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

New Email Address:

Thursday, September 30, 2004


We have just published today a lot of new material on our website, 6th Column Against Jihad. We invite you to check us out.

Wednesday, September 29, 2004

CAVEAT EMPTOR: Know your sources

Jihad Watch: Rewriting the Qur'an? Not really

Robert Spencer opens this article as follows: "I respect Stephen Schwartz's work exposing the depredations of the Wahhabis, but when I saw this piece in the Weekly Standard, I thought it important to note that the interpretations Schwartz attributes to the Wahhabis by no means originated with them. Why? Because otherwise people will be deceived into thinking that if we can stop the Wahhabis, the problem of radical Islam will disappear. Unfortunately, it isn't so. The problem is older, wider, and deeper than the Wahhabi phenomenon."

Spencer goes on to show that the "badness," as I will call it, of Islam comes not just from Wahhabism, which Mr. Schwartz over-emphasizes.

That brings up the entire topic of evaluating the author(s) of material published about Islam. Some are truly objective -- i.e., give all of the relevant facts regardless of whatever position they hold. Robert Spencer is an excellent example. Ibn Warraq and Craig Winn are other good examples. Some are mostly objective, but favor a viewpoint beyond what the facts permit. Bernard Lewis, the fabulous Islamic and Middle East historian, is a good example. He underplays the viciousness of Islam; other than that, however, his histories are the best. The remainder work an agenda, and they publish nothing more than propaganda, regardless of which fellow travelers laud them. Karen Armstrong, John Esposito, and Edward Said are arch-typical examples. Their material is useful only if studying propaganda as a subject.

It is critically important to evaluate the author and to determine if his or her viewpoint slants the facts, and, if so, does this slant make the author unreadable.

Stephen Schwartz serves as a good illustration of the need to sort things out. I do not know what his philosophical and religious declarations were originally, but he became a Sufi Muslim. That is a minor branch of Islam which may be the most mystical of the Islamic branches. Sufism produces the Whirling Dervishes, and a few mystical writers, but it has little impact on Sunni and Shia Islam which command the spectrum of Islamists.

Nevertheless, Mr. Schwartz developed a bias in favor of Islam, and this is evident in his excellent book, The Two Faces of Islam. In this book, he cones his focus onto Saudi Arabia and its virulent form of Islam known as "Wahhabism." His well-written book exposes Wahhabism beautifully, and the book is well worth the reading and the studying.

Stephen Schwartz, however, wants to blame Wahhabism for most, if not all, of the evils of Islam. It and Saudi Arabia deserve huge blame, indeed. Saudi Arabia is one of the two major Islamic jihadic terrorism sponsors in the world. Saudi Arabia deserves enormous punishment and total reformation, and we have every reason to seize Saudi oil fields to cut off petrodollar funding of Wahhabist terrorism from the likes of Bin Laden and many others.

What Mr. Schwartz has trouble dealing with is that Islam is an evil ideology, and there is no good form of Islam, no matter what it is called. Khomeinism in Iran, i.e., Shiite Islam, is even more virulent, and there are sundry smaller sects ready to feast on blood. The ideology that binds all together is Islam. Just plain Islam, as it was, right from the beginning, as laid out by Muhammad himself. Not all Muslims are bloodthirsty just as the fact is true that all Christians do not want an Inquisition, but Christianity underwent reformation. Islam never did.

Caveat emptor is Latin for, let the buyer beware, i.e., you must learn what you are getting, if you are not to be taken for a ride, so to speak.

The Noble Qur'an, which Mr. Schwartz unloads on, is indeed a Fahd family publication of Dar As Salam publishers in Riyadh. It speaks to the Saudi Arabian version of Islam, and it is valuable because of it. But, no one Koran is good, and no one Koran is bad. Craig Winn, author of Prophet of Doom, recommends that the serious student of Islam get at least five translations because of the enormous variation among them. For example, I bought a modern "revised" version of Pickthall's famous translation. It had been so sanitized to be "politically correct" that the unsuspecting would be unable to conclude anything except that Islam really is a religion of peace. My other versions tell the truth, and The Noble Qur'an tells the truth about Islam: Islam is vile, evil, and should be extinguished permanently from the earth.

With Islam, it must always be caveat emptor.

Tuesday, September 28, 2004

To Liberals, Democrats, and Neocomms: Bin Laden Is Not the War on Terrorism

I listen to a lot of talk radio. One of the best hosts is Michael Medved. In general, he allows callers of opposing viewpoints to talk, at least a lot more than the rest. That is important because of the second point: More liberals, Democrats, and neocommunists call this conservative, Orthodox Jew host more than any of the other conservative shows I can find. Instead of needing to cut off and dominate the caller, Medved lets the caller put forth whatever he or she is thinking, regardless of how bad it usually is. [BTW: I think Larry Elder is even better than Michael Medved.]

Today, a caller to Medved became the one caller too many on straw man topic. The topic is the running down of George W. Bush because he went to Iraq instead of spending 100% of his attention and our national assets hunting down Usama Bin Laden. Talk about narrow-mindedness! Mein Gott! Do not liberals, Democrats, and neocommunists not read? Are they 100% abysmally ignorant? They sure as hell seem that way. [Just for clarification, I have grave trouble separating out "liberals, Democrats, and neocommunists" -- David Horowitz's term -- so I just put the triad up as a loose single entity.]

A "straw man" is a logical fallacy of substituting a cause or argument which seems plausible for the real cause or argument. OK, I know that is a head-trip, but I will explain using the stupid argument from the anti-Bushites.

The "war on terror" is a RELIGIOUS WAR, and not a war on terror. Terror is an effect, not a cause. ISLAM is the cause. No, not radical Islam or extreme Islam or "hijacked" Islam. Just plain old, every day Islam. If this is unclear, please go to our website, 6th Column Against Jihad, for all sorts of clarifying educational materials and leads to excellent additional materials.

Second, Bin Laden is only PART of Islam, assuming he is still alive. Muslim jihadists infest the countries of the globe doing all the evil deeds they can get away with. One honest Arab-Islamic journalist, as reported by MEMRI, said that all Muslims are not terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims. No one can make it plainer than that.

Bin Laden and his nest of evil do'ers must be caught and killed, or just killed outright. Of that, I have no question. Throw in Zawahiri as well. Nothing too bad can happen to these people. They were the perpetrators of 11 September 2001 in America and all of the events of the 1990s leading to 9-11.

Suppose, however, we have caught and killed every single one of Bin Laden's merry band. Suppose we have put out of business all of his fellow travelers and fifth columnists world-wide. Have we ended the "war on terror?" Obviously not, as anyone who follows the daily news knows. Many, many more are out there. Saudi Arabia and Iran are generating as many as their oil incomes will allow. These trainees are in Chechnya, Syria, Egypt, Europe, South America, Canada, North America, South and Southeast Asia, and Australia. They are blowing up people and things and subverting Western civilization wherever they can attack it.

THE UNIFIER BEHIND ALL OF THESE JIHADISTS IS ISLAM, not Al-Qaeda and other named groups.

Therefore, Bush attacked Iraq while looking for Bin Laden, who may or may not be alive. Why did he attack Iraq? He followed Sutton's Law, named after the bank robber Willie Sutton who when asked why he robbed banks, replied that that is where the money is. Iraq is an historical and contemporary hotbed of Islamic terrorism, and one possibility when Afghanistan wound down. I personally think he should have crushed Iran after Afghanistan. I think he should annihilate Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. That is where Sutton's Law also applies: Islamic Jihadists are there in vast numbers. No, there are more of them elsewhere than contained in these countries, but Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia provide STATE SUPPORTED TERRORISM. Without these countries, Islamic jihad terrorism would suffer severe constraints.

I know that these anti-Bushites are trying to shape reality in order to elect their candidate, and they say and think a number of contemptible distorted thoughts. I know they want to hang on to this straw man because they think it makes an argument. They need to stop thinking like Democrats and start thinking like Americans. We are in a war with Islam which threatens all of us Americans. Democrats will not be eaten last by the tiger.

Monday, September 27, 2004


Do you like good writing? Haven't you found that good thinking always precedes good writing?

I want to take a moment to crow about one of the best prose writers on the American scene today. That is historian, Victor Davis Hanson, who ordinarily works out of the Hoover Institute at Stanford University. What the man has to say and how he says it just captivate my attention.

Two new articles by Victor Davis Hanson have been published very recently. Both are lyrical in presentation and profound in their ability to capture in words a snapshot of some aspect of the culture and the irrational world we live in. These articles are much too good to try to sample in this blog. Read them for yourself.

THE FALLVictor Davis Hanson, NRO, September 24, 2004

THE U.N.? WHO CARES...Victor Davis Hanson, Wall Street Journal, September 23, 2004

Keep in mind when you read these that Victor Davis Hanson is a Democrat. Like Zell Miller, Joe Lieberman, and Evan Bayh, he is a rational Democrat. These Democrats proudly and properly hold the title of the "loyal opposition." That meant that both Democrats and Republicans united on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the Unites States, but differed in their protection and implementation. The term "loyal opposition" does not exist any longer, other than with these men.

If you want to read what and how a Democrat Party member should think, read Victor Davis Hanson, and never miss another one of his articles.

Sunday, September 26, 2004

Outstanding Point:Counter-Point about Misunderstanding the Islamic Threat

Two good articles complement each other as well as contrasting with other regarding the threat of Islam to the USA. Both articles cannot be recommended too highly.

The first comes from the Chicago Tribune: "STRUGGLE FOR THE SOUL OF ISLAM, A rare look at secretive Brotherhood in America" and sub-subtitled, "Muslims divided on Brotherhood;
A group aiming to create Islamic states worldwide has established roots here, in large part under the guidance of Egypt-born Ahmed Elkadi", By Noreen S. Ahmed-Ullah, Sam Roe and Laurie Cohen, Tribune staff reporters, published September 19, 2004,,1,3947993.story?coll=chi-news-hed.

The second is MISUNDERSTANDING THE ENEMY: THE ISLAMIC THREAT AND THE U.S. MEDIA by Srdja Trifkovic, in Chronicles Magagine, September 22, 2004,

Both address the covert threat to the United States from Islam and its Muslims. The first article focuses entirely on the Muslim Brotherhood, now known in the USA under the innocuous title of Muslim American Society, a vague educational and charitable society for Muslims. The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt in 1928 and became so viciously radical and destructive that Egypt banned it and rounded up its leaders and killed them. This article tells a great deal about what the Muslim Brotherhood are up to in this country.

By contrast, the second article tells what Paul Harvey might call, the rest of the story -- and then some. It deals with the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood has a highly specific set of goals to take over the USA and make it a Muslim State, and it has never wavered in that goal since it came to America. The article also points out that MOST MUSLIM IMMIGRANTS to America agree with its goals and practices, just as they agree with all of the other vicious practices of Islam.

The second article goes one further to diagnose how liberal media, represented by the first article, try to sugar-coat and minimize the dangers of Islam to America. It also shows how Muslims are trying to overwhelm America with immigration in order to build up enough numbers to take over without firing a shot. The facts and figures are chilling.

Both articles are worth getting, reading, and keeping.

Saturday, September 25, 2004

The Middle Eastern American Convention for Freedom and Democracy

There is a new phenomenon out there in this war against jihad, and we have blogged it before. It is the Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism. I subscribe to their emailings, and I just received this. I am not aware of anything like this since 11 September 2001.

To date, I see good things being said by the Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism. As much as I want to endorse them, I want to see a track record, because, frankly, I do not trust Muslims. Built into Islam are time-tested methods of deceit and fifth column work. We do not need any more Trojan horses. However, I want to help publicize what they are saying and doing, and I want them to be what they say they are -- we really need American Muslims to stand up with the rest of Americans for America. So far, that is what they are doing, and I applaud them.

This invitation is extraordinary, and we republish it here with pleasure.

The Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism Invites you to:

The Middle Eastern American Convention for Freedom and Democracy.

A number of Muslim and Middle Eastern American Organizations are teaming up to put together the largest Muslim and Middle Eastern American event ever organized in the USA. This convention is organized by groups who want to take the lead in the war on terrorism, fanaticism and who love freedom and democracy. It will also challenge organizations in the US who have been falsely claiming to exclusively represent the opinions and aspirations of all Muslims, Arabs and Middle Eastern Americans. The Convention will conclude with a letter to President Bush and the US Congress expressing our support for the war on terror and our passionate desire to take the lead in this war. This convention is a more accurate window to 8 million American Muslims and Middle Easterners who favor freedom and reject terror.

Among the topics to be discussed are terrorism, Iraq, Israel/Palestine, women’s rights and religious and ethnic discrimination.

This Convention will be held in Washington, DC on Friday, October 1, 2004 at the Wardman Park Marriott, starting at 6pm. Other cultural and intellectual activities will take place during the day. President Bush has been invited and may be speaking at the event. The cost for the event is $100, including dinner.

For more information or to reserve, contact the Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism at 202-262-3491. Reserve via email at

  • Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism
  • American Islamic Congress
  • American Islamic Forum for Democracy
  • Center for Islamic pluralism
  • American Lebanese Alliance
  • American Lebanese Coalition
  • American Lebanese Coordination Council
  • American Libyan Freedom Alliance
  • American Maronite Union
  • American Middle-East Christian Association
  • Assembly for LebanonAssyrian Academic Society
  • Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism
  • Iranian American Coalition
  • Kurdish Patriotic Union
  • Lebanese Information Center
  • Flame - Mauritania Campaign
  • Reform Party for Syria
  • South Sudan Movement of America
  • Sudan-Darfur Organization
  • The American Coptic Association
  • The Saudi Institute
  • US Alliance for Democratic Iran
  • U.S. Copts Association
  • Women's Forum Against Fundamentalism in Iran
  • World Lebanese Cultural Union - USA

For more information visit our website at:

Friday, September 24, 2004

Tangling with barbed wire

We have been experiencing some irregularities and delays trying to do a nearly daily blog. Several compositions have been "eaten" by the system, and we just did not have time to re-do them. Was it this blogging system? Was it us? Was it both? We haven't figured it out yet, but it has seemed like we have been tangling with barbed wire. The winner of that tussle scores a Pyrrhic Victory. We are making some changes to prevent future losses. Why am I writing all of this? Is anyone out there reading it?

I dunno, but, there, I feel better.


The Blogosphere and the Pajamaheddin, by Frederick Turner, published 09/21/2004, Tech Central Station

Enjoy reading the first two paragraphs of this fine article:

"A week or two before the issue of the supposed National Guard memos on President Bush's military service came up, I speculated on this site about the emergence of a new cyber-public in response to the discrediting of many of the traditional news media. Luck made me a prophet: the exposure of the memos as forgeries was a textbook example of what I had been talking about.

"Minutes after the hapless CBS had thrown its nicely aged "evidence" up on the screen, the bloggers were at work. Little Green Footballs and Power Line took the lead. The venerable Instapundit quarterbacked. Drudge provided communications with the mainstream; the incomparable Lileks played a witty and sardonic prose obbligato, and your own TCS gave in-depth analysis. In a few hours the web had flushed out dozens of first-rate information sources: witnesses to parts of the deception, legal and political experts, specialists on documents, handwriting, typewriters, computers, copiers, typefaces, military terminology, and Texas National Guard history -- and insiders of all kinds. The story grew, solidified, and started to rock the political geography of the country."

We are in another paradigm shift. "The system is dead. Long live the system!" The system in this case is "traditional journalism," as reflected by entities such as CBS News. This article chronicles the moment of change, and how it played out. In fact, the article is a joyous celebration of the change, and we have every reason to join that celebration.

For some time now, the Blogosphere, as someone coined it, has been forming, like some cosmic entity gathering bits of space dust and matter on its way to becoming something quite spectacular. It follows the venerable tradition of talk radio which seriously changed who could give news and opine, and the other side got its voice. Traditional journalism raged at that, and still does, and the displaced johnny-one-notes of the left want laws to throttle what their incompetence cannot compete with.

As a blogger myself, focusing much more on events surrounding, involving, and underpinning Islamic jihad and the fifth columnists who seek to further it at America's expense, I have experienced what the author of this article describes:

"The new tone that entered the blogosphere was a sense of responsibility to the truth. The bloggers looked around themselves and saw that nobody else had the powerful means, the democratic and distributed organization, the robust egalitarian truculence, and the absence of interest conflict to act as the truth's final guardian and court of appeal. The mainstream journalists had abdicated their responsibility, the political parties were obviously willing to bend the truth, the academy had philosophically repudiated the concept of truth, the courts were increasing based on adversarial rhetorical virtuosity, rather than the establishment of fact. So it was up to the bloggers. "

Yes, yes, yes, that's it! I am proud to participate, whatever the size of my contribution.

As a red-white-and-blue American who totally opposes Islam and its jihad, I find the new name for bloggers to be absolutely delicious. It was someone in CBS who coined this fabulous term:

"Just at that moment one of the CBS apparatchiks, one Jonathan Klein, chose to coin a woefully contagious phrase. He attacked the blogosphere as guys sitting in their living rooms in their pajamas. The Web picked this up with unholy glee. Pajama cartoons spread across the airwaves. Somebody coined the term "the Pajamaheddin" for the bloggers, who had accepted the insult as joyfully as the rebel Impressionists had accepted their own (originally hostile) sobriquet. The blogosphere had identified itself, and named itself, and provided itself with a new Trickster identity; and its apostles would have to live up to their chosen character as the gadflies of the truth, the guerrillas of the ugly fact."

PAJAMAHEDDIN: I like that, as Andy Rooney might say.

Wednesday, September 22, 2004

The rapid Islamization of Europe

WorldNetDaily: The rapid Islamization of Europe

Take this issue very seriously. Read this article by Robert Spencer. Then read the Front Page Magazine article by Bat Ye'or which we cited yesterday. This mess is coming our way. It is already in Canada. The virus is a DNA of bad ideas, all of which are very anti-American. The virus is already trying to get a foothold in the USA. It has succeeding in the journalistic media, entertainment media, academia, and in a lot of power politics. It has not won, and we must not let it.

"Sick" = Evil

Paul Johnson Beheading Video Surfaces on Internet - Jeremy Reynalds -�

Americans tend to call things which are horrible by our standards as "sick." This article by Jeremy Reynalds in Mens News Daily references one Abu Hajar's comments.

"The gruesome beheading video of engineer Paul Johnson has finally surfaced on the Internet. (View an edited version of the video here . Caution: Extemely gruesome video.) While still pictures of Johnson after his decapitation have been available at radical Islamic sites such as for some time, this video has just come to light. An individual using the name Abu Hajar writing on the "Its Happening" bulletin board ( on July 17 posted a short note titled "Learn How to Behead Paul Johnson."

"Hajar wrote (sic), "To the admin: i hope that you dont become frightened and remove the file." Hajar ended his post by writing, "Our deaths are in the paradise and their deaths are at the hell." Hajar's post was not well received on the "It's Happening" board, with a number of members responding with both threatening and profane posts. The link posted by Hajar,, takes viewers to the beheading of Johnson. The short video begins with chanting and then shows video of helicopters, interspersed with the rubble apparently following an explosion. The scene then shifts to a picture of Johnson sitting blindfolded with his mouth moving – possibly praying. Viewers then see Johnson's head being hacked off in fast movements. The killer then callously wipes the blood from his knife on Johnson's orange jump suit and places his head on his back.

"According to international media, the video was titled "The Voice of Jihad: Get the infidels out of the Arabian Peninsula." Voice of Jihad is the name of a periodical issued on the Internet twice monthly by the al-Qaeda cell in Saudi Arabia, which claimed responsibility for Johnson's killing."

The article continues discussing the source website and others.

Abu Hajar probably is not "sick" in any psychiatric or medical sense, although I must guess since I have no acquaintance with him. I want to try to divest Americans from labeling these vermin as "sick." We tend to excuse the sick because they are sick.

What Abu Hajar is, and those like him are, is evil. If you value life, freedom, individuality, and the capitalist system which makes prosperity and happiness attainable, then you are polar opposite to the Abu Hajars. You could choose what he values, but you won't because you would be choosing something very much against life on earth, humanity, and happiness. By any objective standard, yours is a morality of life and humanity. Yours is a standard of good.

Multiculturalists, ethical relativists, and the politically correct will immediately counter with the notion that what is good for you is not necessarily good for Abu Hajar. And the proper answer to that is, Oh, yes, it is. Furthermore, you can prove it, objectively.

The Abu Hajars get their morality from Islam. Islam enshrines death, not life; self-sacrifice, not self-fulfillment; and hatred, not happiness. If theirs is not an objective standard of evil, then evil has no meaning. It is not a matter of irrelevant choice. Islam is evil as doctrine, and evil as practice. Abu Hajar says it, "Our deaths are in the paradise and their deaths are at the hell." They rationalize their evil through the lie of their going to Paradise (Heaven). If they thought all the blood, pain, suffering, misery, and death were so all-fired good, they would not have to rationalize any of it. Underneath they know they are living as subhumans ethically, even if not a one can verbalize it.

No, we must judge them. They are evil. They can be nothing but evil as long as they uphold Islam. Islam is evil.

Cut Islam no slack. Cut Islamists no slack. Give them no benefit of the doubt. They have made their own case. They are evil, and they want to make America like them. Make America safe from Islam.

Tuesday, September 21, 2004


FrontPage :: Eurabia by Jamie Glazov

In a Frontpage Exclusive, scholar Bat Ye'or discusses the Arabization and Islamization of Europe.

Monday, September 20, 2004

From droplets come mighty rivers ...

Jihad Watch: Rage of the Muslim in defence of a peaceful religion

Football Sundays are good for two great reasons: (1.) NFL football; and, (2.) catching up on the great Islam-related reading from the truly wonderful websites available these days. Robert Spencer's utterly superb Jihad Watch for 19 September features a very revealing article from a moderate Malaysian Muslim and outstanding comments from readers of Jihad Watch.

The article was written by Fatimah Abu Bakar for the New Straits Times.

A few quotes express this Muslim's quandry, confusion, and dilemma:

"Can we, the truly caring decent Muslims, not protest? Can we not say to the world that no, you have it wrong. Islam is not about killing. Islam is not about attacking five-year-olds on the threshold of a new life in a new country, killing them or leaving them impaired for life, if not physically, then definitely psychologically.

"Islam is not about killing, torture and revenge, but whom do we tell this to? Where can we, the common man, go to plead the case for Islam? Is there a world tribunal for redress where people like you and I can plead on behalf of our faith? Where we can explain in simple layman's terms that mad people kill, not religion? I know I am not equipped to delve at length into the philosophies and the fatwa, or the intricacies and the why of clever things like international relations and politics. I just despair that we have still not resolved age-old differences, nor healed age-old wounds. Since the dawn of mankind, we have always been at strife with one another.

"People who kill innocents and who do not respect life must be exposed. Decent Muslims must stand up to expose them for the devils that they are for the sake of all good and peace-loving Muslims.

"And we have to do it now.

"For Muslims all over are being condemned and spat upon by people who do not know better.

"The Muslim world must counter these atrocities. For how else can we set the balance right? Soon after Sept 11, I remember sitting horrified for days watching and listening to the reports on CNN and BBC. Much of what was happening was beamed to the world, primarily through these two channels. The news was slanted to portray the suicide bombers as the cold-hearted cowardly common murderers that they were. And I cringed at the terms that flailed my very soul — Muslim terrorists, Muslim suicide bombers, Muslim this and Muslim that. It is so unfair to be associated with killers who have no right to call themselves Muslims."

If this is the mentality of the literate, moderate Muslim, reform of Islam may have no chance. This person expresses little to no knowledge of the history of Islam and its doctrines. Were this person educated to these, he or she would see that the jihadists are consistent practitioners of the Islam which came from Muhammad. There is no peacefulness, love, and humanity in orthodox Islam. These qualities have been superimposed by moderate Muslims, who, by deviating, have become "hypocrites," in Islamic parlance. However, these admirable qualities ought to be a part of a fundamental reformation of Islam.

While this Muslim is awash with anguish, commentors--I am proud to say--to this article on Jihad Watch "get it." More and more, westerners are "getting it." The swelling numbers remind me that the Amazon River begins as droplets in the Andes mountains.

Some of the comments are worth citing:

From Nicholei, who referred this article to JW:

"Osama and the likes of him are able to and confidently quote from the Koran and hadiths to justify their terror. Many of the Muslim terrorists have studied in madrassahs and too many Islamic teachers and scholars have have been associated with or condoned the Islamic terrorists for their Islam to be classified as an aberration. Those who do so, like this writer, can at best only quote the Meccan revelations, but they are unable to effectively deal with the Islamic doctrine of abrogation -- whereby the violent Medina verses that inspires the terrorists, overrules the peaceful Meccan verses. Islamic orthodoxy has consistently branded Muslims who deny the authority of the hadiths as heretics.

"While I can cheer for Muslims like this writer, I also pity them; for until they deal with the violent verses in the Koran and hadiths and their historical tradition of violent jihad, they will be unable to convince knowledgable Muslims like Osama that what the terrorists did and will do in the name of Islam is wrong. On the contrary, Osama will view these peaceful Muslims as apostates, who ran away from the battle -- and deserve their wrath with extreme prejudice."

From RW:

"Whether the writer likes it or not, the 9/11 hijackers WERE Muslims and they WERE terrorists and they DID kill 3000 or more people.

"Whether he likes it or not, the murderous lunatic that hacked of the heads of Nick Berg and the Nepalese man did so in the name of Allah and Islam and even shouted it out as he was doing so.

"The fact also remains that every bombing, hijack, beheading (another one in Kashmir, yesterday) etc are all being done in the name of Allah and Islam."

From witness:

"The writer may be well intentioned, but is a "revisionist."

"islam is, what it has always been; no amount of revision, how ever well meaning and intended, can change the fundemental tenets of islam or its history.

"The writer faces a choice of either getting out of islam on pain of death; or eventually coming to grips with its more unsavory aspects and embracing them.

"I do not envy this writers precarious situation."

From callistos:

"Islam was born bad, Muhammed was a terrorist and therefore islam cannot be salvaged or reformed. "

The most profound comments came from Hugh, who regularly comments in Jihad Watch:

"Islam, a study of its history reveals, is responsible for the ills of the Muslim countries. It is Islam, as a vehicle of Arab imperialism, that has deprived large numbers of people of any real understanding of their own past, any connection to history other than that timeless one that Islam provides. "

Hugh delivers the knock-out punch which undercuts all resistance to reforming Islam:

"One need not be locked forever into a belief-system that inculcates hostility, even murder, of those who do not share that belief-system, that systematically suppresses women, that suppresses freedom of conscience by prescribing death for apostates, that limits free inquiry (why, after all, have there been fewer translations into Arabic, in all of recorded history, than the number of translations made each year in Spain alone -- surely the reason is the remarkable lack of curiosity, born both of fear and contempt, for anything that is non-Islamic, except perhaps as a curio, or when absolutely necessary for certain limited ends, such as weapons technology).

"Not everyone who, through no fault of his or her own, is born into Islam, is a robot or automaton. Not everyone born into Islam, through no fault of his own, is willing indefinitely to accept this belief-system without some inquiry into its origins in history (an attempt by pagan Arabs to offer a belief-system, familiar and yet different, that would both justify and promote their conquest of much larger, settled, richer, more advanced populations of Christians and Jews in Mesopotamia, Syria, Judea, Egypt, North Africa). Some of these people will call themselves ex-Muslims. Some will say nothing, and quietly move away. And others will attempt to have the Higher Criticism that was applied to Christiantiy and Judaism applied to Islam."

In short, humans are equipped by their fundamental nature to get out of this quagmire called Islam. They do it and can do it because of the human being's nature: (1.) Humans have volitional consciousness; and (2.) humans can employment reason. We are born with the capacity to think. Whether we use this capacity or not constitutes a choice each of us makes myriad times in life. When we do elect to use our minds properly to think at the human level, we need reason as our processor. Apostates from Islam have demonstrated beautifully how they got out of the trap in such books as Ibn Warraq's, Leaving Islam. Muslims' blinders must come off. They must accept Islam for all of its evil before they can change it, and change it, they must. Their dedication to reality and reason must be turned on. And, they must no longer accept wallowing in filth, mud, degradation, and backwardness as their predestined lot in life when cleanliness, health, happiness, and prosperity lie within their grasps.

No one to my knowledge has said that the way out is easy, but there is a way out. Some more will take it; many will not. The way out is a door that never closes.

Arab-Islamists suffer from the same self-induced syndrome disabling many in American minority groups. They see themselves as victims, and they love wallowing in their victimhood. Their victimism serves to rationalize laziness and non-productivity. It enshrines non-effort. How easy it is to say that they just could not help it-- "Such is the life Allah ordained for me." People who think like this need to be given all the pig wallows they seek, and that ought to be the only thing given them. It is immoral to support any who will not help themselves on principle, whether in the Middle East or in America. Give them the option, and if they opt out, then let them fall on their own swords and perish by their own hands. We need to expedite their removal as pains in our asses.

Friday, September 17, 2004

FIFTH COLUMN ALERT: Journalists, Islamists, and More Liberal Cognition

If you do not subscribe to the sundry emailings from Daniel Pipes (they're free), you really ought to. This man always writes something worth reading, and this article, to follow, is a good example.

This article exposes by examples one of the serious thinking flaws in liberal-socialist-communist thinking. The flaw is their putting their wishes ahead of the facts, and giving supremacy to their wishes.

Philosophically, this type of thinking fallacy is very, very old, even predating Plato. You would think it would have gone away by now, but the attraction to it for some people is irresistable. An excellent name for this flaw is "primacy of consciousness" metaphysics and epistemology. In plain language, this means putting conscious contents and actions ahead of reality. Normal people realize that the facts of reality always supercede what we think and feel about them. Normal people do not think that if we want it bad enough, then it will be true. Immature children and psychotics do think this, however.

Liberals use this thinking flaw daily and in every way they can. A good example is their regard for the United Nations. To them, the UN is THE supreme consciousness. What the UN wants or believes is TRUE. What it opposes is FALSE. Note how "groupie" liberals are. To them the group is all, and the individual is nothing (I cite the many statements of Ted Kennedy as prime examples). The bigger the group, the greater the truth to these people. Years ago, there was a popular statement which sums up this flaw quite well: "Twenty million Frenchmen can't be wrong." Oh, yes, they can. Reality always wins.

In this article by Daniel Pipes, he cites examples of this thinking flaw which permeates journalistic media these days (as well as academia and most of government). Journalists of the fifth column type go to extraordinary lengths not to name or identify something they do not want. Note the supremacy of emotions here, again. If you do not identify Muslim jihadists, Islamists, as the international criminals that they are, then they won't be baddies. Why, they can be what we want them to be: just "freedom fighters."

This is perversion of the most dispicable type. The more we can expose these fifth columnists for what they are, we can wither them away.

They're Terrorists - Not Activists, by Daniel Pipes, New York Sun, September 7, 2004;

"I know it when I see it" was the famous response by a U.S. Supreme Court justice to the vexed problem of defining pornography. Terrorism may be no less difficult to define, but the wanton killing of schoolchildren, of mourners at a funeral, or workers at their desks in skyscrapers surely fits the know-it-when-I-see-it definition.

The press, however, generally shies away from the word terrorist, preferring euphemisms. Take the assault that led to the deaths of some 400 people, many of them children, in Beslan, Russia, on September 3. Journalists have delved deep into their thesauruses, finding at least twenty euphemisms for terrorists:

Assailants -
National Public Radio.
Attackers – the
Bombers – the
Captors – the
Associated Press.
Commandos –
Agence France-Presse refers to the terrorists both as "membres du commando" and "commando."
Criminals - the
Times (London).
Extremists –
United Press International.
Fighters – the
Washington Post.
Group – the
Guerrillas: in a
New York Post editorial.
Gunmen –
Hostage-takers - the
Los Angeles Times.
Insurgents – in a
New York Times headline.
Kidnappers – the
Observer (London).
Militants – the
Chicago Tribune.
Perpetrators – the
New York Times.
Radicals – the
Rebels – in a
Sydney Morning Herald headline.
Separatists – the
Christian Science Monitor.
And my favorite:
Activists – the
Pakistan Times.

The origins of this unwillingness to name terrorists seems to lie in the Arab-Israeli conflict, prompted by an odd combination of sympathy in the press for the Palestinian Arabs and intimidation by them. The sympathy is well known; the intimidation less so. Reuters' Nidal al-Mughrabi made the latter explicit in advice for fellow reporters in Gaza to avoid trouble on the Web site, where one tip reads: "Never use the word terrorist or terrorism in describing Palestinian gunmen and militants; people consider them heroes of the conflict."
The reluctance to call terrorists by their rightful name can reach absurd lengths of inaccuracy and apologetics. For example, National Public Radio's Morning Edition announced on April 1, 2004, that "Israeli troops have arrested 12 men they say were wanted militants." But CAMERA, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America,
pointed out the inaccuracy here and NPR issued an on-air correction on April 26: "Israeli military officials were quoted as saying they had arrested 12 men who were ‘wanted militants.' But the actual phrase used by the Israeli military was ‘wanted terrorists.'"

(At least NPR corrected itself. When
the Los Angeles Times made the same error, writing that "Israel staged a series of raids in the West Bank that the army described as hunts for wanted Palestinian militants," its editors refused CAMERA's request for a correction on the grounds that its change in terminology did not occur in a direct quotation.)

Metro, a Dutch paper, ran a picture on May 3, 2004, of two gloved hands belonging to a person taking fingerprints off a dead terrorist. The caption read: "An Israeli police officer takes fingerprints of a dead Palestinian. He is one of the victims (slachtoffers) who fell in the Gaza strip yesterday." One of the victims!

Euphemistic usage then spread from the Arab-Israeli conflict to other theaters. As terrorism picked up in Saudi Arabia such press outlets as
The Times (London) and the Associated Press began routinely using militants in reference to Saudi terrorists. Reuters uses it with reference to Kashmir and Algeria.

Thus has militants become the press's default term for terrorists.

These self-imposed language limitations sometimes cause journalists to tie themselves into knots. In
reporting the murder of one of its own cameraman, the BBC, which normally avoids the word terrorist, found itself using that term. In another instance, the search engine on the BBC website includes the word terrorist but the page linked to has had that word expurgated.
Politically-correct news organizations undermine their credibility with such subterfuges. How can one trust what one reads, hears, or sees when the self-evident fact of terrorism is being semi-denied?

Worse, the multiple euphemisms for terrorist obstruct a clear understanding of the violent threats confronting the civilized world. It is bad enough that only one of five articles discussing the Beslan atrocity mentions its Islamist origins; worse is the miasma of words that insulates the public from the evil of terrorism.

To comment on this article, please go to see the Daniel Pipes archive, go to
To subscribe to or unsubscribe from this list, go to (Daniel Pipes sends out a mailing of his writings 2-3 times a week.)
Sign up for related (but non-duplicating) e-mail services: Middle East Forum (media alerts, event reports, MEQ articles): Campus Watch (research, news items, press releases): Middle East Intelligence Bulletin (monthly publication):
You may freely forward this information, but on condition that you send the text as an integral whole along with complete information about its author, date, and source.

New Material on 6th Column Against Jihad Website

New article ("Lies of Islam") and "They Said It" material on 6th Column Against Jihad.

Thursday, September 16, 2004



Some days, Front Page Magazine is just loaded with extremely useful and interesting articles. This is one such day, and that is why I have linked to the entire magazine. (If you click this link after today, 16 September 2004, you will need to go to the magazine archives to see and obtain today's articles.)

One article I want to single out. It is a book review of Voices of Terror: Manifestos, Writings and Manuals of al-Qaeda, Hamas, and other Terrorists from around the World and throughout the Ages, edited by Walter Laqueur, New York: Reed Press, 2004. 520 pp. $19.95. The reviewer"Dr. J. Peter Pham is at James Madison University, Harrisonburg, Virginia. He is the author, most recently, of Liberia: Portrait of a Failed State (Reed Press, 2004)." His review in Front Page Magazine is entitled, "Taking Terrorists at Their Word."

Dr. Pham closes his review with "But if it is the fate of the West to be tested in the forge of this unrelenting and asymmetrical warfare, then in confronting their foes, free societies would do well to be armed with a knowledge and understanding of the forces—no matter how seemingly irrational or alien—that motivate the terrorists."

There are far too many Americans who do not take terrorists at their word, even though they spell out in elaborate detail exactly what they plan to do to us. Jihadists these days know and exploit our sundry weaknesses, all of which are correctable. Says Dr. Pham, Dr. Lacquer's anthology presents "their insight into the weakness of will in the West." Our ignorance coupled with our lack of taking these jihadists at their work coupled with the weaknesses produced by erroneous and pseudo-moralities keeps us turning our soft bellies to the terrorists so they can plunge in their swords.

I have not read this book, but I will. There is no such thing as knowing one's enemies too well. From this review, I think any American who is interested in the survival of America and his and her loved ones should read it as well.

Wednesday, September 15, 2004

CBS and RatherGate: Liberal Cognition

Everyone knows the story now, how CBS' 60 Minutes II and Dan Rather foisted a story in order to smear Pres. Bush. Everyone now knows that it backfired. It blew up quickly and completely. Only CBS remains in denial.

To me, this story represents a highly characteristic way liberals "think," or cognize.

Liberals want a certain result. They start from the end, from the conclusion, and begin working back towards the beginning. All of this is done under the sway of emotions, which liberals regard as sound tools of thinking. The real world knows that emotions are no such thing.

As they crawl retrograde back to the beginning, they deal with the thoughts in the whole chain as follows. Those they like, i.e., those which lead to the conclusion they WANT, they keep. These are good data, according to them.

The thoughts which do not conform to the result they WANT, they "deal with." When possible, they just leave out relevant thoughts that do not conform to what they WANT. This is lying-by-omission.

Often, however, they need to bridge the beginning of the thought chain with the conclusion they WANT. Here they confabulate. They lie. They make up stuff. This is lying-by-commission.

Then they peddle their confabulations in order to produce a desired result.

CBS wanted to hurt President Bush because their boy, Kerry, keeps looking like the dope he is. CBS wants Kerry -- or any Democrat -- in the White House. Kerry exposed himself very foolishly with his pathological emphasis on his Vietnam "service." I suspect the Kerry campaign supplied CBS with the bogus documents, but this remains to be proved. CBS wanted the result so badly that they threw what is left of their tattered objectivity away to put out a lie and try to roll over people's acceptance because CBS is CBS. Now, CBS looks like a propaganda machine which cannot be trusted again to tell the truth.

This type of flawed cognition is one reason why liberals must never be trusted with powerful and important positions in government, academia, and journalism. Our survival must never depend on whether we can rely on someone who cannot tell the difference between his thoughts and his feelings.

Tuesday, September 14, 2004

It Is Over

At midnight last night, a bit of freedom renewed. The so-called "assault weapons ban" law died.

The most important lesson from this comes not from allowing the banned to be unbanned. No, it is in the fact that this law was given a limited life span at its birth. Without renewal, it died.

Think about it. What if ALL LAWS and ALL REGULATIONS had an automatic expiration? That is, legislators would have to take specific action to renew any for them to continue to have any effect.

Go one better. Suppose that all laws and all regulations on the books, since the beginning of the country, had the same life limitation applied, retroactively.

Legislators would be tied up trying to sift the wheat from the chaff for a very long time because there are so many laws and regulations, so many of which have no reason to exist. That would keep these bums off the streets!

Suppose all future laws and regulations could not be in force for more than three years unless specifically renewed, and suppose it took at least a 60% majority vote to renew them. Talk about getting the d_____d government off our backs!

However, there is another element of joy in the death of the "assault weapons ban." It was a stupid, useless law that was designed to make the cud-chewing voters think that these bums in Congress had actually done something useful. It was a political lie, and now it is gone.

I totally oppose any form of governmental gun control for any reason whatsoever. I love guns. I love how beautifully they are made, how great they feel, and what they can do. I love owning them.

Were it up to me, I would allow ALL citizens to be armed and trained, and to carry firearms should they desire. I would love knowing that granny could blow the matted top off the head of any evil-doer with a single shot.

I own firearms, and I always will. I own them because I love them. I own them for self-defense. And, I own them to take the pleasure they give me when I use them at ranges.

The biggest reason for owning guns, however, lies in the one thing that the gun control fanatics fear the most: The government can be overthrown by the armed citizenry. That is why the Founders wanted us armed, and that is why I want us armed.

We are a nation of laws, but more importantly, we are a nation of principles directing the laws. Being just a nation of laws allow laws to pass to disarm the citizens and tyrannize them. Think of how FDR literally stole the gold from Americans in the early 1930s. An unarmed citizenry is no match for an armed force. Not only do we need to be able to take out life and property threatening criminals, but we may need to take out jihadists. It is not so clear that the drift of America toward some form of socialism might not necessitate taking back the country to restore reason and the Rights of Man.

To celebrate the death of that awful law, I plan to buy what was forbidden, and a shotgun, and probably a semi-automatic pistol with as big a magazine as I can find.

Russia's Gathering Storm

Russia's Gathering Storm

Feeling sorry for the children and innocents in the Beslan disaster makes sense. Feeling sorry for the Russians does not. More specifically, reaching out to help Vladimir Putin makes no sense.

Stephen Schwartz in this article provides an excellent summary of the situation regarding Chechnya and Russia. He gives excellent history as well as analysis.

Schwartz also reminds us that the hand of Wahhabism stirs this pot of violence, and the source of the agents and their funding lies in Saudi Arabia. We continue to do nothing about Saudi Arabia and its all but official sponsorship of jihadism. We must never lose focus and never forget. I would hope after the election, President Bush will give Saudi Arabia an ultimatum. I won't hold my breath.

I have long suspected that Putin wants to restore and head a totalitarian dictatorship in Russia. He is no friend of ours at any time for any reason. Schwartz gives some compelling information about Putin and his ambitions, including the possibility that Putin's filthy hand made Beslan happen. It became his "Reichstag Fire," so named because Hitler burned down this august German equivalent of our Capitol Building and blamed it on the Communists so that he would be voted into power. Putin belongs in the same cesspool with France and Germany. We must never forget that just because the USSR fell, Russian communism and communists did not.

Monday, September 13, 2004

Is One Swallow Making a Spring?

We have cited the organization, Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism, previously. What they have put on their website, in their press releases, and what the spokesman, Kamal Nawash, have stated have sounded promising. We have said that we must see consistent evidence over a sufficient time to be convinced that they hold proper values, thus deserve support. Here is another piece of positive evidence.

To my recollection, this type of piece is a first. It is a welcomed first. It flies in the face of the cognitive trap that ensnares Arab-Islamists, namely that of denying any responsibility and projecting blame. What Mr. Nawash says is adult and mature in cognition. It can never make up for damage done, but it does begin to open the door to the future. It is a brave, bold, and elegant statement.

My only concern is that Mr. Nawash refers to Islam as a "peaceful religion." It takes very little study of Islam, the type of study open to anyone who makes the effort to read a book or two, to see that Islam is by definition, so to speak, a violent religion resembling Nazism in style and goals. Muslims who are not violent are really "deviants." They are breaking with the tenets of Islam. Let us be thankful that they are breaking with Islam, but let us realize that they are hypocrites, which Muhammad deplored. But, then, let us realize that all practitioners of all religions are hypocrites, which they must be if they choose to live and prosper on earth. Were they consistent with the tenets of their religions, they would be unable to stay alive.

Here are excerpts. The whole statement is worth reading on Mr. Nawash's website. We hope this is the beginning of disinfecting Islam and Muslims so that they can join the family of free men and women as free men and women.

"We are so Sorry for 9-11September 11, 2004
By Kamal Nawash

This September 11 marks the third unforgettable anniversary of the
worst mass murder in American history. After September 11, many in the
Muslim world chose denial and hallucination rather than face up to the sad fact
that Muslims perpetrated the 9-11 terrorist acts and that we have an enormous
problem with extremism and support for terrorism.

What will it take for Muslims to realize that those who commit mass murder
in the name of Islam are not just a few fringe elements?

What will it take for Muslims to realize that we are facing a crisis that
is more deadly than the Aids epidemic? What will it take for Muslims to realize
that there is a large evil movement that is turning what was a peaceful religion
into a cult? Will Muslims wake up before it is too late?

We should not be afraid to admit that as Muslims we have a problem with
violent extremism. We should not be afraid to admit that so many of our
religious leaders belong behind bars and not behind a pulpit.

Only moderate Muslims can challenge and defeat extremist Muslims. We can no
longer afford to be silent.

If we remain silent to the extremism within our community then we should
not expect anyone to listen to us when we complain of stereotyping and
discrimination by non-Muslims; we should not be surprised when the world treats
all of us as terrorists; we should not be surprised when we are profiled at

Simply put, not only do Muslims need to join the war against terror, we
need to take the lead in this war.As to apologizing, we will no longer wait for
our religious leaders and “intellectuals” to do the right thing. Instead, we
will start by apologizing for 9-11.

We are so sorry for a religious education that raised killers rather than
train people to do good in the world. We are sorry that we did not take the time
to teach our children tolerance and respect for other people. We are so sorry
for not rising up against the dictators who have ruled the Muslim world for

We are so sorry for allowing corruption to spread so fast and so deep in
the Muslim world that many of our youth lost hope. We are so sorry for allowing
our religious leaders to relegate women to the status of forth class citizens at
best and sub-humans at worse.

We are so sorry. "

Saturday, September 11, 2004


I knew this anniversary was coming, and I really wanted to write something meaningful. But, as the day grew closer, I felt a torpor setting in. If this happened on the anniversaries in 2002 and 2003, it must not have been enough to take a seat in my memory. This year is very different.

The torpor I feel is that leadening of spirit, cognition, and even body that results in sitting quietly and vacantly on the couch, seemingly aware of very little. In fact, I am aware of very much. Images and clusters of emotions come into and fade out of my consciousness like blobs in a lava lamp. If I seek them, they do not come. They seem to have a will of their own.

I can introspect pain. It is mine and all of those with whom I indentified that awful day and for the days that followed. Some is grief; some is depression; some is rage. I still want to take out Islamia using the might of the USA all at once, and using our full arsenal. When the dust and smoke clear, I want nothing left of them more advanced than the 7th century A.D., which they long so much for.

My dominant emotion is anger. This anger comes from justice not yet done, and in many ways, justice not yet begun. Just as I want no more 11 Septembers in the USA or any of the events of the 70s, 80s, and 90s which told the jihadists that it was safe to get us here at home, I want no more Fallujas, Najafs, Sadr Cities, Sunni Triangles. I will go one more. I want no more Qoms, Medinas, Meccas, Palestines, or Bekaa Valleys. Their behaviors merit their extinctions.

In America, I want no more liberals-socialists-communists (you sort out who is who if you can) who undercut our rational unity and will to stand up for America first and foremost and always, and anyone else next who allies with us against Islam. I want an end to all fifth columnists and their anti-American behaviors. I want to close the borders and throw out everyone who is not a citizen. I want some other solution to the wetback problem, including growing my own lettuce, if necessary. I want Islam given the same legal status as Nazism. I want all of the lobby groups from Islamia banned and disbanded. I want profiling of Islamists and the bugging of every mosque. I have no problem with formally banning Islam from the United States of America.

Prior to 11 September 2001, I did not have these thoughts and feelings. In fact, I was unwittingly a part of America's problem. I had not taken Islam seriously, thus had let myself remain ignorant for three decades.

That changed because I changed radically that awful day. When I got enough of my thoughts, energy, and spirits back, I set about erasing that ignorance. The first two years, I had not gone far enough. Over this past year, I have reached a level of expertise that I needed. In the next days, months, years, I will advance much farther. I have come to empathize with Samuel Adams, one of the old revolutionaries, who did so much to wake up fledgling America to the need for freedom.

What I do now with a website and blog, and the development of a book, I love, because it is a patriotic endeavor using everything I ever learned in the past six decades. I have joined others who are now sorts of "Johnny Idea-seeds." We are trying to awaken and educate Americans to the fact that we are fighting a war of ideas with Islamism, and we must act in accord with preserving and protecting those ideas which make America great.

A lot has changed in three years. We face the most serious election since 2001. One candidate takes on the war and tries to keep that war in the backyard of the Islamists. The other candidate wants to turn us into Sweden and will invite more 9-11s through his weaknesses which permeate his entire character.

Four airplanes that awful day and 19 ragheads changed us forever. Heroes emerged from everywhere to transfuse the nation with help and loving care. The passengers of Flight 93 started early, and that plane killed them, not hundreds and thousands of other Americans. How can we be too grateful?

Police, fireman, officials, and giving Americans came to the aid of the NY City victims and their families. Some died giving their all for their highest of values: America. How can we be too grateful?

Officers, enlisted, civil servants, and passersby flocked to help the dying and maimed at the Pentagon. Almost everyone became a hero that day. How can we be too grateful?

Soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen, men and women, and American civilians, have died in Afghanistan and Iraq--in the name of their highest value: America. And, today, war with Islam goes on in Afghanistan and Iraq, not in America. How can we be too grateful?

While we are doing in Islamia over there, we must clean out our own stables. Loyal opposition is one thing, but we no longer have a measureable amount of that. Our opposition is shrilly un- and anti-American. They occupy teaching positions in our schools at all levels. They infest our government at all levels. And, they bombard us from their positions of news and opinion making in the media. Happily, these are dying out, just as, in fact, Islam is on the way out. However, the process is going far too slowly.

The single greatest obscenity and travesty I have heard about 9-11 comes not from those fifth columnists who know what they are doing, but those who become fifth columnists but do not know it. For example, a surviving wife, whose husband died on Flight 93, says she has learned to "forgive" the terrorists. This is a total moral inversion, and as such it is evil. Yet she thinks she is practicing morality and does not realize how she tears apart the concept of justice and provides the terrorists with moral sanction. No American should ever do this: Never, never, never. No American should ever soften on the subject of our terrorist attackers any more than we softened on the Nazis and the Japanese during World War II. Anything less is unspeakably immoral.

Go listen, often, to Darryl Worley's song, "Have You Forgotten?" and Toby Keith's song, "The Angry American." Go look at the people throwing themselves off the Trade Towers. Find every picture of every atrocity, every beheading of every American, and see them again and again and again. NEVER FORGET! NEVER FORGIVE! NEVER FORGET! NEVER FORGIVE! Let Justice reign!!!!!

We can show great and continuing gratitude by returning American back to the land of reason.

Friday, September 10, 2004

A Visit to KerryWorld

Dhimmi Watch: Muslims rule major Swedish city

To appreciate this article, you must go beyond the article itself and read the comments thread. The comments are as enlightening as the article because so many have been written by Swedes who are experienceing their Muslim infestation and its pathological effects first-hand.

Sweden is KerryWorld. What you read here paints the picture of the type of country Democrat Party presidential candidate, John Fonda Kerry, and his fellow liberal-socialist-communist travelers, would have us have in the USA. Sweden has paralyzed itself. It has perfected political correctness, epistemological relativism, moral relativism, cultural relativism, and multiculturalism. Sweden lives Kerry's ideals.

As a result, Sweden's government and society is fully prepared to surrender the vast majority of Swedes to the burgeoning minority of Muslim ingrates who came to Sweden to suck on the Swedish welfare teat. The nicest thing that can be said about this is that it is a mindset of dhimmitude: When you mug yourself, you're ready for servitude. Sweden will allow no Swede to impede the welfare of any Muslim. They come first, not Swedes. And, unless Sweden wakes up and purges itself of Islam and socialism, it will perish. It will be national suicide.

Sweden gives a snapshot of the ideals and vision of John Kerry. Read the article and the thread. Print it all. Keep it. Reread it. Pass it on. And don't let it happen here.

Thursday, September 09, 2004

John Kerry, Patriot?

John Kerry, Patriot?
By Henry Mark Holzer and Erika Holzer,, September 8, 2004

Little Lord Fauntleroy Edwards held a "stage-protest" about Dick Cheney's suggesting that the likelihood of terrorist attacks would increase in a Kerry-Edwards regime. Of course Cheney was correct. These sissy socialists, perfumed princes, and appeasement dandies reek of "come attack me." Electing these Louis XIV-like dandies would indicate that the coast is clear for jihadists to come in and do their evil. Do you remember Dominique de Villepin? He could soul-double for these two. These fops would likely want a federal program to provide the jihadists pre-paid trips including all expenses. Then they would wring their hands and grovel before the likes of Goofy Anus in the U.N., Jacques Iraq, and that Boche. If these values do not turn you off, you probably are in the wrong country, assuming you are in America.

Note the chronic protestations from the Democrats. Attack their "Americanism," and they rise in high dudgeon. They are the only group chronically hypersensitive to these questions, whether they are asked or not. Why? Because the questions address their weak morality, and they believe that if no one names their immorality, then they won't be immoral. Near insanity has manifested in the last day or so from Al Gore experiencing a psychotropic medication breakthrough, the incorrigibly corrupt Terry McAuliffe holding a "stage-protest," windup doll Madilyn Albright condemning Cheney but not the atrocities of jihadists, and the popinjay buddies, Kerry and Edwards, hoping everyone will mistake their bellowing for manhood. Edwards says Cheney is "unAmerican" because Cheney called a spade "a spade." Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...

No one fears being called something more than Democrats fear being called "unpatriotic." They act, speak, and write all sorts of things unpatriotic. Name one, and they go nuts.

No one is more tiring about this sensitivity than John Fonda Kerry. And, no one raises my suspicions more.

I have been deeply suspicious of the character, psychology, and history of John Fonda Kerry for a very long time. It was John Fonda Kerry who made me doubt him. The more I saw of him, the more I of heard him, and the more I saw his claque boosting him, the bigger the scarecrow he became. He became more and more like a highway billboard: all flash up front, and nothing behind except a vacant lot.

His incessant bleating about his Vietnam service and its out-of-proportion claims of valor began wearing me down. Then, one day, I thought of the Shakespearean quotation, "Methinks he protesteth too much." Yes, indeed, John Fonda Kerry is pathologically absorbed with Vietnam. He is obsessional. But to mention such causes his claque to act like Arab Muslims in the streets of Palestine.

After Kerry made sure that his narcissistic attention to himself and his Vietnam and peri-Vietnam activity made him known well enough to me that I began to raise other questions. I saw something about him that reminded me of MacBeth. Kerry seemed to be reenacting the hand-washing, which never washed off the guilt. Could it be that all of Kerry's horn-blowing about his self-promoted gianthood in Vietnam, obsessively verbalized incessantly, came from extensive, unresolved guilt and shame?

Where would the guilt and shame have come from? Could it be that he harbors guilt and shame about the quality and quantity of his tiny involvement in Vietnam? I wonder. Could it be that what he did after he returned to America served as a source of possible guilt and shame? He turned on his country, and he turned on his fellow military men and women. He met in secret three times in Paris with the very communists we were fighting. He turned on all very publicly, and in a very narcissistic, opportunistic style. He saw that liberalism was cresting in America, and he hoped on to ride the wave. These would seem to be obvious sources of possible guilt and shame.

Did Kerry commit treason?

Kerry goes nuts if anyone questions his patriotism, even if he suspects that someone, somewhere might be questioning, despite lack of any evidence.

For a long time, I have questioned his patriotism. If he is patriotic, I do not know which country actually receives his allegiance, despite his bellows that he loves and supports America. His values are as unAmerican as the anti-Americans.

The Holzers published this magnificent article in Front Page Magazine about John Fonda Kerry's patriotism. They are lawyers and professors, and very august ones at that. When they speak, intelligent people should listen. No one has summarized the questions about Kerry's patriotism better.

- --------------------------

The people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. -- St. Matthew 15:8

The American phrase “lip service” is derived from this Biblical quotation. It connotes insincerity, or “expressed with the lips, but not acted upon or believed.” Although the current democrat presidential campaign has been rife with lip service on countless subjects, among the most objectionable—often reverentially uttered, mantra-like, not just by democrats, but by reporters, TV talking heads, and, regrettably, even prominent Republicans—is that John Kerry is a “patriot.”

Even the slightest doubt expressed about Kerry’s patriotism will evoke vigorous denial that runs the gamut from raised eyebrows to utter disdain to uncontrollable wrath. As we saw when Kerry appeared at a late-night Ohio rally following the close of the Republican Convention, he is stung even by a non-attack: “They have attacked my patriotism!” Kerry bellowed.

Alas, they had not.

It is one thing for President Bush and Vice President Cheney to remain above the fray on this issue. But former prisoner of war John McCain knows better, the savvy former mayor of New York, Rudy Giuliani, should know better, and democrat Senator Zell Miller, in a fiery oration denouncing Kerry’s senatorial voting record, at least implied that he knew better.

Before independent-minded members of either party, let alone the sought-after bloc of “undecideds,” make up their minds about John Kerry’s alleged patriotism, let them first ponder this definition: A “patriot” is “a person who loves and loyally or zealously supports his own country.” (Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language).

Then let them test that definition, as we have, against some damning facts:

A patriot does not flee when comrades are in danger, no matter what the perceived threat.

A patriot does not fake or exaggerate minor wounds in order to garner medals.

A patriot does not “somehow” obtain three different citations for a single medal, the latter two sanitizing the first.

A patriot does not bail out from a one-year combat assignment after only four months, by taking advantage of a loophole in an obscure regulation, leaving his “brothers” to face the enemy.

A patriot does not appear before a committee of the United States Senate looking like a cartoon version of a Vietnam veteran, wearing ribbons on unkept fatigues.

A patriot does not give ghost-written testimony to that senate committee, attacking his country.

A patriot does not take an oath before that senate committee, and then proceed to lie through his teeth.

A patriot does not use his televised testimony before that senate committee to accuse American troops—including those still in the field.

A patriot does not hand our communist enemies such anti-American propaganda, which can be—and was—then used as a tool in the torture of American prisoners of war.

A patriot does not falsely accuse himself of committing war crimes in order to make a political-theater statement against the Vietnam War.

A patriot does not associate with potential murderers, conspiring to assassinate American political leaders.
A patriot does not make common cause with traitors like Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden and Ramsey Clark, and other America-haters who give aid and comfort to our nation’s enemies.

A patriot does not march around the Capitol of the United States of America carrying an upside down American flag.

A patriot does not, during wartime, organize and participate in a sham investigation of American “war crimes” (Winter Soldier Investigation)— paid for by Jane Fonda and designed to spout communist propaganda and undermine and embarrass our military.

A patriot does not organize and participate in antiwar protests, nor march under the communist Vietnamese flag, and defile military medals by throwing them away—especially while Americans are in combat.

A patriot does not act as spokesman for an organization that is a front for the very enemy that the United States of America is fighting.

A patriot does not associate with an organization (Vietnam Veterans Against the War) admittedly in bed with the Communist Party USA.

A patriot does not write a book with a cover that desecrates the American flag, and contents that disparage his country.

A patriot does not, while still a member of the United States Navy, fraternize in Paris with communist enemies whose troops, at that very moment, are killing Americans and torturing American prisoners of war.

A patriot does not urge acceptance of the Vietnamese communists’ proposal to end the war—on their terms, not ours.

A patriot does not vote against virtually every piece of national security and related legislation—laws that would make our country stronger and safer.

A patriot does not refuse to appropriate funds to support American forces, fighting for their country in Iraq.

A patriot does not attempt to suppress a book critical of his military service by putting pressure on its publisher and on booksellers.

A patriot does not unleash his lawyers on TV station managers, threatening them with legal and administrative action should they air advertisements critical of his military service.

A patriot does not allow colleagues and supporters to call the President of the United States a liar, and much worse—particularly in time of war.

A patriot does not denigrate legitimate draft deferments once granted the Vice President of the United States, who later served in Congress, then as Chief-of-Staff to a President, and later as Secretary of Defense during wartime.

A patriot does not silently accept his photograph being displayed in the Vietnam communists’ “War Crimes Museum,” along with others who helped the Vietnamese communists win the war.

A patriot is not willing to surrender American sovereignty to the United Nations under the guise of “multilateralism.”

A patriot does not refuse to make all of his military records public, especially in the face of a loud public clamor.

A patriot does not allow his Silver Star medal to be falsely embellished with a Combat “V” that is unauthorized and possibly illegal.

A patriot does not denigrate America’s National Guard and Reserve forces, who throughout this nation’s history have performed with distinction in our defense.

A patriot does not promise a more “sensitive” War on Terrorism, no matter how “politically correct” that notion may be.

A patriot does not wrap himself in the American flag for political advantage, after spending a mere three months in a combat zone.

When one adds up these facts, one has every right to conclude, as we have, that John Kerry has never been, and is not now, a patriot—and more: that to say otherwise, is merely to pay lip service.

(All emphases mine)

I disagree strongly with Bush and Cheney about many issues. I remain an independent on moral grounds. However, I do not doubt their morality regarding defending America PRO-ACTIVELY. I do not think that they grasp the problem or the nature of the enemy well enough, but I think Kerry and Edwards are oblivious to both. It will cause me no hesitation to vote to re-elect Bush whether I like him or not, agree with him or not, or accept all of his policies or not.

Wednesday, September 08, 2004

New Material on 6th Column Against Jihad Website

Re: 6th Column Against Jihad

Newer material: A five part set of plain language articles outlining the basic principles of Islam, the ones which convert normal humans into Muslims. These are capped by a summary article which pulls the ideas together.

New Material: A review of one of the best books available for understanding Arabs, Islam, and jihad, The Arab Mind, by Raphael Patai.

Tuesday, September 07, 2004


Iran's Promise: "80 Seconds of Hell", by Dateline D.C., Pittsburgh Live, September 7, 2004

Let's begin by looking at some facts.

On Saturday, June 26, only a few weeks ago, two security guards at the Iranian U.N. Mission were expelled from the United States, and allowed to sneak back to Tehran. The State Department says that they were "engaged in activities inconsistent with their duties." Sure. They were spies.

The pair had been observed by the FBI for months moving around Manhattan videotaping landmark buildings and other infrastructure. It took an alert transit police officer to arrest them when he saw them taking video images on the subway tracks. They claimed diplomatic immunity and were not charged with any crime.

In Tehran, as August began, the Islamic Republic's supreme guide Ali Khamenei was answering questions from a hundred or so Islamic guidance officials, home from foreign postings for retraining. Most of his answers were trite slogans, but when he was asked, "Is our Islamic Republic at war against the United States," he paused before replying. "It is the United States that is at war against our Islamic Revolution."

However, Khamenei's own newspaper was even more direct. Writing this July, it said, "the White House's 80 years of exclusive rule are likely to become 80 seconds of hell that will burn to ashes. Those who resist Iran will be struck from directions they never expected."

To these facts add that an Arab newspaper published in London and Beirut reported that an Iranian intelligence unit has established a center called "The Brigades of the Shahids of the Global Islamic Awakening," controlled by a Revolutionary Guards intelligence officer, Hassan Abbasi. The newspaper has a tape recording of Abbasi when he spoke of Iran's secret plans, which include "a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization."

Missile strikes.

To bring this about, Abbasi said, "There are 29 sensitive sites in the U.S. and in the West. We have already spied on these sites and we know how we are going to attack them." This Revolutionary Guard officer continued by saying, "Iran's missiles are now ready to strike at Western targets, and as soon as the instructions arrive from Ali Khamenei, we will launch our missiles at their cities and installations."

These are facts.

Now let's consider the information coming in from Iraq where, day after day, our troops are being killed.

Most of the killing is now being done by Muslim militia -- Shi'ite Muslims -- in the cities of Fallujah, Mosul and Najaf. This militia appears to have some loyalty -- but not much -- to the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, but he is equally obviously not their paymaster.

The militias need weapons, ammunition, gas for their vehicles, food, water and everything else to fight the Iraqi police and our military. Just remember that these are Shi'ites. The Iranians just over the border are also Shi'ites. So we needn't be surprised to learn that the word on the streets of Baghdad and Tehran is that they are providing millions of dollars every month for the "hot" war against the Americans.

The Iranian Shi'ites have during the past few weeks established relations with the Kurds in the north of Iraq and with the main Arab Sunni rebel group led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. And, every alliance is cemented with dollars.

25-year war

Iran has been at war with the United States since the mullahs ousted the shah's forces in 1979.
Iran's war against the United States has gone on for 25 years. It is past time that the ayatollahs, mullahs and imams begin to understand that there are limits to our tolerance and that our military might is by no means exhausted.

That February in 1979, the Revolutionary Guards invaded 27 U.S. listening posts in Iran that had been set up to monitor Soviet rocket tests. The posts were closed and our guys expelled.
That was enough for Democrat Jimmy Carter. He sent a wonderful letter to the Ayatollah Khomeini, praising him as "a man of God." And, in a show of goodwill, Carter lifted the ban he had imposed on arms exports to Iran.

A few days later, the Revolutionary Guards raided our embassy in Tehran and seized our diplomats as hostages for a year and a half. In April 1980, Carter tried a military rescue attempt, which ended in disaster with more Americans being killed.

Since then Iran has created one disaster after another. The Marine barracks in Beirut with 241 U.S. Marines killed, some 30 U.S. hostages taken in Lebanon, the torture-killing of the CIA's Middle Eastern chief and the generalized support of all America's enemies.

On July 27, Iranian Member of Parliament Hamid-Reza Katoziyan told a television audience "Muslims living in the U.S. are currently, in my opinion, in a special situation. Perhaps they do not walk the streets with weapons or attach bombs to themselves to carry out a suicide operation, but the thought is there."

And, one last fact: The 9/11 commission in its report poses a question, "September 11 was a day of unprecedented shock. The nation was unprepared. How can we avoid such a tragedy again?"

The answer has to be obvious. Ensure that Iran does not have the opportunity to make a first-strike against the U.S. and that Iran stops attempting to make Iraq a colony.

We must not stop until Iran has been overthrown, and SOON.

Monday, September 06, 2004

School Siege: ISLAMIC TERRORISTS Had Precise Plan

The New York Times > International > Europe > School Siege: Russian Rebels Had Precise Plan

You have to dig for the evidence. Typically, the New York Times does not want to name the motivation of the perpetrators of the Beslan Massacre, and, as good liberals all believe, if you don't name it, it ain't so. They are not "rebels"; they are terrorists. Their identification is not murky; they are militant Islamic jihadists. Despite the soft-pedaling, even in this Times article, is overwhelming:

"The attackers - described by the authorities as including Chechens, Ingush, ethnic Russians and some still-unidentified foreigners...The attackers - believed to be members of a contingent led by Shamil Basayev {notorious militant Islamist}, Chechnya's most notorious and lethal rebel commande...Chechnya's separatists...[T]he militants believed to be behind all the attacks have managed to deploy cells of ideologues who spend extended periods organizing and carrying out spectacular, unnerving attacks, often suicidal ones. [T]he source and ideological inspiration for them stems from the grinding conflict in Chechnya, a mostly Muslim republic the size of Connecticut that has bristled under Russian rule for centuries. Officials have said the siege, like the other attacks, was masterminded by Mr. Basayev and financed by a man believed to be an Arab associated with Al Qaeda and identified as Abu Omar as-Seyf. While the extent of international support may be debated, the attacks bear some trappings of Islamic militancy. Officials here in Beslan said they had found notebooks with Arabic writing, and witnesses reported hearing Arabic exhortations, though the attackers mostly spoke Russian."

It was Islam, stupid! Islamic jihadists capitalize on any existing discord, dissent, and rebellion in any area. Areas of southern Russia have been Islamic for centuries. One need wonder nothing.

Beslan is the meaning in very practical terms of Islam. Islam must be named for what it is and fought to its extinction for what it is.

Meanwhile, why does anyone buy the New York Times? Think of how quickly these non-objective journalists and editors would get the message to clean up their acts and that of their newspaper if people stopped buying it.