Friday, October 31, 2008

If Iraqis could vote it would be for McCain

The average Iraqi is more pro-American than the Democrats.

What's their primary reason for fearing an Obama presidency? They know it would empower Ahmadinejad's Iran. If the free American electorate can conjure up half the critical-thinking power that these former totalitarian subjects have accumulated in their 5 years of dictator-free politics, they will vote against Obama.

The personal qualities and political platforms of McCain and his Democrat rival Barack Obama are of little import to Ali, however. His focus is on Iraq and its neighbours such as Iran.

"The Iranians believe that if Obama is elected he will not take action against them despite their nuclear ambitions. That worries me," said Ali, sitting on an old bench in Al-Zahawi coffee shop.

"If the Iranians get the bomb they will become the Tarzan of the region," said the former teacher and lecturer at the University of Baghdad, referring to the vine-swinging strongman of the jungle in old Hollywood movies.

Mohammed, also a professor at the university, said he too preferred McCain "because Obama supports a rapid withdrawal of US troops."

"Our army is still too weak and Turkey and Iran are threats. Iran's President (Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad has warned Iran would fill the void left when US troops depart," he said.

[post ends here]

Read further...

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Pennsylvania Can Change This Election!

Shock polls! Apparently Pennsylvanians are upset about being called "bitter Bible-thumping gun-clingers", "racists", and "rednecks" by Democratic politicians.

These recent polls show McCain statistically tied with Obama statewide, and challenger Bill Russell statistically tied with Rep. John Murtha in the 12th District:

Pennsylvania Hope For McCain: Obama 47% McCain 43%

NEW POLL: Murtha 45.5% Russell 43.7%

Pennsylvania voters, seize the day!

[post ends here]

Read further...

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Murtha Lashes Out Like a Cornered Animal

This old hack hasn't had a serious challenger in years, and he isn't very happy about it. Check out 1 min 25 secs if you'd like to see a 32-year veteran of the House of Representatives shout like a schoolyard bully! All that pork isn't good for his blood pressure.

[post ends here]
Read further...

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Constitutions are NOT Created Equal (Part 1)

This is bound to piss off both Christians and Atheists, but I guarantee you this:

1) It will make you think deeply about the meaning of the United States.

2) It will convince you that in this time of peril, it is essential that Christians and Atheists put aside their differences to confront an enemy that is a greater threat to both of them than they could ever be to each other; that is, political Islam.

Enjoy, Part 2 is coming soon...

Full transcript of the video with links follows:

Many Atheists and Leftists (and I know that those two labels don’t necessarily overlap), are fond of playing a childish game of moral-equivalence in our post-9/11 geopolitical environment. They condemn al-Qaeda and other Islamic groups as violent religious extremists, of course, but in the same breath they condemn the United States, supposedly for the same reasons.

They say “Bush and Bin Laden are two sides to the same coin!” After all, Bush and many other US Presidents have openly declared their Christian faith, and many have seen the trials and tribulations of their Presidential careers through the lens of their personal religious beliefs.

In addition, our money is emblazoned with the slogan “In God We Trust.” In our pledge of allegiance we refer to “One Nation, Under God." There is a sculpture of the Ten Commandments on our Supreme Court building! The Declaration of Independence refers to the Creator!

Today I will dismantle this false perception of equivalence, by objectively comparing the laws and customs of the United States with those of the Islamic world, most importantly by evaluating their foundational documents; their Constitutions.

Superficial Vestiges

The points that Atheists bring up to support their thesis of a supposed American theocracy amount to a collection of non-binding slogans and symbolic gestures. Ironically, Christian activists often use the very same examples to bolster their case for more religion in government:

Our currency says “In God We Trust”, but it was not that way from the beginning. It first appeared on a coin in 1864. It was a direct reaction to the brutality and devastation of the Civil War, which still stands as the bloodiest war in American history. The people were deeply disturbed and shaken by the carnage. They wanted future generations to know that despite this violence, they were a humane society and didn’t take this loss of life lightly. The majority of the population being Christian, they expressed their grief over this episode in religious terms.

In the pledge of allegiance there is reference to “One Nation, Under God”. Again, this was not preordained by the founders or the constitution, but grew out of the trauma of the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln referred to the United States as a nation “Under God” is his renowned Gettysburg Address, but the words weren’t added to the pledge until 1954. Americans embraced Lincoln’s phrase during the frightening peak of the Cold War, with nuclear annihilation a constant fear. Again, the people expressed this sentiment in terms of the faith that most of them shared. It was meant to stand in sharp contrast to the principles of the Soviet Union, which banned all religion except Marxism, as a matter of law.

As for the Supreme Court Building, Moses and the 10 Commandments are indeed displayed, but not exclusively or especially prominently. The artistic features of the building depict symbolic representations of such legal themes as justice, authority and fairness. Most of these representations feature human figures representing the cultural heritage of pre-Christian Greece and Rome. They depict Moses as one of several important lawgivers, and the 10 Commandments as one of many important events in legal history. The roots of our society and legal system come from the civilizations that sprang up in Rome, Athens and Jerusalem. That is a simple undeniable fact of history. It would be just as wrong to exclude the acknowledgment of our Judeo-Christian foundations in a fit of anti-religious paranoia, as it would be wrong to explicitly endorse those Judeo-Christian foundations to the exclusion of all other sources of law.

The boundaries of this tradition were tested in 2003. A US district judge ordered the removal of a prominently displayed granite monument of the Ten Commandments in the rotunda of the Alabama state court, because it was considered to be bordering on the endorsement of a particular religion by government. This order was carried out in Alabama, one of the most Conservative and Christian states in the Union, despite the fact that 77% of Americans disapproved of the action. That’s called sticking to your principles.

Let’s look at our founding documents to find the root of those principles:

From the US Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Notice it does not say that rights are endowed by God or Allah or Yahweh, it uses the word “Creator”. In the context of the late 18th century, this is extraordinarily inclusive language. This would have held currency with nearly all Americans of the time, whether they were traditional Christians, or influenced by Deist thought as several of the founding fathers were. Remember that Deism conceives of the creator as a watchmaker; meaning God created the Universe and set it running, just as a human might wind a watch and let it run on its own. They contend that God has not intervened directly in the events of the Universe since the beginning. The use of the word “Creator” shows a measured, modern, and intellectual interpretation of the Judeo-Christian tradition. It is certainly not a call for the religious laws of Christianity or any other religion to be the unquestioned legal code of the land. Rather, the Creator is used as a point of reference to reinforce the rights of the individual. Empowering the individual is the primary purpose of the Declaration, as is made clear in the next sentences.

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

In other words, once the case for individual worth has been bolstered by reference to a creator, the document goes on to address the needs of individuals, nations, and governments; very down-to-earth and practical concerns. It even acknowledges the need abolish and recreate the government periodically; very far from endorsing a permanent religious mandate.

The preamble to the Constitution is a most concise and eloquent statement of the purpose of the United States of America:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

It’s clear that the priority here is the well-being of the people, not blind obedience to a deity or creed.

In summation, these artifacts and documents on the American landscape do not imply the endorsement of religious governance in any way. This is true despite the many Christians who point to certain words and symbols as proof of divine sanction; this is true despite the many Atheists who attack these words and symbols zealously as if they were a major threat to their religious freedom.

As I will explain, the situation in the Islamic world could not be more different.

Read further...

Dewey Defeats Truman!

We already knew that the media was playing an unprecendented role this election season. They serve as the public relations arm of the Obama campaign; downplaying his radical connections, playing the race card whenever possible, placing aspects of his history "off-limits," downplaying his inexperience while obsessing over Sarah Palin's, etc.

But I didn't think they'd be literally declaring the winner of their own accord:

"OBAMA WINS!" Newspaper Declares

SANTA FE, New Mexico (CNN) – For The New Mexico Sun News it is either a major scoop or “Dewey Beats Truman” déjà vu 60 years later.

“Obama Wins!” is the headline of the edition on newsstands now, complete with “special collector’s edition” in red bold typeface.

The Sun News is a bi-monthly newspaper and its Oct 26-Nov 8 issue had to hit the streets, and the newsstands, before the election. So the editors decided to make a leap of faith and declare Democrat Barack Obama the winner.

In an article explaining their choice, the editors unabashedly wrote, “When it comes to calling the winner of a presidential election, everyone wants to be first. The New Mexico Sun News hereby claims that achievement.”

[post ends here]

Read further...

Monday, October 27, 2008

Demographic Implosion in Muslim Societies

It is well known that Europe suffers from low birth-rates, which are leading to demographic decline and unprecedented strains on the state welfare systems. As of 2006, all European Union nations were below the magic 2.1 children per woman rate needed to sustain a stable population. The unhealthy worker-to-retiree ratio has been the main impetus behind efforts to increase immigration. Most of that immigration comes from the Muslim world, contributing to the myriad social problems we see in Europe today.

What is less well-known is that the birthrates in the Muslim world are plunging as well. For example, Sharia-governed Iran has only 1.8 births per woman, below replacement level and about the same rate as Norway. Nearly every Islamic country is headed in the same direction.

See the full story at the Jerusalem Post.

Just as the world at large is experiencing an unprecedented collapse of demography, the UN Population Division reports a sharp decline of fertility rates (number of births per woman) in Muslim and Arab countries, excluding Afghanistan and Yemen.

The myth of "doubling population every 20 years" has been shattered against the cliffs of demography.


The collapse of fertility rates in Muslim countries is a derivative of modernization and Westernization, rapid urbanization and internal security concerns by dictators fearing the consequences of the widening gap between population growth and economic growth. As a result, the UN Population Division has reduced its 2050 population projections by 25 percent, from 12 billion to 9 billion, possibly shrinking to 7.4 billion.

For instance, the fertility rate in Iran - the flagship of radical Islam - has declined from nine births per woman, 30 years ago, to 1.8 births in 2007. The Muslim religious establishment has also played a key role in decreasing fertility rates in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, from eight and seven births per woman 30 years ago, to less than four and less than 2.5 respectively in 2007.

[post ends here]
Read further...

Sunday, October 26, 2008

"The Information Crusade"

I want this blog to remain primarily an outlet for my own home-made video content, but I'll let you in on a little secret... these videos take a lot of research! And I do this in the spare time I find in nooks and crannies around my day job.

With that in mind I'd like to feature the video work of others periodically, because there is a lot of good stuff out there. Much of it doesn't get the attention it deserves, like this series "The Information Crusade" that I stumbled upon. The production value is much better than my vids, so if you like that extra 'flash' to keep your attention, this series is for you. The information is solid and presented in a conversational tone.

It's a four part series. The introduction is posted above. "Read further..." for the rest.

The Information Crusade Part 2: The Third Wave

The Information Crusade Part 3: Symbiosis

The Information Crusade Part 4: Deja Vu

Read further...

Friday, October 24, 2008

Islamist Indoctrination in American Schools

Since its initial publication in 1997, "What Islam Is All About" has been a best-selling English language Islamic school text for junior high level American students. The author, Yahiya Emerick, is an American-born convert to Islam. He is widely regarded as a leading Islamic childrens educator, and he also wrote "The Complete Idiots Guide to Understanding Islam". The textbook is distributed by Noorart Publishing of Richardson, Texas. In short, this is a mainstream American-made textbook, written in clear standard American English, for the purpose of introducing Muslim-American children to the religion of Islam.

You may be shocked to find out what mainstream Muslim-American children are actually being taught in our schools.

Primary references:

Stephen Coughlin's thesis, "To Our Great Detriment"

Online Quran in English

Amazon's 'Look Inside' feature for "What Islam Is All About" by Yahiya Emerick

A full transcript of the video with links follows:

Since its initial publication in 1997, "What Islam Is All About" has been a best-selling English language Islamic school text for junior high level American students. The author, Yahiya Emerick, is an American-born convert to Islam. He is widely regarded as a leading Islamic children's educator, and he also wrote “The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam”. The textbook is distributed by Noorart Publishing of Richardson, Texas. In short, this is a mainstream American-made textbook, written in clear standard American English, for the purpose of introducing Muslim-American children to the religion of Islam.

I learned about this book from an enlightening 2007 thesis by Major Stephen Coughlin entitled “To Our Great Detriment: Ignoring what extremists say about Jihad”. I have provided links to his thesis, as well as an online English Quran.


In the first chapter of “What Islam is All About, Muslim-American” 7th graders are taught that “the entire universe is Muslim”.

“…Islam is not a religion [however] but a complete way of life that is patterned after the natural trend in the universe. Allah… caused the universe to come into existence… He set up natural laws and ordered the functioning of matter in accordance with His will. In this way, we can say that the entire universe is Muslim, i.e. it is submitted to his will.” - Emerick, 2

The children are also taught that “Islam abrogates all religions, even ‘previously valid’ religions such as Judaism and Christianity”:

“Islam is the way of life that Allah will make prevail over all other ways of life.” - Emerick, 52

To support this statement he references specific verses in the Koran:

"It is He Who has sent His Messenger (Prophet Muhammad) with Guidance and the Religion of Truth, that he may proclaim it over all religion" -Quran 61:9

“The Jews and Christians are invited by Allah to examine and accept His last revelation” -Quran 5:15

“If they reject it arrogantly and say Allah only sent revelation to them, then they close their hearts and invite destruction upon themselves.” -Quran 5:18

“Those whom Allah wills to guide, He opens their hearts to Islam. Those whom He wills to leave straying, He makes their hearts closed and constricted as if they were climbing up into the skies. Allah (increases) the penalty on those who refuse to believe.” -Quran 6:125

Muslim-American 7th graders are taught that the world is divided into two naturally antagonistic camps: Dar al Islam; the domain of Islam, and Dar al Harb; the domain of war, which includes any region of earth not dominated by Islamic law. And that these two blocs will be in conflict until Islam becomes the dominant religion on earth.

“Muslims know that Allah is the Supreme Being in the universe, therefore, His laws and commandments must form the basis for all human affairs. If we didn’t follow Allah’s commandments, but then still called ourselves Muslims, we would be hypocrites like the followers of many other religions today.” -Emerick 381

Again Emerick provides contextual references to the Quran itself:

"We cannot hope to build an Islamic nation again on the backs of people who are hypocrites, weak…or just plain lazy. Allah even mentions that some people only serve Him if times are good but then run away if things get rough." -Quran 22:11, Emerick 378

"In fact, there are some Muslim countries that actually oppose the implementation of Shari’ah-based laws because they love their alcohol and illicit relations too much. You can’t build a solid wall with bricks made of soft mud." -Quran 3:176-177, Emerick 378

"… we must build our character… and then truly surrender to Allah completely. Why shouldn’t we do that? We’re all going to be dead in a few short years anyway. Our lives are shorter than the blinking of an eye. We have so little time to understand why we’re here. What’s wrong with insuring the eternal happiness of our souls? Like Allah says, “You will gain control if you are true in faith.”" Quran 3:139, Emerick 378

"Indeed, only when we produce a generation of people who actually fear the Day of Judgment and love to be closer to the Prophet’s example, will we be able to make Islam dominant on earth." - Emerick 378

The children are taught that they need not obey any secular government, but rather should strive to establish the power of Islam in the world:

"Once the Prophet was asked by Muaidth, 'What should we do with the orders of an Amir (ruler) who does not follow your Sunnah or stick to your orders?' The Prophet replied, 'There is no obedience to one who does not obey Allah.'" -Emerick 383 (citing Ahmad)

“Muslims dream of establishing the power of Islam in the World. Muslims of all types and backgrounds agree that the Islamic system is the best for humanity in this life." -Emerick 377

"In an Islamic political system, the leader of the community, the Kalifa, is the head of the whole Ummah (Islamic empire), not just one country or another.” -Emerick 381


Let me drive home again that this is being taught to American schoolchildren; 7th graders who are 12-13 years old. These are not just abstract academic concepts in a textbook; they are presented as a blueprint for life.

The first refuge of apologists for this sort of extreme language is to claim that the original Arabic has been distorted by biased translators with a grudge against Islam. In this case that’s impossible, because “What Islam is all About”, was written in English, for use in America, by a native-born American convert to Islam.

In October 2007, a Saudi-funded private school in Northern Virginia came under federal scrutiny when it was found to be promoting violence against Christians, Jews, Shias and polytheists. A Saudi government representative angrily denied that they were teaching radical Islam; and he may be technically correct. It’s hard to call these doctrines “radical” when they are well referenced with passages directly from the Quran.
Read further...

1976 Is Back! (and Iran will have nukes this time)

Here's a truly haunting article at National Review:

A newcomer to national politics, he claimed to transcend partisan labels. He moved to the center during the campaign, at a time when the Democrats held large congressional majorities. In a troubled economy, he told voters he would keep taxes down for most Americans, limit spending, and balance the budget, all while implementing ambitious social programs. He planned to cut military spending to free money for other purposes, but assured moderates and conservatives that when it came to America’s enemies, he would be tougher than the Republicans. The media, droves of moderates, and some conservatives believed him, having pegged him as a man of character.

Sound Familiar?

His name was Jimmy Carter, the year was 1976, and he won. His presidency helps us predict the likely results of an Obama victory in 2008.


Carter and the Democratic Congress generated 18 percent inflation and economic stagnation at the same time. Unemployment rose. Americans came to regret the votes they had cast — Carter’s approval rating sank to 21 percent in 1980, the lowest in the history of polling.Carter also threw out his professed hawkishness on foreign policy. Declaring America liberated from its “inordinate fear of Communism,” he sought better relations with the Communists in the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, and Vietnam. He was much less nice to America’s allies, withdrawing support from those who did not accept his self-righteous demands for human-rights reforms. Friendly regimes in Nicaragua and Iran fell to hostile tyrants.

Allah help us all. Here's a heartwarming cartoon to go along with the sentiment:

[post ends here]
Read further...

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Iran: "Obama more rational than McCain"

Another Islamist endorsement for Barack Obama, via Jerusalem Post.

A top Iranian official (Ali Larijani) said Wednesday that of the two candidates in the US presidential race, Barack Obama seemed to be 'more rational' than his opponent John McCain.

According to Larijani, he did not disagree with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on ideological issues and they had only "differences in style". So Larijani agrees with Ahmadinjad's ideology, and thinks Barack Obama is rational. Nice.

"The Democratic candidate Barack Obama seems to be more rational than the Republican John McCain, but the test [is] in deeds, not words," he said.

Don't worry, first he'll give you soothing words, and I'm sure he'll follow it up with deeds.


Meanwhile, the Hamas party (which rules the Gaza Strip and seeks to annihilate Israel and replace it with a "Palestine" governed by Sharia law) thinks the whole Obama/Biden ticket is just dandy!

He (top Hamas political adviser Ahmad Yousef) also called Obama running mate Joe Biden, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, "a great man" and said that "we do count on him also as a good partner with Mr. Obama to put the right policy regarding how to handle the problems in the region."

What do Iran and Hamas have in common? They want a United States that is weak and docile so they may carry out their religious-sanctioned expansionism in the Middle East unimpeded. And they both feel comfortable with Obama... that makes me feel very safe.

[post ends here]
Read further...

The comprehensive argument against Barack Obama

Two weeks to go. Do you need a fully-referenced dossier on why Obama is unfit to be President, complete with plenty of links and embedded videos all in one place? Yes, of course you do. And you need to show it to all your family, friends, acquaintances and co-workers (and pets if they've been registered by ACORN).

Hot Air has it. Check it out. Here's a summation:

Perhaps if Barack Obama had taken more time to build his resumé – especially with executive experience – he might have made a more compelling candidate, and might have demonstrated at least a little of the moderation he has claimed. Instead, Democrats want America to support at once the most radical and least qualified candidate for President in at least a century. They have tried to conceal this with the complicity of a pom-pom-waving national media that has shown much more interest in the political background of a plumber from Ohio than in a major-party candidate for President.

America deserves better than that. Voters deserve the truth from the press, not vague cheers of “hope” and “change” while willfully ignoring or air-brushing Obama’s record. We hope to set that record straight with our essay.

[post ends here]
Read further...

Monday, October 20, 2008

Islamic Crusades Episode 5: Why Did They Hate Us in 1783?

Most on the Left say that Muslims hate us because of our "imperialistic" behavior in the Middle East. Many on the isolationist paleo-Right say that we provoked Islam's wrath because we left our own borders and meddled in foreign entanglements against the warnings of our founding fathers.

I ask both camps, what did we do to deserve Jihad in 1783?

1) We were a rural backwater by global standards.

2) Our federal government had trouble exerting authority over the States, let alone such a far off domain as the Middle East.

3) Our federal government did not possess a Navy, and so could not carry out an aggressive foreign policy if it wanted to.

Why did they hate us in 1783?

The following is a full transcript of the video with links:

“Why do they hate us?” was a universally asked question in the United States following the 9/11 attacks. A majority on the Left and a sizable minority on the Right believe it was “blow-back” from our “imperialistic” foreign policy in the Middle East. They consistently cite three primary offenses: US support for repressive Arab regimes, US support for Israel, and the stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia.

Let’s hear from the left in their own words:

VIDEO: Noam Chomsky:

“And as for their motivations I think we have a good understanding, they’ve been very clear about it. As for the Americans they turned against the United States when from their perspective the United States was occupying Muslim lands by putting permanent military bases in Saudi Arabia. The United States supports brutal and corrupt regimes which block democracy and modernization and development. They oppose particular policies like the decisive US support for the 35-year military occupation of Palestinian territory which has been harsh and brutal, and relies crucially on US military and diplomatic support.”

If those are the root causes Mr. Chomsky, why did the United States come under Jihadist assault only 7 years after the Declaration of Independence, when we had only just won the right to our own land, and had not the will or the means to impose our alleged imperialist ambitions on the Middle East? Why were Americans routinely killed, kidnapped, ransomed, and enslaved by Muslims 184 years before Israel took control of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and 165 years before there even existed a state of Israel for the United States to support?

VIDEO: Howard Zinn:


“Sir I want to quote an issue on terrorists that you mention in the book. When it comes to terrorists you say ‘Reagan bombed Libya, and Bush made war in Iraq, and Clinton bombed Afghanistan and also a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, to send a message to terrorists. And then came the horrors in New York, Washington, Madrid, London, Bali, Egypt, Iraq. Isn’t it clear by now that sending a message to terrorists through violence doesn’t work, that it only leads to more terrorism?’


“Terrorism comes out of very deep-felt grievances felt by millions of people, and of those millions of people who feel those grievances, a very small number of them will become fanatic enough and extreme enough to commit acts of terrorism.”

Mr. Zinn, if Muslim grievances stem from the US actions you enumerated, why did they see fit to punish us for these crimes a full two centuries before Reagan bombed Libya, or Bush invaded Iraq, or Clinton bombed Afghanistan and Sudan?

Prominent voices on the isolationist right use much the same language; let’s hear them in their own words:

VIDEO: Ron Paul:

“… intervention was a major contributing factor, have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we’ve been over there, we’ve been bombing Iraq for ten years, we’ve been in the Middle East… I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the Shah, yes there was blowback. The reaction to that was the taking of our hostages, and that persists. And if we ignore that we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem. They don’t come here to attack us because we’re rich and we’re free, they come and they attack us because we’re over there.”

Ron Paul says they attack us because we’re over there. Why then did the Muslim Barbary Pirates attack us in the late 18th century, when the United States did not even possess an armed naval force? Why did they see fit to attack us preemptively, 170 years before we installed the Shah in Iran?

VIDEO: Patrick Buchanan:

“Well, listen, the reason the terrorists were over here is because we are over there… We were attacked because of what we do. It is the United States policy in the Middle East and in that part of the world that has enraged and antagonized these evil people. They’re coming over here because they want us out of that part of the world… When has America ever been attacked? Why do you think Bin Laden attacked us?”

Mr. Buchanan, can you explain how the presence of peaceful American trading vessels in the Mediterranean so “enraged” and “antagonized” Muslims that they felt the need to take Americans as slaves? You asked, “when has America ever been attacked?” We were attacked in 1783:

The so-called Barbary States were a collection of Islamic sultanates along the coast of North Africa, which today comprise the nations of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Libya. For centuries they raided coastal cities in Europe in search of booty and slaves. They enslaved over 1 million Europeans, most of whom were young women who were taken as 2nd, 3rd or 4th wives, and young boys who were castrated because they were valuable as eunuchs. The pirates also plundered merchant vessels throughout the Mediterranean and the North Atlantic.

This Jihadist piracy evolved into a nice money-making scheme. European powers would pay bribes to the Barbary rulers to avoid having their ships raided and crews enslaved. The British participated in this protection racket, so vessels from America did not have to worry about Muslim pirates - that is, until the United States declared its independence.

And then, in 1783, the attacks on American shipping began. The US had a weak federal government and meager tax revenues, and so did not possess a navy. In 1784, the Moroccans captured a ship called “Betsey” and enslaved its crew. Soon afterwards, the ruler of Algiers declared war on the US. Spanish diplomacy helped free the crew of the “Betsey”, but other American vessels were plundered by Algiers in the coming months.

The situation worsened with each coming year, but for the life of them, the Americans could not figure out what they did to bring this violence upon them. They must have asked themselves, “Why do they hate us?”

In May 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, then serving as American ambassadors to France and Britain respectively, met with Tripoli's ambassador to London, Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja. During their discussions, they questioned Ambassador Adja as to the source of the unprovoked animus directed at the infant US republic. As Adams and Jefferson later reported to the Continental Congress, the ambassador said the raids were a jihad against infidels. Adja was reported to have said:

“ ... that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise. ”

To quote the scholar Andrew Bostom, “an aggressive jihad was already being waged against the United States almost 200 years prior to America becoming a dominant international power in the Middle East. Moreover, these jihad depredations targeting America antedated the earliest vestiges of the Zionist movement by a century, and the formal creation of Israel by 162 years- exploding the ahistorical canard that American support for the modern Jewish state is a prerequisite for jihadist attacks on the United States.”

The ambassador’s justifications in 1786 were well grounded in Islamic law, and were practiced by Mohammed himself:

At the Battle of Badr, Muhammed commanded a force of 300 Muslims against 1000 warriors from the pagan tribe Quraysh. The outnumbered Muslims won the battle handily, and this was a major turning point in Islam. It is still referenced today to encourage outnumbered and outgunned Jihadists from Iraq to Thailand. As the Quraysh approached, Muhammed encouraged his men.

“This is the caravan of Quraysh carrying their property, so march forth to intercept it. Allah might make it as war spoils for you. By God in whose hand is the soul of Muhammad, no man will be slain this day fighting against them with steadfast courage, advancing not retreating, but God will cause him to enter Paradise.”

This rationalization for war and piracy was operative in Muhammad’s time, in the time of the Barbary Pirates, and it is still framed in the same terms today:

VIDEO: Abu Hamza al-Masri:

“What makes Allah happy? Allah is happy when the kafirs (non-Muslims) get killed… You see the Islamic rule. If a Kafir (non-Muslim) goes into a Muslim country and he’s walking by, he’s like a cow, boy, anybody could take him. That is the Islamic rule, and this is the opinion of Islam, it’s not my opinion, if you read the books of Jihad, you’ll see… A kafir (non-muslim) is walking by, he went inside- you catch him, ‘what are you doing here?’ Then he’s a booty, you can sell him in the market… If Muslims cannot take him, you know, and sell him in the market then you just kill him. It’s ok.”

Ron Paul likes to talk about the intentions of the founders, how they warned us to stay out of foreign entanglements. He speaks of the halcyon days when the US was an agrarian republic that kept to itself and refrained from international conflicts. Ever since the founders died, politicians of all stripes have co-opted their writings and statements to bolster their own contemporary political positions. But when the Barbary Pirates attacked, the founding fathers were still alive; they were still running our government. They were told in no uncertain terms that they were being attacked in the name of Jihad, and they digested this lesson.

When searching for the root causes of Jihad, it would be best to ignore the proclamations of pseudo-intellectuals on both the left and the right. It would be best to consult the facts history, and take seriously the explanations that Muslims themselves employ.
Read further...

Friday, October 17, 2008

What's In A Letter?

A lot.

Since the time of Mohammed, it has been Muslim practice to offer one's enemy the option of conversion before embarking on Jihad against them. In the last decade of his life Mohammed sent letters to the princes, kings and chiefs of most of the various tribes and kingdoms in the known world. This included Iran, The Byzantine Empire, Ethiopia, Egypt, Yemen and Hira (modern-day Jordan). If the leader refused the invitation to convert to Islam, the Muslims were religiously, legally and morally justified in declaring Jihad against that kingdom.

Though most in the West are not aware of it, this practice continues today. Such letters have been addressed to the US and our leaders by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Osama bin Laden. We ignore these veiled declarations of war at our own peril.

Full transcription with links follows:

On May 9, 2006, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad conveyed an 18 page letter to President Bush. In it the Iranian President preached about theology and the place of Jesus in Islam, he also echoed leftist talking points on Gitmo, Israel, and world economics. Many in the mainstream media described it as “bizarre”. Pacifists and apologists for Islam in the West called it an opportunity for dialogue, and a peaceful overture by the President of Iran. But others realized that the thrust of the letter, the climax, the last few paragraphs, were an invitation to President Bush to convert to Islam. Ahmadinejad said:

“We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking towards a main focal point -- that is the Almighty Allah. Undoubtedly through faith in Allah and the teachings of the prophets, the people will conquer their problems. My question for you is: “Do you not want to join them?”

Shortly before the 5th anniversary of September 11, a similar injunction was issued by Adam Gadahn; former California metal head turned Jihadist who now serves as Al-Qaeda’s most prominent English-speaking propagandist. In a September 2, 2006 video he stated:

“Islam is the only religion acceptable to God and came with the revealed book, the Koran, which abrogates all previous revelations, like the Torah and Evangel… God recognizes no separation between religion and state. To Americans and the rest of Christendom we say, either repent your misguided ways and enter into the light of truth or keep your poison to yourself and suffer the consequences in this world and the next…”

In the leadup to the 6th anniversary of the attacks on September 7, 2007, Bin Laden himself released a letter to the American people:

“It is to this religion that we call you; the seal of all the previous religions. It is the religion of Unification of God, sincerity, the best of manners, righteousness, mercy, honour, purity, and piety… It is the religion of enjoining the good and forbidding the evil with the hand, tongue and heart. It is the religion of Jihad in the way of Allah so that Allah's Word and religion rein Supreme. And it is the religion of unity and agreement on the obedience to Allah, and total equality between all people.”

The practice of offering one’s enemy the option of conversion is a Muslim institution that goes back to the time of Mohammed. In the last decade of his life Mohammed sent letters to the princes, kings and chiefs of most of the various tribes and kingdoms in the known world. This included Iran, The Byzantine Empire, Ethiopia, Egypt, Yemen and Hira (modern-day Jordan). If the leader refused the invitation to convert to Islam, the Muslims were religiously, legally and morally justified in declaring Jihad against that kingdom.

As I briefly covered in Islamic Crusades 2, the Iranians, or Persians were one of the first peoples to come under the Islamic boot. Around 636AD, Mohammed’s 2nd successor, Caliph Umar, dealt the Persian Sassanid Empire a humiliating defeat at the Battle of Qasadiyyah on the banks of the Euphrates River. In the aftermath of the battle he sent the following letter to Shah Yazdgird III, emperor of Persia:

“I do not foresee a good future for you and your nation save your acceptance of my terms and your submission to me. There was a time when your country ruled half the world, but now see how your sun has set. On all fronts your armies have been defeated and your nation is condemned to extinction. I point out to you the path whereby you might escape this fate. Namely, that you begin worshipping the one god, the unique deity, the only god who created all that is. I bring you his message. Order your nation to cease the false worship of fire and to join us, that they may join the truth.

Worship Allah the creator of the world. Worship Allah and accept Islam as the path of salvation. End now your polytheistic ways and become Muslims that you may accept Allah-u-Akbar as your savior. This is the only way of securing your own survival and the peace of your Persians. You will do this if you know what is good for you and for your Persians. Submission is your only option. Allah u Akbar.”

Yazdgird’s response is one of the most eloquent rebuttals of Islamic aggression in all of history. Keep in mind this was almost 1400 years ago, the 7th century AD. Islam was a brand new upstart, but thousands of years of Persian civilization and 300 years of the Sassanid empire were about to be crushed by it’s zealous warriors.

“In the name of Ahuramazda, the Creator of Life and Wisdom.

In your letter you summon us Iranians to your god whom you call "Allah-u-Akbar"; and because of your barbarity and ignorance, without knowing who we are and Whom we worship, you demand that we seek out your god and become worshippers of "Allah-u-Akbar".
How strange that you occupy the seat of the Arab Caliph but are as ignorant as any desert roaming Arab! You admonish me to become monotheistic in faith. Ignorant man, for thousands of years we Iranians have, in this land of culture and art, been monotheistic and five times a day have we offered prayers to God's Throne of Oneness. While we laid the foundations of philanthropy and righteousness and kindness in this world and held high the ensign of "Good Thoughts, Good Words and Good Deeds", you and your ancestors were desert wanderers who ate snakes and lizards and buried your innocent daughters alive.

You Arabs who have no regard for God's creatures, who mercilessly put people to the sword, who mistreat your women, who attack caravans and are highway robbers, who commit murder, who kidnap women and spouses; how dare you presume to teach us, who are above these evils, to worship God?

You tell me to cease the worship of fire and to worship God instead! To us Iranians the light of Fire is reminiscent of the Light of God. The radiance and the sun-like warmth of fire exuberates our hearts, and the pleasant warmth of it brings our hearts and spirits closer together, that we may be philanthropic, kind and considerate, that gentleness and forgiveness may become our way of life, and that thereby the Light of God may keep shining in our hearts.
Our God is the Great Ahuramazda. Strange is this that you too have now decided to give Him a name, and you call Him by the name of "Allah-u-Akbar".

But we are nothing like you. We, in the name of Ahuramazda, practice compassion and love and goodness and righteousness and forgiveness, and care for the dispossessed and the unfortunate; But you, in the name of your "Allah-u-Akbar" commit murder, create misery and subject others to suffering! Tell me truly who is to blame for your misdeeds? Your god who orders genocide, plunder and destruction, or you who do these things in his name? Or both?

You, who have spent all your days in brutality and barbarity, have now come out of your desolate deserts resolved to teach, by the blade and by conquest, the worship of God to a people who have for thousands of years been civilized and have relied on culture and knowledge and art as mighty edifices.

What have you, in the name of your "Allah-u-Akbar", taught these armies of Islam besides destruction and pillage and murder that you now presume to summon others to your god?
Today, my people's fortunes have changed. Their armies, who were subjects of Ahuramazada, have now been defeated by the Arab armies of "Allah-u-Akbar". And they are being forced, at the point of the sword, to convert to the god by the name of "Allah-u-Akbar". And are forced to offer him prayers five times a day but now in Arabic; since apparently your "Allah-u-Akbar" only understands Arabic.

I advise you to return to your lizard infested deserts. Do not let loose upon our cities your cruel barbarous Arabs who are like rabid animals. Refrain from the murder of my people. Refrain from pillaging my people. Refrain from kidnapping our daughters in the name of your "Allah-u-Akbar". Refrain from these crimes and evils.

We Iranians are a forgiving people, a kind and well-meaning people. Wherever we go, we sow the seeds of goodness, amity and righteousness. And this is why we have the capacity to overlook the crimes and the misdeeds of your Arabs.

Stay in your desert with your "Allah-u-Akbar", and do not approach our cities; for horrid is your belief and brutish is your conduct.”

Within 15 years Persia was utterly defeated and Shah Yazdgird was forced into exile. He was killed by a common thief in 651AD. By the 10th century the Persian’s Zoroastrian religion had been eclipsed, as the majority had converted to Islam. Since 1979, Iran has been governed by Islamic Shariah law, and ruled by Shi’ite Muslim religious clerics. Now its current president openly embraces the Islamic version of Armageddon as the only salvation for the world, and it’s former president says it would be worth it for the Muslim world to be gravely wounded, as long as they can wipe out all the Jews. Today this regime is on the verge of possessing a nuclear arsenal, and the means to deliver atomic devastation to the entire Middle East and much of Europe.

Letters written in the name of Islam are not simple correspondence between monarchs and clerics. In reality, letters written in the name of Islam have changed our world.

Read further...

Hamas Prime Minister: America's Economic Turmoil is "Divine Punishment"

Via the Jerusalem Post: Haniyeh: America's economic turmoil is 'divine punishment'

The current economic turmoil in the US is "divine punishment," Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh said Friday.

During a sermon before Muslim prayers at a Gaza City mosque, Haniyeh said God was chastising America for its support of the Israeli-led blockade imposed on Gaza.

Haniyeh said God's punishment would also extend to America's allies.

Fascinating. I'm interested in Mr. Haniyeh's scholarly analysis of the simultaneous crash of oil prices. Hamas' financial patron Iran has 10% of the world's proven oil reserves and is the second largest oil exporter on earth. That oil has lost more than half it's value since July 2008. Perhaps Allah is punishing Iran because Ahmadinejad has not been sufficiently zealous in hastening the advent of the Mahdi.

[post ends here]
Read further...

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Russell Responds to Murtha's "Racist" Charge

That was quick:

Russell responded saying, “Once again Mr. Murtha is using the prestige and platform of public office to make wild, reckless statements about the people he represents in Congress.” Adding, “Because the people of Western Pennsylvania aren’t wholeheartedly embracing Barack Obama’s values and positions on issues like the right-to-life, taxes and the 2nd Amendment doesn’t makes us racist. That’s the cheapest of cheap shots.”

Russell said Murtha’s latest comments reveal a “strange, arrogant disconnect from the people who live and work in Western Pennsylvania. He forgets that this is a melting pot of hard-scrapping immigrants. My wife Kasia is a Polish immigrant, my neighbors in Johnstown trace their ancestry to all corners of the earth. He needs to apologize. He needs to set the record straight.

[post ends here]
Read further...

Murtha: Western Pa. 'racist' but Obama should win

Murtha: Western Pa. 'racist' but Obama should win
Oct 15 03:29 PM US/Eastern

PITTSBURGH (AP) - U.S. Rep. John Murtha says his home base of western Pennsylvania is racist and that could reduce Barack Obama's victory margin in the state by 4 percentage points.

The 17-term Democratic congressman tells the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in a story posted Wednesday on its Web site that, as he put it: "There is no question that western Pennsylvania is a racist area."

He says it's taken time for many Pennsylvania voters to come around to liking Obama, but he should still win the state, though not in a runaway.

In a separate interview posted Wednesday on the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review's Web site, Murtha says Obama has a problem with the race issue in western Pennsylvania that could shave 4 points off his lead in the state.

Breathtaking. This man obviously feels he can get away with anything and still retain his seat. Why? Because he has saturated the region with high-fat pork products. This link has a comprehensive rundown of his pork legacy through November 2005.

The saddest part of this story is that the pork creates an illusion of economic stability while undermining the natural strengths of the region. See my previous post for an interview with Republican challenger Bill Russell about this subject. The short-term jobs of Murtha's pork projects come at the expense of local small business owners and entrepreneurs who are robbed of qualified employees and starved of capital. The contracts (mostly defense-related) are short-term and the corporations have absolutely no incentive to stay in the area once the earmarks dry up. And so, once Murtha is out of office the region will have a sudden and disastrous economic depression. If businesses were allowed to rise and fall according to natural market forces, the decline would have been slow and painful over the past few decades, but at least it would have unfolded organically and left room for entrepreneurs to salvage opportunities from the wreckage.

He is leaving the region addicted to pork for his own personal gain, and when he's gone there will be severe withdrawal symptoms. Shameful.

Here's the smoking gun, he mutters the "racist" comments at the very beginning:

Read further...

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Islamic Crusades Episode 4: Lessons From the Thai Jihad

I created the Islamic Crusades series to provide a counterpoint to the Christian Crusades. My goal was to remind a self-loathing West that our alleged sins are not to blame for the Islamic aggression we see today. Thus far I have covered episodes in the Middle Ages that took place parallel to the Crusades, in which Muslims embarked upon Jihad and committed atrocities against Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians. A second means to the same conclusion is to expose situations in which Muslims are in conflict with non-Western peoples. These conflicts are isolated from the baggage of Christianity, the Crusades, European colonialism and the other canards that apologists cite to excuse Muslim violence against the West, yet they unfold in much the same way. Full transcript of the video with embedded links follows:

The Southeast Asian nation of Thailand is 95% Buddhist. Of 63 million
Thai citizens, about 2.8 million, or 4.6%, are Muslim. The Muslim
population is heavily concentrated in three provinces in the far south where they make up about 80% of the population; Pattani, Narathiwat and Yala. Since 2001 nearly 3,000 Thai citizens have been killed in an ongoing Islamist insurgency in the south. In comparison about 1,000 Israeli citizens have died since the beginning of the Second Intifada in 2000. Yet there is a drought of media coverage on the Thai Jihad, and few Westerners are aware of it outside of a small niche of blog readers.

Jihadist attacks began in earnest in 2001, focusing on symbols of
government authority, such as police and military installations and even
schools. 19 policemen were killed in 50 insurgency related incidents by
the end of the year. The government reflexively blamed the attacks on
criminal, commercial or clan rivalries in the local area. In early 2002,
Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra stated, "There's no separatism, no ideological terrorists, just common bandits." In July 2002, after 14 policemen were killed within seven months, Thaksin publicly denied the role of religion in the attacks and was quoted as saying he did not "think religion was the cause of the problems down there because several of the policemen killed were Muslim." The Thai Interior Minister suggested that the attacks were a backlash against a recent drug crackdown by police.

The knee-jerk reaction of many in the West was to blame the troubles on economic marginalization, but the Deep South’s economy has improved markedly in recent years. Between 1983 and 2003 the average per capita income of Pattani Province grew more than 500%. From 2002-2004 household income improved about 20% in the three southern provinces, compared to 9.4% growth for Thailand as a whole. Between 2000 and 2004 the poverty rate in Narathiwat Province fell from 40% to 18%.

Nor did the Muslims suffer from political exclusion. By the late 1990’s Muslims were holding senior posts in Thai politics, such as Wan Muhammad Nor Matha who served as the Chairman of Parliament and Interior Minister in Prime Minster Thaksin’s administration. The government included 14 Muslim members of parliament and several senators when violence broke out in 2001. Also, Muslims dominated the local governments in the three Muslim-majority provinces and were able to voice their political grievances openly.

And yet, the violence accelerated. In 2002, 75 insurgency-linked attacks amounted to 50 deaths among police and army personnel. In 2003, officials counted 119 incidents. From January to March 2004 more than 600 people were killed in a new wave of shootings and bombings. The mounting scale and sophistication of the insurgency eventually forced the government to recognize that this was more than mere banditry. The Buddhist citizens demanded action and the military imposed martial law in the insurgent provinces. Despite this new measure, Thaksin was not ready to give up on appeasement. He mobilized the nation to fold a hundred million paper cranes as a peace offering. In December 2004, 50 Thai army planes saturated the South with what became known as a “peace bombing”. The Jihadists were not impressed. Hours later militants shot a prosecutor dead in Pattani province. The next morning four Thai troops were bombed at a rest-stop and a local official was severely injured by a car bomb.

In March 2005, respected former Prime Minister Anand was appointed as chairman of the National Reconciliation Commission, tasked with bringing peace to the South. A fierce critic of the government’s crackdown, he especially deplored the declaration of martial law. He submitted his final recommendations in 2006, which included the introduction of Islamic Sharia law, deploying an unarmed peacekeeping force, and establishing a Peaceful Strategic Administrative Centre for Southern Border Provinces, an agency that sounds about as useful as the UN.

Also in 2005, Generel Sonthi, a Muslim, was appointed Thai army chief. In August 2006, following the simultaneous bombing of 22 banks in Yala province, General Sonthi broke with government policy and insisted on negotiating with the jihadists. Sonthi himself admitted he was unsure of who to negotiate with, as the jihadists remained nebulous and seemingly leaderless. Still, on September 22, 2006, he and a group of disgruntled officers led a coup and deposed Prime Minister Thaksin. In November 2006 the new coup-appointed Prime Minister explicitly apologized to southern Muslims. He adopted a more conciliatory tone and committed the government to improving socio-economic conditions and educational standards in the south. The reaction to this apology was a dramatic increase in assassinations, bombings and arson attacks. The monthly death toll increased by 30% in the 5 months after the coup compared to the 5 months before the coup.

It would be hard to find a society more alien to the West than Buddhist Thailand, yet the Thai government and populace have gone through an eerily similar progression of reactions in combating Islamist violence:


THAILAND: Their first reaction in 2001 was denial; they denied any religious component to the violence and cited economic and political oppression as the root cause. THE WEST: During the 2005 riots in France, the French government and global media downplayed the Islamic angle. The perpetrators were described as “immigrant youths”, or more seldom as “North African youths”, but never as Muslims, and economic and political deprivation were deemed to be the root causes.


THAILAND: In 2004, facing a spike in violence, the Thai government was compelled to react with harsh measures, but they soon lost their focus and reverted to such absurd gestures as "peace-bombing" the south with paper cranes. THE WEST: In the months following 9/11, Americans stood resolutely in pursuit of a decisive confrontation with Islamic fascism. Over time the focus has dissipated into weariness over long-running wars and frustration over cumbersome security measures.


THAILAND: In 2006 the Thai National Reconciliation Commission recommended the institution of Sharia law in the south as a concession to the Islamists. THE WEST: In 2006 the Dutch Justice Minister suggested that Sharia law would be acceptable in his country if approved by a 2/3 majority. In the same year the Swedish Democracy Minister said, “We must be open and tolerant towards Islam and Muslims, so that when we become a minority, they will be so towards us.” In 2008 the Archbishop of Canterbury called Sharia law in Britain “unavoidable," and in fact Sharia courts were recently established to handle civil matters within the British Muslim community.


THAILAND: In September 2006 the Thai military, led by a Muslim, deposed the democratically elected government, and started in immediately with apologetics and appeasement. This emboldened the terrorists and was met by a 30% increase in bloodshed. THE WEST: In August 2005 Israel unilaterally pulled its soldiers and civilians out of the Gaza strip. Left-wing American Jews purchased existing greenhouses and farms from the Gaza Jews so that they could be given to the Palestinians as a goodwill gesture. Since then they have been converted into terminals for weapons-smuggling tunnels. The concessions emboldened the Islamists who proceeded to shower thousands of rockets into Israel-proper and demanded that the Jews evacuate those areas as well.

The Thai Jihad demonstrates that Islamist violence is not rooted in economic and political alienation, or in a rebellion against Western imperialism and capitalism, nor in a backlash against Christian fundamentalism. Islamist violence is rooted in Islamic ideology. Thai Muslims tend to study abroad in the Middle East and Pakistan. Many return to Thailand to teach in religious schools, passing the extremism to a new generation. Pattani Muslims are reported to have received training at al-Qaida centers in Pakistan, and have forged links with groups such as the Moro Islamic Liberation Front in the Philippines and the Free Aceh Movement in Indonesia. This is a global phenomenon; oil money funds radical mosques and schools, locals are radicalized, and violence proliferates. It’s the same in London and Jerusalem as it is in Pattani and Yala.

Perhaps the most important lesson of the Thai Jihad is that insurgent Muslims, who make up less than 5% of the population, have overshadowed the political landscape for a decade. It has been the bloodiest insurgency on earth outside of Iraq. It was the primary reason behind a coup that brought down the central government in Bangkok. Those who worry that 3-5% Muslim minorities may significantly undermine Western Europe are branded "paranoid" or "racist" by the media. The story of Thailand makes it clear that relatively small minorities can destabilize a national government and throw a society into chaos, let alone 10% or more as in a country like France.

The sheer brutality of the conflict is extreme even by Jihadist standards. At least 30 people have been beheaded. Up to 1,000 schools have been shut down due to arson or threats and 30 teachers have been killed. One reason is that Thai Muslims are very much aware that they are on the periphery of the global Jihad, with world media focused disproportionately on the Middle East. They hope audacious attacks will attract more notoriety and prestige to their cause. Another reason is that Buddhists are considered by Muslims to be idolaters. While Christians and Jews under Islamic domination may choose between conversion, death, or a gradual humiliating decline as dhimmis, idolaters do not have the dhimmi option; they must convert or die.

With all these statistics flying around it is easy to forget that real people in Thailand are being murdered daily in savage fashion. If you have a strong stomach, visit the link I’ve provided to the Zombie Time (*WARNING* Graphic Images, Please Use Discretion) blog for a truly disturbing visual portrayal of the Jihad in Thailand.

Above all I encourage you to research the situation in Thailand further. Spread the word to your liberal friends and acquaintances. They will be baffled when they realize they can’t fall back on their usual anti-Western talking points to explain Jihadist violence in this formerly peaceful Eastern nation.

Read further...

Sunday, October 12, 2008

Left-Wing Agitators Use Fraudulent Image to Defame Bill Russell

An Obamabot left me the following comment defaming Bill Russell, John Murtha's Republican congressional opponent in Pennsylvania's 12th district:

Russell did not disclose all of his campaign's receipts and expenses.
NOW the Federal Elections Commission is investigating Russell.

Russell has used Pentagon phones and faxes for his political activities while he was on active duty.
NOW the Pentagon is investigating Russell.

Russell did not get approval to hold an campaign event.
NOW the Fisher House Foundation is investigating Russell.

Russell is out of touch.

NOW Russell is out of time.

The name of the site would imply a connection to; if that's the case MoveOn needs to fire someone. The top banner of the page features a multi-ethnic assortment of "progressive" young people, smiling next to a highway in the snow-capped mountains of Western Pennsylvania. Or rather the mountains are supposed to be in Western Pennsylvania.

The problem is that there are no snow-capped mountains in Pennsylvania. The mountains depicted are obviously the snow-capped peaks of the Rockies. Pennsylvania is home to the Alleghenies, part of the much older and thus thoroughly eroded Appalachian Range. The elevation of the highest point in the state is only 3,213 feet.

This hastily constructed site was obviously created by a partisan agitator in Washington or some other remote clime, because a native Pennsylvanian would be quite shocked to find such mountains towering over their home town.

[post ends here]
Read further...

Saturday, October 11, 2008

Sarah Palin Rally in Congressman John Murtha's Home District

Well, this isn't my usual stock and trade but I got tickets to a Sarah Palin rally so I figured I would share the sights and sounds with you all. Unfortunately the crowd exceeded capacity just as we reached the doors and we weren't allowed in, but I was able to capture some old-fashioned American-flavored politics during the wait.

I spoke briefly with Bill Russell (R), an Iraq War veteran who is opposing John Murtha for Representative of the 12th District of Pennsylvania.

Murtha achieved notoriety in recent years by slandering US Marines; accusing them of massacring civilians in Haditha, Iraq based on a Time magazine report. He condemned the Marines before any factfinding had been completed. As of today, 7 of the 8 marines charged have been fully exonerated, with one case still waiting to go to appeal. Murtha has never apologized. Murtha is also the #1 recipient of pork in the entire congress which is part of why he's been reelected for more than 30 years. I discussed that issue with Bill Russell as well.

[post ends here]
Read further...

Thursday, October 9, 2008

Reflection for Yom Kippur

Today is the Jewish Holy Day of Yom Kippur; above all it is a time of reflection. Please reflect on the following stanzas:


We sin against You when we sin against ourselves.

For our failures of justice, O Lord, we ask forgiveness.

For waging aggressive war,

and for the sin of appeasing aggressors.

For obeying criminal orders,

and for the sin of silence and indifference.

[post ends here]
Read further...

Monday, October 6, 2008

Jesus Was A Palestinian?

I recently read an article that embodies the widespread academic fraudulence that inspired me to create this channel. I found this story via the Gates of Vienna blog. Gates of Vienna is one of the best sources of counter-Jihad news out there. Their main focus is Europe because that’s the central front in this battle right now. If you’re an American you should think of Europe as a preview of what’s to come here in a decade or two. You can find the article itself at World Net Daily. Transcript of the video follows:

“'Jesus was a Palestinian,' claims U.S. history text. Study: American public school books have 'same inaccuracies' as Arab texts”

When we see violent Muslim protest on TV, it’s sometimes hard to understand their motivations. Many demonstrations occur on Friday, the Muslim Sabbath, after imams have whipped their congregations into an infidel-hating frenzy. The propagandist state-controlled media in many of these countries is also a factor. But the first seeds are planted among the young, with school textbooks that present a distorted version of history.

For example the primary purpose of Palestinian textbooks is to engender hatred against Jews and Westerners from an early age. In these textbooks, Israel is described as "a country of gangs, born in crime." The Jews are “arrogant and sly traitors”, and Zionism is a “racist movement” and a "disease." In 5th grade, discussion is devoted to the question: “Why must we fight the Jews and expel them from our land?” In the 8th grade, the students learn that “the usurpers have crossed all boundaries and therefore the time has come for jihad, to unsheathe the sharp sword.”

A recent report by CMIP (Committee for Monitoring the Impact of Peace, a non-profit, non-partisan organization based in New York), found that of 58 children's textbooks used in the Palestinian Authority, not one mentioned Israel by name and none offered a map of the region that included the existence of the Jewish state.

Most Palestinian textbooks are produced in Egypt and Jordan, and this historical revisionism is prevalent throughout the Arab world.

These books also co-opt biblical figures. Abraham, known to history as the first Jew and the forefather of three religions is described simply as “an Iraqi”. Abraham was born in Ur, a city located in Lower Mesopotamia near the mouth of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, a region that falls within the modern nation of Iraq. However, Abraham is traditionally considered to have been born in 2000 BCE, about 2,600 years before the advent of Islam, and about 3,900 years before the establishment of Iraq. To call him an Iraqi is absurd to any knowledgeable person, but in a region with some of the lowest education and literacy rates on earth, this passes as scholarship.

The same sources claim Jesus as “a Palestinian.” However, the Romans only imposed the name Palestina, a spiteful reference to the Jews biblical enemies the Philistines, in 70CE, after Jesus’ death. Their explicit reason for reviving the name of the long-extinct Philistines was to erase any Jewish connection to the land, having just destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem and killed or expelled the population.

The first time native inhabitants of the land called themselves Palestinians was more than 1800 years later, when Jews used it to describe their identity as residents of the British Mandate of Palestine. The Arabs in the region called themselves Syrians. As recently as 1967, Syria's delegate to the UN Security Council declared that it was Syria "from which Palestine was severed and from the territory of which Israel was created. . . . When the world persecuted the Jews, they found a homeland in my country, Syria." The word “Palestinian” was first used to distinguish Arab Muslims in the area from Jews after the state of Israel was established in 1948, but its use was discouraged by Jordan and Egypt, who occupied the West Bank and Gaza Strip respectively, and weren’t interested in a theoretical Palestinian national movement that would threaten their own claims. It was only after the 6 Day War in 1967, when Israel conquered those territories, that the designation “Palestinian” became fashionable.

And so Jesus has been co-opted as a Palestinian, even though the word only came to describe Arab Muslims more than 1900 years after his death. And this is standard practice in the Islamic world. Since the time of Mohammed, Muslims have been very mindful of the fact that two Abrahamic religions came before them, and much energy has been devoted to weaving the traditions, stories and symbols of Judaism and Christianity, into the Muslim narrative. You’ll gain an insight into this mindset, by noting that converts to Islam are not known as converts, but “reverts”, because Muslims believe that Islam is the true innate orientation of every human, some just haven’t realized it yet. When one swallows this concept it is easy to believe that Abraham was an Iraqi, Jesus was a Palestinian, and the Middle East was always Muslim. And so, this phenomenon is disturbing, but not surprising in an Arab world that’s painfully insecure about it’s past and future.

What is surprising is that this phenomenon is showing up in American textbooks as well.
Dr. Gary Tobin and Dennis Ybarra looked at 28 prominent American history, geography and social studies textbooks in an exhaustive 5 year study.

"The textbooks tend to be critical of Jews and Israel, disrespectful about Christianity, and rather than represent Islam in an objective way, tend to glorify it," said Ybarra.

“The World”, published by Scott Foresman, claims that "Christianity was started by a young Palestinian named Jesus.”

The researchers also found that Judaism and Christianity are treated as matters of believing, while Islam is treated as a matter of fact. In the glossary of "World History: Continuity and Change," the Ten Commandments are described as, "Moral laws Moses claimed to have received from the Hebrew God on Mount Sinai." But the same glossary states as fact that the Quran is a, "Holy Book of Islam containing revelations received by Muhammad from God… Tobin says that “Islam is treated with a devotional tone in some textbooks, less detached and analytical than it ought to be. Muslim beliefs are described in several instances as fact, without any clear qualifier such as 'Muslims believe…’"

This begs the question, WHY? America is not a Muslim country, what interest would the educational establishment have in promoting Islam? It’s an acknowledged fact that academia has a leftist slant, so why would these people who are supposedly committed to secularism be so interested in promoting a monotheistic religion? Because as the Left sees it, they share a common short-term goal with Islam; they both seek to destabilize and weaken the existing foundations of Western societies. The Muslims so they can impose Islamic law across the globe, as commanded by their holy writings. The Left, so they can replace what they see as a greedy, racist, patriarchal society with one that would redistribute wealth, provide expensive cradle-to-grave welfare, and hypothetically ensure equality; i.e., recreate the Western European welfare state in North America. Presumably once the Left seized control it would jettison its Islamic supporters, and submit them along with the rest of society, to their vision of a utopian Marxist nanny-state.

But the "sophisticated" American Left has failed to realize that Western Europe has followed just such a policy since the 1970’s, and it’s currently blowing up all over their faces. The socialists, who encouraged mass-immigration to undermine the capitalist power structure, are realizing that the influx has turned social conditions backwards rather than forwards for the common citizen. The secularists who hoped a flood of non-Christians would weaken the conservative influence of the church, have found that Islam embodies a doctrine that is more reactionary, conservative, expansionist and energized than modern European Christianity could ever hope to be. Feminists are finding that it’s no longer safe to walk the streets at night, and gay activists have taken their lifestyles back indoors due to Muslim violence and intimidation. Yet the American left insists on feeding this force in a misguided strategy to increase their own power. The intimidation needs to stop, the historical revisionism needs to stop, and the appeasement needs to stop, or soon there will be no one left to question agross historical distortion such as, Jesus was a Palestinian.

Read further...