"History is philosophy teaching by example." (Lord Bolingbroke)

New Email Address:

Tuesday, November 30, 2004

It's All About the Fatwas!

I was about to follow the phrase with the familiar word "stupid," but fatwas and those that follow them are not stupid and neither should we be about their deadly intentions.

According to the Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism, fatwas are "religious opinions, edicts, rulings and conclusions that incite violence and justify the use of terrorism. These religious leaders are especially dangerous because some of their followers consider their opinions to be gospel. " A famous fatwa is the the edict that instructed Muslims to "execute" the author Salmon Rushdie for the crime of "blasphemy against Islam" for writing the novel The Satanic Verses,criticizing Islam and referring to certain verses of the Koran. Rushdie had to go into hiding for several years until the original fatwa was lifted.

Not all fatwas are matters of life and death, and Muslims seem to spend an inordinate amount of time worrying about whether something is considered Muslim or non-Muslim, and they seek fatwas to give them the answer. There are a plethora of websites and other sources that are only too glad to help them out. For this and other reasons, it is unlikely that practicing Muslims could ever be integrated into a non-Muslim society.

But some fatwas are issued by clerics that advocate violence. Some extremist clerics and send out jihadists to commit terrorist acts using any means possible. Such fatwas are even issued from the pulpit during Friday prayers, using a place of worship is the most abominably for vile purposes. They are advocating murder and are as guilty as any Mafia don that calls for a hit on the enemies of the brotherhood.

How can they get away with it? Radical clerics issue fatwas for religious reasons, claiming that non-Muslims are unworthy of life simply because they are they are not Muslim. It is crucial that these religious leaders be held accountable for instigating violence and convincing their followers that they will go to heaven merely for murdering non-Muslims.

Here is an example of a fatwa that encourages terrorism:

• Sheikh Yousif Al-Qardhawi issued a Fatwa permitting the killing of “fetuses” (unborn) Jews, because (according to him) when Jews are born and grown-up they will join the Israeli army. Furthermore, on September 3, 2004, (at the Egyptian Journalist Union) Al-Qardhawi issued a fatwa to kill all American civilians working in Iraq. And on July 3, 2004, he issued another fatwa permitting the killing of Muslim intellectuals as being apostates, claiming that Islam justifies the killing of such apostates.

These clerics use the umbrella of Islam, citing passages from the Koran and using the life of Mohammed as their inspiration. Although many Muslims today are reluctant to use these verses in their lives, they still accept the Koran in its entirety, refusing to denounce them. Thus, clerics must mitigate the effect of these verses in the same way that Christian ministers do when discussing verses that advocate violence that are found in the Old Testament of the Bible. A Christian minister that would instruct his congregation to explicitly follow these verses would be strictly censured or perhaps prosecuted if found to be have sent out congregation members to bomb and kill. In a civilized world, society should expect no less from Muslim clerics.

Islamists to the Rescue!

Secularists are on the warpath in America against any reference to God and Christianity in the public square and public schools. The Ten Commandments have forcibly been removed from when they have been affixed for hundreds of years, Christmas and Hanukkah expressions are denied space on the front lawns of court houses, reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance is under assault, and school children are no longer allowed to pray in school or learn about the religious principles for which the Pilgrims and Puritans made the perilous journeys across the sea to take their chances in what they considered to be a "dark and forbidding land."

Children are also not to know about the religious underpinnings of each colony that was formed and their state religions: New England for Puritans, Maryland for Catholics, Virginia for Anglicans, Pennsylvania for Quakers, and so on. Nor are they to read documents that contain religious references. Even the Declaration of Independence is now off limit in some school districts because of lawsuits pending by individuals that are offended because the Founders often referred to God or "Divine Providence" or "the Almighty" in their public lives.

After a perilous ocean voyage, starvation and death of many of the colonists, the Pilgrims gathered with the Indians that had taught them how to cultivate and hunt, and to adapt to the new land. They thanked God first for getting them through and for sending then the Indians to show them the way. We have just finished the annual celebration of this event. However the thanking part is changing. Many of today's school children are being taught to ignore the "thank God" part and emphasis is only the role of the Indians in assuring the Pilgrim's survival. Thanksgiving is to be taught from a "purely historical perspective, not from a religious perspective," forgetting that the journey and the feast were based in the religion of the thankful Pilgrims. Historical revisionism is at work.

Even the holiday names have been erased, changing Christmas to "winter" and Easter to "spring." All historical references to Christianity and Judaism are expunged as if they never existed.

Music departments in schools are now encouraged not to, and in some cases forbidden from using religious music in school performances at holiday time. For centuries Western music was based on religious themes. If lawsuits are successful, schools will be severely limited to the kinds of music that can be performed or even taught about. The concept can be extended to include art that has Christian themes, literature that is either based on religion concepts, themes, or has Christian or Jewish allusion. All religious materials and references to religion are being swept away.

But are they? If we look closely we might look at the efforts of certain Islamists to infiltrate public schools with teachings about Islam. Already textbooks have been adapted to depict Islam in a more favorable light and teachers are being trained specifically to not only be more sensitive and tolerant, but to explain things from a Muslim perspective. Workshops and materials have been provided so that teachers can be successful.

Children are given activities that not only teach them about Islam but how to be Muslims as they include role plays and leading questions that require students to answer from a Muslim perspective.

As Daniel Pipes has detailed in the November 24 issue of, the 15th tip in a list of "18 tips for Imams and Community Leaders" from the Islamic Web site is "Establish a parents' committee to monitor public schools." The committee is to "arrange for Muslims to deliver talks about Islam and Muslims" in schools. Imams and parents are cued as to what to do and say if schools and teachers are reluctant to participate, much like a salesperson is taught how to approach and then close the sale. They are taught how to be persistent and thus, successful.

Pipes tells us about other suggestions from, including: "Lobby to include Islamic dates on the school calendar;" Add books and magazines about the school library;" and "Incorporate Islam into class projects. 'For example, an Islamic subject should be selected. Similar opportunities can be created in history, social science, writing and other classes."

Lawsuits against Christianity and Judaism are stripping our public lives of our religious heritage and our children are not to learn about it the religious underpinnings that made this country great. We are entering into a spiritual void.

But wait, Islamists are rushing in to the rescue to save us from secularism by providing a history and religion of another country whether we want it or not. As lawsuits are not being filed against this trend, it is obvious that the intent was not to remove religion from the public square or the public schools, but to remove only Christianity and Judaism and give Islam a free path to inculcate our children with the faith and rituals of Islam and pave the way for Sha'ria.

Will anyone save us and our children from this fate? We can't count on the ACLU or the Lawyers Guild as they are working with the Islamists. The only respite will be concerned individuals that will counter sue. And we all know how long that can take as lawsuits often take years just to get to court and the Islamists have had years to execute their plan.

As in days of old, the cry goes out: Is there anyone listening and willing to be our champion, to rescue us from the other rescuers, the Islamists?

Monday, November 29, 2004

Why Does Any Thinking Black American Remain a Democrat?

On our website, 6th Column Against Jihad, we have begun to deal with the perfidy of the Left, including their very real racism ("Exposing the American Left: Nazism, Communism, and Islam"). I grew up in the segregated South, and I know well what constitute racistic thinking and expressions. What happened from the American Left to Dr. Condoleeza Rice after her nomination to be the American Secretary of State tells anyone who thinks all needed to bail out of supporting the Left or being supported by the Left. As far as I am concerned, any Americans, black, white, or any other skin color, who do not stand up to condemn the crude racism of the Left toward Dr. Rice no longer have my ear for anything. I condemn them unequivocably.

Read this press release. You may already know the instances cited, but you may not have seen them pulled together. Project 21 is a group of black Americans whose values are really American. 's The ConservativeLog , Project 21 Press Release, Black Activists Condemn Anti-Rice Hate Speech
Civil rights Leaders Criticized for Ignoring Attacks on Conservative Minorities

For Release: November 19, 2004
Contact: David Almasi at 202/371-1400 x106 or

President Bush's nomination of Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state as resulted in harsh liberal criticism that members of the black leadership network Project 21 consider racist.

Along with their condemnations of offensive commentators and cartoonists, Project 21 members also are critical of self-professed civil rights leaders who are remaining silent on current and previous racial attacks on black Bush Administration officials.

Over the past few months, and peaking this week with her appointment, cartoonists have been using Dr. Rice's race as a point of ridicule. Demeaning political cartoons by Pat Oliphant and Jeff Danziger accentuate Dr. Rice's black features and feature her speaking in rural southern dialect. Garry Trudeau called her "Brown Sugar" in his "Doonesbury" comic strip. Earlier this year, cartoonist Ted Rall questioned Dr. Rice's race in a comic suggesting she was President Bush's "house nigga" and needed "racial re-education." Universal Press Syndicate distributes Oliphant, Trudeau and Rall. The New York Times distributes Danziger.

On November 17, radio host John "Sly" Sylvester called Dr. Rice "Aunt Jemima" and secretary of state Colin Powell "Uncle Tom" on his WTDY (Madison, Wisconsin) radio show. Sylvester, who also is the station's program director, is refusing to apologize, but has said, "I will apologize to Aunt Jemima." The station's owner, the Mid-West Broadcast Group, is declining to discipline him.

In late October, a conservative host at WISN in nearby Milwaukee was suspended for a week for calling an illegal Mexican immigrant a "wetback."

While some local leaders have condemned Sylvester's comments, the Madison chapter of the NAACP has so far declined to make a statement. Project 21 asked the NAACP's national leadership to condemn Rall's racist cartoon in July, but no action was taken. Jesse Jackson and the National Association of Black Journalists were also contacted at the time. They took no action.

"To hear the leftists tell it, conservative blacks have become the new 'trash class' of American society," said Project 21 member Michael King. "And with the continued cricket-filled silence from the professional civil rights crowd, the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons give tacit permission and acceptance of such language and tactics."

King's comments are echoed by Project 21 member Mychal Massie: "The recent racist attacks and mimicry of Condoleezza Rice are infuriating and despicable. Even more insufferable is the deafening silence of the elite liberals. I believe their silence is proof positive of their personal racist attitudes. Obviously condemning racist attacks against a man and woman who are conservative and black is not a worthy undertaking for them."

Project 21, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization, has been a leading voice in the black community since 1992. For more information, contact David Almasi at (202) 371-1400 x106, e-mail or visit Project 21's website at
[08:36 AM 20-Nov-04 Dutch Martin Comment]

To Irshad Manji: GET REAL

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Contributor: Under the Cover of Islam,
November 18, 2004, OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR, Under the Cover of Islam, by IRSHAD MANJI

Irshad Manji is a bright, articulate, and somewhat charismatic woman. But, she annoys me. Why? She tries to have everything both ways, in defiance of logic, by selectively playing dumb and trying Muslim "shell games" on us.

She tries to paint herself as being in a self-imposed probationary status with Islam. She is awaiting its reformation, or, she says, she will leave it. I will come back to this.

Here is one of her really selectively dumb statements from this otherwise flawed op-ed in the New York Times:

"...[Here is One of the] key differences between the debate over Islam in Western Europe and North America. In Western Europe, the entry point for this debate is the hijab - the headscarf that many Muslim women wear as a signal of modesty. By contrast, the entry point in North America is terrorism."

Europe may be just starting to get its comeuppance regarding the infestation of Muslims into its declining countries. Her comparing the wearing of the hijab to the events of 11 September 2001 and all of the unanswered murders and destruction during the Clinton administration years made me immediately suspicious of her motives.

But then her next statements really irritate: "Some might say that difference is understandable. After all, Sept. 11 happened on American soil. But March 11 happened on European ground, yet the hijab remains the starting point for Europeans. Meanwhile, it makes barely a ripple in North America."

Yes, "some" MIGHT SAY that difference is "understandable." 3-11 was too small to wake up comatose Europeans in large numbers. But, then what is 9-11 compared to the horrors of restricting the hijab?

She writes: "But now, I'm also not sure that liberal Muslims like me fit comfortably in a secular European crowd. I say this even after the murder of Theo van Gogh, the Dutch filmmaker, who police officials say was shot and stabbed by a Muslim extremist." Yes, they do SAY that Van Gogh was murdered ritualistically by a Muslim, one from Morocco. The almost decapitated Van Gogh, lying on the street with two knives in his body, had a note under one knife of Muslim-Koranic gibberish extolling his murder as vindicating Islamic honor. Van Gogh's murder was NOT HEARSAY. What kind of bizarre mold is this woman trying to fit into?

She states: "But now, I'm also not sure that liberal Muslims like me fit comfortably in a secular European crowd." Do tell! First, what is a "liberal" Muslim? Is that like a "jumbo shrimp?" This brings me to her toying with Islam.

Here, she tries to squeeze into another paradox: "It's precisely that, from Amsterdam to Barcelona to Paris to Berlin, people incredulously ask me one type of question that I'm never asked in the United States and Canada: Why does an independent-minded woman care about God? Why do you need religion at all?"

If Europeans are asking that, they are--in effect--telling "Empress" Manji that she has no clothes. They see through her.

Some more of the Manji paradox: "Islam today has deep flaws, and I know saying so makes me a blasphemer in the eyes of countless Muslims." No kidding! Saying so actually qualifies her for being murdered, according to standard Islamic doctrine. Right behind this comes her payoff statement: "If they move beyond emotion, they'll come to appreciate that for the rationalists among us, religion can be a godsend."

Even though the foregoing came from the preceding paragraph, it did explain her version of "godsend": "Which brings me back to the question of why I, an independent-minded woman, bother with Islam. Religion supplies a set of values, including discipline, that serve as a counterweight to the materialism of life in the West. I could have become a runaway materialist, a robotic mall rat who resorts to retail therapy in pursuit of fulfillment. I didn't. That's because religion introduces competing claims. It injects a tension that compels me to think and allows me to avoid fundamentalisms of my own."

If you understand this, you are ready to read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. Manji is blowing smoke and trying to ride two horses at once with each going in differing directions.

Manji is like an agnostic. Both have all the evidence they need for definitive action, but both fear taking the action. An agnostic knows there is no evidence in reality to support the existence of a God or gods. He or she hides behind some very obvious logical fallacy such as "You can't prove there isn't a God." Well, Aristotle dispensed with this fallacy FOREVER in the 4th century B.C.E.

Manji's similarity to agnostics comes from her trying to be a "liberal Muslim." There is no such thing, and no such thing is possible. Islam cannot reform and will not reform. Islam is what it is and what it has always been. Muslims are what they are and always have been. Reformation would destroy Islam forever-- not that that is a bad idea. Manji has all the evidence she needs to leave Islam forever, because Islam is evil from its roots to its every expression, and you don't have to be intelligent to learn this.

At root, Manji is a "moderate Muslim," one of the most untrustworthy of all human beings. Moderates pick and choose what they will and will not follow about Islam. In Islam's own terms, this constitutes hypocrisy and merits death. This next statement in her op-ed gives her away: "Religion supplies a set of values, including discipline, that serve as a counterweight to the materialism of life in the West."

A moderate Muslim is a Muslim. The rest is window dressing and facade. She wants the "materialism of life in the West," whereby she can be a prosperous gadfly. At root, she is 100% Muslim. Her reversion to orthodoxy is just a matter of stimulus, which could revert her at any time. If she can't give up Islam, knowing what she has learned and experienced, she is a profound hypocrite to the culture of Islam and to the West.

Muslim is Muslim, and being "moderate" or "liberal" is in terms of fundamental principles the same as "radical" or "extreme." Manji needs to drop the mask and stop playing the games.

What Is a Cabinet For? (Only a President Can Know for Sure!)

The make up of the president's cabinet continues to generate controversy. Is this really necessary?

What's a cabinet for? Good question. No one knows for sure because the president's cabinet is a reflection of what the president wants it to be. In other words, there is no hard and fast rule that determines how the cabinet is to be organized and what the exact function will be. Congress must approve the appointment of any person that occupies a position.

Now that George W. Bush is assembling a different cabinet for his second term, clamorous protests are sounding about his choices. He is accused with filling the cabinet with "yes men and women," as if loyalty shouldn't be considered as a factor. The appointment of Condoleeza Rice as secretary of state is an example. She is being portrayed as both a "flunky," and a "yes woman." Some partisans even have used language that is unkind or have used racial slurs, or called her a "servant rather than a peer."

Should a president choose people that refuse to implement his policies for the sake of diversity and hearing another side,? Or, better still, shouldn't the cabinet members that are charged carrying out public policies put forward a united front, especially in a time of war? Why would any president choose people that are contrary to his beliefs and policies as some propose? That would be insane.

The Constitution is vague on the subject of the cabinet. The president "may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices." But is the cabinet an executive council?

In Federalist No. 70, Alexander Hamilton specifically rebuts the idea of government by an "executive council."

"No favorable circumstances, palliate or atone for the disadvantage of dissension in the executive department." "They serve to embarrass and weaken the execution of the plan or measure to which they relate..They constantly counteract those qualities in the Executive which are the most necessary ingredients in its composition, vigor and expedition."

At best, cabinet officers are, at best, tools of presidential power; and that why they may respectfully differ with a president in private, in public they must support and implement his policies or else resign.

There have been lapses. According to John Quincy Adams, at one cabinet meeting late in the Monroe administration Treasury Secretary William Crawford called the president a "damned infernal old scoundrel" and "raised his cane, as if in an attitude to strike." For his part, Monroe "seized the tongs of the fireplace in self defense, applied a retaliatory epithet to Crawford, and told he would immediately ring for servants and turn him out of the house." In 1868, President Andrew Johnson sought the resignation of Secretary of War Edwin Stanton. Stanton not only refused, he physically barricaded himself in his office.

The cabinet has had its ups and downs, and presidents have used it in strikingly different ways. Andrew Jackson saw cabinet appointments as convenient payoffs to his political supporters, while real advice was sought from an informal group known as the kitchen cabinet, a group that later Franklin Roosevelt later gave official status when he created the Executive Office of the President.

In modern times, presidents also used the cabinet as they saw fit. Richard Nixon did not trust bureaucracies, particularly the State Department, which he circumvented by sending the National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger, rather than Secretary of State William Rogers, on secret trips to carry out his policies. Bill Clinton appointed a cabinet that "looked like America," but nearly all of his key advisers, from Dick Morris to Leon Panetta, were outside the Cabinet. On the other hand, the Ronald Reagan administration was mainly steered via its powerful secretaries of state and defense as was the Bush-Baker administration.

The secret lies in two predominate factors. First, with the president's philosophy of government: does he see the cabinet as chiefly a vehicle for pursuing political or for policy aims? And secondly, what is the personal chemistry between the secretaries and the president. Trust and access are more important than rank and title. Although some presidents govern with a cabinet and others govern around a cabinet, shouldn't a president govern through the cabinet?

Now that we know what it's for, give the new cabinet a chance. Lighten up. During a time of war we should present a united front to the world and stop making a big to do over what every president, through custom and constitutional design, see as his personal perogative.


Sunday, November 28, 2004

Islamism in the Form of Al Qaeda Is Using the Internet and Video Outlets with Growing Speed, Volume, and Sophistication -- Used With Older Educational Methods, Sophisticated Educational Tools Are Being Utilized to Prepare the West for Takeover

Education is now the key to not only the take over of America, but world domination. But how would less than one fifth of the world's population overcome and dominate a mighty people and then the rest of the world?

Knowing that they have no chance to military conquer America, the only country that can thwart their goal of world domination, Islamists began the slow process of infiltration of the West and America through the backdoor. Universities, which are the bedrock of Western philosophy and institutions that tolerate divergent ideas, were the logical starting place and became fertile recruiting places for young minds and the tools of disseminating ideas that would weaken the West and make it ripe for takeover. Not content with working in the Middle Eastern Studies departments, Islamist donors armed with vast sums of petrodollars have enticed universities to allow them to have a say as to who is hired on campus and how Islam is portrayed.

School systems and textbook companies have been coerced into allowing Muslims on curriculum and textbook review committees for the same purpose: Islam must be shown in the correct light so that it is made palatable for American school children and their parents. By providing slanted textbooks, teacher training, and corrected teaching materials, Islamists have brought Islam to America's children in public schools, the best way to spread a philosophy: get them when they're really young.

Working in tandem with naive Leftists that would pair with anyone that held the West in as much contempt as they also do, Islamists have worked to depict the West and America as the world's Satan, a place of evil, and the American president, a new Hitler.

The media, staffed with graduates of departments of journalism from these same universities were all too happy to aid and abet them in the cause: destroy America. What would they put in its place? They didn't say...until now. America was to be reshaped in a more appropriate, a more moral form; America, the West, and the Muslim world that had been polluted by Western mores and thought would be reverted to the original, pure source of morality: Islam.

Islamists are sophisticated in the ways of the West. Many have been educated in Western universities and are familiar with Western technology. Technology had been used as educational and communication tools. Western law enforcement has been partially successful in capturing some Islamist operatives using communication signals. A broadcast "slip" on the evening news alerted the leadership to the fact that they were being monitored, ending technology communication. But technology continues to be used as educational tools.

Education is defined as the "development of knowledge, skill, ability or character by teaching, training, study or experience," and Islamists are educating the West through all of these means by offering video games that teach how to kill and that teach about Islam, through music videos that portray the West as evil, Islam as good, encouraging the young to rise up against authority and to implement Islam as the savior of their society.

The internet is rife with sites that "explain Islam" and answer questions about why Islam is good and the West is bad, offering advice as to how to counter and check the evil influence of the West on Muslim children living in the West, how to integrate Muslim influence in public schools, how to coerce reluctant schools, governments, bureaucrats to see the Muslim way, and how report alleged hate crimes against Muslims, or how to silence critics and their criticism.

Libraries are given donations of books about Islam, books that show Islam in the best light, books that gloss over the warts in the life of Mohammed or explain away events that Westerners find abhorrent. New histories are being put on the shelves that show events from the Muslim point of view and the influence of "dead, white males" is being downplayed or discarded in favor of "others," especially Muslim authors, scholars, and philosophers. This trend has also been going on for a long time in the public schools.

But the mass media is the most important educational tool. The global P R war is being waged in the newspaper and in some extent in magazines, but the big push has always been on television, for a picture is worth a thousand words and the sound of the human voice telling the story is more potent than the written, especially as much of the world is still illiterate. Those that could not understand the spoken word could still get the visual message: America is bad, an evil influence, and must be brought to its knees.

The message has been carried throughout the world now for several years, and many more have fallen under its influence. There are millions that weren't born or can't remember when they didn't hear it. It is all that they know.

Americans have not helped their own cause. Broadcasts from America, and the West, of videotaped entertainment of dubious value, and often downright puerile and disgusting material has gone out on the airwaves throughout the world. It is no wonder that the rest of the world views America as being corrupt as it is rich and in need of chastening and purification. Many in America also agree that some American entertainment and social practices need serious reform.

But the world believes that this is all that America is about. American newspapers and broadcast news scream day and night showing crime, pornography, murder, and vulgarities of every sort. Criticism in the press of America's social and moral weaknesses are seen as a reason why Islam can be the only salvation of not only America, but of the world, for America has exported the parts of its culture that the rest of the world finds abhorrent.

The PR war wages against the role of American diplomacy and the use of the strongest military the world has ever known to make changes. Millions of words are written and spoken against America at any given moment. Some are even directed to America.

Americans have begun to take note of the ill wishes of the world, especially from those that used to be friendly, some of the Europeans, and from those that wish us the greatest harm, the Islamists that are determined to work to bring us down. Although only one among many of the very dangerous, Usama bin Laden has caught attention. From time to time bin Laden has published a tape, some call a screed, which is usually part lecture, part recruiting tool, and all symbolism. His latest tape is no exception.

Bin Laden appears on the tape as a statesman, rather than a military figure, dressed in the long robes and beard of an Islamic pundit, a man of peace. His message urges Muslims to rise up for he is recruiting. He does not harangue against the West. This time he speaks to the West's Muslims.

Bin Laden is urging Muslims in the West to do harm to us in the West rather than joining the Jihad in Afghanistan or Iraq. He claims that the West, principally America, is "occupying lands and exporting corrupt values" and that "continuous jihad is the only solution." Bin Laden's video tapes are almost always shown in their entirety on Arab TV networks such as al Jazeera, and as al Jazeera is already a network broadcasting in Canada, North America's Muslims can get the whole recruitment treatment rather than just the snippets that other American outlets have offered. New all-Muslim cable outlets are also springing up that will continue the educational propaganda effort.

The technological advances that the Islamist have made are impressive, but the message is still the same: America is bad, Islam is good. Islam will destroy the West because the West deserves to be destroyed. Allah owns the earth and all humans must bow down to Allah or face the wrath of Islam. Criticism of Islam is blasphemy and critics will be severely punished. The Islamic Caliphate will shortly be established and all the earth is being prepared for its ascension. Islamists are willing to sacrifice as many as necessary in order to accomplish this goal.

Patience has been the greatest tool of the Islamist. However, with the procurement of nuclear and chemical weapons, Islam will not longer have to wait as they will have the bargaining tools to force the West to give them what they want. What do they want? It's very simple.

They want the world.

Saturday, November 27, 2004

There Are Many Holes in Security on the U.S. Mexican Border

This isn't news, but it's disturbing to know that after September 11 the security of the borders hasn't been made priority number one! In fact, as of November 1, 2004, new regulations have been implemented that would force Border Patrol agents to free captured illegal aliens even if they're known to be guilty of terrorist activity. To say that this is not good is an understatement, in fact, I'm mad as hell to be informed of this new policy.

According to the NewMax story, Border Patrol sources tell San Diego's TV News 10 that under the new guidelines, the criminal history of smugglers or illegal immigrants will be considered only if they've been convicted of murder, rape, or multiple felonies in the past five years.

"If they have committed a crime longer than seven years ago, it will not be considered -- that includes crimes like child pornography, weapons crimes and even terrorism," reports the San Diego station.

Carol Lamb a U.S. (Government) Attorney mandated the policy in a letter sent to Border Patrol agents last month. Lamb has defended the policy stating, "Prosecutions will be handled on a case-by-case basis.”

Are these government people mad? We have terrorists that have nuclear devices and chemical weapons, and have stated that they are committed to destroy us.

Three weeks after Lamb's policy was made public, Time magazine reported:

"A key al-Qaeda operative seized in Pakistan recently offered an alarming account of the group's potential plans to target the U.S. with weapons of mass destruction . ...

"Sharif al-Masri, an Egyptian who was captured in late August near Pakistan's border with Iran and Afghanistan, has told his interrogators of 'al-Qaeda's interest in moving nuclear materials from Europe to either the U.S. or Mexico.' ...

"Masri also said al-Qaeda has considered plans to 'smuggle nuclear materials to Mexico, then operatives would carry material into the U.S.'"

Last year alone, 62 million people crossed into the U.S. through tightly regulated checkpoints in the San Diego area. No one knows for sure how many people cross illegally through the many holes in border security to the east.

Look at a map of the Southwest. The area is full of canyons, valleys, caves, and other landforms that are ideal for a terrorists' staging ground.

This isn't rocket science. Why have these new lax regulations been implemented in a time of war? Knowing that the border is porous and illegal activities occur several times a day, why is the border not being patrolled and protected by the military? Why isn't border security given priority?

Could it be that we have coasted so long on the erroneous belief that two oceans would protect us from invasion and harm that now we are faced with more security challenges than the government can handle. My suggestion is to hand over the border problem to border ranchers that have been patrolling for years. Give them funds to build the fence and to raise a militia if the government can't spare the military for this purpose. If we are really serious we can solve problem. I hope the solution comes before there is a terrorist incident.

There is no lock on stupidity. People living inside the beltway seem to be infected once they wander inside the perimeter. One would think that President Bush, a Texan, would understand the complete problem and would have taken action on September 12, 2001. Making nice with Vicente Fox seems to have a greater priority than border security. As I said, there's enough stupidity to go around. The border and immigration seems to be Bush's blind spot. Is the President aware of the new policies? If not, I hope someone informs him and tells him how stupid and irresponsible these policies are, especially in light of the nuclear and chemical WMD threat. Maybe he should consult Senator Sensenbrenner, or read Jefferson.

He (Jefferson) then warns prophetically:

“They will bring with them the principle of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its directions, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass.” (3)

There is theory, and then there is reality. Jefferson was schooled in both. He knew that to every liberal law there were some reasonable limits.

We need artisans, he admitted, but not enemies. We want freedom-seekers, but not those who equate license with liberty. We want to offer incentives, but not “extraordinary encouragements” to the slothful. (4) We want to welcome immigrants with open arms, but not surrender our political traditions to a new majority of the uneducated and uninitiated.

Wake up and smell coffee and the enchiladas on the border Mr. President. We need you to take action now before it's too late!

The Beat Goes On and At the U.N. (Literally and Figuratively!)

Visit the Belmont Club for a digest's worth of information. There is no end in sight for the multiple scandals that allegedly have occurred at this bastion of world cooperation: sexual harassment, rape, bribery, kickbacks, malfeasance, professional malpractice to prevent genocide, massacre, statutory rape, pedophilia, sexual abuse, sex trafficking, fraud, and scamming. It's a breath-taking list of criminal activity. And we are being urged to turn over our sovereignty to this agency??? I don't think so!

Canada Free Press Threatened With Jail for Supporting Bush!

"Bush the butcher not welcome in Ottawa" screams the headline. Bush is being compared with Hitler. They are spinning the news against Bush and against America for choosing to re-elect the person they most despise.

Instead of freeing Iraq from the oppression of Saddam whose total number of murdered under his hand and at his direction is estimated in the hundreds of thousands and who stole millions of dollars from the "Oil for Food Program" to pay for Palestinian suicide bombers, Bush and America are seen as oppressors and murderers.

And if you don't agree with them you are threatened with incarceration.:

By your tone, and obvious despisal of the anti-Bush protestors, you and your free press is no more independent and fair than the corporate owned media.  If you and your editors want to affiliate yourself with them, and should you have any say in Bush's visit here, as such you and your colleagues could be personally liable to prosecution under the Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act by virtue of section 21 of the Canadian Criminal Code, for crimes so serious that they are punishable in Canada by up to life imprisonment.

The Canadian law is specific:

2001 2001 provides as follows:

35. (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of violating human or international rights for

(a) committing an act outside Canada that constitutes an offence referred to in sections 4 to 7 of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act;

Paragraph 2 of section 35 allows for exceptions to be made for other classes of inadmissible foreign nationals 'who satisf[y] the Minister that their presence in Canada would not be detrimental to the national interest.' However, these exceptions specifically do not apply to those who have committed acts constituting offences referred to in sections 4 to 7 of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act.

Section 6 of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act incorporates by reference all international crimes against humanity and war crimes, and, explicitly, all crimes enumerated in Articles 7 and 8(2) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Section 7 of the Act places special responsibility on 'military commanders' and other 'superiors' for crimes committed by their subordinates that they knew of, or were criminally negligent in failing to know of, and with respect to which they did not take necessary and reasonable steps to prevent.

Section 33 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act specifically provides that

'facts that constitute inadmissibility under sections 34 to 37 include facts arising from omissions and, unless otherwise provided, include facts for which there are reasonable grounds to believe that they have occurred, are occurring or may occur.'

What is the evidence?

The evidence is the "chain of memoranda from the President and White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales, now Attorney General, that led to the use of torture by the US Armed Forces. These memoranda clearly establish the President' culpability for the torture used on detainees at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib prisons. We also refer to to the many careful reports prepared by respected human rights organizations, journalists and scholars and also to recent decisions by US Courts, some of which are referenced in our letter to the Prime Minister and others we have listed below. These clearly provide far more than 'reasonable grounds to believe' in President Bush's legal and moral responsibility for the gravest crimes under numerous provisions of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act.

Who are these scholars and journalists? To which recent U.S. Courts' decisions do they refer? What about these "reputable human rights organizations?" Where is the evidence that prisoners were tortured in either Guantanamo or Abu Grahib? They don't provide any specific evidence or instances to back up their claims.

The policy of the Government of Canada is unequivocal. Canada will not be a safe haven for persons involved in war crimes, crimes against humanity or other reprehensible acts.

Will President Bush be excluded as a pariah because we are fighting a war in which no one else is willing to participate? Have the Islamists so poisoned the well that, as long as America continues not to participate in the socialists' consensus-style government and, as long as America takes unilateral action against nihilists that not only want to destroy us, but want to take over the world that no justification for self-defense is possible? Will Bush and America end up in the world's dock at The Hague?

It appears that the socialist-Islamo-fascist spin is working overtime to condemn Bush and America for having the intestinal fortitude to stand up to Socialism and to thwart the will of the Islamists that have convinced the United Nations, another socialist organization, that those refusing to bow to their will should be put in the dock.

Another famous figure presently in the dock for Crimes Against Humanity is Slobodan Milosevic who is accused of ethnic cleansing against Yugoslav Muslims. We were all aghast to learn that Serbs wanted Muslims out of their country and were taking the trouble to remove them. Certainly it seemed like a war crime at the time.

We were ignorant of the facts. We never knew the lessons of history. We were ignorant of the history of the clash of Islam and the West, and of the history of the Balkans. Yugoslavia was located on the cutting edge, at the point where Islam and the West came together centuries ago. What made the clash contemporary and pressing was the insertion of trouble-making Islamists that stirred up the ethnic Albanian residents to demand their Muslim rights under Sha'ria. Serbs knew the consequences of such a demand for they had undergone a prolonged struggle to be able to live in peace with Muslims, but as long as Muslims didn't press for more than their share, and as long as Muslims didn't demand Sha'ria.

Muslims demanded more for they were longing for a separate country and were tired of the humiliation of living under the thumb of the majority Serbian Christians. The United States and NATO were drawn in to save the day for the downtrodden Muslims, giving them what they wanted, a country of their own. Ironically, they also wanted Serbia and later got part of it. Serb president, Milosevic was later taken into custody and is on trial in The Hague.

Is Milosevic really a war criminal for attempting to do what many Europeans now long to do: drive out trouble making Muslims before things get out further out of hand? Although I know he's not an angel and I don't respect his tactics of mass murder, I understand the impetus for his behavior.

Europeans now know what Milosevic knew and have learned the hard way that Muslims don't want integration into European society; they want to be charge of European society. They want dhimmis to support them economically and socially, or they want them dead. Certainly many Europeans now understand what the Serbs were trying to achieve by removing Muslims from their midst. Milosevic and the Serbs knew all along that Muslim on the move are predatory against their neighbors and that Sha'ria is a sentence of slavery for all non-Muslims. Perhaps we owe the Serbs an apology for our ignorance and stupidity. Would they have Draconian steps if other Europeans had backed them against the Muslim menace? Instead of mass murder, my advice to them would have been to send them back to Albania and construct and man a large wall!

Europeans didn't heed the warnings of history any more than are the Canadians that are pressing forward with the charge of war crimes against Bush and America. There is no lock on stupidity. There is plenty to go around. However, highly educated attorneys that are also stupid are dangerous and should be locked away from their safety and ours. Whose agenda are they serving? Certainly their objective isn't to preserve freedom and liberty as they vociferously and verbosely profess. I will give you two guesses, and they both begin with "I."

A Courtesy for the Husband - Genital Mutilation for Young Girls 'On the Increase in Europe.' What Good Is the Law If No One Is Paying Attention?

It's a sickening practice that tens of millions of young Muslim girls have gone through over the course of the last thirteen hundred fifty years. The practice pre-dates Islam, reaching far back into history to Ancient Egypt. Thus it is possible that many hundreds of millions of girls have undergone this barbaric practice.

But why is it on the rise in Europe? Laws against this practice are on the books, but they are not being enforced. This is not a big surprise as Muslims tend not to recognize the validity of laws that weren't created by Muslims in the first place. And a greater surprise is to learn that this practice is even occurring in Australia, Canada, and the U.S.

According to best-selling author Waris Dirie, who has campaigned to end the practice that she suffered at the age of five in her homeland of Somalia, one in every three African families living in Europe is secretly carrying out the ritual on their daughters. Especially prevelant in Germany and the Netherlands, as well as Austria, an estimated 8,000 girls born into immigrant families have been affected, and because there are few initiatives to prvent it or to encourage doctors, nurses, social workers, teachers, and others to report suspected cases, the practice will go on. France, however, is the exception where there is a strong awareness and education.

According to the World Health Organization, two million girls worldwide undergo this procedure, one that can lead to infection, the spread of Aids, and crippling pysical and psychological and sexual problems. It is little wonder that Muslim women are either very passive, cowed, or aggressively maternal.

Sword of Truth Archives offers a horrifying depiction of an evening celebration where invited guests view the sacred practice of Pharonic Circumcism upon an unsupecting little girl. Even though Muhammed is not credited with requiring the practice, he was aware of the ritual and did not forbid it. When viewing the pracitice he even commented on how far to cut! Thus, the practice is really cultural baggage rather than a religious requirement, although most Muslims cultures that subscribe to this practice fear that their daughters will never marry unless they are "trimmed." And the practice is growing.

Unsuspected little girls are brutalized and then grow up to continue a life of suffering because at circumcism the child is sewn tightly together. In order to permit intercourse, she must be sliced open and then the slicing is repeated when giving birth. After giving birth, many Muslim women are required by their husbands to be again sewn and the process is repeated for each birth.

Girls are castrated and can not have a sexual experience. Psychological damage occurs as a result of the brutality of both the initial procedure and the subsequent brutalization of each act of intercourse and childbirth. Muslim men don't seem to understand why their wives can't be passionate or are sexually frigid, or have a fear of intercourse and childbirth which often has to be forced upon them, a reason for not allowing women out of the house. This is the secret reason why women are confined to the home.

Why do women submit? Even the likes of Cleopatra were subjected to this terrible practice and the remaineder of her life is now viewed as "payback" and "mopping up." They submit because it is tradition, because they fear ostracism, because they have known no other way, because marriage and motherhood is the only legitimate purpose for woman on earth. Muslim women in the West continue this practice for similar reason, hoping that eventually Islam will take over the world and that they will not be seen as freaks for participating in this ritual.

Non-Muslim women living in Muslim areas also undergo this procedure. They do so in order to make themselves presentable to the majority culture that already views women as less and sees non-Muslim women as permiscuous. Circumcism gives them the same dignity that is afforded Muslim women so, at least, they won't be treated as prostitutes. For this reason Chritian women living in Muslim women also voluntarily are veiled.

What lesson can Western women take away from the experience of Arab Christian women and Muslim women living in the West? The lesson is this: you will expect to fall victim to this barbaric practice if Islam and Sha'ria law, Muslim law based on the Koran, Sunna, and ahadiths, is instituted in the place of constitutions, and oher codes of law that are not approved by Allah.

Remember that Muslims are accustomed to being in charge and that education is the both the key to Muslim take over and to non-Muslim resistance. We must be made aware of how insidiously Islam insinuates its way into the social fabric of a society and the consequences.

Sooner or later Muslims will demand that girls should be able to get this barbaric procedure done in a hospital for the sake of safety. Will we allow this to happen? We never thought that abortion would be legal and one of the arguments for legalization was to eliminate back alley procedures that were killing so many. The same argument can be used for this procedure as we can't know how many little girls die of blood poisoning, infection or hemhorrhage. Should a cultural relic be allowed just because it has always been done? We may have to make decision soon as the number of illegal incidents is on the rise.

Hattip: JihadWatch and NoJihad

FIFTH COLUMN ALERT: Targeting Christmas Toys

A few days ago, we published a poignant email blog from an ex-Muslimah who has come back to America and returned to Christianity from Islam. She has sent us another email, and that email speaks loudly.


This is XXXX XXXXXX. I wanted to write, because just an hour ago I bought a toy that blew me away. I was in the mall with my mother and children when a picture of Osama BinLaden caught my eye. I picked up the military playset and stared in disbelief at a picture of Osama smiling and waving. Next to that picture was a photo of Osama and his comrades dressed in fatigues laughing with guns in their hands. The third picture is of two arab men sitting atop a loaded tank. The words on the front read, 'THE FIRST WAR OF THE CENTURY,' in big gold letters. Behind that writing is more writing that I am trying to make out. So far I have read the word, Afghanistan. This toy is very obviously made for people who support Osama. I was very puzzled as to how this toy slipped through the cracks until I talked to the clerk of the store. I asked her if she knew who the man on the front of the toy was and she said no. I told her to look again and she said, "Saddam Hussein?" So anyways, that pretty much answered my question. I actually saw a story about these toys a few months ago, but I cannot remember what station. I was appalled then, but to actually have this toy sitting here right by me is unbelieveable. I called my local news station and left a message, so hopefully they will call back and get these toys out of our stores. I think anyone who has lost a friend or loved one in the 9/11 attacks would feel a jumble of emotions if they ever saw this military playset with the smiling Osama. Also, how in the world did these toys get to America? My four year old son keeps asking me why he cannot play with the military set I have on my desk. I keep telling him, because the man on the front is very mean. He responds, "But that man is smiling." Anyways, thought you might like to know. Take care,


"You're So Gullible," a Beirut Gentleman Passer-By Told the Holder of Four Fulbright Fellowships

A U.S. taxpayer-subsized academic in Middle Eastern studies was spotted pounding the Beirut pavement in a sandwich board in the median strip of the Corniche, Beirut's seaside boulevard. Her point was to criticize the United States and call for an end to the war. Obviously a first-class education at Columbia didn't provide instruction in common sense.

Laurie Brand will preach to MESA, the Middle Eastern Studies Association, to be held in San Francisco. Laurie is an activist and was known to be one before her election. Thus, in choosing Laurie, MESA is demonstrating the endorsement of the Palestinian cause in the midst of the intifada.

As well as the four Fulbright Fellowships for research in Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, and Tunisia, she has received at least three major U.S. government regrants, mostly for work in Jordan, as well as has been on government-funded lecture junkets to Kuwait, Jordan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Oman. She has also been a past consultant to the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Department of State, and the U.S. Information Agency. Although support for U.S. policy isn't a prerequiste for any of these subsidies and perks, one wonders what benefit Washington and the American people derived from her consultancies, and "what sort of process plied this one academic with so many Fulbrights. Isn't investing so many Fulbrights into one scholar a bit over the top?

The old gentleman didn't use the word naive, which means that the person doesn't think things through and believes what they are told without questioning whether it is right or wrong, or unschooled. He used the word gullible which means subject to easy manipulation by others.

MESA is full of the gullible--"an easily-manipulated fifth column for the most retrograde forces in the Middle East. Laurie Brand, their president, is giving a speech entitled "Scholarship in the Shadow of Empire," ironically referring the Empire of the United States.

Why would MESA focus on the United States when their focus should be on the Middle East, an area blighted by its own rulers?

..the Middle East has languished in the shadow of despotic regimes, intolerant nationalists, and religious extremists for as long as MESA has been in the business. Regrettably, none of this ever troubled MESAns to the point of bringing them out into the street. When they weren't looking away, they were explaining away, claiming that the benighted state of their region was really the fault of the West. In a profound sense, then, the entire guild of Middle Eastern studies has been gullible--an easily-manipulated fifth column for the most retrograde forces in the Middle East. That's also why the guild has been stuck in an epistemological median strip. The MESA presidential address that will bear these tidings won't be delivered tonight.

MESA might be full of the gullible and so might Washington for continuing to fund this woman. I question her judgment and her loyalty, and like the author, Martin Kramer, I would like to see an end to her stipends and that she no longer be sent off on taxpayer-funded speaking junkets over the next four years as she certainly is not a good ambassador for the United States, especially in a time of war.

MESA needs a good looking into. The Middle Eastern Studies programs at many universities are fifth columns funded by foreign governments and entities that are hostile and don't operate in the interest of the United States.

U.S. universities are operated for the benefit of the United States and our students, but of late they have been infiltrated by groups with other ambitions. They are part of the keychain of a Muslim attempt at a paradigm shift of thought in the U.S.: educate the elites and the rest will follow like sheep. The elites are then sometimes funded, but placed in obvious positions that would make the greatest effect: schools, textbook companies, outreach programs, church, and so on. Education is the key to opening the door to the Muslim conquest of America.

MESA may be full of over-educated dupes, but we, the rest of America have common sense, something they obviously lack. Common sense and perserverance have often been the only tools that dynamic men and women need to succeed. Let's put ours to work to lick this problem.

U.S. Muslim Cable TV Channel Aims to Build Bridges

Education is America's Achilles heel, our weak spot that Muslims have targeted as the key to the United States knowing that take over can never be accomplished through military means as it has done in recent and past history in other parts of the world. Instead Muslims have targeted information outlets: universities, schools, print media, music videos, video games, and now a U.S. Muslim Cable TV Channel that "aims to build bridges."

Bridge building is well a good when there is firm understanding of the ground rules. Muslims are not accustomed to following rules that have been created by other cultures, as Muslims only want to obey Muslim laws and customs. The historical record has demonstrated the truth of this pattern.

Disdaining all that is non-Muslim, Muslims belong to and give their allegiance to the Ummah, the world-wide Muslim brotherhood. Islam has very specific rules, regulations, and obligations that adhere Muslims to one another and prevent them from integrating into societies that are now hosting them as immigrants. These new immigrants are a beachhead for the introduction of Islam, not as just another immigrant group, but as the foundation layer for the push for an eventual takeover.

At present we are seeing the upheaval of a Europe in chaos because of their Muslim guest workers that have come to stay. Not integrating into European society, instead they are demanding that Europe provide resources and accommodations for their Muslimness, creating havoc, expense, and unplesantness for the indigenous European populations that have bent over backwards in the attempt to create a brotherhood of man in a multicultural society. The experiment has been a failure.

Muslims are accustomed to being in charge. We don't need further education about Islam to have learned this lesson. Muslims will create a stratfied society in which non-Muslims are pushed to the bottom of the heap as dhimmis, second class citizens. Islam overpowers and sweeps away constitutions and laws made by man and puts in place Sha'ria, a system of laws based on the Koran, Sira, and ahadiths of Muhammed. No amount of education and bridge-building can blind us to these realities that, again, are part of the historical record.

The experience of America, an idea, not an address, is one of a layered salad. Each immigrant, racial, and religious group adds a distinct flavor to the mix without one overpowering the other. Islam is the spoiler of this metaphor. Muslims have always refused to be just one more layer in the salad. Instead, Muslims have always chosen to be the smallest ingredient, the salad dressing, one that overpowers and sometimes wilts and eventually destroys the others. Eventually, in the tasting, the salad dressing is the salad. Muslim population in the United States is less than 1%, yet this tiny minority, properly funded and placed, is capable of grabbing power for themselves as they have in countless societies throughout history.

In America we listen to all points of view. We can complain and criticize without fear of reprisal. We tolerate outrageous demonstrations as long as no one is hurt, no property is damaged, and there is no cry for the overthrow of government. Islamic societies don't permit criticism of Islam as such criticism is characterized as blashpemy. Critics are labeled "racists," although the category of Muslim is not a race, and Islamophobes although we don't fear Muslims, we only see the potential danger of them and their movement as demonstrated in Europe and in other parts of the world. Europeans, and even Canadians, have caved in to Muslims by creating hate-speech laws that effectively silence their critics and squash dissent.

No amount of bridge building can erase the realities of the European experience, the Arab-Muslim genocide of Darfur Muslims and the Christians of the South, of the persecution and murder of Iraqi Christians, and the exodus of Palestinian Christians from Gaza and the West Bank. Nor will we stop seeing atrocities of Nigerian Muslims against other religions nor the beheadings of Thai Buddhists and so on. Bridge building is possible if other groups are ignorant of the facts.

Let's take a wait and see attitude about how this new tv cable channel presents Muslims. Stay tuned for further developments. I'm sure I'll have plenty to say as this plays out.

From the Moon to the Earth--Helium 3

Did you every wonder why there continues to be a race for space or why it's prudent to spend vast sums to hurl ourselves into space? No, I don't mean space here on earth, but the space over and beyond our heads that continues into infinity. Planets in space are our next destination not only because we are an inquisitive species, wondering what's up there or if we are alone in the vast universe, questions that man has wondered about since the beginning of thought. We wonder for the long term, but in the short term we know why we're spending vast sums to hurl ourselves into the void: the reason is resources.

Earth is running out of resources so they say. And certain elements are available only to the most intrepid explorers, those most willing to make the risk of the trip, to those that are willing to spend the cash. We are looking for and have found alternative fuel sources that need to be retrieved and developed for use here on earth.

Helium 3 is a variant of the as used in lasers and refrigerators, as well as to blow up balloons, and it's deposited on the lunar surface by solar winds. If ever used on Earth, it would need to be extracted from moon soil and rocks by heating it above 1,400 degrees Farenheit.

"When helium 3 combines with deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen) the fusion reaction proceeds at a very high temperature and it can produce awesome amounts of energy," Taylor told AFP. "Just 25 tons of helium, which can be transported on a space shuttle, is enough to provide electricity for the U.S. for one full year."

..."The moon contains 10 times more energy in the form of helium 3 than all the fossil fuels on the Earth,"

By 2050 the world is slated to have "a major problem" with the exhaustion of fuel supplies as extraction of oil is becoming more difficult and more expensive. Fossil fuels are the energy source of the past and are now a reason for upheaval on the earth.

Alternative fuel use is in its infancy. The nineteenth century saw the slow beginning of an infant automotble industry as transportation began to transition from animal power. We are again in a transition period.

A few weeks ago a Washington D.C. filling station began to sell hydrogren fuel for the limited number of vehicles developed for that fuel. Of course more vehicles and hydrogen-burning equipment and appliances must be made available in order to solve our problems as eventually we will have to give up the use of fossil fuels for the more efficient and plentiful hydrogen power. Helium 3 is another fuel source that is a bonus and a reason for continuing space exploration, justifying the cost and the effort.

"If we set our hearts on the moon and have the money to do it, then we do it pretty fast. However, it could be done well within 10 years if the sources of finance are generated to get this (reactor) going," he (Lawrence Taylor, a director of the U.S. Planetary Geosciences Institute, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences) said.

Certainly giving up the use fossil fuels will solve many of America's present political problems as we yearn to free ourselves from dependence on foreign oil. It is inevitable that this change must come about and it should bring about new benefits. However, future problems aren't always forseen during a transition. Those that can be envisioned caused by this transition can be avoided by proper planning and planning and we shouldn't give up the effort for fear of the creation of newer problems.

Next time you want to complain about the cost of space exploration, stop and ask yourself if we can afford NOTto invest in the effort realizing the consequences of continued use of fossil fuels. Perhaps we won't benefit in the near future, but our children and grandchildren will be grateful that we made that visionary, yet prudent step to secure for them a future source of energy.

Friday, November 26, 2004

Is Sha'ria Law Being Put in Place in Europe? What Lessons Can America Learn?

Let's dispense with the small talk and cut to the chase: Muslims are accustomed to being in charge, and, at this rate, in charge they are going to be in most places in Europe. All European countries have a growing Muslim population, and all, to one degree or another, are having problems integrating Muslims into the rest of society. In no country has integration successfully been achieved through cooperative negotiations. Secular Turkey and Iraq had the hand of strong men that guided and maintained the cooperation between Muslims and non-Muslim, but, as we have unfortunately witnessed, once the strong man is gone, so is the cooperation. European countries are going through spasms, fits social apoplexy, and outbreaks of rage on all sides of this issue.

An example of this discomfort is found in country of Denmark. Like the rest of Europe, Denmark's indigenous population is having problems with Muslim refugees that have come to stay, bringing with them parts of their religion and culture that should have been left behind in the Middle East or other parts of the Muslim World. The problem is that by leaving behind some of this religious and cultural baggage that is incompatible with Western culture that is based on the Christian tradition, Muslim immigrants would cease to be Muslim.

Unequivocally incompatible Muslim laws and customs create an impossible wide chasm between rigidly traditional Muslim values and the more flexible, progressive values of the West that are constantly changing and adapting to fit contemporary social conditions. Muslim laws and customs were formed more than one thousand years ago during the lifetime of Muhammad, the founder of Islam and the few hundred years immediately following his death during which a set of immutable laws were created and redacted which Muslims have carried as the basis of their cultural baggage wherever they set down their feet on this earth. The code of never-changing laws based on precepts and practices of the Middle Ages is called Sha'ria, a set of laws that traps men and women roles and relationships that the West left behind many centuries ago.

Muslim immigrants, now an upcoming force on the European stage are demanding their rights under the advertised "toleration and multiculturalism" for which Western Europe has so prided itself. Throughout time, the number one demand of Muslims anywhere in the world has always been the implementation of Sha'ria law, and today's Muslims are no exception. They want Sha'ria to be included in the law codes of each of Europe's many countries with the eventual hope of making Sha'ria the law of the land after they successfully gain predominance over indigenous Europeans through agitation and demographics. Islamic republics would replace today's national governments with the eventual creation of a worldwide Islamic empire that would be based on Sha'ria law.

The European parliamentary system is the perfect vehicle for this purpose. Instead of the winner take all system of the United States, coalition governments must be formed that give many groups a place and a say in the process of governance, a type of "rule by committee." This is both the strength and the weakness of coalitions.

There is no sense of authority in Europe. The church has fallen by the wayside as millions have given up not only practice but also belief. National governments are ruled mostly by parliamentary systems that debate endlessly in order to come to agreements that please all but really benefit the few. The end result is called Social Democracy, a form of consensus politics. Europe is attempting to build a unity government that would unite all European states under one government centered in The Hague. The E.U. would, of course, be a parliamentary form of government. But is committee rule ever really successful? One only has to look at the outcome of certain committee decisions to know that the results are often unsatisfactory and non-beneficial.

Certainly everyone should be able to have a voice, to be able to offer an opinion, but are all opinions and voices worthy of creating policy, of drafting legislation for the good of the whole body of the electorate? Some voices must be disregarded or their opinions taken with "a grain of salt" as the legislation that they would create would be a tyranny on the majority, and, in the case of Muslim Sha’ria law, the minority that has created Sha'ria law would be the only beneficiary, for Sha'ria law was created by Arabic men and only for the benefit of Arabic men, regardless of the protestations of Muslim men and women to the contrary.

Sha'ria sets strict standards of family law, individual behavior, the economy, behavior of the ruler toward the ruled, the laws of warfare, and, in fact, even human action or thought that could ever occur. The standards are backed up by severe, draconian penalties, penalties that have been seen in today's newscasts and about which much has been written: floggings, amputations, executions, beheadings, laws put in place before the possibility of the construction of prisons which also exist in Muslim countries. Ironically, although crime is lower in the Muslim countries, crime has not been completely eliminated in spite of these draconian measures.

Family law was set in place during a time when the strong man was the law of the land and the law on the household. The strong man's word dominated the world and the home and laws were created to enforce this worldview in both the East and the West. The father or pater familias, in some societies was held responsible for the behavior of his household and thus was granted extraordinary power over them, even the power of life and death. Time has eroded both this responsibility and power for most of the world, but there a vestige remains in Sha'ria. The husband and father has, among other male prerogatives, great responsibility and great power over his family, especially over his wife and daughters, and, as in days of old, he sees them as his property and their behavior reflects on his honor. A worldview such as this is difficult, if not impossible to dislodge, or move forward, and is in direct opposition to the laws and mores of the West. The many faces of Islam are all the same, reflecting always Sha'ria, simply Sha'ria, only the authority of Sha'ria, the measure of all things being the law of Allah.

Europe's parliamentary system is rapidly being co-opted by Muslim voices that are demanding the inclusion and implementation of Sha'ria law that, Muslims that see the West as filled with a corrupt population that must be chastened and purged as they have done so many times in others parts of the world. History has given us many lessons of chastening and purge, from India to Indonesia, from North Africa to the Balkans, and even Medieval Spain, Southern France, and Austria where the stamp and influence of Islam can be found in custom, architecture, food, and language, as well as in historical legend.

A for instance is of modern-day Muslim incursion into European society is the death of Theo Van Gogh who violated the Sha'ria law against blasphemy by exposing the conditions under which Muslim women are living, even in Europe. The penalty for blasphemy is death and many non-Christians, also known as Infidels, and Muslim apostates, those that have left Islam, are marked for death as, in Islam, critical analysis that holds Islam up to ill repute, whether true or not, is blasphemy. Obviously, under Sha'ria, free speech would be cast out with the freedoms of choice and action.

Apostasy is frowned upon. Apostates that change from one Christian sect to another are technically apostates under Islam. The only religion change that is permitted is the "reversion to Islam." Muslims consider that Islam is the correct "original" religion of mankind, and all the others were created in error. Thus, coming to Islam is only a return to the "pure and correct state" in which mankind was in the Garden of Eden.

Other religions, such as Hinduism and Buddhism are considered to be paganism, and their adherents are marked for death. Most Christians would be astounded to learn that Christians are also considered to be pagans because they "worship more than one God." Muslims considered "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost" to be three different gods. The reversion to Islam would eliminate this "error."

Sha'ria is an economic system that holds "capitalism as its enemy." Muslim banks can't charge interest that is "haram," the opposite of "halal." Haram means not permitted and are applied to all facets of life. Muslims spend every waking minute considering whether or not a given action or thought is haram or halal. Muslims claim that Islam gives greater economic justice to the poor and disadvantaged, not only because they can't charge interest, but because of charity which is constant requirement of all Muslims, explaining the existence of so many Muslim charities that we hear about on the daily news.

The Muslim economic system, though, doesn't demand that extremely wealthy Muslims invest in industry and employment opportunities for the disadvantaged, nor does this system require that monies be spent on education opportunities that teach skills that could be used for employment opportunities. The act of charity is in the giving, not in the use of the money. The giver has discharged his obligation to Allah once the money leaves his hands.

Is that just? A good question, for the subject of justice is often on the lips of Muslims that tell us that Allah seeks justice in this world and the next. Justice, rather than love, is the touchstone of Muslim existence. Muslims accuse the West of the "crime of injustice." The standard, though, is Muslim, rather than Western. Justice must be considered within the parameters set up under Sha'ria law and Sha'ria is implemented and exists within a theocratic system of governance run by only Muslim leaders that are, by nature and practice, religious.

Islam then becomes that state religion under which all must exist. The laws of Islam, Sha'ria, are applied to all regardless of their state, religious or ethnic background. Sha'ria supersedes all state laws, constitutions, compacts, or any form of man's law, and would sweep away those tolerant and multicultural traditions that both Europe and America have developed in the past few centuries. Non-Muslims, Infidels would suffer a fate that only those that survived under Communism, a religion of the state, could remember.

The members of the Party apparatus were first class citizens, receiving all the perks and benefits, reserving wealth and status for themselves, their offspring and protégés. As long as they toed and maintained the party line and were non-threatening to the handful in power, they remained in their privileged status. Dissidents were sent to Siberia or to their death. Islam, a belief system that recognizes a supreme being they call Allah, operates under the same system. Dissidents are sent into social exile, jail, or to their deaths.

Presently Muslims in several European countries are making demands. European life for the indigenous has changed for most. For example, Britons have lost their freedom of speech as criticism of Islam is now viewed and punished under the hate-speech law. Germany and France and struggling with hijab, the wearing of head coverings by Muslim women, supposedly for religious purposes. Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland have reported problems various problems. In Sweden, the city of Malmo has been taken over by Muslims. There are no-go zones in many European cities where indigenous police, bus or taxi service is unable to operate. Literally every European country is experiencing a "Muslim problem, " and the Netherlands is beginning reaction in a violent way against the murder of Theo Van Gogh.

In Demark, parliamentary rule by committee is negotiating with Muslim members that want Sha'ria as state law.

On Monday, Social Democratic immigration spokeswoman Anne-Marie Meldgaard issued an ultimatum to Muslim party members, demanding that they condemn sharia in order to remain in the party.

Party leader Mogens Lykketoft has so far declined comment on the ultimatum, and Meldgaard has since modified her original remarks.

"Of course it's OK to fast. As long as an individual is not acting in violation of the constitution, Danish jurisprudence, principles of equality or democracy, we can accept it. But I still maintain that people have no business with us if they place Islamic law above our democratic system, or support execution by stoning," said Meldgaard.

Indigenous Danes feel threatened by Sha'ria that would, of course, put their way of life at risk. They want Muslims to give up those threatening portions, but Muslims aren't willing to do so.

Social Democratic party member Hamid El Mousti, a Moroccan by birth, currently sits on Copenhagen’s City Council. El Mousti claims it is impossible for Muslims to disavow sharia in its entirety.

"Sharia is a part of our identity - part of being Muslim. It's unreasonable to ask us to swear off our religion - but demanding that we accept the values of Denmark is fine," said El Mousti, emphasising that he in no way condones the stoning of adulterous women or amputation of hands to punish thieves.

This is an example of how difficult life is when Westerners and Muslims try to live together and to form a body of law. What usually happens is that Muslims "ghettoize," or isolate themselves so that they are not "polluted" by the rest of society, and then, through demographics or violence, they begin to take over as is happening now in Europe. Muslims now confident to be able make demands on the general population that benefit only them and that would put the indigenous population at a different status. Some Danes recognize this, recognizing that Sha'ria is a "packaged deal."

Centre Democrat Ben Haddou is also a member of Copenhagen's City Council, and seconds El Mousti's views.

"It's impossible to condemn sharia. And any secular Muslim who claims he can is lying. Sharia also encompasses lifestyle, inheritance law, fasting and bathing. Demanding that Muslims swear off sharia is a form of warfare against them," said Haddou, adding:

"For me, it's not a question of either/or. I can easily support sharia, but distance myself from those aspects that don't fit into the year 2004. Compare it to the constitution. Some parts are outmoded, and you might well imagine that some changes are long overdue," said Haddou.

Parliament of the Danes has had to be suspended "after voting against a Radical Liberal-sponsored resolution condemning sharia law." Clearly, as in other parts of Europe, governance is at crisis point.

Can a house divided against itself survive? History says it cannot. Can Muslims and Infidels draw up a just system of governance that benefits all and does not set one group over another? History and human nature say that it cannot be done. For this reason Muslims have stuck to their guns throughout history, knowing that to concede anything would lead them to lose their Muslim identity. However, non-Muslims will also lose the social character that has taken centuries to create that gives them certain freedoms and liberties that Muslims would take away if Muslims are successful and Islam becomes the state religion, economic power, system of family and criminal law, and the touchstone for personal thought and behavior.

Muslims are accustomed to being in charge. To gain precedence, Muslims look for a culture's strengths and weaknesses, playing them off against each other. The parliamentary system and the demise of traditional institutions such as the church are the European's Achilles heel.

The American system offers them other challenges. The winner-take-all political system won't permit a consensus style take over. Instead, Americans must be conditioned to accept a new paradigm of thought: Islamic institutions are superior to American because America is evil; because the American government is fascist; because the Christian church is demonic and supporters of the fascist government in Washington and that Christians are stupid to believe and to support their fascist dictator, George Bush.

In order to achieve this shift in thinking, Muslims have approached and tempted cash-starved universities with cash grants. The grants would create new university chairs or replenish university coffers. In return, Muslims would staff certain departments and have the right of policing what is said about Islam and done on campus in light of the politics of the Middle East. Education is the key to America as parliament is the key to Europe.

Education of the youngest members of society is now possible, as teachers have been conditioned in the new paradigm shift. Teachers are provided with altered texts and teaching materials that emphasize the positive aspects of Islam and ignore the dark side. Children play games and role-play being Muslims in social studies classes. Certainly they are doing this not in the spirit of multiculturalism as is contended, for no other role-play is given such weight. Certainly there are neither Christian nor Jewish role-plays, nor Hindu, nor Buddhist, nor ethnic groups. No, if not for take over, for what other reason could there be for the necessity of a role-play at being a Muslim?

Muslim activists are advised as to how to approach schools to make Muslim presentations palatable to school boards, administrators, teachers and staff, and to students' parents. They are taught how to deal with balking schools and districts. Use gentle persuasion and, in the sense of fair play, apply the principle of multiculturalism. If all else fails, resort to stronger measures: CAIR, a group that claims to protect Muslim civil rights; cry racism or discrimination, although neither the terms Islam nor Muslims can be characterized as races, and as Christians, Jews, and all other religious groups are denied the right to do religious presentations, discrimination is also not a valid charge.

Cry hate. You won't let us present because you hate us and your "No" is really hate-speech. We can see through this tactic, but together with claims of racism, discrimination, and now hate-speech, school systems, reluctant to be controversial or have appearance of impropriety have given in as have textbook companies that now allow Muslims on the review committees to make sure that Islam is shown in the most positive of lights.

The media is another educational tool. Control of spin about Islam and the creation of unfavorable spin about America have planted some unsettling ideas in minds of many Americans. Controlling the minds of the masses has been a tool for the ages. However, it is unusual that a society uses that tool against itself as is the case of the American media that in constant disagreement that tears down American institutions, a detriment to any society and a lethal tool during a time of war--cultural and national suicide. Speaking against America has become a national pastime.

Of course Muslims don't work alone on this project. Much of the world uses media for the same purpose--anti-Americanism. Outside the U.S. there are forces and factions that would benefit if the United States were to decline, including some European states are now going through problems with an ascendant Islam. Thus, Islam would benefit in the long run in Europe at the expense of America.

Educating the lawmakers in the halls of power to accept Islam as a religion of peace has even entered the White House where the President regularly makes pronouncements about the "War on Terror," hopes that "Moderate Muslims will take power," and that "Democracy can take hold in the Middle East." All of these are fables that have been fed to a naive government that believes that Muslims can and will change Islam and that in doing so will be able to moderate their behavior and their societies so that we can all get along. The Washington establishment understands neither the lessons of history nor how to analyze properly the world's current events. Instead they listen to the whispered advice of Muslim apologists or analysts that have a pet point of view.

They haven't heard or have refused to acknowledge the number one lesson: Muslims are accustomed to being in power and will use any means possible to achieve that status. In the course of time, if force becomes necessary, they will use it. However, education is a much more useful tool to achieve dominance over a society that prides itself as being a melting pot.

In this case a more useful analogy would be to characterize the America as a layered salad. The layers can be mixed without any one ingredient losing its character or flavor. However, there is spoiler to this analogy. With the application of the salad dressing, a tiny ingredient in comparison with the bulk of the rest of the ingredients, the flavor of all layers and ingredients are obscured and some ingredients degrade or wilt. Muslims have no intention of being just another layer in the salad. They intend to be the salad dressing.


[A friend of mine sent me this. He will not affirm or deny this as of his authorship. So, I don't know who penned it. It is bloody good, however.]


The flood of American liberals sneaking across the border into Canada has intensified in the past week, sparking calls for increased patrols to stop the illegal immigration.

The re-election of President Bush is prompting the exodus among left-leaning citizens who fear they'll soon be required to hunt, pray, and agree with Bill O'Reilly.

Canadian border farmers say it's not uncommon to see dozens of sociology professors, animal rights activists, and Unitarians crossing their fields at night. ''I went out to milk the cows the other day, and there was a Hollywood producer huddled in the barn," said Manitoba farmer Red Greenfield, whose acreage borders North Dakota. The producer was cold, exhausted and hungry. ''He asked me if I could spare a latte and some free-range chicken. When I said I didn't have any, he left. Didn't even geta chance to show him my screenplay, eh?"

In an effort to stop the illegal aliens, Greenfield erected higher fences, but the liberals scaled them. So he tried installing speakers that blare Rush Limbaugh across the fields.''Not real effective," he said. ''The liberals still got through, and Rush annoyed the cows so much they wouldn't give milk."

Officials are particularly concerned about smugglers who meet liberals near the Canadian border, pack them into Volvo station wagons, drive them across the border and leave them to fend for themselves. ''A lot of these people are not prepared for rugged conditions," an Ontario border patrolman said. ''I found one car load without a drop of drinking water. They did have a nice little Napa Valley Cabernet, though."

When liberals are caught, they're sent back across the border, often wailing loudly that they fear retribution from conservatives. Rumors have been circulating about the Bush administration establishing re-education camps in which liberals will be forced to drink domestic beer and watch NASCAR.

In the days since the election, liberals have turned to sometimes ingenious ways of crossing the border. Some have taken to posing as senior citizens on bus trips to buy cheap Canadian prescription drugs. After catching a half-dozen young vegans disguised in powdered wigs, Canadian immigration authorities began stopping buses and quizzing the supposed senior-citizen passengers. ''If they can't identify the accordion player on The Lawrence Welk Show, we get suspicious about their age," an official said.

Canadian citizens have complained that the illegal immigrants are creating an organic-broccoli shortage and renting all the good Susan Sarandon movies. ''I feel sorry for American liberals, but the Canadian economy just can't support them," an Ottawa resident said. ''How many art-history majors does one country need?"

In an effort to ease tensions between the United States and Canada, Vice President Dick Cheney met with the Canadian ambassador and pledged that the administration would take steps to reassure liberals, a source close to Cheney said. ''We're going to have some Peter, Paul & Mary concerts. And we might put some endangered species on postage stamps. The president is determined to reach out."

Dhimmi Watch: Petition: Stop the stoning of a 13-year-old child in Iran!

Dhimmi Watch: Petition: Stop the stoning of a 13-year-old child in Iran!

« Germany: Court blocks extradition of al-Qaeda suspect Main Denmark: Parliamentarians in sharia-law dilemma »
November 26, 2004

Petition: Stop the stoning of a 13-year-old child in Iran!

On October 31, I told you about Zhila Izadyar, a 13-year-old Iranian girl who has been convicted of incest, and has a child with her brother. For this she faces death by stoning, and has already been lashed 55 times. Her brother, meanwhile, is looking at 150 lashes and prison.

Now there is a petition (; thanks to RD Sieben for the link) that you can sign to call upon the Iranian mullahs to stop this barbarity and release this girl. International publicity and pressure has worked before. Please sign.

Posted at November 26, 2004 08:01 AM

Thursday, November 25, 2004

How Muslims Paint Christians and Their Holidays as "Pagan"

The upcoming Christmas Season is full of joy, laughter, fun, gifts, the Nativity, and "pagan symbols." Does that mean that when we erect and Chritmas tree or burn a"yule log" that we are worshiping the sun and the forces of nature? Because we have Santa coming down the chimney to bring gifts, does that mean that Santa is revered as a god? Do we think of these now traditional symbols in the same way as did our pagan ancestors, and in doing so, are we really "pagans?"

At Easter children look for painted eggs that are hidden by the mythical "Easter bunny." Do we worship the bunny and eat the eggs in remembrance of the bunny or in the remembrance of Christ?

Some Christians do believe that Christmas, Easter, and other holidays are, indeed, "pagan." This is one reason why we have so many Christian denominations. No Christian is surprised to hear of this controversy. Even our founding Puritan founders objected to Christmas and Easter.

But most Christians would probably be surprised to learn that ALL Muslims consider Christians to be pagans. One reason is that most Christians observe Christmas and Easter, and even though few Christians are aware of the origins of the USE of the Christmas tree, Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny, NO Christians worship trees, bunnies, reindeer, or any of these symbols that are only used as ways to bring the family together, a ways to have fun, and REMINDERS of "the Reason for the Season," a phrase that many Christians use at Christian holiday time.

No, Muslims won't wish you "Merry Christmas" or "Happy New Year" because to do so would be "paganistic." They also won't send you a Christmas card, but will encourage you to send them one on the Muslim holiday, Eid, because, of course, Eid, for them isn't paganistic. But it's alright for Christians to send them cards because they are deluded "Infidels" and need correction, a further demonstration of Muslim contempt and disdain.

Be on the lookout for Muslims in Da'wa (calling people to Islam) that want to "purify" Christianity, first by telling you about the pagan origins of your Christmas practices that are "polluting your homes with dangerous lies that are avenues to lead people astray from the pure worship...'(gasp)' of Allah...," and then by drawing you into Islam.

Be aware that although Islam recognizes the historical presence of Jesus, Jesus is NOT very important, and is superceded by Muhammed, the last, the ULTIMATE, the only IMPORTANT prophet and PERFECT MAN.

Also be aware that Christians can change their religion with little penalty, and many Americans "experiment" with different religions until they "get it right," but Islam is "for keeps."

Be very careful if you are thinking about a change to Islam. Those that leave Islam are marked. Even in the West, apostates, those that change their religion, and especially from Islam, whether or not they were formerly Chrisitians and change their minds, are doomed to a terrible punishment IN THIS LIFE. Apostates are often killed in horrible ways: burning or beheading. What "a religion of peace!"