to Islam and its major clerics who are advocates of the phony religion of peace. So don’t expect any Papal calls for mosque demolitions. In Saudi Arabia and adjacent lands, religious tolerance is honored more in the breach than in the observance. But at least until this fatwa came along, there was a small pretense that Islam was not out to destroy or reduce Christianity into submission.

And let us remember, that the Arabic word “Islam” does not mean “peace.” It means “submission.” Islamists and weak-kneed non-Muslims would have you believe that the word means “voluntary submission to the will of Allah.” Would that it were true, but the words of the grand mufti prove otherwise.

Saudi Arabia Burning

View Detail

Mass-Murdering Right-Wing Extremist

Mass-Murdering Right-Wing Extremist

On Wednesday of this past week, a right-wing extremist went on a killing spree in the environs of the city of Toulouse in La Belle France. The mainstream media in America and France knew immediately that the killer was some sort of right wing nut when it was announced that he had killed three Jewish children, their father (a rabbi) and three French Soldiers.

A repeat of the mass murder in Norway, undoubtedly. The story quickly began to fall apart, so the liberal press on both continents went into rapid spin cycle. Just as they did after the Fort Hood massacre, they cautioned against drawing any conclusions just because the murderer had shouted “Allahu akbar.” When they found out his name was Mohammed Merah, they still had no clue as to what his motivation might have been. They advised caution, since two of the soldiers were of North African Muslim descent, and the third was black. The name Mohammed was most likely a coincidence and the murders were still the act of a right-wing terrorist.

That didn’t work out too well either. Even before the French police finally put a bullet in the murderer’s head as he tried to escape, information was coming in that he was a French citizen of Algerian origin, had fought with the Taliban in Afghanistan, and had broken out of a Kandahar prison in 2008 and returned to France. The sensational headlines about the right-wing extremist who was a racist murderer who was driven to hatred by Islamic immigration to France began to move to the back pages as it turned out he was nothing but another jihadist terrorist.

They drew conclusions from rumors that the murderer had filmed his murders using a camera suggested to him by the Norwegian nutcase mass murderer Anders Breivik. The New York Times particularly promoted that nonsense in two front page stories. Before admitting, however reluctantly, that the right-wing story was all wrong, the BBC, London’s Telegraph, the Paris dailies, French TV and a few fellow travelers in the American press decided they had another great story to beat “Islamophobes” over the head with.

The entire premise of an unaligned terrorist with no particular agenda finally went entirely out the window when the transcripts of the negotiations with the jihadist prior to his head-cleansing were released. In those transcripts, the follower of the religion of peace stated in no uncertain terms that he was seeking revenge for the French army’s involvement in the war in Afghanistan. In addition, he was avenging the deaths of the victims of Jewish oppression in Palestine. And lest anyone think he shot the two Muslim soldiers and the one black soldier by mistake, he made it clear that Muslims are fair game if they belong to any military establishment which opposes the Taliban.

So, the liberal worldwide press immediately retracted their earlier stories and admitted their mistake, right? Wrong. They turned on the turbocharger on the spin machine. Forget the damned Jews and kids and soldiers. Who’s the real victim here? Why who else? It’s Mohammed Merah. Though the American press leaned toward the “lone wolf” theory, proposing that Merah had no connection to other Islamists, the European press rolled out its favorite mantra:

“Yes, Mister/Monsieur/Herr Merah did a terrible thing. But in doing so, he was an extremist who in no way represents the religion of peace. No true Muslim would ever consort with mass murderers or antisemites” (see caption photo). The British Guardian and the French dailies know who the real culprits are. First, there is French President Nicolas Sarcozy, who finally has taken action against radical Islam in France (in other words, he’s an Islamophobe). And second, there’s the growing right-wing sentiment of certain French political parties opposing further immigration from the lands of Jihadistan.

Thus, Merah did act alone, but in the name of Allah and Islam (however mistakenly, wink, wink) and only after being forced to do so by sinister Western forces of Christianity, Judaism, and secularism—fascists all. To put the frosting on the cake, they repeat the falsehood that Breivik was a Christian with right-wing leanings who did the same thing as Merah, only worse. Jimmy Carter must love that moral relativism, particularly since it’s based on a lie to start with.

The facts haven’t changed, but the liberal press stories sure did. Allahu akbar. And by the way, the photo is from the 30s showing the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem meeting with some German guy.

On Wednesday of this past week, a right-wing extremist went on a killing spree in the environs of the city of Toulouse in La Belle France. The mainstream media in America and France knew immediately that the killer was some sort of right wing nut when it was announced that he had killed three Jewish children, their father (a rabbi) and three French Soldiers.

A repeat of the mass murder in Norway, undoubtedly. The story quickly began to fall apart, so the liberal press on both continents went into rapid spin cycle. Just as they did after the Fort Hood massacre, they cautioned against drawing any conclusions just because the murderer had shouted “Allahu akbar.” When they found out his name was Mohammed Merah, they still had no clue as to what his motivation might have been. They advised caution, since two of the soldiers were of North African Muslim descent, and the third was black. The name Mohammed was most likely a coincidence and the murders were still the act of a right-wing terrorist.

That didn’t work out too well either. Even before the French police finally put a bullet in the murderer’s head as he tried to escape, information was coming in that he was a French citizen of Algerian origin, had fought with the Taliban in Afghanistan, and had broken out of a Kandahar prison in 2008 and returned to France. The sensational headlines about the right-wing extremist who was a racist murderer who was driven to hatred by Islamic immigration to France began to move to the back pages as it turned out he was nothing but another jihadist terrorist.

They drew conclusions from rumors that the murderer had filmed his murders using a camera suggested to him by the Norwegian nutcase mass murderer Anders Breivik. The New York Times particularly promoted that nonsense in two front page stories. Before admitting, however reluctantly, that the right-wing story was all wrong, the BBC, London’s Telegraph, the Paris dailies, French TV and a few fellow travelers in the American press decided they had another great story to beat “Islamophobes” over the head with.

The entire premise of an unaligned terrorist with no particular agenda finally went entirely out the window when the transcripts of the negotiations with the jihadist prior to his head-cleansing were released. In those transcripts, the follower of the religion of peace stated in no uncertain terms that he was seeking revenge for the French army’s involvement in the war in Afghanistan. In addition, he was avenging the deaths of the victims of Jewish oppression in Palestine. And lest anyone think he shot the two Muslim soldiers and the one black soldier by mistake, he made it clear that Muslims are fair game if they belong to any military establishment which opposes the Taliban.

So, the liberal worldwide press immediately retracted their earlier stories and admitted their mistake, right? Wrong. They turned on the turbocharger on the spin machine. Forget the damned Jews and kids and soldiers. Who’s the real victim here? Why who else? It’s Mohammed Merah. Though the American press leaned toward the “lone wolf” theory, proposing that Merah had no connection to other Islamists, the European press rolled out its favorite mantra:

“Yes, Mister/Monsieur/Herr Merah did a terrible thing. But in doing so, he was an extremist who in no way represents the religion of peace. No true Muslim would ever consort with mass murderers or antisemites” (see caption photo). The British Guardian and the French dailies know who the real culprits are. First, there is French President Nicolas Sarcozy, who finally has taken action against radical Islam in France (in other words, he’s an Islamophobe). And second, there’s the growing right-wing sentiment of certain French political parties opposing further immigration from the lands of Jihadistan.

Thus, Merah did act alone, but in the name of Allah and Islam (however mistakenly, wink, wink) and only after being forced to do so by sinister Western forces of Christianity, Judaism, and secularism—fascists all. To put the frosting on the cake, they repeat the falsehood that Breivik was a Christian with right-wing leanings who did the same thing as Merah, only worse. Jimmy Carter must love that moral relativism, particularly since it’s based on a lie to start with.

The facts haven’t changed, but the liberal press stories sure did. Allahu akbar. And by the way, the photo is from the 30s showing the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem meeting with some German guy.

Mass-Murdering Right-Wing Extremist

View Detail

What Is The Primary Definition Of “Treason?”

What Is The Primary Definition Of “Treason?”

The definition that most people would come up with almost instantly is “giving aid and comfort to the enemy.” If that were all there is to it, I would be calling on the government to charge US Ambassador to Afghanistan Ryan Crocker with treason right this very minute. Unfortunately, there are other requirements, and the Obama administration doesn’t see the Taliban and other terrorists as the enemy. So it won’t happen.

Be prepared. This will not be an entirely bloodless discussion. I’m fed up to the neck with summer soldiers, sunshine patriots, and administration fifth columnists. It isn’t bad enough that our Wimp-in-Chief has fallen all over himself apologizing to troglodytes for a military error in judgment. It isn’t bad enough that the White House and the State Department have issued pathetic further apologies and then claimed that the apologies to Hamid Karzai had “calmed things down.” It isn’t bad enough that after those statements, two more American soldiers were murdered in cold blood by mad-dog members of the Afghan Security Force.

But now the limp-wristed academic and career “diplomat” Ryan Crocker has placed several big smooches on Karzai’s behind. Karzai is allegedly our “partner” in democracy in Afghanistan. In fact, he’s just another crooked, lying, self-dealing wannabe warlord in a nation of frothing-at-the-mouth primitives. Instead of at least pretending to accept the apologies and bring some hint of peace to this nation of cave-dwellers, Karzai rushed to get on national and BBC television to pour gasoline on the flames of Islamic hatred.

He didn’t even bother to disguise what he said on Afghan television when he extended his remarks to the BBC. Said the Mussolini of the Middle East: “Representing the Afghan nation and their pure sentiments, in fact the Islamic people, once again we call on the US government to bring the perpetrators of the act to justice and put them on trial and punish them.” This was after he told his own people “I have discussed the Quran burning with jihadi leaders, scholars and elected officials.” At least unlike our own pissant president, Karzai is not afraid to identify his fellow primitives as jihadists.

Instead of Richard the Lionheart to lead us, we have Barack the Faint of Heart. A fish rots from the head down. This rotting fish called the Obama administration has rotted down to the ambassadorial level. And Crocker stinks like a dead fish in the sun. In response to Karzai’s inflammatory remarks, Crocker issued his own statement. “If there are going to be proceedings, they are going to be US proceedings under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and I don’t think there is any question or doubt on the part of the Afghan government that that is exactly how it’s going to go.”

Why would the Afghan government have any doubts? They long ago figured out we have a sob-sister Islamofriendly president and a host of ambassadors with the boldness of a titmouse. They’ve already seen multiple apologies for a simple mistake. They see an American government that won’t even justify the reasoning behind the Koran burnings (I refuse to change the way I spell Koran to make the followers of Mohammed happy).

The pages of the Korans in question were interlineated by the hands of the practitioners of the religion of peace. Karzai should be thanking our military, not condemning it, since writing in a Koran is a major desecration in and of itself. The Korans were part of an entire cache of terrorist materials, manuals and messages between jihadis. The only error the military made was to let the local bloodthirsty and perpetually indignant beheaders know that the Korans were being destroyed. They should have burned the evidence behind high walls in private with no notice to anyone from the outside.

Crocker joined General Allen in announcing that they are really, really, really sorry, but the Koran burning and accompanying murders won’t affect the timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan. Oh, yeah? I’ll bet we’ll see an all-new timetable within the next few weeks. And despite the boost that will give jihadis who will say “we drove the British out, then we drove the Russians out, and now we’ve driven the Americans out,” it would probably be a good idea. If we’re not going to secure our bases, our embassy, and anywhere an American soldier goes, we should get them out of harm’s way—now! If we’re not going to issue orders to shoot first and ask questions later, it’s time to leave. While you’re pondering this, remember that two of the murdered Americans were officers shot in the back of the head in the supposedly secure Afghan Interior Ministry building.

And to put the frosting on this s—t cake, we have an American ambassador, in the enemy’s homeland, condemning American soldiers in advance and promising that those who made a [questionable] mistake will be criminally prosecuted. The Afghans are counting on it, and we won’t let them down. This is much juicier than the ridiculous war crimes charges against four Navy SEALs who gave nasty looks to a mass-murdering Islamic inmate captured on a battlefield. Our only hope is that the result of this traitorous act by the administration will meet with the same results as the SEALs prosecution. Total acquittal.

So let me summarize. Burn in hell, Barack Obama. Burn in hell, Hillary Clinton. Burn in hell, Ryan Crocker. Burn in hell, political generals. Burn in hell, Hamid Karzai. Burn in hell, Taliban. And burn in hell, all of you cave-dwelling bastards in Afghanistan.

Ite, missa est.

The definition that most people would come up with almost instantly is “giving aid and comfort to the enemy.” If that were all there is to it, I would be calling on the government to charge US Ambassador to Afghanistan Ryan Crocker with treason right this very minute. Unfortunately, there are other requirements, and the Obama administration doesn’t see the Taliban and other terrorists as the enemy. So it won’t happen.

Be prepared. This will not be an entirely bloodless discussion. I’m fed up to the neck with summer soldiers, sunshine patriots, and administration fifth columnists. It isn’t bad enough that our Wimp-in-Chief has fallen all over himself apologizing to troglodytes for a military error in judgment. It isn’t bad enough that the White House and the State Department have issued pathetic further apologies and then claimed that the apologies to Hamid Karzai had “calmed things down.” It isn’t bad enough that after those statements, two more American soldiers were murdered in cold blood by mad-dog members of the Afghan Security Force.

But now the limp-wristed academic and career “diplomat” Ryan Crocker has placed several big smooches on Karzai’s behind. Karzai is allegedly our “partner” in democracy in Afghanistan. In fact, he’s just another crooked, lying, self-dealing wannabe warlord in a nation of frothing-at-the-mouth primitives. Instead of at least pretending to accept the apologies and bring some hint of peace to this nation of cave-dwellers, Karzai rushed to get on national and BBC television to pour gasoline on the flames of Islamic hatred.

He didn’t even bother to disguise what he said on Afghan television when he extended his remarks to the BBC. Said the Mussolini of the Middle East: “Representing the Afghan nation and their pure sentiments, in fact the Islamic people, once again we call on the US government to bring the perpetrators of the act to justice and put them on trial and punish them.” This was after he told his own people “I have discussed the Quran burning with jihadi leaders, scholars and elected officials.” At least unlike our own pissant president, Karzai is not afraid to identify his fellow primitives as jihadists.

Instead of Richard the Lionheart to lead us, we have Barack the Faint of Heart. A fish rots from the head down. This rotting fish called the Obama administration has rotted down to the ambassadorial level. And Crocker stinks like a dead fish in the sun. In response to Karzai’s inflammatory remarks, Crocker issued his own statement. “If there are going to be proceedings, they are going to be US proceedings under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and I don’t think there is any question or doubt on the part of the Afghan government that that is exactly how it’s going to go.”

Why would the Afghan government have any doubts? They long ago figured out we have a sob-sister Islamofriendly president and a host of ambassadors with the boldness of a titmouse. They’ve already seen multiple apologies for a simple mistake. They see an American government that won’t even justify the reasoning behind the Koran burnings (I refuse to change the way I spell Koran to make the followers of Mohammed happy).

The pages of the Korans in question were interlineated by the hands of the practitioners of the religion of peace. Karzai should be thanking our military, not condemning it, since writing in a Koran is a major desecration in and of itself. The Korans were part of an entire cache of terrorist materials, manuals and messages between jihadis. The only error the military made was to let the local bloodthirsty and perpetually indignant beheaders know that the Korans were being destroyed. They should have burned the evidence behind high walls in private with no notice to anyone from the outside.

Crocker joined General Allen in announcing that they are really, really, really sorry, but the Koran burning and accompanying murders won’t affect the timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan. Oh, yeah? I’ll bet we’ll see an all-new timetable within the next few weeks. And despite the boost that will give jihadis who will say “we drove the British out, then we drove the Russians out, and now we’ve driven the Americans out,” it would probably be a good idea. If we’re not going to secure our bases, our embassy, and anywhere an American soldier goes, we should get them out of harm’s way—now! If we’re not going to issue orders to shoot first and ask questions later, it’s time to leave. While you’re pondering this, remember that two of the murdered Americans were officers shot in the back of the head in the supposedly secure Afghan Interior Ministry building.

And to put the frosting on this s—t cake, we have an American ambassador, in the enemy’s homeland, condemning American soldiers in advance and promising that those who made a [questionable] mistake will be criminally prosecuted. The Afghans are counting on it, and we won’t let them down. This is much juicier than the ridiculous war crimes charges against four Navy SEALs who gave nasty looks to a mass-murdering Islamic inmate captured on a battlefield. Our only hope is that the result of this traitorous act by the administration will meet with the same results as the SEALs prosecution. Total acquittal.

So let me summarize. Burn in hell, Barack Obama. Burn in hell, Hillary Clinton. Burn in hell, Ryan Crocker. Burn in hell, political generals. Burn in hell, Hamid Karzai. Burn in hell, Taliban. And burn in hell, all of you cave-dwelling bastards in Afghanistan.

Ite, missa est.

What Is The Primary Definition Of “Treason?”

View Detail

More Apologies To The Barbarians

More Apologies To The Barbarians

Barack Obama was beginning to get light-headed after going days without something to apologize for. But thank the Good Lord, someone in Afghanistan made a big mistake in disposing of some Islamic literature, including Korans, and the Apologizer-in-Chief stepped right up to apologize to the adherents of the religion of peace. Where is Brenda Lee when we need her? “I’m sorry. So sorry. That I was such a fool.”

In fact, it was a veritable orgy of apologies. General John Allen apologized to Hamid Karzai, the president of Afghanistan where the incident occurred. As penance, he has ordered all the troops remaining in Afghanistan into sensitivity training, concentrating on the proper handling of religious materials. White House mouthpiece Jay Carney said that the incident does not reflect the deep respect our military has for the religious practices of the Afghan people. Not to be outdone, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta called it deeply unfortunate and apologized for the inappropriate treatment of the material.

Obama sent US Ambassador Ryan Crocker, General Allen, and Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter to meet personally with Karzai to weep and wail, don sackcloth, and heap ashes on their heads. Others who have joined in the sorry-fest include State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland, who opined that the event was horrific, adding “desecration of religious articles is not in keeping with the standards of American tolerance, human rights practices, and freedom of religion (somebody forgot to tell her about the Obamacare mandates).” I’m still waiting for someone to cry “Oh, the humanity!”

So why did the Crusader troops burn the Korans so publicly and so insultingly? Well, they didn’t. The worst they can be accused of is sheer stupidity in making a spectacle of the destruction of dangerous materials. Am I saying the Koran is dangerous? Well, actually I would, but that’s a whole different debate. Assume that the Koran is actually a love poem to the rest of the world. It would make no difference in these circumstances. There was a lot more in that funeral pyre than Korans.

Reliable sources in Afghanistan report anonymously or “not for attribution” that the materials being burned were communications between terrorists, manuals and instructions for killing American troops, and generally all-around seriously dangerous materials. It’s understandable that the sources would remain anonymous, considering the pathological need of the Obama administration to take the blame on America's behalf for everything evil in the world, then apologizing for it.

It quickly becomes obvious that the few Korans actually burned were not the target of the burning. The target was what terrorists and Islamic plotters had written inside the Korans, attempting to get America to ignore troop welfare for the sake of religious sensitivity. At least General Allen was realistic enough to announce that “It was not a decision that was made with respect to the faith of Islam. It was a mistake. It was an error. The moment we found out about it we immediately stopped and we intervened.” OK, General Allen, there’s your statement and there’s your apology. Now stop, goddamit!

But my advice goes unheeded. The general and his minions are stupid enough to dispose of materials so publicly and so visibly that the locals know about it immediately. I can’t burn anything on my property without my neighbors knowing about it. I’m no military or CIA genius, and yet I can guarantee you that if I don’t want them to know what I’m burning, they won’t. I also don’t invite the neighbors to come over for a weenie and marshmallow roast every time I burn leaves and materials implicating me in terrorist activities (with the proper permit, of course). But it seems that the entire Afghan community is invited to witness the burning of terrorist materials. That’s stupid. That’s a mistake. We apologize. Are we done yet?

No, we’re not. In what seemed like mere minutes after the abject and humiliating apologies began to pour over the country like an oil slick, over 2000 Afghans showed up outside Bagram Air Force Base to accept the apologies and shout “die, die, foreigners, die!” The US embassy had to go on lockdown for the angry crowds outside. The scene is being repeated throughout Afghanistan and now other Islamic nations. TWINE (Taliban Wildly Indignant about Nearly Everything) is fomenting unrest and violence wherever they have a serious presence.

Somehow, the ridiculous apologies and mea culpas are having zero effect on people who kill other people for publishing cartoons of Mohammed. Imagine that! President Karzai is a big help. His statement, made shortly after the American ambassadors got finished groveling, was aimed at hastening the exit of Americans from Afghanistan in any capacity whatsoever. Even the Emperor of Japan and the Nazi hierarchy didn’t have that kind of chutzpah at the end of World War II. Karzai spoke of the burnings, which occurred at the Parwan Detention Facility: “The sooner you do the transfer of the prison, the fewer problems and unfortunate incidents you will have.” He demanded that General Allen conduct a swift investigation, and called the burning of the terrorists documents (uh, Korans) a “desecration.”

The result of the weakness of the American position, highlighted by the pathetic apologies, was as predictable as night following day. Dozens of deaths and serious injuries have already been reported. Property destruction is pandemic. And now it appears that at least two American personnel have died as a direct result of the “protests.” Given all that, here is my suggestion for all official apologies in the future: “Oops.”

So some unthinking troops burned terrorist materials, incidentally including a few annotated Korans. Big freaking deal. Islamists burn Christian churches, preferably with the congregants still inside. I'm waiting for their apologies.

For you whippersnappers who are too young to know who Brenda Lee is, here’s a link to the song from 1960: I'm Sorry.

Barack Obama was beginning to get light-headed after going days without something to apologize for. But thank the Good Lord, someone in Afghanistan made a big mistake in disposing of some Islamic literature, including Korans, and the Apologizer-in-Chief stepped right up to apologize to the adherents of the religion of peace. Where is Brenda Lee when we need her? “I’m sorry. So sorry. That I was such a fool.”

In fact, it was a veritable orgy of apologies. General John Allen apologized to Hamid Karzai, the president of Afghanistan where the incident occurred. As penance, he has ordered all the troops remaining in Afghanistan into sensitivity training, concentrating on the proper handling of religious materials. White House mouthpiece Jay Carney said that the incident does not reflect the deep respect our military has for the religious practices of the Afghan people. Not to be outdone, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta called it deeply unfortunate and apologized for the inappropriate treatment of the material.

Obama sent US Ambassador Ryan Crocker, General Allen, and Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter to meet personally with Karzai to weep and wail, don sackcloth, and heap ashes on their heads. Others who have joined in the sorry-fest include State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland, who opined that the event was horrific, adding “desecration of religious articles is not in keeping with the standards of American tolerance, human rights practices, and freedom of religion (somebody forgot to tell her about the Obamacare mandates).” I’m still waiting for someone to cry “Oh, the humanity!”

So why did the Crusader troops burn the Korans so publicly and so insultingly? Well, they didn’t. The worst they can be accused of is sheer stupidity in making a spectacle of the destruction of dangerous materials. Am I saying the Koran is dangerous? Well, actually I would, but that’s a whole different debate. Assume that the Koran is actually a love poem to the rest of the world. It would make no difference in these circumstances. There was a lot more in that funeral pyre than Korans.

Reliable sources in Afghanistan report anonymously or “not for attribution” that the materials being burned were communications between terrorists, manuals and instructions for killing American troops, and generally all-around seriously dangerous materials. It’s understandable that the sources would remain anonymous, considering the pathological need of the Obama administration to take the blame on America's behalf for everything evil in the world, then apologizing for it.

It quickly becomes obvious that the few Korans actually burned were not the target of the burning. The target was what terrorists and Islamic plotters had written inside the Korans, attempting to get America to ignore troop welfare for the sake of religious sensitivity. At least General Allen was realistic enough to announce that “It was not a decision that was made with respect to the faith of Islam. It was a mistake. It was an error. The moment we found out about it we immediately stopped and we intervened.” OK, General Allen, there’s your statement and there’s your apology. Now stop, goddamit!

But my advice goes unheeded. The general and his minions are stupid enough to dispose of materials so publicly and so visibly that the locals know about it immediately. I can’t burn anything on my property without my neighbors knowing about it. I’m no military or CIA genius, and yet I can guarantee you that if I don’t want them to know what I’m burning, they won’t. I also don’t invite the neighbors to come over for a weenie and marshmallow roast every time I burn leaves and materials implicating me in terrorist activities (with the proper permit, of course). But it seems that the entire Afghan community is invited to witness the burning of terrorist materials. That’s stupid. That’s a mistake. We apologize. Are we done yet?

No, we’re not. In what seemed like mere minutes after the abject and humiliating apologies began to pour over the country like an oil slick, over 2000 Afghans showed up outside Bagram Air Force Base to accept the apologies and shout “die, die, foreigners, die!” The US embassy had to go on lockdown for the angry crowds outside. The scene is being repeated throughout Afghanistan and now other Islamic nations. TWINE (Taliban Wildly Indignant about Nearly Everything) is fomenting unrest and violence wherever they have a serious presence.

Somehow, the ridiculous apologies and mea culpas are having zero effect on people who kill other people for publishing cartoons of Mohammed. Imagine that! President Karzai is a big help. His statement, made shortly after the American ambassadors got finished groveling, was aimed at hastening the exit of Americans from Afghanistan in any capacity whatsoever. Even the Emperor of Japan and the Nazi hierarchy didn’t have that kind of chutzpah at the end of World War II. Karzai spoke of the burnings, which occurred at the Parwan Detention Facility: “The sooner you do the transfer of the prison, the fewer problems and unfortunate incidents you will have.” He demanded that General Allen conduct a swift investigation, and called the burning of the terrorists documents (uh, Korans) a “desecration.”

The result of the weakness of the American position, highlighted by the pathetic apologies, was as predictable as night following day. Dozens of deaths and serious injuries have already been reported. Property destruction is pandemic. And now it appears that at least two American personnel have died as a direct result of the “protests.” Given all that, here is my suggestion for all official apologies in the future: “Oops.”

So some unthinking troops burned terrorist materials, incidentally including a few annotated Korans. Big freaking deal. Islamists burn Christian churches, preferably with the congregants still inside. I'm waiting for their apologies.

For you whippersnappers who are too young to know who Brenda Lee is, here’s a link to the song from 1960: I'm Sorry.

More Apologies To The Barbarians

View Detail

Have We Apologized Enough Yet?

Have We Apologized Enough Yet?

The more I think about the Obama administration’s magical mystery apology tour, the harder it is for me to let go and behave rationally. OK, a small group of young warriors are alleged to have urinated on some dead Taliban. Big deal. Slap ‘em on the wrist and let’s get on with the real world. But for God’s (and America’s) sake, stop the apologies for everything America does that doesn’t comport with “world opinion.”

Even AA tells its members to make amends unless to do so would harm oneself or others. Since the first day of the Obama administration, they have been apologizing for America’s every misstep, including the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden. The apologies for the actions of the Marines peeing on dead lowlifes has turned into a pathetic Greek chorus. As Christians in Egypt are being murdered en masse, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reserves her "dismay" for dead Taliban and her angry criticism for our own Marines.

To add insult to injury, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta practically fell over his own feet rushing to the phone to call the vile Taliban-friendly Afghan President Hamid Karzai to apologize for the Marines’ barbaric behavior. You can see from the accompanying picture how the Taliban treat prisoners, dead or alive. I don’t know about Panetta, but I’d rather be peed on dead than hanged alive. Panetta told Karzai that the Marines’ actions were “deplorable.” That to a leader of a nation that treats civilians as if they were armed combatants, tortures and brutalizes opponents, and hangs prisoners of war from public overhangs without even the pretense of legal process.

Karzai’s reply said that the Marines’ behavior was “inhuman and condemnable in the strongest possible terms.” I can understand how the leader of such a peace-loving people would think that. The Afghans and the Taliban rarely torture and murder prisoners before first having attended to the important business of stoning adulteresses to death, neutering homosexuals, and beheading apostates. The Taliban themselves were even clearer in their call for an American apology: “These were the inhuman acts of wild American soldiers in contradiction with all human and ethical norms.” They ought to know inhuman acts when they see them.

This pattern of apology is not something new with the Obama administration. It’s just that they’ve elevated apologizing for their country to high art. George Bush admonished us not to make judgments about the religion of peace: “Islam’s teachings are good and peaceful and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah.” Yes, George, and those who have never read the Koran should keep their big mouths shut. His Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, called Islam the religion of love and peace.

During Bill Clinton’s presidency, Hillary said that Islam’s “deepest yearning of all is to live in peace.” His Secretary of State, Madeline Albright said that “Islam is a faith that honors consultation, cherishes peace, and has as one of its fundamental principles the inherent equality of all who embrace it.” And the inequality of all those who deserve a violent death for not embracing it.

The alleged and real incidents for which America must apologize are too many to list in a short article. But one thing is sure. The administrations and the mainstream media have treated each incident as earth-shattering events requiring massive apologies to the jihadists (a word now not to be used in polite company). There are no minor infractions or simple mistakes in judgment. Only great disruption of the peace of the world and shocks administered to the conscience of man. Abu-Ghraib and the sophomoric hi jinx of youngsters who should have known better was raised to the level of Auschwitz. APOLOGY. Military personnel at Guantanamo performed the impossible task of flushing a Koran down a toilet. APOLOGY. The innocent prisoners at Guantanamo were being abused and tortured. APOLOGY.

Two themes, both wrong, have emerged from these hysterical mea culpas. One is that we must apologize because the reason Islamists hate us is that we’re so mean to them. The other is that by prostrating ourselves before these primitives we can achieve peace. At the cost of American honor, American strength, and reality. Worst of all, the Islamists don’t even pretend to think that the apologies are in good faith. They merely laugh at our weakness and servility, and plot their next real atrocity. To date, all our apologies aren’t worth a bucket of warm spit, and have accomplished the exact opposite of their seeming purpose (you know—the thing that the road to Hell is paved with).

For all the apologies, all the hand-wringing and soul-searching of the clueless do-gooders, there have been over 18,000 Islamic terrorist attacks or attempts just since 9-11. Obama himself has apologized, on foreign soil, for America's arrogance and racist history. Obama, Clinton, Panetta and all the other usual suspects think the only thing wrong with their apologies is that they’re not numerous enough, self-flagellating enough, or quick enough. To them I have only one thing to say: ”P#@s on you."

End of rant.

The more I think about the Obama administration’s magical mystery apology tour, the harder it is for me to let go and behave rationally. OK, a small group of young warriors are alleged to have urinated on some dead Taliban. Big deal. Slap ‘em on the wrist and let’s get on with the real world. But for God’s (and America’s) sake, stop the apologies for everything America does that doesn’t comport with “world opinion.”

Even AA tells its members to make amends unless to do so would harm oneself or others. Since the first day of the Obama administration, they have been apologizing for America’s every misstep, including the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden. The apologies for the actions of the Marines peeing on dead lowlifes has turned into a pathetic Greek chorus. As Christians in Egypt are being murdered en masse, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reserves her "dismay" for dead Taliban and her angry criticism for our own Marines.

To add insult to injury, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta practically fell over his own feet rushing to the phone to call the vile Taliban-friendly Afghan President Hamid Karzai to apologize for the Marines’ barbaric behavior. You can see from the accompanying picture how the Taliban treat prisoners, dead or alive. I don’t know about Panetta, but I’d rather be peed on dead than hanged alive. Panetta told Karzai that the Marines’ actions were “deplorable.” That to a leader of a nation that treats civilians as if they were armed combatants, tortures and brutalizes opponents, and hangs prisoners of war from public overhangs without even the pretense of legal process.

Karzai’s reply said that the Marines’ behavior was “inhuman and condemnable in the strongest possible terms.” I can understand how the leader of such a peace-loving people would think that. The Afghans and the Taliban rarely torture and murder prisoners before first having attended to the important business of stoning adulteresses to death, neutering homosexuals, and beheading apostates. The Taliban themselves were even clearer in their call for an American apology: “These were the inhuman acts of wild American soldiers in contradiction with all human and ethical norms.” They ought to know inhuman acts when they see them.

This pattern of apology is not something new with the Obama administration. It’s just that they’ve elevated apologizing for their country to high art. George Bush admonished us not to make judgments about the religion of peace: “Islam’s teachings are good and peaceful and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah.” Yes, George, and those who have never read the Koran should keep their big mouths shut. His Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, called Islam the religion of love and peace.

During Bill Clinton’s presidency, Hillary said that Islam’s “deepest yearning of all is to live in peace.” His Secretary of State, Madeline Albright said that “Islam is a faith that honors consultation, cherishes peace, and has as one of its fundamental principles the inherent equality of all who embrace it.” And the inequality of all those who deserve a violent death for not embracing it.

The alleged and real incidents for which America must apologize are too many to list in a short article. But one thing is sure. The administrations and the mainstream media have treated each incident as earth-shattering events requiring massive apologies to the jihadists (a word now not to be used in polite company). There are no minor infractions or simple mistakes in judgment. Only great disruption of the peace of the world and shocks administered to the conscience of man. Abu-Ghraib and the sophomoric hi jinx of youngsters who should have known better was raised to the level of Auschwitz. APOLOGY. Military personnel at Guantanamo performed the impossible task of flushing a Koran down a toilet. APOLOGY. The innocent prisoners at Guantanamo were being abused and tortured. APOLOGY.

Two themes, both wrong, have emerged from these hysterical mea culpas. One is that we must apologize because the reason Islamists hate us is that we’re so mean to them. The other is that by prostrating ourselves before these primitives we can achieve peace. At the cost of American honor, American strength, and reality. Worst of all, the Islamists don’t even pretend to think that the apologies are in good faith. They merely laugh at our weakness and servility, and plot their next real atrocity. To date, all our apologies aren’t worth a bucket of warm spit, and have accomplished the exact opposite of their seeming purpose (you know—the thing that the road to Hell is paved with).

For all the apologies, all the hand-wringing and soul-searching of the clueless do-gooders, there have been over 18,000 Islamic terrorist attacks or attempts just since 9-11. Obama himself has apologized, on foreign soil, for America's arrogance and racist history. Obama, Clinton, Panetta and all the other usual suspects think the only thing wrong with their apologies is that they’re not numerous enough, self-flagellating enough, or quick enough. To them I have only one thing to say: ”P#@s on you."

End of rant.

Have We Apologized Enough Yet?

View Detail

The Economist: Religious Jews Are The Real Evil

The Economist: Religious Jews Are The Real Evil

Sometimes The Economist has to be read to be believed. In December, The Economist began worrying for the first time that things weren’t going right in Egypt because “inexplicably” some religious types were winning the elections. How bad are these religious types? Almost as bad as ultra-Orthodox Jews. . . the worst of the worst.

When the Arab Spring hit Egypt, there were plenty of reasons to hope the country would move in the right direction. Egypt had a history of religious tolerance before the modern era. The country is relatively modern. The country has a huge Christian population who would presumably be a moderating force. The Army was definitely a moderating force. And the Muslim Brotherhood has publicly forsworn violence and any intention of imposing strict Sharia law on the people. It seemed very possible Egypt could become a Turkish-style moderate-Islamic democracy.

But there were also plenty of reasons to believe things would go wrong. The Muslim Brotherhood’s political history is more radical than they admit. Islam would not see subjugating a Christian population as much of a moral dilemma, see e.g. anywhere in the Middle East, Sudan, Ethiopia, Nigeria, etc. And there is another group, the Salafists, who are openly pushing for a Taliban-like puritanical interpretation of Islam to become the law of the land.

People with brains saw the potential for good in this and the potential for bad, and they waited to see how the middle class and youth would respond. Idiots, i.e. liberals like The Economist, saw only the good parts.

With the first round of the elections in the books, the bad appears to be winning. The Muslim Brotherhood have become the big winners with 46%. Even worse, the Salafists got 24%. The question now is whether the Brotherhood will team with the Salafists, which they originally promised they wouldn’t. That will decide Egypt’s future.

And now that things appear to be going wrong, liberals are shocked to discover there was ever a potential for bad. Who knew there were Muslims who really meant it when they said they want to stop women from driving, going to school, and fondling vegetables, when they said they want to murder Christians who won’t convert, and when they said they want to go to war with Israel? Who could have known this, whined The Economist when it confessed to being misled by all the Egyptian Facebook pages that seemed so hopeful and so liberal.

Anyway, The Economist is now trying to save face by equating the Salafists with ultra-orthodox Jews. Indeed, according to The Economist religious Jews are just like the Muslim Brotherhood and the ultra-orthodox are just like the Salafists. Let’s compare:

● Religious Jews are “carving out no-go areas for the authorities with their own legal and morality police.”

Yep, that’s just completely evil. It’s kind of like how it’s a death sentence for non-Muslims to be in places like Mecca and Medina and how Jews aren’t allowed in Saudi Arabia and how the Muslims in places like Sudan and Ethiopia slaughtered their Jewish and Christian neighbors. Yeah, those imaginary no-go areas are about as bad as it can get.

● Religious Jews are “using their power as parliamentary kingmakers [and] religious Jews are the state.”

Oh, so they’ve imposed Torah law and Rabbis select political leaders now? Oh wait, no, that still only happens in Muslim countries.

● “The hotter-headed religious soldiers boycott military pageants at which women perform,” . . . “Municipalities cancel concerts with female artists or insist that they fully cover their bodies and remove advertising of even modestly-clad women from streets and buses.” . . . and “Hillary Clinton recently said she was worried that women’s rights in Israel were being eroded.”

Wow, if Hillary says it, then it must true. Of course, boycotting parades and demanding that scantily-clad women be covered up isn’t quite the same as requiring women to wear veils head to toe, sentencing women to be stoned for having sexy eyes, attacking male doctors who try to help women, sentencing women to death for adultery or sorcery or being raped, allowing instant divorce by husbands, not letting women vote, hold office, drive, work, go to the same churches, go to school, etc. etc. But yeah, I TOTALLY see how you could equate these things.

● “In ultra-Orthodox suburbs of Tel Aviv, women, like their Saudi counterparts, do not drive.”

Of course, in Israel, it’s a choice. In Saudi Arabia, it’s a law and women drivers get a death sentence. Also, it’s not just Saudi Arabia. It’s all over the Gulf and spreading.

● “Religious Jews tend to be more dismissive of Arabs than their secular compatriots.”

Yep, that’s bad. There’s nothing worse than being dismissive. . . like how the left is dismissive of Christians. Of course, Muslims aren’t really dismissive of Jews so much as “murderous of.” Tomato... tomato I guess.

● “Polls suggest that a high percentage of religious Jews would deny non-Jews the vote.”

But they can vote. Show me a Muslim country where non-Muslims can vote? In fact, in several Muslim countries (e.g. Pakistan) being a Jew or Christian gets you a death sentence.

Oh, those evil Jews! Won’t someone rid us of their terror?!

This is shameful, but it’s also par for the course these days among liberal journalists for whom anti-Semitism and stupidity are tools of the trade. They casually mix anti-Semitism with their bizarre language of equivalency to come up with stunning comparisons like this, where a blood thirsty murderer can be equated to someone shushing you at a theater. Nice work Economist.

Sometimes The Economist has to be read to be believed. In December, The Economist began worrying for the first time that things weren’t going right in Egypt because “inexplicably” some religious types were winning the elections. How bad are these religious types? Almost as bad as ultra-Orthodox Jews. . . the worst of the worst.

When the Arab Spring hit Egypt, there were plenty of reasons to hope the country would move in the right direction. Egypt had a history of religious tolerance before the modern era. The country is relatively modern. The country has a huge Christian population who would presumably be a moderating force. The Army was definitely a moderating force. And the Muslim Brotherhood has publicly forsworn violence and any intention of imposing strict Sharia law on the people. It seemed very possible Egypt could become a Turkish-style moderate-Islamic democracy.

But there were also plenty of reasons to believe things would go wrong. The Muslim Brotherhood’s political history is more radical than they admit. Islam would not see subjugating a Christian population as much of a moral dilemma, see e.g. anywhere in the Middle East, Sudan, Ethiopia, Nigeria, etc. And there is another group, the Salafists, who are openly pushing for a Taliban-like puritanical interpretation of Islam to become the law of the land.

People with brains saw the potential for good in this and the potential for bad, and they waited to see how the middle class and youth would respond. Idiots, i.e. liberals like The Economist, saw only the good parts.

With the first round of the elections in the books, the bad appears to be winning. The Muslim Brotherhood have become the big winners with 46%. Even worse, the Salafists got 24%. The question now is whether the Brotherhood will team with the Salafists, which they originally promised they wouldn’t. That will decide Egypt’s future.

And now that things appear to be going wrong, liberals are shocked to discover there was ever a potential for bad. Who knew there were Muslims who really meant it when they said they want to stop women from driving, going to school, and fondling vegetables, when they said they want to murder Christians who won’t convert, and when they said they want to go to war with Israel? Who could have known this, whined The Economist when it confessed to being misled by all the Egyptian Facebook pages that seemed so hopeful and so liberal.

Anyway, The Economist is now trying to save face by equating the Salafists with ultra-orthodox Jews. Indeed, according to The Economist religious Jews are just like the Muslim Brotherhood and the ultra-orthodox are just like the Salafists. Let’s compare:

● Religious Jews are “carving out no-go areas for the authorities with their own legal and morality police.”

Yep, that’s just completely evil. It’s kind of like how it’s a death sentence for non-Muslims to be in places like Mecca and Medina and how Jews aren’t allowed in Saudi Arabia and how the Muslims in places like Sudan and Ethiopia slaughtered their Jewish and Christian neighbors. Yeah, those imaginary no-go areas are about as bad as it can get.

● Religious Jews are “using their power as parliamentary kingmakers [and] religious Jews are the state.”

Oh, so they’ve imposed Torah law and Rabbis select political leaders now? Oh wait, no, that still only happens in Muslim countries.

● “The hotter-headed religious soldiers boycott military pageants at which women perform,” . . . “Municipalities cancel concerts with female artists or insist that they fully cover their bodies and remove advertising of even modestly-clad women from streets and buses.” . . . and “Hillary Clinton recently said she was worried that women’s rights in Israel were being eroded.”

Wow, if Hillary says it, then it must true. Of course, boycotting parades and demanding that scantily-clad women be covered up isn’t quite the same as requiring women to wear veils head to toe, sentencing women to be stoned for having sexy eyes, attacking male doctors who try to help women, sentencing women to death for adultery or sorcery or being raped, allowing instant divorce by husbands, not letting women vote, hold office, drive, work, go to the same churches, go to school, etc. etc. But yeah, I TOTALLY see how you could equate these things.

● “In ultra-Orthodox suburbs of Tel Aviv, women, like their Saudi counterparts, do not drive.”

Of course, in Israel, it’s a choice. In Saudi Arabia, it’s a law and women drivers get a death sentence. Also, it’s not just Saudi Arabia. It’s all over the Gulf and spreading.

● “Religious Jews tend to be more dismissive of Arabs than their secular compatriots.”

Yep, that’s bad. There’s nothing worse than being dismissive. . . like how the left is dismissive of Christians. Of course, Muslims aren’t really dismissive of Jews so much as “murderous of.” Tomato... tomato I guess.

● “Polls suggest that a high percentage of religious Jews would deny non-Jews the vote.”

But they can vote. Show me a Muslim country where non-Muslims can vote? In fact, in several Muslim countries (e.g. Pakistan) being a Jew or Christian gets you a death sentence.

Oh, those evil Jews! Won’t someone rid us of their terror?!

This is shameful, but it’s also par for the course these days among liberal journalists for whom anti-Semitism and stupidity are tools of the trade. They casually mix anti-Semitism with their bizarre language of equivalency to come up with stunning comparisons like this, where a blood thirsty murderer can be equated to someone shushing you at a theater. Nice work Economist.

The Economist: Religious Jews Are The Real Evil

View Detail

Merry Mayhem From Santa

Merry Mayhem From Santa

Most of us got gifts and hugs and stockings filled with little treats for Christmas. A few got stockings filled with coal (Santa sometimes does carry out his threats about knowing when you've been naughty). One family got a really big surprise. Santa appeared at the door instead of coming down the chimney and murdered mom and her daughter.

Incidentally, four other relatives of various degrees were also murdered by Santa because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Collateral damage, if you will. Celebrate Christmas, open your gifts, get murdered in cold blood. ABC, NBC, CBS, Yahoo News, and most of the mainstream media reported the tragedy in Grapevine, Texas, describing Santa as "the estranged husband." Just another tragic domestic dispute. Most were careful to mention that the couple had split up, and they were having serious money problems.

But looking at the story behind the story, it quickly becomes apparent that this was yet another attempt by the politically-correct press to cover up what is becoming a common occurrence in America. Any lawyer practicing family law will tell you that domestic disputes are among the ugliest of events. But marital problems were the effect, not the cause of this mass murder. Those who read MSM reports or listen to TV talking heads were probably immediately suspicious when the real name of Santa was revealed--Aziz Yazdanpanah. But that's because we're all Islamophobic bigots, don't you know.

Yes, Christians, Jews, Buddhists and others have committed horrible family atrocities as well. But their religions don't mainstream murder, and when the name of the religion is invoked as the reason behind the killing, it's tolerated only among a fringe group of lunatics. Not so with a considerable portion of those who practice fundamentalist Islam. But to get that information from the MSM, you have to work very hard to find the obvious.

Islam in general and fundamentalist Islam in particular have a whole list of "crimes" which bring dishonor on the man's family sufficient to result in a "righteous execution." In this case, mom was a little too friendly with her non-Muslim neighbors, celebrated "pagan" festivals such as Christmas (but not Easter), and disagreed with the pater familias frequently and openly. As if this was not bad enough, the nineteen year old daughter was seriously dating a non-Muslim in direct violation of dad's orders.

Yazdanpanah is an Iranian immigrant, who believes not only in honor killing but also the apocalyptic "hidden imam" theology of his former countryman Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But you wouldn't know that from the vast majority of the MSM reports. They immediately and almost simultaneously dubbed him the "Santa Killer." It almost seemed as if they blamed Christmas itself for the murders. We've all heard the common and mistaken statement that more suicides take place during the Christmas season than any other time of year. Add a little financial hardship and love turned to hate, and you have another typical Christmas tragedy.

What you really have is the growth of a uniquely fundamentalist Islamic trend--honor killing in America. This one was only a slight change in form with no change in substance. Who wouldn't open the door for Santa on Christmas Day? This was just a way for the follower of strict sharia law to get past the civil restrictions which restrained him from getting anywhere near the rest of the family. Those MSM reports which even bothered to mention honor killings tangentially immediately stated (incorrectly) that this was a very rare event that has nothing to do with traditional Islamic belief.

But then these are the same reporters who couldn't connect the shouting of "Allahu akbar" and the mass murder of thirteen servicemen at Fort Hood with the religion of peace. Yet these same people will immediately identify the alleged religion of any other murderer, even if the killer does not practice that religion or claim a religious purpose in performing the murder(s). Remember that the MSM immediately identified Timothy McVeigh and the Norway mass murderer Anders Brevik as Christians, though in both cases the murderers had rejected Christianity.

Most of us got gifts and hugs and stockings filled with little treats for Christmas. A few got stockings filled with coal (Santa sometimes does carry out his threats about knowing when you've been naughty). One family got a really big surprise. Santa appeared at the door instead of coming down the chimney and murdered mom and her daughter.

Incidentally, four other relatives of various degrees were also murdered by Santa because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Collateral damage, if you will. Celebrate Christmas, open your gifts, get murdered in cold blood. ABC, NBC, CBS, Yahoo News, and most of the mainstream media reported the tragedy in Grapevine, Texas, describing Santa as "the estranged husband." Just another tragic domestic dispute. Most were careful to mention that the couple had split up, and they were having serious money problems.

But looking at the story behind the story, it quickly becomes apparent that this was yet another attempt by the politically-correct press to cover up what is becoming a common occurrence in America. Any lawyer practicing family law will tell you that domestic disputes are among the ugliest of events. But marital problems were the effect, not the cause of this mass murder. Those who read MSM reports or listen to TV talking heads were probably immediately suspicious when the real name of Santa was revealed--Aziz Yazdanpanah. But that's because we're all Islamophobic bigots, don't you know.

Yes, Christians, Jews, Buddhists and others have committed horrible family atrocities as well. But their religions don't mainstream murder, and when the name of the religion is invoked as the reason behind the killing, it's tolerated only among a fringe group of lunatics. Not so with a considerable portion of those who practice fundamentalist Islam. But to get that information from the MSM, you have to work very hard to find the obvious.

Islam in general and fundamentalist Islam in particular have a whole list of "crimes" which bring dishonor on the man's family sufficient to result in a "righteous execution." In this case, mom was a little too friendly with her non-Muslim neighbors, celebrated "pagan" festivals such as Christmas (but not Easter), and disagreed with the pater familias frequently and openly. As if this was not bad enough, the nineteen year old daughter was seriously dating a non-Muslim in direct violation of dad's orders.

Yazdanpanah is an Iranian immigrant, who believes not only in honor killing but also the apocalyptic "hidden imam" theology of his former countryman Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But you wouldn't know that from the vast majority of the MSM reports. They immediately and almost simultaneously dubbed him the "Santa Killer." It almost seemed as if they blamed Christmas itself for the murders. We've all heard the common and mistaken statement that more suicides take place during the Christmas season than any other time of year. Add a little financial hardship and love turned to hate, and you have another typical Christmas tragedy.

What you really have is the growth of a uniquely fundamentalist Islamic trend--honor killing in America. This one was only a slight change in form with no change in substance. Who wouldn't open the door for Santa on Christmas Day? This was just a way for the follower of strict sharia law to get past the civil restrictions which restrained him from getting anywhere near the rest of the family. Those MSM reports which even bothered to mention honor killings tangentially immediately stated (incorrectly) that this was a very rare event that has nothing to do with traditional Islamic belief.

But then these are the same reporters who couldn't connect the shouting of "Allahu akbar" and the mass murder of thirteen servicemen at Fort Hood with the religion of peace. Yet these same people will immediately identify the alleged religion of any other murderer, even if the killer does not practice that religion or claim a religious purpose in performing the murder(s). Remember that the MSM immediately identified Timothy McVeigh and the Norway mass murderer Anders Brevik as Christians, though in both cases the murderers had rejected Christianity.

Merry Mayhem From Santa

View Detail

AP Top 10: Politicized News

AP Top 10: Politicized News

The AP has put out their Top 10 news stories of 2011. As usual, they’ve politicized the list and they aren’t good at separating the pointless from the significant. Here’s their list followed by a sneak peek at the top stories of 2012.

No. 1. The killing of Osama Bin Laden. Yawn. Let’s be honest. Osama meant nothing by this point. He wasn’t giving orders and he inspired no one. Subsequent events have shown his death changed nothing in the war on terror. I’m glad he’s dead, but he doesn’t belong atop this list.

No. 2. Japanese Disaster. Earthquake, tsunami, nuclear meltdown, 20,000 people dead, $218 billion in damage, 100,000 homeless. This one deserves to be on the list. It’s too bad so many Hollywood types thought this was a good time to crack racist anti-Japanese jokes.

No. 3. The Arab Spring. This one probably deserves to be the top story. Even The Economist is now worried that the thing “no one could have possibly foreseen” is happening, i.e. radical Islam taking power. Expect this one to cause a lot of carnage in the coming years.

No. 4. EU Crisis. Eh. Reality doesn’t quit. When you create a currency that anyone can print and you have no way to keep people from running up the bills, it’s only a matter of time before it all blows up. The real story would be if the Europeans learn anything from this.

No. 5. US Economy. Huh? They actually identify this as our economy growing and “unemployment rate finally dipping below 9 percent.” Don’t make me laugh. This recession will get worse before it gets better. Seasonal Christmas hiring won’t change that.

No. 6. Penn State Sex Abuse Scandal. If you care about Penn State, sure. But shouldn’t the bigger story be the recent arrests of Hollywood pedophiles? Oh that’s right, only some pedophiles are bad.

No. 7. Gadhafi Toppled. Wasn’t this part of the Arab Spring? Also, riddle me this: so what? Seriously, how does this change the world?

No. 8. Fiscal Showdowns In Congress. Kabuki theater at best.

No. 9. OWS. Morons crapping in the streets. More theater.

No. 10. Gabrielle Giffords Shot. Yeah, because this changed everything. Some crazed leftist shoots Giffords and the left blames Sarah Palin. The left calls for a “change in tone” while famous leftists joke about killing Palin and her family. Been there, done that.


Notice how they put this list together. First, they went liberal. Most of these are meant to aggrandize Lord Obama’s policies: Obama’s triumph over villains bin Laden and Gadhafi, Obama finally taming the economy, and the masses showing support for Obama through OWS. Several of the rest are meant to explain away Obama’s failures: the evil Congress that can’t fix the budget, the Japanese disaster that blasted our economy, and the murderous right-wing opposition that tried to kill Giffords and is determined to stop Obama. Of course, NONE of that is true, but truth doesn’t matter to leftist. They only care that it can be spun to make Obama look good or explain his failures. This is Obama’s campaign resume brought to you by the AP.

But even beyond helping Obama, look at the ludicrousness of this list. This entire list is aspirational, not based in reality. They hoped killing bin Laden would change the world. They hoped the Arab Spring and killing Gadhafi would bring peace to the Middle East. They hoped the Giffords shooting would end America’s love of guns. They hope the economy has turned around. They hope OWS finally means something.

And isn’t it interesting they ignored the elimination of “don’t ask, don’t tell”? I guess that didn’t turn out to be so popular with the public. They ignored the tornadoes across the Midwest and Southeast. Why? Because Obama never bothered to help those people because they don’t vote for him. They ignored Solyndra and MF Global and Fast and Furious. They ignored the Pelosi financial scandals and the retirements of dozens of Democrats. They ignored the attempt to force a union on Boeing. They ignored the left’s failure to recall Wisconsin Republicans. They ignored Climategate 2 and a bevy of global warming scandals. They ignored the courts striking down ObamaCare. . . something we were assured only lunatics could think would happen.

Gee, I wonder why?

Anyway, here’s a sneak peek at the top stories of 2012:

1. Tebow wins Super Bowl
2. Obama loses in landslide
3. Republicans capture 58 seats in the Senate
4. First case of cannibalism at OWS occurs in NYC
5. Egypt invades Libya
6. Mysterious explosion at Iranian nuclear plant
7. Germany quits the Euro
8. ????

The AP has put out their Top 10 news stories of 2011. As usual, they’ve politicized the list and they aren’t good at separating the pointless from the significant. Here’s their list followed by a sneak peek at the top stories of 2012.

No. 1. The killing of Osama Bin Laden. Yawn. Let’s be honest. Osama meant nothing by this point. He wasn’t giving orders and he inspired no one. Subsequent events have shown his death changed nothing in the war on terror. I’m glad he’s dead, but he doesn’t belong atop this list.

No. 2. Japanese Disaster. Earthquake, tsunami, nuclear meltdown, 20,000 people dead, $218 billion in damage, 100,000 homeless. This one deserves to be on the list. It’s too bad so many Hollywood types thought this was a good time to crack racist anti-Japanese jokes.

No. 3. The Arab Spring. This one probably deserves to be the top story. Even The Economist is now worried that the thing “no one could have possibly foreseen” is happening, i.e. radical Islam taking power. Expect this one to cause a lot of carnage in the coming years.

No. 4. EU Crisis. Eh. Reality doesn’t quit. When you create a currency that anyone can print and you have no way to keep people from running up the bills, it’s only a matter of time before it all blows up. The real story would be if the Europeans learn anything from this.

No. 5. US Economy. Huh? They actually identify this as our economy growing and “unemployment rate finally dipping below 9 percent.” Don’t make me laugh. This recession will get worse before it gets better. Seasonal Christmas hiring won’t change that.

No. 6. Penn State Sex Abuse Scandal. If you care about Penn State, sure. But shouldn’t the bigger story be the recent arrests of Hollywood pedophiles? Oh that’s right, only some pedophiles are bad.

No. 7. Gadhafi Toppled. Wasn’t this part of the Arab Spring? Also, riddle me this: so what? Seriously, how does this change the world?

No. 8. Fiscal Showdowns In Congress. Kabuki theater at best.

No. 9. OWS. Morons crapping in the streets. More theater.

No. 10. Gabrielle Giffords Shot. Yeah, because this changed everything. Some crazed leftist shoots Giffords and the left blames Sarah Palin. The left calls for a “change in tone” while famous leftists joke about killing Palin and her family. Been there, done that.


Notice how they put this list together. First, they went liberal. Most of these are meant to aggrandize Lord Obama’s policies: Obama’s triumph over villains bin Laden and Gadhafi, Obama finally taming the economy, and the masses showing support for Obama through OWS. Several of the rest are meant to explain away Obama’s failures: the evil Congress that can’t fix the budget, the Japanese disaster that blasted our economy, and the murderous right-wing opposition that tried to kill Giffords and is determined to stop Obama. Of course, NONE of that is true, but truth doesn’t matter to leftist. They only care that it can be spun to make Obama look good or explain his failures. This is Obama’s campaign resume brought to you by the AP.

But even beyond helping Obama, look at the ludicrousness of this list. This entire list is aspirational, not based in reality. They hoped killing bin Laden would change the world. They hoped the Arab Spring and killing Gadhafi would bring peace to the Middle East. They hoped the Giffords shooting would end America’s love of guns. They hope the economy has turned around. They hope OWS finally means something.

And isn’t it interesting they ignored the elimination of “don’t ask, don’t tell”? I guess that didn’t turn out to be so popular with the public. They ignored the tornadoes across the Midwest and Southeast. Why? Because Obama never bothered to help those people because they don’t vote for him. They ignored Solyndra and MF Global and Fast and Furious. They ignored the Pelosi financial scandals and the retirements of dozens of Democrats. They ignored the attempt to force a union on Boeing. They ignored the left’s failure to recall Wisconsin Republicans. They ignored Climategate 2 and a bevy of global warming scandals. They ignored the courts striking down ObamaCare. . . something we were assured only lunatics could think would happen.

Gee, I wonder why?

Anyway, here’s a sneak peek at the top stories of 2012:

1. Tebow wins Super Bowl
2. Obama loses in landslide
3. Republicans capture 58 seats in the Senate
4. First case of cannibalism at OWS occurs in NYC
5. Egypt invades Libya
6. Mysterious explosion at Iranian nuclear plant
7. Germany quits the Euro
8. ????

AP Top 10: Politicized News

View Detail

John Kerry's Strange Associates

John Kerry's Strange Associates

Over the years, Sen. John Kerry has gotten his ideas of how the world works from people ranging from the Viet Cong to Alinsky radicals to Yale professors. Having pretty much successfully worked with his fellow Democrats on making the United States a social democratic government-dependent nation, over the past few years he has turned his attentions to foreign affairs.

Kerry is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Currently he is basking in the warmth of the Arab Spring. Like his counterparts in the executive branch, Barack Obama, Kerry seeks advice from those who can be trusted to tell the truth. Like Obama and his White House free-speech meeting with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, Kerry has chosen to get his information on political developments in Egypt from the Freedom and Justice Party. The FJP is an arm of the Muslim brotherhood, which now (along with the even-more fundamentalist Salafists) controls about 70% of Egypt's legislative seats as of the most recent round of elections.

Let's face it. It would have been almost impossible for a man like Kerry to resist getting his advice from men who represent a party that has both "freedom" and "justice" in its name. So Kerry invited three honchos from the FJP to come to his Senate office. It's not as posh as the White House, but not bad. The three are Essam El-Erian, vice chairman of the FJP, Mohamed Saad Katani, Secretary-General of the FJP, and the big falafel, Mohamed Morsi, chairman of the FJP.

These men represent the best of Egyptian secular democracy (irony intended). Day-dreaming a western-style democracy in Egypt (and the Middle East) is a Democratic habit. Despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, back in February the Obama administration announced without even twitching that the Muslim Brotherhood is "largely secular." And Kerry has the quotes to prove it.

As for secularism, Katani agrees with the Salafists (really militant Islamists) that "Nobody dares oppose the application of Sharia law." El-Katani and El-Erian previously issued a joint statement saying: "If you want to know what principles guide our party, let me tell you: the principles of the Islamic Sharia law."

But there's still the "freedom and justice part," right? Says peaceful chairman Morsi: "Israel is a Zionist usurper that has been created by international terrorism and injustice. Israel must be destroyed and any nation that supports it is perpetrating genocide against the Palestinians." Kerry seemed entirely unruffled by that remark, unlike his reaction to Newt Gingrich referring to the Palestinians (correctly) as an "invented people."

Kerry's friendliness toward the Brotherhood was bolstered by an earlier statement from US Special Coordinator for Transitions in the Middle East William Taylor who had said that the US would be satisfied with a Brotherhood victory. Kerry's domestic partner at the meeting was Anne Patterson, US ambassador to Egypt.

Prior to the latest Egyptian elections, the Muslim Brotherhood had at least feigned a moderate stance toward secularism, democracy, and Israel. Since those elections the facade has begun to crumble. Even the liberal and Islamo-friendly The New Republic sensed there was something rotten in the state of Egypt. Correspondent Eric Trager conducted a series of interviews with FJP and Muslim Brotherhood leaders. He concluded: "Far from being moderate, these future leaders share a commitment to theocratic rule, complete with a limited view of civil liberties and an unmistakable antipathy for the West."

Kerry mustn't read TNR these days, or watch TV news stories about new outbreaks of anti-Christian violence and the storming of the Israeli embassy in Cairo. The Islamist masses have been considerably emboldened since their electoral victories. The FJP plans to follow strict Sharia law including, but not limited to, banning interest-bearing banking, banning alcohol, requiring women to wear clothing that covers everything but their faces (covering them will come later), and banning any speech which is critical of Islam or promotes in any way another religion. It's not clear whether they intend to make apostasy a capital offense, but leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood have made it clear they would like to.

Given all this, you might think that the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee might be a little cagey about whom he invites to his office and how far he would go to encourage them. Silly you. After the meetings, Kerry announced that he had learned just how good the intentions of the FJP are. In fact, they're so good, he first praised the "transparency and integrity" of the elections, then pledged his support for Egypt's new government. He also promised that he would do everything he could to get the International Monetary Fund to support the fledgling Islamist government (paid for largely out of the pockets of the US taxpayer).

Over the years, Sen. John Kerry has gotten his ideas of how the world works from people ranging from the Viet Cong to Alinsky radicals to Yale professors. Having pretty much successfully worked with his fellow Democrats on making the United States a social democratic government-dependent nation, over the past few years he has turned his attentions to foreign affairs.

Kerry is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Currently he is basking in the warmth of the Arab Spring. Like his counterparts in the executive branch, Barack Obama, Kerry seeks advice from those who can be trusted to tell the truth. Like Obama and his White House free-speech meeting with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, Kerry has chosen to get his information on political developments in Egypt from the Freedom and Justice Party. The FJP is an arm of the Muslim brotherhood, which now (along with the even-more fundamentalist Salafists) controls about 70% of Egypt's legislative seats as of the most recent round of elections.

Let's face it. It would have been almost impossible for a man like Kerry to resist getting his advice from men who represent a party that has both "freedom" and "justice" in its name. So Kerry invited three honchos from the FJP to come to his Senate office. It's not as posh as the White House, but not bad. The three are Essam El-Erian, vice chairman of the FJP, Mohamed Saad Katani, Secretary-General of the FJP, and the big falafel, Mohamed Morsi, chairman of the FJP.

These men represent the best of Egyptian secular democracy (irony intended). Day-dreaming a western-style democracy in Egypt (and the Middle East) is a Democratic habit. Despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, back in February the Obama administration announced without even twitching that the Muslim Brotherhood is "largely secular." And Kerry has the quotes to prove it.

As for secularism, Katani agrees with the Salafists (really militant Islamists) that "Nobody dares oppose the application of Sharia law." El-Katani and El-Erian previously issued a joint statement saying: "If you want to know what principles guide our party, let me tell you: the principles of the Islamic Sharia law."

But there's still the "freedom and justice part," right? Says peaceful chairman Morsi: "Israel is a Zionist usurper that has been created by international terrorism and injustice. Israel must be destroyed and any nation that supports it is perpetrating genocide against the Palestinians." Kerry seemed entirely unruffled by that remark, unlike his reaction to Newt Gingrich referring to the Palestinians (correctly) as an "invented people."

Kerry's friendliness toward the Brotherhood was bolstered by an earlier statement from US Special Coordinator for Transitions in the Middle East William Taylor who had said that the US would be satisfied with a Brotherhood victory. Kerry's domestic partner at the meeting was Anne Patterson, US ambassador to Egypt.

Prior to the latest Egyptian elections, the Muslim Brotherhood had at least feigned a moderate stance toward secularism, democracy, and Israel. Since those elections the facade has begun to crumble. Even the liberal and Islamo-friendly The New Republic sensed there was something rotten in the state of Egypt. Correspondent Eric Trager conducted a series of interviews with FJP and Muslim Brotherhood leaders. He concluded: "Far from being moderate, these future leaders share a commitment to theocratic rule, complete with a limited view of civil liberties and an unmistakable antipathy for the West."

Kerry mustn't read TNR these days, or watch TV news stories about new outbreaks of anti-Christian violence and the storming of the Israeli embassy in Cairo. The Islamist masses have been considerably emboldened since their electoral victories. The FJP plans to follow strict Sharia law including, but not limited to, banning interest-bearing banking, banning alcohol, requiring women to wear clothing that covers everything but their faces (covering them will come later), and banning any speech which is critical of Islam or promotes in any way another religion. It's not clear whether they intend to make apostasy a capital offense, but leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood have made it clear they would like to.

Given all this, you might think that the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee might be a little cagey about whom he invites to his office and how far he would go to encourage them. Silly you. After the meetings, Kerry announced that he had learned just how good the intentions of the FJP are. In fact, they're so good, he first praised the "transparency and integrity" of the elections, then pledged his support for Egypt's new government. He also promised that he would do everything he could to get the International Monetary Fund to support the fledgling Islamist government (paid for largely out of the pockets of the US taxpayer).

John Kerry's Strange Associates

View Detail

Barack Obama And The Free Speech Folks

Barack Obama And The Free Speech Folks

Pictured are three "Friends of Obama" enforcers of free speech on loan from the United Nations. Following the UN Durbin conference on destroying racist Zionism and keeping women barefoot and pregnant, President Barack Hussein Obama invited the Organization of Islamic Cooperation ("OIC") to the White House to discuss implementation of the UN's resolution condemning religious intolerance.

It was vitally important that he do so. With growing Islamophobia in America, including the cold-blooded murder of thousands of Muslims for their religious beliefs in Rhode Island and the mass deportation of Muslims from Iowa, it has become a priority item with the Obama administration. Obama is barely holding the fort against the forces of evil in America. He has pleaded with Americans to reject voter ID since it discriminates against blacks, the poor, the lame, the meek, the mentally-defective, the young, and, oh yes, Muslims.

So what could be wrong with the administration's invite to the OIC? To start with, the organization hardly represents the pinnacle of free speech and religious tolerance. It is certainly not the only world religious organization. Its fifty-seven members don't represent even a majority of the United Nations membership. He invited the group to his palace because there are so many hurt feelings in the Muslim world over intolerance toward Islam. No other religion has ever even been spoken ill of, while Islam suffers daily from the brickbats of bigots and those who question the religion of peace.

The second reason for inviting the OIC is that Islamic rights at the UN are slipping away. For years they have been able to get resolutions passed against defamation of Islam, then defamation of religions, and then vilification of religions. As you can see, a conspiracy of Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists has slowly but surely been chipping away at Islam's status as sole sufferer.

The OIC couldn't even get "defamation of religions" passed as it was blocked by those religious oppressors at the Sixteenth Session of the UN Human Rights Commission back in March. They fared no better at the current Durban Conference. That might seem like a victory for the other side, but it ain't over 'til it's over. The OIC has informed Obama that they intend to reintroduce a specific resolution against defamation of religions as soon as feasible.

For now, they've settled for a less specific freedom of speech resolution, though as recently as August the Islamic News Agency (an arm of the OIC) said that the meeting at the White House would be about implementing the religious aspects of Resolution 16-18. That resolution purports to criminalize incitement of "imminent violence based on religions or belief." That sounds very similar to our very own "clear and present danger" test. But then the wording gets muddier in 16-20, sounding more like the plethora of European-style "hate statutes" that are also being enacted in the U.S. "We hereby condemn any advocacy of religious hatred against individuals that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence."

"Any advocacy." That wouldn't survive a Constitutional test in the United States. The expression is "vague and overbroad." What is advocacy? With the wording of this part of the resolution, criticism is easily elevated to the level of incitement. "I don't like the violent portions of the Koran" becomes "I don't like Muslims," becomes "Let's go out and kill Muslims." Even advocacy of violence is protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution. It is a long-established precedent that even advocating the overthrow of the government by force and violence is protected speech unless the threat is real and has a reasonable chance of being carried out immediately. This is why we can't censor communist drivel.

16-20 was just too much even for the American negotiators. The government, led by Obama and Hillary Clinton signed onto the resolution, but added a reservation to any attempt to enforce the provision relating to "advocacy." In a written statement that sounds a lot like "but we're only fooling," the US government clarified its position for the White House gathering: "The US will work with the UN and OIC in urging states (nations) to take effective measures as set forth in Resolution 16, consistent with their obligations under international human rights law, to address and combat such incidents." In other words, every nation should quash any advocacy or harsh language as it relates to religion (read: Islam).

What the OIC and the UN are doing with the assistance of The One is to bring in through the back door what it couldn't bring through the front. In fact, Hillary Clinton's State Department says the administration's cooperation is based on the need to denounce and criminalize offensive speech. That's even broader than "defamation of religions." Her department also says it is dedicated to upholding the God-given right to free expression. I don't know what logic classes they have at Yale, but I don't see any way those two concepts can be reconciled.

Of all the religious and/or political organizations he could have chosen to invite to the White House, Obama invited the representatives of nations which call any criticism of Islam blasphemy, punishable by sanctions up to death by beheading. Nations which almost casually murder Christians and Jews while burning down churches and synagogues. Nations which consider apostasy a capital offense. Nations whose populations have massive rallies declaring "free speech is the enemy of Islam." Nations whose people declare "all infidels who defame Islam must die."

Somehow I don't think that group is going to come up with any good contributions to freedom of speech, religion, or expression. But since that's an American First Amendment issue, and since Obama has never read the Constitution, it's understandable why he would invite the OIC. As for Resolution 16, all that has been done is scramble and soften the words of prior resolutions without making any substantive changes. Same crap, different package.

Pictured are three "Friends of Obama" enforcers of free speech on loan from the United Nations. Following the UN Durbin conference on destroying racist Zionism and keeping women barefoot and pregnant, President Barack Hussein Obama invited the Organization of Islamic Cooperation ("OIC") to the White House to discuss implementation of the UN's resolution condemning religious intolerance.

It was vitally important that he do so. With growing Islamophobia in America, including the cold-blooded murder of thousands of Muslims for their religious beliefs in Rhode Island and the mass deportation of Muslims from Iowa, it has become a priority item with the Obama administration. Obama is barely holding the fort against the forces of evil in America. He has pleaded with Americans to reject voter ID since it discriminates against blacks, the poor, the lame, the meek, the mentally-defective, the young, and, oh yes, Muslims.

So what could be wrong with the administration's invite to the OIC? To start with, the organization hardly represents the pinnacle of free speech and religious tolerance. It is certainly not the only world religious organization. Its fifty-seven members don't represent even a majority of the United Nations membership. He invited the group to his palace because there are so many hurt feelings in the Muslim world over intolerance toward Islam. No other religion has ever even been spoken ill of, while Islam suffers daily from the brickbats of bigots and those who question the religion of peace.

The second reason for inviting the OIC is that Islamic rights at the UN are slipping away. For years they have been able to get resolutions passed against defamation of Islam, then defamation of religions, and then vilification of religions. As you can see, a conspiracy of Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists has slowly but surely been chipping away at Islam's status as sole sufferer.

The OIC couldn't even get "defamation of religions" passed as it was blocked by those religious oppressors at the Sixteenth Session of the UN Human Rights Commission back in March. They fared no better at the current Durban Conference. That might seem like a victory for the other side, but it ain't over 'til it's over. The OIC has informed Obama that they intend to reintroduce a specific resolution against defamation of religions as soon as feasible.

For now, they've settled for a less specific freedom of speech resolution, though as recently as August the Islamic News Agency (an arm of the OIC) said that the meeting at the White House would be about implementing the religious aspects of Resolution 16-18. That resolution purports to criminalize incitement of "imminent violence based on religions or belief." That sounds very similar to our very own "clear and present danger" test. But then the wording gets muddier in 16-20, sounding more like the plethora of European-style "hate statutes" that are also being enacted in the U.S. "We hereby condemn any advocacy of religious hatred against individuals that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence."

"Any advocacy." That wouldn't survive a Constitutional test in the United States. The expression is "vague and overbroad." What is advocacy? With the wording of this part of the resolution, criticism is easily elevated to the level of incitement. "I don't like the violent portions of the Koran" becomes "I don't like Muslims," becomes "Let's go out and kill Muslims." Even advocacy of violence is protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution. It is a long-established precedent that even advocating the overthrow of the government by force and violence is protected speech unless the threat is real and has a reasonable chance of being carried out immediately. This is why we can't censor communist drivel.

16-20 was just too much even for the American negotiators. The government, led by Obama and Hillary Clinton signed onto the resolution, but added a reservation to any attempt to enforce the provision relating to "advocacy." In a written statement that sounds a lot like "but we're only fooling," the US government clarified its position for the White House gathering: "The US will work with the UN and OIC in urging states (nations) to take effective measures as set forth in Resolution 16, consistent with their obligations under international human rights law, to address and combat such incidents." In other words, every nation should quash any advocacy or harsh language as it relates to religion (read: Islam).

What the OIC and the UN are doing with the assistance of The One is to bring in through the back door what it couldn't bring through the front. In fact, Hillary Clinton's State Department says the administration's cooperation is based on the need to denounce and criminalize offensive speech. That's even broader than "defamation of religions." Her department also says it is dedicated to upholding the God-given right to free expression. I don't know what logic classes they have at Yale, but I don't see any way those two concepts can be reconciled.

Of all the religious and/or political organizations he could have chosen to invite to the White House, Obama invited the representatives of nations which call any criticism of Islam blasphemy, punishable by sanctions up to death by beheading. Nations which almost casually murder Christians and Jews while burning down churches and synagogues. Nations which consider apostasy a capital offense. Nations whose populations have massive rallies declaring "free speech is the enemy of Islam." Nations whose people declare "all infidels who defame Islam must die."

Somehow I don't think that group is going to come up with any good contributions to freedom of speech, religion, or expression. But since that's an American First Amendment issue, and since Obama has never read the Constitution, it's understandable why he would invite the OIC. As for Resolution 16, all that has been done is scramble and soften the words of prior resolutions without making any substantive changes. Same crap, different package.

Barack Obama And The Free Speech Folks

View Detail

Fruits, Newts and Nuts

Fruits, Newts and Nuts

Let’s keep is simple today. Let’s do a bit of a news roundup mixed with some discussion questions. Feel free to add your own thoughts on anything else that comes to mind.

● You Dirty Fruits: Check out the article Patti found (HERE) dealing with Islam’s war against the perverted fruits and vegetables that will lead women astray. Not coincidentally, Saudi Arabia just executed a woman for “sorcery.” The religion of peace, huh? Sounds like an Erectile-Dysfunction-Idiocracy.

● Our Impotent President, Part 507: Speaking of impotence, the military lost a drone the other day over Iran. Obama failed to allow the military to destroy the drone. This news has gone virtually unreported, but here’s why it’s important. In the 1990s, when Clinton decided to bomb Serbia, a stealth fighter crashed. The US failed to recover most of that plane. It is now believed that Chinese agents acquired the parts and used them to engineer their own stealth fighter, which they recently showed to the world. Letting Iran have this drone was stupid. It gives Iran the capability to make very long range, cheap drones. If a fleet of these things appears over Israel in a couple years, think back on Obama’s decision.

● Tebowmania: Is Tim Tebow for real? How far will Denver go? Is this the greatest story or what? Where does all the hate come from against this kid? And do you think God really is helping Tebow... maybe just a little?

● International What?: With Climategate 2.0 heaping fresh disgrace upon climate change enthusiasts, the UN has gone on the offensive and proposed an International Climate Court of Justice to make Western governments pay for their climate crimes. This would impose a mandate to “respect the rights of Mother Earth” and to pay a “climate debt.” If you ever had doubts about the motivates of these enviro-fascists, this should settle it.

● Liar of the Week: Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the vile DNC Chair proved yesterday that she’s delusional as well. In an interview on Fox, Debbie Dumbass actually claimed that it is a myth that unemployment went up under Obama. She repeated this several times, finishing thusly:

“Unemployment is nearing right around where it was when President Obama took office and it's dropping. You just said it's been increasing and that's not true.”

For the record, unemployment was 6% when Obama took office, it’s 9% now and that’s after millions of people stopped looking for work and thus stopped counting against the number. So is Debbie Dumbass that stupid or is she just a pathological liar?

● Newt Watch: I have resigned myself to Newt being our nominee. Hail Nero! But some conservatives and moderates (and whackos) are trying to warn us:

■ Glenn Beck: Beck said yesterday he would support Ron Paul in a third party bid before he would vote for Newt.

■ Rep. Pete King (NY): King credits Newt with winning back the House for Republicans in the 1990s. What does he think about Newt as our nominee? “He’d be a terrible nominee.” Why? Because Newt’s destructive and he’s in it for himself: “It’s not like, with Newt, you end up dying for a noble cause. You end up dying for Newt Gingrich, because he puts himself in the center of everything.”

■ New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu: Sununu gave the most direct warning:

“He has a personal priority over all else. The country comes maybe second or third. Philosophy comes maybe fifth. This is a man who is unable to prioritize needs in a constructive way. And frankly, his colleagues saw that when he was leader. . . This man is not stable.”

■ Former Gingrich collaborator Marvin Olasky: “Wisdom is knowing the difference between good and bad ideas. Newt is very intelligent; he has lots of ideas. But I’m not sure he always distinguishes between good and bad.”

■ NYT RINO David Brooks: “Gingrich loves government more than I do.”

■ National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru: “The people who know Gingrich best — the ones who worked for him, or worked with him, or watched him closely as journalists in the 1990s — have almost all concluded that he is a bad fit for the presidency. That judgment is shared by conservative and moderate congressmen, by people who support Romney and people who want an alternative to [Romney]. The common denominator is alarm at what Gingrich would do to the Republican party as nominee and to the country as president.”

● Write Ins/Drop Out: Finally, a question. Several readers (looking at T-Rav and Indi) have said they will write in the name of a suitable candidate when they get to vote. The Elves seem to be contemplating moving to Singapore. I’m buying a new pitchfork. Anyway, given the other available choices in this primary, it’s hard to say a write in would be a wasted vote. But do you think writing in someone’s name helps?

Let’s keep is simple today. Let’s do a bit of a news roundup mixed with some discussion questions. Feel free to add your own thoughts on anything else that comes to mind.

● You Dirty Fruits: Check out the article Patti found (HERE) dealing with Islam’s war against the perverted fruits and vegetables that will lead women astray. Not coincidentally, Saudi Arabia just executed a woman for “sorcery.” The religion of peace, huh? Sounds like an Erectile-Dysfunction-Idiocracy.

● Our Impotent President, Part 507: Speaking of impotence, the military lost a drone the other day over Iran. Obama failed to allow the military to destroy the drone. This news has gone virtually unreported, but here’s why it’s important. In the 1990s, when Clinton decided to bomb Serbia, a stealth fighter crashed. The US failed to recover most of that plane. It is now believed that Chinese agents acquired the parts and used them to engineer their own stealth fighter, which they recently showed to the world. Letting Iran have this drone was stupid. It gives Iran the capability to make very long range, cheap drones. If a fleet of these things appears over Israel in a couple years, think back on Obama’s decision.

● Tebowmania: Is Tim Tebow for real? How far will Denver go? Is this the greatest story or what? Where does all the hate come from against this kid? And do you think God really is helping Tebow... maybe just a little?

● International What?: With Climategate 2.0 heaping fresh disgrace upon climate change enthusiasts, the UN has gone on the offensive and proposed an International Climate Court of Justice to make Western governments pay for their climate crimes. This would impose a mandate to “respect the rights of Mother Earth” and to pay a “climate debt.” If you ever had doubts about the motivates of these enviro-fascists, this should settle it.

● Liar of the Week: Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the vile DNC Chair proved yesterday that she’s delusional as well. In an interview on Fox, Debbie Dumbass actually claimed that it is a myth that unemployment went up under Obama. She repeated this several times, finishing thusly:

“Unemployment is nearing right around where it was when President Obama took office and it's dropping. You just said it's been increasing and that's not true.”

For the record, unemployment was 6% when Obama took office, it’s 9% now and that’s after millions of people stopped looking for work and thus stopped counting against the number. So is Debbie Dumbass that stupid or is she just a pathological liar?

● Newt Watch: I have resigned myself to Newt being our nominee. Hail Nero! But some conservatives and moderates (and whackos) are trying to warn us:

■ Glenn Beck: Beck said yesterday he would support Ron Paul in a third party bid before he would vote for Newt.

■ Rep. Pete King (NY): King credits Newt with winning back the House for Republicans in the 1990s. What does he think about Newt as our nominee? “He’d be a terrible nominee.” Why? Because Newt’s destructive and he’s in it for himself: “It’s not like, with Newt, you end up dying for a noble cause. You end up dying for Newt Gingrich, because he puts himself in the center of everything.”

■ New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu: Sununu gave the most direct warning:

“He has a personal priority over all else. The country comes maybe second or third. Philosophy comes maybe fifth. This is a man who is unable to prioritize needs in a constructive way. And frankly, his colleagues saw that when he was leader. . . This man is not stable.”

■ Former Gingrich collaborator Marvin Olasky: “Wisdom is knowing the difference between good and bad ideas. Newt is very intelligent; he has lots of ideas. But I’m not sure he always distinguishes between good and bad.”

■ NYT RINO David Brooks: “Gingrich loves government more than I do.”

■ National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru: “The people who know Gingrich best — the ones who worked for him, or worked with him, or watched him closely as journalists in the 1990s — have almost all concluded that he is a bad fit for the presidency. That judgment is shared by conservative and moderate congressmen, by people who support Romney and people who want an alternative to [Romney]. The common denominator is alarm at what Gingrich would do to the Republican party as nominee and to the country as president.”

● Write Ins/Drop Out: Finally, a question. Several readers (looking at T-Rav and Indi) have said they will write in the name of a suitable candidate when they get to vote. The Elves seem to be contemplating moving to Singapore. I’m buying a new pitchfork. Anyway, given the other available choices in this primary, it’s hard to say a write in would be a wasted vote. But do you think writing in someone’s name helps?

Fruits, Newts and Nuts

View Detail

Islamic Coverups From The White House

Islamic Coverups From The White House

There just seems to be no end to the Obama administration's efforts to pretty up Islam and divorce the murderous actions of its radical followers from the "religion of peace" face the administration wants to put on it. The latest outrage is the report from the Department of Defense calling the Fort Hood massacre a matter of "workplace violence."

Yes, it was workplace violence, all right--punctuated by the triumphal shout of Allahu akbar. The perpetrator didn't "go postal," he "went jihadist."

Thirteen people were murdered that day at Fort Hood. Many others were seriously wounded. The military authorities, knowing what their political superiors expected, urged caution about making a determination that religious fanaticism had anything to do with the attack. The terrorist was known within the military community as a bit of a nut who had become increasingly radical in his Muslim beliefs. He wasn't quiet about it. He would spout violent Islamic phrases at anyone willing to listen. And even without that information, shouting "Allahu akbar" while murdering thirteen unarmed soldiers might have given them a clue.

I tend to think that President George Bush really knew that Islam is not by any means the "religion of peace." But he cautioned against tarring every Muslim with the terrorist label, and asked the American people not to retaliate mindlessly and randomly against Muslims in their community. That was probably a wise thing to do after 9/11, and I give him credit for doing his best to avoid vigilantism in the aftermath of a terrible mass murder.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, seems to believe to his core that Islam really is a peaceful religion and that the obvious must be ignored in order to get the ignorant American masses to turn away from the lynchings they would commit without him. He is a fool, and overly-solicitous of a religion that is fundamentally supremacist, violent, and medieval. He is at best a weak-kneed cafeteria Christian, and likely thinks that most Muslims in America treat their religion the same way he treats his. He ignores the radicalization of Muslim immigrants and the growing fundamentalism of Muslims born in the United States.

There have been thirty-three clear but unsuccessful Islamic conspiracies to kill American soldiers on American soil or to blow up domestic military facilities since 9/11, with an even larger number being investigated. So far, the terrorists' plans have largely been thwarted and the conspirators arrested on charges ranging from traditional conspiracy and "attempt" charges to straight-up charges of terrorist activity.

Our military facilities serve the same symbolic purpose for Islamists as did the World Trade Center. They are symbols of American power, and Islamist organizations such as Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood want to deflate American power while enhancing their own. Human lives mean nothing to these jihadists, except to frighten some of the people who should be least afraid. Because of the Obamist political correctness, most military personnel are still unarmed on their own bases "for security reasons." Somehow that didn't stop mass murderer and Islamist terrorist Nidal Hasan from mowing down his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood.

More importantly, in order to avoid the horror of ethnic or religious profiling, the military is doing little or nothing to weed out the growing number of Islamists within the ranks. The administration would prefer the horror of mass murder to the hate crime of weeding out those who would do their fellow soldiers serious harm.

In 2009, Army Private William Long was murdered outside an Arkansas recruiting center by a Muslim fanatic who clearly stated that he was avenging Muslim deaths and acting as an agent of a Yemeni Al Qaeda offshoot. Another private was seriously wounded. But like the "workplace violence" at Fort Hood, this terrorist attack has been declared to be a "drive-by shooting." Who do these idiots in the administration and their counterparts in the military think they're fooling? Anyone with an ounce of sense knows what really drives these killers.

In Seattle this year, two Muslim radicals planned to attack a military installation with guns and hand grenades. Around the same time, another militant army private, Nasser Abdo, was charged with planning a second attack on Fort Hood. And then there's good old Jose Pimental, a Muslim convert, who had made plans to kill soldiers returning from Afghanistan. Both Abdo and Pimental stated that they learned everything they needed to know about committing terror against the military from Anwar al-Awlaki's Inspire Magazine, particularly an article entitled "Make a Bomb in the Kitchen of Your Mom." The Fort Hood murderer was also an al-Awlaki disciple.

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) has been investigating the Islamist and homegrown terrorist threat within the United States, particularly the military, for months. His reward has been to be vilified in the mainstream media and Democratic circles as an Islamophobe. The vicious personal attacks on him for daring to question the wisdom of treating Islam as the religion of peace have not deterred him or his investigation.

In a joint session of the House and Senate Homeland Security Committees this past Wednesday, King declared: "There's a definite threat from Islamic radicalization in various parts of our society, including within the military, and we can't allow political correctness to keep us from exposing the threat for what it is." In a corresponding response to the reclassification of terrorist activity to "workplace violence" and "drive-by shootings," normally reluctant Senator Susan Collins (R?-Maine) said: "Political-correctness is being placed above the security of the nation's Armed Forces at home."

It's past time to stop using euphemisms and politically-correct avoidance of offending those who need to be offended and start calling this ongoing problem by its right name: "endemic, metastasizing and deadly Islamofascist terrorism." If that offends those who practice the fundamentalist form of the religion of peace, tough. These acts are not "tragedies." They are not "workplace violence." They are not "drive-by shootings." They are not "man-caused disasters." They are clearly and unequivocally Islamist terrorism.

There just seems to be no end to the Obama administration's efforts to pretty up Islam and divorce the murderous actions of its radical followers from the "religion of peace" face the administration wants to put on it. The latest outrage is the report from the Department of Defense calling the Fort Hood massacre a matter of "workplace violence."

Yes, it was workplace violence, all right--punctuated by the triumphal shout of Allahu akbar. The perpetrator didn't "go postal," he "went jihadist."

Thirteen people were murdered that day at Fort Hood. Many others were seriously wounded. The military authorities, knowing what their political superiors expected, urged caution about making a determination that religious fanaticism had anything to do with the attack. The terrorist was known within the military community as a bit of a nut who had become increasingly radical in his Muslim beliefs. He wasn't quiet about it. He would spout violent Islamic phrases at anyone willing to listen. And even without that information, shouting "Allahu akbar" while murdering thirteen unarmed soldiers might have given them a clue.

I tend to think that President George Bush really knew that Islam is not by any means the "religion of peace." But he cautioned against tarring every Muslim with the terrorist label, and asked the American people not to retaliate mindlessly and randomly against Muslims in their community. That was probably a wise thing to do after 9/11, and I give him credit for doing his best to avoid vigilantism in the aftermath of a terrible mass murder.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, seems to believe to his core that Islam really is a peaceful religion and that the obvious must be ignored in order to get the ignorant American masses to turn away from the lynchings they would commit without him. He is a fool, and overly-solicitous of a religion that is fundamentally supremacist, violent, and medieval. He is at best a weak-kneed cafeteria Christian, and likely thinks that most Muslims in America treat their religion the same way he treats his. He ignores the radicalization of Muslim immigrants and the growing fundamentalism of Muslims born in the United States.

There have been thirty-three clear but unsuccessful Islamic conspiracies to kill American soldiers on American soil or to blow up domestic military facilities since 9/11, with an even larger number being investigated. So far, the terrorists' plans have largely been thwarted and the conspirators arrested on charges ranging from traditional conspiracy and "attempt" charges to straight-up charges of terrorist activity.

Our military facilities serve the same symbolic purpose for Islamists as did the World Trade Center. They are symbols of American power, and Islamist organizations such as Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood want to deflate American power while enhancing their own. Human lives mean nothing to these jihadists, except to frighten some of the people who should be least afraid. Because of the Obamist political correctness, most military personnel are still unarmed on their own bases "for security reasons." Somehow that didn't stop mass murderer and Islamist terrorist Nidal Hasan from mowing down his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood.

More importantly, in order to avoid the horror of ethnic or religious profiling, the military is doing little or nothing to weed out the growing number of Islamists within the ranks. The administration would prefer the horror of mass murder to the hate crime of weeding out those who would do their fellow soldiers serious harm.

In 2009, Army Private William Long was murdered outside an Arkansas recruiting center by a Muslim fanatic who clearly stated that he was avenging Muslim deaths and acting as an agent of a Yemeni Al Qaeda offshoot. Another private was seriously wounded. But like the "workplace violence" at Fort Hood, this terrorist attack has been declared to be a "drive-by shooting." Who do these idiots in the administration and their counterparts in the military think they're fooling? Anyone with an ounce of sense knows what really drives these killers.

In Seattle this year, two Muslim radicals planned to attack a military installation with guns and hand grenades. Around the same time, another militant army private, Nasser Abdo, was charged with planning a second attack on Fort Hood. And then there's good old Jose Pimental, a Muslim convert, who had made plans to kill soldiers returning from Afghanistan. Both Abdo and Pimental stated that they learned everything they needed to know about committing terror against the military from Anwar al-Awlaki's Inspire Magazine, particularly an article entitled "Make a Bomb in the Kitchen of Your Mom." The Fort Hood murderer was also an al-Awlaki disciple.

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) has been investigating the Islamist and homegrown terrorist threat within the United States, particularly the military, for months. His reward has been to be vilified in the mainstream media and Democratic circles as an Islamophobe. The vicious personal attacks on him for daring to question the wisdom of treating Islam as the religion of peace have not deterred him or his investigation.

In a joint session of the House and Senate Homeland Security Committees this past Wednesday, King declared: "There's a definite threat from Islamic radicalization in various parts of our society, including within the military, and we can't allow political correctness to keep us from exposing the threat for what it is." In a corresponding response to the reclassification of terrorist activity to "workplace violence" and "drive-by shootings," normally reluctant Senator Susan Collins (R?-Maine) said: "Political-correctness is being placed above the security of the nation's Armed Forces at home."

It's past time to stop using euphemisms and politically-correct avoidance of offending those who need to be offended and start calling this ongoing problem by its right name: "endemic, metastasizing and deadly Islamofascist terrorism." If that offends those who practice the fundamentalist form of the religion of peace, tough. These acts are not "tragedies." They are not "workplace violence." They are not "drive-by shootings." They are not "man-caused disasters." They are clearly and unequivocally Islamist terrorism.

Islamic Coverups From The White House

View Detail

More Buckets of US Money For Palestine?

More Buckets of US Money For Palestine?

Currently, the Obama administration has requested $550 million in aid to the Palestinian Authority for 2012. That request is based on present notions and past reality. Although the head of the Palestinian Authority is Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas, all assumptions were based on his retaining sole authority over all of Palestine. But that is simply not the case.

While Fatah may hold nominal leadership of the P.A., it has never fully-controlled the artificial creation called Palestine. Though Fatah has its strongest representation in the West Bank, it had a strong rival in Gaza. It is estimated that Fatah controls about 40% of the Palestinian population while its rival controls approximately the same percentage. The rival is terrorist Hamas. Hamas is Iran-fueled, anti-American and pledged to the destruction of Israel.

Until recently, the American State Department could maintain the fiction that it was dealing only with the duly-constituted government of Palestine, namely the Palestinian Authority controlled by Fatah. Then last May, P.A. chairman Abbas entered into an agreement with Hamas to form a "unity government." The strength of Hamas in the negotiations is evidenced by the recent exclusion of American trained economist and current Prime Minister Salam Fayyad from the future unity government.

For all practical purposes, the United States would now be negotiating with a government that American law says we cannot deal with, let alone fund. The 2006 Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act conditions aid to the Palestinian Authority on its exclusion of any group which will not renounce violence, recognize Israel's right to exist, and abide by current agreements. Until now, the U.S. has also maintained that it is America's policy to abide by the decisions of the Middle East "quartet" comprised of the U.S., Russia, the European Union and the United Nations which require that the Palestinian Authority maintain all agreements between the P.A. and Israel.

It will be well-nigh impossible for the Palestinian Authority to continue to adhere to any of these foundational agreements once Hamas is part of a unity government. Hamas is pledged to its very core to the destruction of Israel. That is its guiding principle. This created a problem of serious proportions during the Bush administration when Hamas won the parliamentary elections of 2006. The "quartet" reacted to this by issuing its firm statement that it would not tolerate any Palestinian government controlled by a terrorist group such as Hamas.

After an angry Hamas seized the Gaza strip from Fatah in 2007, a coalition government which did not place any Hamas members in important executive positions was formed. The pretense continued, but will no longer be viable once Hamas is actually made a formal, active member of the Palestinian unity government. Yet the Obama administration acts as if tomorrow were yesterday, and continues to request aid for a government which will be openly hostile to both the United States and Israel. The vast majority of rocket attacks on Israel are already launched from Hamas-controlled Gaza. It will soon have the entire area to work from.

The chairman of the House Appropriations foreign aid subcommittee, Republican Kay Granger of Texas and the ranking minority member, Democrat Nita Lowey of New York sent a joint letter to Abbas warning the P.A. that forming a government with Hamas would "threaten the provision of United States assistance and support." That prompted the Obama administration to request the $550 million aid package to counter the objections of the subcommittee.

A decision will have to be made, and the potential victim is Israel if Obama prevails. With the exception of the mass-murder part, the President seems far more in tune with Palestine than with our longtime ally Israel. Obama has been openly contemptuous of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It is hard to say at this point how the whole matter will play out. If Congress refuses to fund the new unity government, there is always the chance that Obama will simply issue an executive order diverting funds from other targets and giving them to the Palestinian Authority. The House's sole power of the purse means very little to constitutional scholar Barack Hussein Obama.

Currently, the Obama administration has requested $550 million in aid to the Palestinian Authority for 2012. That request is based on present notions and past reality. Although the head of the Palestinian Authority is Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas, all assumptions were based on his retaining sole authority over all of Palestine. But that is simply not the case.

While Fatah may hold nominal leadership of the P.A., it has never fully-controlled the artificial creation called Palestine. Though Fatah has its strongest representation in the West Bank, it had a strong rival in Gaza. It is estimated that Fatah controls about 40% of the Palestinian population while its rival controls approximately the same percentage. The rival is terrorist Hamas. Hamas is Iran-fueled, anti-American and pledged to the destruction of Israel.

Until recently, the American State Department could maintain the fiction that it was dealing only with the duly-constituted government of Palestine, namely the Palestinian Authority controlled by Fatah. Then last May, P.A. chairman Abbas entered into an agreement with Hamas to form a "unity government." The strength of Hamas in the negotiations is evidenced by the recent exclusion of American trained economist and current Prime Minister Salam Fayyad from the future unity government.

For all practical purposes, the United States would now be negotiating with a government that American law says we cannot deal with, let alone fund. The 2006 Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act conditions aid to the Palestinian Authority on its exclusion of any group which will not renounce violence, recognize Israel's right to exist, and abide by current agreements. Until now, the U.S. has also maintained that it is America's policy to abide by the decisions of the Middle East "quartet" comprised of the U.S., Russia, the European Union and the United Nations which require that the Palestinian Authority maintain all agreements between the P.A. and Israel.

It will be well-nigh impossible for the Palestinian Authority to continue to adhere to any of these foundational agreements once Hamas is part of a unity government. Hamas is pledged to its very core to the destruction of Israel. That is its guiding principle. This created a problem of serious proportions during the Bush administration when Hamas won the parliamentary elections of 2006. The "quartet" reacted to this by issuing its firm statement that it would not tolerate any Palestinian government controlled by a terrorist group such as Hamas.

After an angry Hamas seized the Gaza strip from Fatah in 2007, a coalition government which did not place any Hamas members in important executive positions was formed. The pretense continued, but will no longer be viable once Hamas is actually made a formal, active member of the Palestinian unity government. Yet the Obama administration acts as if tomorrow were yesterday, and continues to request aid for a government which will be openly hostile to both the United States and Israel. The vast majority of rocket attacks on Israel are already launched from Hamas-controlled Gaza. It will soon have the entire area to work from.

The chairman of the House Appropriations foreign aid subcommittee, Republican Kay Granger of Texas and the ranking minority member, Democrat Nita Lowey of New York sent a joint letter to Abbas warning the P.A. that forming a government with Hamas would "threaten the provision of United States assistance and support." That prompted the Obama administration to request the $550 million aid package to counter the objections of the subcommittee.

A decision will have to be made, and the potential victim is Israel if Obama prevails. With the exception of the mass-murder part, the President seems far more in tune with Palestine than with our longtime ally Israel. Obama has been openly contemptuous of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It is hard to say at this point how the whole matter will play out. If Congress refuses to fund the new unity government, there is always the chance that Obama will simply issue an executive order diverting funds from other targets and giving them to the Palestinian Authority. The House's sole power of the purse means very little to constitutional scholar Barack Hussein Obama.

More Buckets of US Money For Palestine?

View Detail

Time Brings Submission Home

Time Brings Submission Home

A Paris humor magazine called Charlie Hebdo last week produced an edition which was a satirical look at the Arab Spring, purporting to celebrate the victory of Islamists in the Tunisian elections. The cover depicted the prophet Mohammed saying "100 lashes if you don't die of laughter." Reaction from the religion of peace was quick in coming.

On Charlie Hebdo's website one humorless Muslim posted: "You keep abusing Islam's almighty Prophet with disgusting and disgraceful cartoons using excuses of freedom of speech. Be God's curse upon you." Islamists know that actions speak louder than words. So rather than wait for God's curse, the next day the offices of the magazine were firebombed. The premises were completely destroyed. The editor of the magazine said: "We can’t put out the magazine under these conditions. The stocks are burned, smoke is everywhere, the paste-up board is unusable, everything is melted, there’s no more electricity."

Just another day in Islamic paradise. But the story that brings the issue of submission to Islamic threats comes not from the Paris newspapers, which roundly condemned the attack. It comes from the Paris editor of Time Magazine. Like our own South Park, Charlie Hebdo is an equal opportunity offender. It has done similar "special editions" on Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and other lesser known sects. Nary a peep from Time. But when the magazine spoofed Islam (it called the special edition Charia Hebdo, a play on the word sharia), and got firebombed for its efforts, Time rushed to the defense of--the firebombers.

Just as many members of the Dutch press reacted to the murder of Theo van Gogh after his production of the anti-Islamist film Submission, Time has basically asked "what did they expect?" The conclusion of the press in the Netherlands then, like the conclusion of Time now, is that one should not make a film or publish a magazine that will outrage devout Muslims and put oneself in harm's way. Put simply, "you deserve it." Once again, vicious thugs are excused and the victims are blamed.

Time was not alone. In the British paper The Guardian, reporter Pierre Haski said: "Muslims in France feel discriminated against and unwelcome." And then came the excuse: "President Sarkozy's interior minister even called the growing Muslim population a 'problem' for France. Islam has become a cultural identity, a refuge in a troubled society where they don't feel accepted." And then he did the inevitable. He compared Muslims living in France today to Jews living in Germany during the Nazi regime. No hint of irony at all. Apparently the Jews were recently-arrived violent thugs who kept upsetting the peace and tranquility of the lovable Nazis.

Not to be outdone, Bruce Crumley of Time brings submission (the real meaning of the word "Islam") to America's shores from his perch in Paris. Says Crumley (as he wipes the spittle off his chin): "Okay, so we can finally stop with the idiotic, divisive, and destructive efforts by 'majority sections' of Western nations to bait Muslim members with petulant, futile demonstrations that 'they' aren't going to tell 'us' what can and can't be done in free societies?"

Now, for the excuse: "Because not only are such Islamophobic antics futile and childish, but they also openly beg for the very violent responses from extremists their authors claim to proudly defy in the name of common good. What common good is served by creating more division and anger, and by tempting belligerent reaction (emphasis added)?" Lacking the humor gene, much like the Islamists, Crumley then at least makes a half-hearted attempt at discussing the Charlie Hebdo satire issue itself. "The issue of Charlie Hebdo was coarse and heavy-handed--another stupid and totally unnecessary edition mocking Islam." Ergo, they got what they deserved.

Crumley opines that the firebombing was just the kind of angry response Charlie Hebdo was after in the first place. Yep, that's right. Obviously the magazine wanted its facilities burned to the ground. Its only disappointment was that there was no staff inside to be burned alive along with the building and its contents. At the same Time Magazine which gave a rave review to Broadway's production of The Book of Mormon, a play that satirizes the religion of the Latter Day Saints, there will never be heard a discouraging word about Islam. So far, we have not received any news reports about angered Mormons burning down the Time-Life Building or threatening the life of Time-Warner executives.

Lest you misunderstand Crumley's and Times' true feelings, he does go so far as to say "intimidation and violence must be condemned and combated for whatever reason they're committed." But he quickly follows that up with "the right to be obnoxious and offensive just because you can is infantile." You see, "baiting extremists isn't bravely defiant when your manner of doing so is more significant in offending millions of moderate people as well" (emphasis added). That's good logic. You deserve to be killed or your property burned to the ground by "extremists" because you have offended millions of "moderates."

So beware, American Spectator, National Review, Weekly Standard, Commentary, Reason, etc. You have been warned. If you slip from discussion of Islam into satire of any kind, you are in serious danger of violence from Muslim "extremists" standing up for their "moderate" brethren. And even worse, you are in serious danger of Time Magazine editorializing that you deserved it. FYI, the title of the Time article is "Firebombed French Paper Is No Free-Speech Martyr." The online version indicates it was originally entitled: "Firebombed French Paper a Victim of Islamists or Its Own Obnoxious Islamophobia?"

A Paris humor magazine called Charlie Hebdo last week produced an edition which was a satirical look at the Arab Spring, purporting to celebrate the victory of Islamists in the Tunisian elections. The cover depicted the prophet Mohammed saying "100 lashes if you don't die of laughter." Reaction from the religion of peace was quick in coming.

On Charlie Hebdo's website one humorless Muslim posted: "You keep abusing Islam's almighty Prophet with disgusting and disgraceful cartoons using excuses of freedom of speech. Be God's curse upon you." Islamists know that actions speak louder than words. So rather than wait for God's curse, the next day the offices of the magazine were firebombed. The premises were completely destroyed. The editor of the magazine said: "We can’t put out the magazine under these conditions. The stocks are burned, smoke is everywhere, the paste-up board is unusable, everything is melted, there’s no more electricity."

Just another day in Islamic paradise. But the story that brings the issue of submission to Islamic threats comes not from the Paris newspapers, which roundly condemned the attack. It comes from the Paris editor of Time Magazine. Like our own South Park, Charlie Hebdo is an equal opportunity offender. It has done similar "special editions" on Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and other lesser known sects. Nary a peep from Time. But when the magazine spoofed Islam (it called the special edition Charia Hebdo, a play on the word sharia), and got firebombed for its efforts, Time rushed to the defense of--the firebombers.

Just as many members of the Dutch press reacted to the murder of Theo van Gogh after his production of the anti-Islamist film Submission, Time has basically asked "what did they expect?" The conclusion of the press in the Netherlands then, like the conclusion of Time now, is that one should not make a film or publish a magazine that will outrage devout Muslims and put oneself in harm's way. Put simply, "you deserve it." Once again, vicious thugs are excused and the victims are blamed.

Time was not alone. In the British paper The Guardian, reporter Pierre Haski said: "Muslims in France feel discriminated against and unwelcome." And then came the excuse: "President Sarkozy's interior minister even called the growing Muslim population a 'problem' for France. Islam has become a cultural identity, a refuge in a troubled society where they don't feel accepted." And then he did the inevitable. He compared Muslims living in France today to Jews living in Germany during the Nazi regime. No hint of irony at all. Apparently the Jews were recently-arrived violent thugs who kept upsetting the peace and tranquility of the lovable Nazis.

Not to be outdone, Bruce Crumley of Time brings submission (the real meaning of the word "Islam") to America's shores from his perch in Paris. Says Crumley (as he wipes the spittle off his chin): "Okay, so we can finally stop with the idiotic, divisive, and destructive efforts by 'majority sections' of Western nations to bait Muslim members with petulant, futile demonstrations that 'they' aren't going to tell 'us' what can and can't be done in free societies?"

Now, for the excuse: "Because not only are such Islamophobic antics futile and childish, but they also openly beg for the very violent responses from extremists their authors claim to proudly defy in the name of common good. What common good is served by creating more division and anger, and by tempting belligerent reaction (emphasis added)?" Lacking the humor gene, much like the Islamists, Crumley then at least makes a half-hearted attempt at discussing the Charlie Hebdo satire issue itself. "The issue of Charlie Hebdo was coarse and heavy-handed--another stupid and totally unnecessary edition mocking Islam." Ergo, they got what they deserved.

Crumley opines that the firebombing was just the kind of angry response Charlie Hebdo was after in the first place. Yep, that's right. Obviously the magazine wanted its facilities burned to the ground. Its only disappointment was that there was no staff inside to be burned alive along with the building and its contents. At the same Time Magazine which gave a rave review to Broadway's production of The Book of Mormon, a play that satirizes the religion of the Latter Day Saints, there will never be heard a discouraging word about Islam. So far, we have not received any news reports about angered Mormons burning down the Time-Life Building or threatening the life of Time-Warner executives.

Lest you misunderstand Crumley's and Times' true feelings, he does go so far as to say "intimidation and violence must be condemned and combated for whatever reason they're committed." But he quickly follows that up with "the right to be obnoxious and offensive just because you can is infantile." You see, "baiting extremists isn't bravely defiant when your manner of doing so is more significant in offending millions of moderate people as well" (emphasis added). That's good logic. You deserve to be killed or your property burned to the ground by "extremists" because you have offended millions of "moderates."

So beware, American Spectator, National Review, Weekly Standard, Commentary, Reason, etc. You have been warned. If you slip from discussion of Islam into satire of any kind, you are in serious danger of violence from Muslim "extremists" standing up for their "moderate" brethren. And even worse, you are in serious danger of Time Magazine editorializing that you deserved it. FYI, the title of the Time article is "Firebombed French Paper Is No Free-Speech Martyr." The online version indicates it was originally entitled: "Firebombed French Paper a Victim of Islamists or Its Own Obnoxious Islamophobia?"

Time Brings Submission Home

View Detail

Papist Oppressors Strike Again

Papist Oppressors Strike Again

I'm just curious. What part of Catholic University did they not understand? Basking in the glory of his earlier complaint against Catholic University of America for sexual discrimination after the school banned co-ed dormitories, vexatious litigator John Banzhaf filed a complaint with the Washington D.C. Office of Human Rights on behalf of Muslim students offended by crucifixes and statues of Jesus and Mary.

For those of you not conversant in Latin, the school's emblem (shown) reads: "Keep those Muslims down," or something like that. Banzhaf is a lawyer and a law instructor at neighboring George Washington University Law School. It's unclear what his beef is with Catholic University, but he seems to prefer it as a target of his wrath. It is also unclear whether or not he represents any actual Muslims attending Catholic University. In a real lawsuit, he could not file on his own behalf, but the bureaucratic meanderings of "human rights" commissions are not saddled with any such restrictions. As a human being, he automatically has standing to file a complaint.

Banzhaf claims that the Muslim students are offended because they have to meditate in the school's chapel, and at the cathedral that shines over the entire campus. That cathedral is the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. "It shouldn't be too difficult somewhere on the campus for the university to set aside a small room where Muslims can pray without having to stare up and be looked down upon by a cross of Jesus," says Banzhaf. Gee, it also shouldn't be difficult for Muslims to find other universities which don't have "Catholic" in their name.

I sent my younger daughter to California Lutheran University, largely because it had a good curriculum, was semi-affordable and local, and, well, Lutheran. Had she chosen Catholic University, I would have expected her not to be offended by Catholic iconography. Even less would I have expected her to nail 95 Theses on the door of the cathedral. We already did that, we made our point, and besides, it would be just plain rude. I would also think it rude of her to demand that a special place be set aside on campus for her and her fellow religionists to contemplate Luther's sermon on grace or recite Luther's small catechism sans crucifixes.

But somehow Banzhaf thinks that Catholic University should strip the walls of Catholic iconography, cover up the crosses which adorn the larger buildings, and set up special rooms with footbaths and alcoves to worship Allah. At least he didn't object to the crescent moon embedded in the university's coat of arms. Never mind that there are three Muslim centers within two miles of the university. Banzhaf wants Catholic University to be more like Harvard, where secularism reins supreme. Of course he knows that Harvard was founded originally to train Anglican pastors and missionaries. And he also knows that if you work hard enough at it, you can alter the very foundations of a university.

It is important to note that Catholic University is a private school. How a private school can be regulated by state school standards is anyone's guess. The only argument that holds any water at all is that the school, like almost every other major private university in the nation, seeks and accepts funding from multiple sources including the federal government. So what? It doesn't impose religious demands on people who could choose hundreds of other schools to attend. Planned Parenthood finessed that issue fairly successfully by claiming any federal funds received are used for purposes other than abortion. Catholic University has the same argument available to it: Federal funds are used only for secular instruction, and the religious portions are funded by private and Church resources.

The federal funds argument doesn't work very well for Banzhaf. He doesn't want religion removed from the school, he simply wants a Catholic university to impose special privileges and spaces for a different religion. He appears to want to use secular reasoning and secular institutions to advance religion. Or so it seems. In actuality, he simply wants to harm a school dedicated to the Christian faith by using Muslims as his stalking-horses. The ultimate goal is to get God out of the universities entirely, or alternatively to impose Islam as a co-equal religion in private religious institutions.

Catholic University has so far avoided the full-blown secularization of some other Catholic universities such as Notre Dame, or Protestant schools such as Wesleyan. The school accepts qualified students with little consideration of their religion (it does give preference for those planning to enter the Catholic priesthood). More importantly, it does not refuse admission to anyone based on religion. The school clearly has a religious flavor throughout the campus, but it's hard to see how Muslims should be any more offended by the atmosphere than I would be during a visit to the Vatican.

At least one Muslim student at the university doesn't think that Banzhaf speaks for him. Wiaam Al Salmi praises the school for its diversity and tolerance, saying: "The community here is very respectful of other religions and I feel free to openly practice mine. Even though it's a Catholic school, a lot of its teachings are very similar to Islam. It teaches respect, community service, love worship, etc. which are things that Islam also teaches." I'm guessing that Banzhaf (and more than a few ayatollahs and imams) would say that Al Salmi is living proof that Catholicism is already working its nefarious plot on him.

I'm guessing that most of you reading this article are asking yourselves "is this complaint ridiculous or what?" I'm also willing to bet you came to that conclusion in about thirty seconds without a lot of agonizing over subtleties. But you and I are not dealing with the D.C. Office of Human Rights. Rather than simply rejecting the complaint on its face as it should have, the office has taken the complaint seriously and says it needs at least sixty days to think the whole thing over. I am praying (yes, praying) that for once a school will stand its ground and take this issue all the way to the Supreme Court if the idiots at the Human Rights office make a finding in favor of Banzhaf and his Judas goats.

I'm just curious. What part of Catholic University did they not understand? Basking in the glory of his earlier complaint against Catholic University of America for sexual discrimination after the school banned co-ed dormitories, vexatious litigator John Banzhaf filed a complaint with the Washington D.C. Office of Human Rights on behalf of Muslim students offended by crucifixes and statues of Jesus and Mary.

For those of you not conversant in Latin, the school's emblem (shown) reads: "Keep those Muslims down," or something like that. Banzhaf is a lawyer and a law instructor at neighboring George Washington University Law School. It's unclear what his beef is with Catholic University, but he seems to prefer it as a target of his wrath. It is also unclear whether or not he represents any actual Muslims attending Catholic University. In a real lawsuit, he could not file on his own behalf, but the bureaucratic meanderings of "human rights" commissions are not saddled with any such restrictions. As a human being, he automatically has standing to file a complaint.

Banzhaf claims that the Muslim students are offended because they have to meditate in the school's chapel, and at the cathedral that shines over the entire campus. That cathedral is the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. "It shouldn't be too difficult somewhere on the campus for the university to set aside a small room where Muslims can pray without having to stare up and be looked down upon by a cross of Jesus," says Banzhaf. Gee, it also shouldn't be difficult for Muslims to find other universities which don't have "Catholic" in their name.

I sent my younger daughter to California Lutheran University, largely because it had a good curriculum, was semi-affordable and local, and, well, Lutheran. Had she chosen Catholic University, I would have expected her not to be offended by Catholic iconography. Even less would I have expected her to nail 95 Theses on the door of the cathedral. We already did that, we made our point, and besides, it would be just plain rude. I would also think it rude of her to demand that a special place be set aside on campus for her and her fellow religionists to contemplate Luther's sermon on grace or recite Luther's small catechism sans crucifixes.

But somehow Banzhaf thinks that Catholic University should strip the walls of Catholic iconography, cover up the crosses which adorn the larger buildings, and set up special rooms with footbaths and alcoves to worship Allah. At least he didn't object to the crescent moon embedded in the university's coat of arms. Never mind that there are three Muslim centers within two miles of the university. Banzhaf wants Catholic University to be more like Harvard, where secularism reins supreme. Of course he knows that Harvard was founded originally to train Anglican pastors and missionaries. And he also knows that if you work hard enough at it, you can alter the very foundations of a university.

It is important to note that Catholic University is a private school. How a private school can be regulated by state school standards is anyone's guess. The only argument that holds any water at all is that the school, like almost every other major private university in the nation, seeks and accepts funding from multiple sources including the federal government. So what? It doesn't impose religious demands on people who could choose hundreds of other schools to attend. Planned Parenthood finessed that issue fairly successfully by claiming any federal funds received are used for purposes other than abortion. Catholic University has the same argument available to it: Federal funds are used only for secular instruction, and the religious portions are funded by private and Church resources.

The federal funds argument doesn't work very well for Banzhaf. He doesn't want religion removed from the school, he simply wants a Catholic university to impose special privileges and spaces for a different religion. He appears to want to use secular reasoning and secular institutions to advance religion. Or so it seems. In actuality, he simply wants to harm a school dedicated to the Christian faith by using Muslims as his stalking-horses. The ultimate goal is to get God out of the universities entirely, or alternatively to impose Islam as a co-equal religion in private religious institutions.

Catholic University has so far avoided the full-blown secularization of some other Catholic universities such as Notre Dame, or Protestant schools such as Wesleyan. The school accepts qualified students with little consideration of their religion (it does give preference for those planning to enter the Catholic priesthood). More importantly, it does not refuse admission to anyone based on religion. The school clearly has a religious flavor throughout the campus, but it's hard to see how Muslims should be any more offended by the atmosphere than I would be during a visit to the Vatican.

At least one Muslim student at the university doesn't think that Banzhaf speaks for him. Wiaam Al Salmi praises the school for its diversity and tolerance, saying: "The community here is very respectful of other religions and I feel free to openly practice mine. Even though it's a Catholic school, a lot of its teachings are very similar to Islam. It teaches respect, community service, love worship, etc. which are things that Islam also teaches." I'm guessing that Banzhaf (and more than a few ayatollahs and imams) would say that Al Salmi is living proof that Catholicism is already working its nefarious plot on him.

I'm guessing that most of you reading this article are asking yourselves "is this complaint ridiculous or what?" I'm also willing to bet you came to that conclusion in about thirty seconds without a lot of agonizing over subtleties. But you and I are not dealing with the D.C. Office of Human Rights. Rather than simply rejecting the complaint on its face as it should have, the office has taken the complaint seriously and says it needs at least sixty days to think the whole thing over. I am praying (yes, praying) that for once a school will stand its ground and take this issue all the way to the Supreme Court if the idiots at the Human Rights office make a finding in favor of Banzhaf and his Judas goats.

Papist Oppressors Strike Again

View Detail

It Can't Happen Here

It Can't Happen Here

Or can it? The symbol you're seeing is that of the Union of Supreme Islamic Courts. Islamic law is slowly creeping into the jurisprudence of some western democracies. For now, treating Muslim criminal defendants differently from all others is the first step in full Islamization of the secular courts. This travesty occurred in Australia. Next stop--America.
LATE NOTE: If you wish to discuss the Holder announcement of a foiled terrorist plot, please feel free to do so in the comments section below

The parallel between Australia and America is the widespread belief that there actually is something called Islamophobia, and that it is violent and pandemic. This ridiculous belief has been spread by the left and the mainstream press. But its main source is the "moderate Muslim community" which is maneuvering for special treatment in the courts. It signals that Muslims, unlike Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, Christians and Jews are particularly vulnerable to unwarranted attacks and police brutality. That totally unsubstantiated propaganda is starting to work.

The Australian case involved a man accused, among other things, of attempting to murder a police officer. The defendant was found guilty of illegal weapons possession (multiple counts) and terrorism charges. But the judge refused to find him guilty of attempted murder. The reason? The Islamophobia defense. Even though the defendant possessed multiple handguns and assault rifles, along with explosives, and a record of violence, the judge still maintained that his deliberate pointing of one of those guns at the police officer and firing was justified by his realistic fear that a non-Muslim cop was out to assassinate him just because he was Muslim. In other words, self-defense. The corollary to that defense is that the action was based on good faith but mistaken belief.

England is already allowing special "no police entry" Islamic enclaves, with the residents therein being judged by sharia law. Australia has now accepted Islamophobia as a legitimate defense to attempted murder. As Vladimir Lenin (repeated by Josef Stalin) is reputed to have said of weak-kneed western capitalists: "They will sell us the rope to hang them with." In order to appease the wounded feelings of "endangered" Muslims, several states have caved in to CAIR's propaganda and allowed "cultural differences" to be used both at trial and sentencing. The Islamists are using our good will and sappy multiculturalism to hang us.

Passing laws which prohibit the use of sharia law in any court matter is a good thing. But it's important to note that what is occurring now has nothing to do with sharia law. It has to do with creating a special defense for people who are hallucinating about widespread hatred toward and attacks on Muslims. For every imagined wound sustained by an American Muslim, there are a hundred examples of actual attacks on Jews. Yet the last time I looked, there were no special defenses to attempted murder being set up for frightened Jews. Blacks attempting to use the "racist cop" defense have been largely convicted anyway. Where's their right to a special defense?

The Islamist propaganda designed to give Muslims special standing not granted to any other group in court is succeeding beyond even their own wildest dreams. If they continue to succeed in advancing their own special agenda, they won't even need to impose sharia law in American courts. We'll do it for them by ignoring the Constitution's mandate of equal justice for everyone, regardless of race, creed, color or national origin.

And if you don't think it can happen here, let me remind everyone that New Jersey Governor Chris Christie appointed a sharia-compliant lawyer to the Passaic bench solely for the stated reason that "there is a large Islamic community in Passaic, and they deserve to have a judge who understands their special needs." The Islamophobia defense is not even a very long leap in New Jersey.

Or can it? The symbol you're seeing is that of the Union of Supreme Islamic Courts. Islamic law is slowly creeping into the jurisprudence of some western democracies. For now, treating Muslim criminal defendants differently from all others is the first step in full Islamization of the secular courts. This travesty occurred in Australia. Next stop--America.
LATE NOTE: If you wish to discuss the Holder announcement of a foiled terrorist plot, please feel free to do so in the comments section below

The parallel between Australia and America is the widespread belief that there actually is something called Islamophobia, and that it is violent and pandemic. This ridiculous belief has been spread by the left and the mainstream press. But its main source is the "moderate Muslim community" which is maneuvering for special treatment in the courts. It signals that Muslims, unlike Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, Christians and Jews are particularly vulnerable to unwarranted attacks and police brutality. That totally unsubstantiated propaganda is starting to work.

The Australian case involved a man accused, among other things, of attempting to murder a police officer. The defendant was found guilty of illegal weapons possession (multiple counts) and terrorism charges. But the judge refused to find him guilty of attempted murder. The reason? The Islamophobia defense. Even though the defendant possessed multiple handguns and assault rifles, along with explosives, and a record of violence, the judge still maintained that his deliberate pointing of one of those guns at the police officer and firing was justified by his realistic fear that a non-Muslim cop was out to assassinate him just because he was Muslim. In other words, self-defense. The corollary to that defense is that the action was based on good faith but mistaken belief.

England is already allowing special "no police entry" Islamic enclaves, with the residents therein being judged by sharia law. Australia has now accepted Islamophobia as a legitimate defense to attempted murder. As Vladimir Lenin (repeated by Josef Stalin) is reputed to have said of weak-kneed western capitalists: "They will sell us the rope to hang them with." In order to appease the wounded feelings of "endangered" Muslims, several states have caved in to CAIR's propaganda and allowed "cultural differences" to be used both at trial and sentencing. The Islamists are using our good will and sappy multiculturalism to hang us.

Passing laws which prohibit the use of sharia law in any court matter is a good thing. But it's important to note that what is occurring now has nothing to do with sharia law. It has to do with creating a special defense for people who are hallucinating about widespread hatred toward and attacks on Muslims. For every imagined wound sustained by an American Muslim, there are a hundred examples of actual attacks on Jews. Yet the last time I looked, there were no special defenses to attempted murder being set up for frightened Jews. Blacks attempting to use the "racist cop" defense have been largely convicted anyway. Where's their right to a special defense?

The Islamist propaganda designed to give Muslims special standing not granted to any other group in court is succeeding beyond even their own wildest dreams. If they continue to succeed in advancing their own special agenda, they won't even need to impose sharia law in American courts. We'll do it for them by ignoring the Constitution's mandate of equal justice for everyone, regardless of race, creed, color or national origin.

And if you don't think it can happen here, let me remind everyone that New Jersey Governor Chris Christie appointed a sharia-compliant lawyer to the Passaic bench solely for the stated reason that "there is a large Islamic community in Passaic, and they deserve to have a judge who understands their special needs." The Islamophobia defense is not even a very long leap in New Jersey.

It Can't Happen Here

View Detail

Letterman Fatwah Continues

Letterman Fatwah Continues

Did any of you happen to catch David Letterman's show on July 5 (or the clips repeated on Fox)? Letterman is not exactly known for being conservative-friendly or anti-Islamic. But on that show, the headline was that Ilyas Kashmiri had been killed by the American military, and to emphasize the point, Letterman drew his finger across his throat to symbolize the cause of Kashmiri's demise.

AP and a few other news organizations have been reporting multiple death threats against Letterman nearly every week since the original broadcast. Kashmiri was an Islamofascist warrior, the head of Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami, and a senior Al Qaeda planner. He was a leading planner in the deadly Mumbai, India attacks and was indicted in the United States for terrorist conspiracy to duplicate the Mumbai attacks in Denmark to punish the Danes for publishing the Mohammed cartoons.

Letterman now knows what it means to say a discouraging word or make a graphic gesture about Jihadistan. The reaction in the wonderful world of Islam would have been bad enough had Letterman confined his contempt to a relatively unknown Islamist, but as part of his routine, he also insulted the beloved memory of Osama bin Laden. Duck, David! The reaction was as immediate as it was predictable. The website Shumukh al-Islam announced the verdict of the religion of peace. Letterman should be brutally murdered and his tongue cut out.

Leaving no hate stone unturned, the website also pointed out that Letterman is a Jew. Letterman is not a Jew, but he's now in almost as much trouble as if he were. Whether this was a mistake or intentional is unknown, but calling anyone a Jew is frosting on the murderous Islamic cake. (I know--too many metaphors) I am unusually impressed with what followed next for Letterman himself.

I fully expected to see the usual "I'm sorry if I offended all those moderate Muslims by stereotyping them along with those ultra-rare violent Muslims." By God (the real one), he didn't cave. I have to congratulate Letterman on his refusal to bow to Islamic threats and to CBS for not requiring him to do so. CBS quite logically increased security at the studio and around Letterman, but there were no anguished apologies or guest appearances by a representative from CAIR.

Letterman has talked about the routine a few times since, including remarking that he appreciated his audience: "You people are more than an audience tonight. You're more like a human shield." As recently as last Tuesday, he again made a reference to the routine, which I take to mean he is not only not going to apologize but wants to let the terrorists know that he has no intention of backing away from his routine or subsequent remarks.

What makes this incident and later reiterations so remarkable is that Letterman refused to self-censor for fear of offending mass murderers and that CBS has done nothing to diminish Letterman's accomplishment. Other networks have not shown the same gutsiness, even Comedy Central. Islamofascists are ready to spring on anyone who dares to launch even the mildest criticism of Islam as it is being practiced in the Middle East and Africa. Ironically, though they have zero sense of humor, the jihadists recognize that one of the most dangerous things that can happen to them is that the public starts laughing at them. For this, Letterman and a very few others deserve high praise.

This is the first time (and likely the last) that I will have much good to say about David Letterman, at least since about 1980.

Did any of you happen to catch David Letterman's show on July 5 (or the clips repeated on Fox)? Letterman is not exactly known for being conservative-friendly or anti-Islamic. But on that show, the headline was that Ilyas Kashmiri had been killed by the American military, and to emphasize the point, Letterman drew his finger across his throat to symbolize the cause of Kashmiri's demise.

AP and a few other news organizations have been reporting multiple death threats against Letterman nearly every week since the original broadcast. Kashmiri was an Islamofascist warrior, the head of Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami, and a senior Al Qaeda planner. He was a leading planner in the deadly Mumbai, India attacks and was indicted in the United States for terrorist conspiracy to duplicate the Mumbai attacks in Denmark to punish the Danes for publishing the Mohammed cartoons.

Letterman now knows what it means to say a discouraging word or make a graphic gesture about Jihadistan. The reaction in the wonderful world of Islam would have been bad enough had Letterman confined his contempt to a relatively unknown Islamist, but as part of his routine, he also insulted the beloved memory of Osama bin Laden. Duck, David! The reaction was as immediate as it was predictable. The website Shumukh al-Islam announced the verdict of the religion of peace. Letterman should be brutally murdered and his tongue cut out.

Leaving no hate stone unturned, the website also pointed out that Letterman is a Jew. Letterman is not a Jew, but he's now in almost as much trouble as if he were. Whether this was a mistake or intentional is unknown, but calling anyone a Jew is frosting on the murderous Islamic cake. (I know--too many metaphors) I am unusually impressed with what followed next for Letterman himself.

I fully expected to see the usual "I'm sorry if I offended all those moderate Muslims by stereotyping them along with those ultra-rare violent Muslims." By God (the real one), he didn't cave. I have to congratulate Letterman on his refusal to bow to Islamic threats and to CBS for not requiring him to do so. CBS quite logically increased security at the studio and around Letterman, but there were no anguished apologies or guest appearances by a representative from CAIR.

Letterman has talked about the routine a few times since, including remarking that he appreciated his audience: "You people are more than an audience tonight. You're more like a human shield." As recently as last Tuesday, he again made a reference to the routine, which I take to mean he is not only not going to apologize but wants to let the terrorists know that he has no intention of backing away from his routine or subsequent remarks.

What makes this incident and later reiterations so remarkable is that Letterman refused to self-censor for fear of offending mass murderers and that CBS has done nothing to diminish Letterman's accomplishment. Other networks have not shown the same gutsiness, even Comedy Central. Islamofascists are ready to spring on anyone who dares to launch even the mildest criticism of Islam as it is being practiced in the Middle East and Africa. Ironically, though they have zero sense of humor, the jihadists recognize that one of the most dangerous things that can happen to them is that the public starts laughing at them. For this, Letterman and a very few others deserve high praise.

This is the first time (and likely the last) that I will have much good to say about David Letterman, at least since about 1980.

Letterman Fatwah Continues

View Detail