Freedom Ain’t Free & Take Our Country Back

VICTORY Is Not Defeat

Big Lies in High Places

Many Voices: understanding the debate about preventing violent extremism – Hazel Blears MP
Source: DCLG
Published Friday, 27 February, 2009 – 09:28
British Member of Parliament Hazel Blears spoke to the London School of Economics, making several idiotic statements. At the conclusion of her remarks, she said this.

And if we are to change minds and win this debate, it will not be through restricting our engagement to a select few, but through bringing in new voices: not through concealing what we believe in, but through making our arguments confidently: and not through acquiescing with those with whom we disagree, but through being robust in our challenge to them.

Thank you for listening – I welcome your questions and comments.

M.P. Blears probably won’t see my comments, and surely would not welcome them. While I agree with much of what she said, I find these expressions of idiotic ignorance too egregious to let pass without condemnation.

Barack Obama used his Inaugural Address in February to tell the world:

“Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred.”

So what is this ‘far-reaching network of violence and hatred’?

It is rooted in a shifting mosaic of international groupings, with their origins in the struggle of the mujahedeen against the Soviets in Afghanistan, in the refugee camps and some madrassas on the Afghan-Pakistan border, in Algeria’s political unrest of the 1980s and 1990s, and in the war in Iraq.

Islamic Jihad, with its tactics of genocide & terrorism, flows directly from Islam’s canon of scripture, tradition & jurisprudence. None of the major schools of Shari’ah rejects the Jihad imperatives found in Surah Al-Anfal & At-Taubah. The congruent pattern of speech & conduct formed by Moe’s recitation & sunnah is reflected in Shari’ah.  Let doubters & dissenters turn first to the two surahs above named, next to Riyad us-Saliheen Book 11, Chapter 234: Obligation of Jihad and finally to Umdat as-Salik Book O, Chapter 9.

There is the obvious danger that we say ‘Islamism’ but people hear ‘Islam’ or ‘Islamic’, especially as the word translates poorly into other languages such as Arabic. Even in English, where the two words are distinct, many people lack the political literacy to distinguish between a political ideology dubbed by some as Islamism and Islam itself. There are plenty of people, for example the far right in this country, or Geert Wilders’ outfit in Holland, who would wish to conflate the two in order to stir up race hate.

Islam is not a race, it is a war cult which has enslaved members of several races. Arabs, Asians,Blacks,  and Europeans became Muslims at sword point. Many of their descendants remain Muslim out of tradition and filial piety; they have known nothing else and would be dispossessed, tortured and killed as required by Islamic law if they abandoned Islam.  Moe’s abominable creation is classified as a Deen, way of life, which encompasses all human activity. It conflates the spiritual & temporal. It prescribes certain duties which must be performed; Jihad: the military conquest of the world, is one of them.

A second trap is that to talk of ‘Islamism’ suggests there is a unified, single movement. But there is no more a unified Islamism than there is a single socialism, or a single conservatism, or a single liberalism.

While maintenance of perfect uniformity is nearly impossible, Islam has a standard, which was set by Moe in his recitation and exemplified in his sunnah for all Muslims to obey and emulate. Which schismatic group rejects and denies the Qur’an?  What Allah said about Jihad, terror & genocide is law. What did he say about them?  Unless you read the Qur’an,. you will have no clue. To complete the pattern which forms Shari’ah, you must know what Moe said and did about them, from his sunnah.

For example, Al-Qaeda is in conflict with the Muslim Brotherhood over fundamental questions such as the nature of the state, and the duty of the individual to fight the perceived enemies of Islam.

Does the ignorant speaker know her head from her butt? For certain she does not know that Al-Qaeda is a branch of Al-Ikhwan Al-Islamiyya.  Has she read the writings of Hasan Al-Banna or Abdullah Azzam?  Has she read the Charter of Hamas, which includes the Al-Ikhwan’s motto? No, instead she pontificates from atop the pedestal of ignorance.

A third trap is to assume that all Islamists are terrorists. Some groups specifically oppose violence but have religious views which are very conservative and can conflict with other values we share in society.

It is not possible to be a Muslim and oppose violence & terrorism, both of which are intrinsic sacraments of Islam. Such opponents are branded hypocrites by Islam’s demon and founder; accursed, to be fought and ushered into Hell along with us Kuffar. Islam is all or nothing; you can not pick and choose.

A belief in the supremacy of the Muslim people, in a divine duty to bring the world under the control of hegemonic Islam, in the establishment of a theocratic Caliphate, and in the undemocratic imposition of theocratic law on whole societies: these are the defining and common characteristics of the disparate strands of this ideology here and around the world.

The items in that list flow directly from Allah’s word, as recited by Moe and codified in the Qur’an; exemplified by his sunnah. They are standard Islam, not exceptional ism.

You can’t ignore the facts that this ideology is rooted in a twisted reading of Islam. The academics, scholars and imams I meet to discuss these issues tell me that the message of Islam is one of peace; and the followers of Islam I meet oppose the single narrative promulgated by Al-Qaeda, and certainly oppose violence. Indeed, the vast majority are proud of their faith and their nationality, see no conflict or contradiction between being British and being Muslim, and are an integral part of the economic, cultural and social life of their neighbourhood and the country, giving the lie to the ideas of division and difference that lie at the heart of extremist ideology.

Your facts are fallacies! Allah’s commands are contained in clear verses whose meanings are obvious. You do not know this because you have not read 3:7; nor have you read Ibn Kathir’s Tafsir of 3:7.
The message of Islam is one of peace: the peace pertaining after the violent conquest of the entire world!  “Fight them until”, “fight those who”,”strive hard and fight with your lives…””made a great slaughter”, “killed and wounded many of them”. Hell yes, a religion of peace indeed. The ignorant fool has not read the Qur’an. Ibn Kathir’s Tafsir will make it easy for you; it presents the ayat, their translations and the hadith which exemplify them all in one compact text. Read them and understand the truth.

This is what Islam truly means in practice for the vast majority: a personal and spiritual faith matched by a sense of social responsibility, motivating people to do good for their neighbourhood and community.

The vast majority of Muslims know little of Islam beyond what they have been told by the Imam or Mullah.  One recent survey reported that only 13% of Muslims have read the Qur’an.

With groups which call for or support terrorist acts there is no room whatsoever for debate, only vociferous opposition.

There is one such group: Islam. Have you read 3:151, 8:12, 8:60, 33:26-27, 59:2 and 59:13? Why not? Here is your chance, click the links and read them. Because you have not read the hadith, you did not know that Moe was a terrorist. He did not just preach it, he practiced it. Read them and curse Islam!
Bukhari Volume 1, Book 7, Number 331,  Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220

If you will make good use of the links I have provided in this post, you can access the Qur’an & tafsir and four hadith collections along with an assortment of hadith with commentary and the handbook of Islamic law.  If you will not take the time and exert the effort necessary to comprehend the reality of Islam, you will surely fall prey to the liars & ignoramuses who pontificate from the pedestals of al-takeyya & ignorance.  The most egregious ayat, along with relevant tafsir have been compiled with the most egregious hadith and Shari’ah, into a Windows Help File: EgregiousAyat.chm. Download it and start learning.

February 28, 2009 Posted by | Political Correctness | 2 Comments

Obama Backing out of Durban II?

CBC News claims that Obama Administration officials have declared an intention to Boycott the Durban II Converence unless language deligitimiszing Israel  and criminalizing criticism of Islam is removed.  CBC’s sources remain anonymous, not that I’d believe any member of Obama’s crew of cronies.

This article is distinguished from the mill run by inclusion of a link to the draft document: Draft of UN document. That text is one month old, probably not reflecting recent changes, of which it seems there were few.

CBC makes reference to an article on Politico, which supposedly expresses tolerance for “shorter, much different text”.  Ben Smith’s Blog at Politico has this headline:

U.S. pulling out of racism conference

Here are the weasel words:

They left open the option of re-engaging on a “much shorter, much different text,” a source said.

That loop hole is broad enough to sail anything through.  According to Smith, President Obama was expected to issue a statement. A search of proved fruitless.  Why should we be ‘engaging’ with the representatives of tyrranical regimes which form the majority of the UNHRC? We can not possibly have enough positive effect on the outcome to make it acceptable.

For the time being, we can only hope that The U.S.A. will not participate in the hate fest.  Here are a few examples of the tripe we should  avoid legitimizing.

[Notes that other obstacles hampering progress in the collective struggle against racism and racial discrimination include [first and foremost the absence of political will, the denial of the existence of contemporary racist tendencies,] weak [national] legislation and policies, lack of effective strategies, [lack of political will,] lack of implementation of international legal framework and commitments, impunity on different grounds [ – including [[negative] abuse of] freedom of expression, [counter-terrorism, and national security] [stereotypical association of religion with terrorism and violence by the media and national security forces]– as well as an increase in extreme right wing xenophobic political platforms. Hence the need [arises] to deal with this menace in all its forms and manifestations with all available tools at our disposal];]

[Notes with] [Expresses] deep concern [at] the widening use by some groups and organizations of the opportunities provided by print, audio-visual and electronic media as well as scientific and technological progress, such as the Internet, to promote racist and xenophobic propaganda aimed at inciting societies throughout the world to racial [and religious] hatred;

[Draws attention to the impact of] [Strongly deplores the [overt and covert] discriminatory] counter-terrorism measures [on] [that have led to] the rise of racism,

racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance [including the practice of racial, ethnic, national and religious profiling;]

NEW PARA: Also condemns all acts of ethnic, racial or religious profiling and segregation in any society, wherever it may occur, and its concomitant negative impact on the human rights of affected segments of population [and urges States to take resolute action against those responsible both in the public and private sectors]; [proposal to move to section 5].

NEW PARA: Reaffirms that counter-terrorism strategies should not undermine the protection of human rights and the fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance;

Recognizes with deep concern the global rise in the number of incidents of intolerance and violence against members of religious minorities in various parts of the world [in particular] motivated by [different forms of religious intolerance] [Islamophobia, anti-Arabism, anti-Semitism and Christianophobia];

ALT: Recognizes with deep concern the global rise in the number of incidents of intolerance and violence against members of religious minorities in various parts of the world;

25. Condemns any advocacy of racial or religious hatred which constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, and recognizes that only a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law may determine, case by case, in a fair and public hearing, whether the facts presented qualify as incitement to racial or religious hatred [prohibited by law]; ALT: Condemns any advocacy of racial or religious hatred which constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, and [should be prohibited by law;]

26. [[Notes with concern] [Seriously concerned at the] instances of defamation of religions, which manifests itself in [projecting negative, insulting and derogatory images of religions and religious personalities,] generalized and stereotypical association of religions, in particular Islam, with violence and terrorism, thus impacting negatively on the rights of individuals belonging to these religions, including Muslim minorities, and exposing them to hatred and discrimination. Such situations are further aggravated by the imposition of restrictions on the profession of religions, including [the surveillance of places of worship and restrictions on their construction] [the construction of places of worship and their surveillance];]

Reaffirms a holistic approach to human rights guaranteeing the indivisibility of all human rights, and stresses that [fundamental freedoms of expression and association should continue to contribute and promote the positive and desirable phenomenon of multiculturalism, respect for cultural diversity and tolerance among all religions, peoples and societies.] [the fight against racial and religious hatred should not serve as a pretext to legitimize impermissible limitations to freedom of expression] [as the right to freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society as it ensures individual self-fulfillment and a pluralistic, tolerant society with access to multitudes of ideas and philosophies]; ALT/NEW PARA: Reiterates that freedom of religion or belief, freedom of opinion and expression and non-discrimination are interdependent and stresses the need to strengthen the process of effectively adjudicating cases associated with incitement to national racial and religious hatred in accordance with the permissible limitations under article 20 of the ICCPR and analogous instruments; NEW PARA: Recognizes the importance of the positive role that can be played by the media in this context in particular through a responsible media that abstains from diffusing hate or defamatory information and that engages to fight against such practices;

[Expresses deep concern at the practices of racial discrimination against the Palestinian people as well as [Syrian nationals of the occupied Syrian Golan] [other inhabitants of the Arab occupied territories] which have an impact on all aspects of their daily existence and prevent the enjoyment of fundamental rights, and renews the call for the cessation of all such practices;]

31. [Reiterates that the Palestinian people have the inalienable right to self determination and that, in order to consolidate the [Israeli] occupation, they have been subjected to unlawful collective punishment, torture, economic blockade, severe restriction of movement and arbitrary closure of their territories. Also notes [with concern] that illegal settlements continue to be built in the occupied [Arab] territories [since 1967];]

32. [Reaffirms that a foreign occupation founded on settlements, laws based on racial discrimination with the aim of continuing domination of the occupied territory[y][ies], as well as the practice of reinforcing a total military blockade, isolating towns, villages and cities from one another, [totally] contradicts the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations [and constitutes a serious violation of international human rights and humanitarian law, a crime against humanity, a contemporary form of apartheid and serious threat to international peace and security] [and violates the basic principles of international human rights law];]

[NEW PARA: Expresses deep concern at the plight of Palestinian refugees and other inhabitants of the Arab occupied territories as well as displaced persons who were forced to leave their homes because of war and racial policies of the occupying power and who are prevented from returning to their homes and properties because of a racially-based law of return. It recognizes the right of return of Palestinian refugees as established by the General Assembly in its resolutions, particularly resolution 194 of 11 December 1948, and calls for the return to their homeland in accordance with and in implementation of this right;]

33. [Reiterates deep concern about the plight of the Palestinian people [as well as inhabitants of the other occupied territories] under foreign occupation, [including the obstruction of the return of refugees and displaced persons, and the construction of the segregation wall,] and urges respect for international human rights law, international refugee law and international humanitarian law, and calls for a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the region;]

34. [Re-emphasizes the responsibility of the international community to provide international protection, in particular from racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, for [Palestinian] civilian populations under occupation in conformity with international human rights law and international humanitarian law;] [Proposal to include reference to Gaza situation – language to be provided]

February 27, 2009 Posted by | Political Correctness | , | 1 Comment

Defamation of Religion: Moral Clarity

I am pleased to learn that there is at least one competent Australian remaining. The Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies published this excellent essay which clarifies the philosophy behind the right of free expression. I reproduced its first two paragraphs as a teaser.

The idiocy of “defamation of religion”

Russell Blackford

Metamagician and the Hellfire Club

Posted: Feb 17, 2009

Anti-liberal actors in the international arena, such as the Muslim states of the Middle East, are pursuing a path of attempting to suppress what they call “defamation of religion”. Their campaign is achieving some success, and I believe we must take it very seriously.

The whole idea of defamation of religion is nonsense. Taken literally, it would mean that I could not utter any falsehood that is damaging to the reputation of a religion (so, it might lead people to leave the religion or doubt its doctrines, or fail to be convinced to convert to it). But a religion has no right to flourish, be believed, retain adherents, gain converts, or anything of the sort. On the contrary, it is in the public interest that the truth and credibility of various religions be tested continually, and it is quite within my rights to try to convert people from their current religion to my religion of choice or to an anti-religious position. Much like political ideologies, religions have to take their own chances. Many things will be said for and against various religions, and some of those things will not be true, even if they are said sincerely.

February 27, 2009 Posted by | Uncategorized | | Leave a comment

Flight 39 Mother Seeks Transparency

Blogburst logo, petition For two years, Tom Burnett Sr. has been speaking out against the crescent-shaped memorial to Flight 93. This week Beverly Burnett (mother of Flight 93 hero Tom Burnett Jr.) stepped into the public eye to support her husband, and to make her own appeal for a full investigation:

Today, I am adding my voice for a full and transparent review of the National Park Service and Flight 93 design selection process that produced Crescent of Embrace. Does it have Islamic symbols or doesn’t it? Let’s settle this once and for all. Why do you think Tom Sr. opposed this design? It is pretty simple; Tom Sr. saw the Islamic symbols and knew those symbols did not belong at the crash site of Flight 93. Tom Burnett Sr. traveled to Pennsylvania last August to attend the Task Force Meeting to voice his opposition to the memorial design. A Family Board member as well as a commissioner accused Tom Sr. being “just like the Islamic terrorists” that killed our son. Why didn’t someone speak up and defend Tom Sr.’s right to voice his opinion?

Thanks to The Somerset Daily American for publishing Mrs. Burnett’s complete statement, which she also entered into the record of the most recent Memorial Project meeting. Read the whole thing. Two other mentions of the memorial controversy in the local PA press this week In a letter to the editor, a local woman echoed Mrs. Burnett’s sentiment in favor of preserving the site as it is, instead of demolishing the highly regarded Temporary Memorial and radically transforming the landscape, as the Memorial Project intends. At present the Temporary Memorial looks down over the “field of honor.” Because this temporary memorial is located roughly in the center of the planned half-mile wide crescent, it will be eliminated. Visitors who stand at the location of the Temporary Memorial will no longer look out over the original landscape, but will instead see the crash-site framed between the pincer tips of the giant Islamic-shaped crescent. They call the crescent a broken circle now, but the unbroken part of the circle, what symbolically remains standing in the wake of 9/11 (originally called the Crescent of Embrace) remains completely unchanged. Nice words from a local columnist, but no fact-checking In the area’s second local paper, The Johnstown Tribune-Democrat, columnist Ralph Couey offers a very nice tribute to the heroes of Flight 93 in which he mentions Mr. Burnett’s opposition to the planned memorial. Unfortunately, Mr. Couey goes on to describes Mr. Burnett’s opposition as “hopeless intransigence,” and expresses his optimism that it can be gotten past. Given that newspapers are supposed to get to the truth, one would hope that those who gain the privilege of this public platform would bother to check the facts. If Mr. Burnett is correct in his warnings about Islamic symbolism, then finding a way to get past these objections is like finding a way to sneak a hijacker past gate security. It is a bad thing, not a good thing. The petition that Mr. Burnett sponsored along with our blogburst group lists four damning facts about the approved design that can all be verified in a matter of minutes. Can Mr. Couey check just one: that a person standing between the tips of the giant crescent and facing into the center of the crescent will be facing within 2° of Mecca? QiblaOverlaidOnCrescent,400px The Muslim prayer direction in this animation (qibla) is from the Mecca-direction calculator at (If you have trouble getting their calculator to work–your Java has to be configured correctly–there is another Mecca direction calculator at This Mecca-orientation makes the giant crescent a mihrab, the Mecca-direction indicator around which every mosque is built. Does Mr. Couey really want to see the world’s largest mosque planted on the Flight 93 crash site? It is fine to speak highly of the heroes of Flight 93, but it would be a lot more meaningful if he would honor the Burnett’s urgent appeal for fact-checking by stepping over to a globe and checking this one simple factual claim. Mr. Couey is not the only one who wants the crescent controversy to go away without caring to know the truth. Sorry, but that is insufficient. Planting a giant Mecca-oriented crescent on the crash-site will dishonor the heroes of Flight 93, and it fails to follow their example. They didn’t just have good intentions. They got the job done, and we have to get the job done too. We can’t be asleep at the wheel while an al Qaeda sympathizing architect hijacks our memorial. What? Is it just too outlandish to think that the enemy might try to hijack one of our memorials? The same way that it is just too outlandish to think that the enemy might dare to hijack our commercial airliners? Do these people even know what they are memorializing? But they CAN wake up. All they have to do is actually check the facts. Then they will know. So please Mr. Couey, take the time to check a few facts, then write a second column, reporting your findings. Somebody out there in Somerset needs to start telling the truth. It might as well be you. To join our blogbursts, just send your blog’s url. 1389 Blog – Antijihadist Tech A Defending Crusader A Fine Line Between Stupid and Clever A Liberal’s Worst Nightmare ACT Golden Gate Al Salibiyyah All American Blogger Almost Midnight in the West American Commentaries And Rightly So Anne Arundel Maryland Politics Alamo City Pundit ARRA News Service Atlas Shrugs Auntie Coosa Campfire Journal Bare Naked Islam Battle Dress U Because I’m Right Best Destiny Big Dog’s Weblog Big Sibling Blackboot Jacks blogito, ergo, sum Bob McCarty Writes Boston Maggie Cao2’s Weblog Cao’s Blog Chaotic Synaptic Activity Chester Street Chicago Ray Christmas Ghost Classic Liberal Clay Ritter Clay’s Rants and Musings Cocked and Loaded Colonel Robert Neville Always Dresses for Dinner Common Sense Junction Concrete Bob Covertress Creeping Sharia DC Protest Warrior Democrat = Socialist Dr. Bulldog and Ronin Error Theory EW1’s Intercept Log Faultline USA Flanders Fields Flopping Aces Founding Fathers of the Vast Right Wing Four Pointer Francase Place Freedom’s Enemies Freedom Warrior Fried Green Onions From My Position On the Way! Ft. Hard Knox Freedom Ain’t Free Garbanzo Toons General Rachel’s weblog GM’s Corner Green Country Values Gunservatively Haid Dasalami Hard to Swallow Holger Awakens Hollywood Conservative Hoosier Army Mom Ironic Surrealism v3.0 Ivy League Conservatives Jack Lewis Jihad Press Jim-Rose – the Libertarian Popinjay Judge Right Just Barking Mad kae’s bloodnut blog Kender’s Musings Lemur King’s Folly LGF 2.0: Little Green Blogmocracy Maggie’s Notebook MELAMPUS’S MENAGERIE!!!! Miss Beth’s Victory Dance Monkey in the Middle Muslims Against Sharia My Own Thoughts Neoconstant Nice Deb No Apology No Compromises When It Comes To Being Right! Noli insipientium iniurias pati Not A Sheep Redesigned Flight 93 memorial still an Islamo-fascist shrine Ogre’s Politics and Views Old Soldier Papa Mike’s blog Part-Time Pundit Political Islam Principally Political Protest The Church Protest The Left Publius’ Forum Race, Politics, and Religion in the USA Republican Attack Machine Right on the Right Right Truth Ron’s Musings Rosemary’s Thoughts Sarah Palin in Español Seattle Express Sharia Finance Watch Sheepdog Barking Shot in the Dark Sad Old Goth Smooth Stone Space 4 Commerce by Brian Dunbar Stix Blog Stop the ACLU Teen Pundit the Avid Editor The Conservative Guy The Gadfly The Great Lie of Islam The Grid The Hinge of Fate Liberalguy The Loyal Eagles The Midnight Sun The Mountain The Paradigm Shift The Political Octagon The Renaissance Biologist The Sanity Sentinel The Sisyphus Files The Strata-Sphere The Truth of Islam The View From the Turret The Wide Awakes Talk Wisdom Thunder Run Tizona’s Weblog Tough Girl 101 Traction Control United Conservatives War of 2 Worlds We Have Some Planes Yes, but can I dance to it?

edit: 03/05/09

Columnist Ralph Couey emails a clarification Alec Rawls sends this update to last week’s post on the Flight 93 memorial, where columnist Ralph Couey was said to have described Tom Burnett Sr.’s objections to the crescent design as “hopeless intransigence.” UPDATE: Columnist Ralph Couey emails a clarificationMr. Couey insists that his reference to “hopeless intransigence” was not directed at Mr. Burnett’s opposition to the crescent design but “dealt solely with the parties involved in the land purchase.” I’ll take his word for that. The way he sandwiched his mention of Mr. Burnett’s protest in between his comments about the land deal certainly made it look like he was drawing a parallel, which is how I interpreted him, but there have been plenty of times when my own writings have been open to readings that I did not intend. These things happen. Here is the relevant part of Mr. Couey’s column:

I have to admit that for awhile, I was worried. There was the uproar concerning the design, and the dispute over the land purchase seemed to be hopelessly mired in mutual intransigence. In addition, I was concerned over the tendency of some Americans toward selective amnesia. Would this thing drag on until public apathy buried the whole idea of a memorial? As it turned out, my fears were largely groundless. The design issues have been settled, although there are voices, including Tom Burnett Sr. (father of Flight 93 passenger Tom Burnett Jr.), being raised in opposition. And with the latest news about the land, it appears that even hopeless intransigence eventually can be bridged.

Given what still remains to be bridged (Mr. Burnett’s protest), and the forward looking sentence structure “eventually can be bridged,” I don’t think it was unreasonable for me to see a parallel being drawn between the end of the landowners opposition and a hoped for end to Mr. Burnett’s opposition. Indeed, this implied hope is hard to escape. Still, there is no reason to doubt that the resulting association of “hopeless intransigence” with Mr. Burnett was accidental, whereas I simply asserted that it had been made. I should have been clearer, and so should Mr. Couey. In any case, how Mr. Couey’s refers to Tom Burnett’s opposition is a minor point. What the blogburst post focuses on is Mr. Couey’s apparent desire to see an end to that opposition, without any concern for whether our claims about the design are accurate or not. THAT is where Mr. Couey is untenable. If our claims are accurate (and it is easy to verify that they ARE accurate), then the crescent design is actually a memorial to the terrorists and it NEEDS to be opposed. Thus our blogburst post goes to some length (in a pretty nice way I think), to urge Mr. Couey to please check a few facts before taking a stand. He says in his email that he prefers to defer to the families that are backing the crescent design. That is a nice sentiment, but it makes no sense. Why would he defer to ANYONE about very important matters of fact that he can check for himself in a few minutes? The only reason for Couey to eschew the facts is if he doesn’t WANT to know the truth, which is how the Memorial Project got into this mess in the first place. The reason to point out the non-functionality of this truth-avoiding behavior is not make Mr. Couey look bad. It is to let him know about the opportunity he has to make himself look very good. Couey can be a hero. He is in a great position to help stop a hijacking, if he will just look up from his presumptions for long enough to check a few facts. Who can turn down opportunity like that?

February 27, 2009 Posted by | Political Correctness | | 1 Comment

Durban II Alert: Take Action!

Durban Alert, February 26, 2009

In the latest Durban II alert,  Anne Bayefsky  reveals what is happening and why. Here is the conclusion of her report.  Click the link above to read the full report..

The Obama Administration has everything it needs to decide the matter. While the Bush administration did not participate directly in Durban II planning, it carefully monitored the dozens of preparatory meetings since they began in August 2007. And now the State Department has added last week’s four days of “engagement.”

The administration, therefore, knows that Durban II will provide: a global megaphone for anti-semites in the name of combating racism and xenophobia, a forum for religious extremists to play-act as guardians of the freedom of religion, a stage for state sponsors of terrorism to fuel the sentiment that counter-terrorism activities are racist plots – and a vehicle for dictators to champion limitations on free speech in the name of human dignity.

With only a few days of scheduled planning meetings left before the conference, it is decision time for President Obama. Whose side will he be on?

Certainly not on the side of truth, justice & liberty; Barack Hussein Obama is a Chicago politician.  He ran on a platform of appeasing the enemy and that is exactly what he will do if left to his own devices.

If our first amendment right of free expression means anything to you, if  our alliance with Israel means anything to you then let President Obama and your Senators know about it! Tell them you object to participation in the Durban II hate fest. Tell them exactly why and tell them you won’t vote for them again if they don’t pull us out of it. has a form which lets you send the three emails at once.

If you don’t know exactly why Durban II is unacceptable and intolerable, then read: Durban II: Revised; Reject it!, it contains the essential details.

February 27, 2009 Posted by | United Nations | | 1 Comment

UnFairness Doctrine: Temporary Setback

“Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech. ” Benjamin Franklin []

“Without freedom of thought there can be no such thing as wisdom and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech.” Benjamin Franklin []

From News Max comes word that Senator Jim DeMint’s Broadcaster Freedom Act passed the Senate 87-11 as an amendment to an unrelated bill giving a voting representative to Washington D.C. Senator Dick Durbin’s Ownership Diversity amendment also passed 57-41.

The Socialists seek to squelch dissent, to silence dissenting voices by imposing economic penalties, denial of licensing, “local advisory” boards or restrictions on broadcast station ownership.

If they can restore “equal time” requirements, forcing broadcast stations to waste air time on left wing radio shows that can not draw and retain audience share, the loss in revenue will force broadcasters to drop the more popular conservative shows.

If they can set limits on how many stations a corporation can own, and issue more licenses to “minority owners” who are presumed to be more Socialistic in their outlook, they hope to reduce the number of stations carrying the more popular conservative shows.

If they can force broadcasters to institute “local advisory” boards, stacked with left wingers, who will whine & caterwaul about airing conservative opinions, they will have another excuse to deny licenses to those broadcasters.

In every case, the objective is to penalize broadcasters who provide what we want to hear. The Socialists want to assure a monopoly for their agenda driven house organs which print and broadcast their propaganda on their schedule without asking critical questions to expose their incompetence & corruption.

In a Representative Republic, an informed electorate is necessary to ensure competence and fiduciary trust. In the long run, an informed electorate is necessary to assure the preservation of liberty and prosperity. The Socialists want a one sided debate; a monologue, not a Dialogue. Competent electors will recognize the fact that “just us” is not justice.

There is nothing fair about the so called Fairness Doctrine; it is the acme of unfairness. When broadcasters operate in a free market, listeners vote with their tuners. They seek out the stations and programs they want and ignore the rest. Broadcasters sink or swim by adjusting their programming according to consumer demand. Pelosi, Schumer, Durbin & Stabenow seek to defeat the market so as to cement their party in power forever.

Far from fairness, theirs is an Unfairness Doctrine; an unconstitutional imposition of censorship. In their Orwellian lexicon, fairness is anything that benefits them and disadvantages their critics and electoral opponents.

In their campaign to squelch dissent, they rely on a shibboleth which, if carefully examined, reveals their dishonesty & corruption. “Public Airwaves” is their favorite. When it comes to radio, there is no such thing. Radio is not dependent on air, it would work just as well in a vacuum. It works by modulating electromagnetic radiation: “radio waves” with with sound. The waves are locally generated, on demand, by oscillators, modulated and amplified, all with privately owned electronic equipment and powered by electricity which the broadcasters pay for. There is no public resource involved.

The FCC allocates frequencies and sets power limits to assure that broadcast stations do not interfere with or jam each other’s signals. There is absolutely no rational basis for the unconstitutional censorship which the Socialists seek to impose upon their critics. The Socialists have a near total monopoly in the daily& monthly print media and in broadcast & cable television. A.M. radio is the one market they do not control, and they seek to monopolize it.

This issue is about content: they seek to stop speech which criticizes them, which questions their intentions, methods, policies, connections and effects. They don’t want us to hear the truth about their associations and policies. They would muzzle the guard dog and silence the canary in the coal mine.

Make no mistake, freedom of expression is necessary to facilitate full and complete debate of all sides of vital public issues. That is why the first Amendment protects it.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. [] [Emphasis added.]

Conservative talk radio is simply speech, translated into amplified radio frequency energy, amplified. & broadcast. Nothing in that process should remove it from the umbrella of first amendment protection. The fact that the Socialists seek unconstitutionally to censor it should prove to you that the Socialists are unworthy and unqualified to lead & legislate and should be removed from office at the next election.

The same forces seeking to censor talk radio also seek to censor the Internet. If they made conservative newspaper columns and editorials illegal, their violation of the Constititution would be immediately recognized as such. The only difference between news print and the Internet is the means of transmission and reproduction. Much of the content is transmitted both ways. Make no mistake, they’ll outlaw this blog if they can get away with it, just as they seek to outlaw Rush Limbaugh and his colleagues & competitors.

While the Broadcaster Freedom Act has intrinsic merit, it will, in the long run, have little effect because it can be repealed by a simple majority vote. The Constitution is our only real protection; it must be rigorously enforced. Once the Socialists pack the Supreme Court, we will lose our last line of defense.

Now is the time, while we still have our voices; while we can still say, hear, write and read the truth without penalty, to make maximal use of our Constitutional rights. Rise up and raise Hell! This blog post is placed in the public domain; copy it, cross post it, paste it into an email and broadcast it. Go to, enter your Zip Code and click the Federal Officials link. Send an email to President Barack Hussein Obama, your Representative & Senators. Tell them you are wise to their corrupt power grab and will not tolerate it. Tell them that you will not, under any circumstances, cast a vote for anyone who supports or implements unconstitutional censorship. Exhort your Rep. to sign the Broadcaster Freedom Act Discharge Petition. Include a link to this blog post by copying and pasting this html code: <a href=””>Unfairness Doctrine.</a>

Sign and support these on line petitions; exhort everyone you can influence to sign them.

Bear in mind these words of wisdom:

  • “If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” []
  • “I have always been among those who believed that the greatest freedom of speech was the greatest safety, because if a man is a fool, the best thing to do is to encourage him to advertise the fact by speaking.”
    By: Woodrow Wilson
    Free Speech Quotes
  • “There is no more fundamental axiom of American freedom than the familiar statement: In a free country we punish men for crimes they commit but never for the opinions they have.”
    By: Harry S. Truman
    Free Speech Quotes
  • “Free speech, exercised both individually and through a free press, is a necessity in any country where people are themselves free.”
    By: Theodore Roosevelt
    Free Speech Quotes
  • “If the fires of freedom and civil liberties burn low in other lands, they must be made brighter in our own. If in other lands the press and books and literature of all kinds are censored, we must redouble our efforts here to keep them free.”
    By: Franklin Delano Roosevelt
    Free Speech Quotes
  • “Free speech is intended to protect the controversial and even outrageous word; and not just comforting platitudes too mundane to need protection.”
    By: Colin Powell
    Free Speech Quotes
  • “There is tonic in the things that men do not love to hear; and there is damnation in the things that wicked men love to hear. Free speech is to a great people what winds are to oceans and malarial regions, which waft away the elements of disease, and bring new elements of health. And where free speech is stopped miasma is bred, and death comes fast.”
    By: Henry Ward Beecher
    Free Speech Quotes
  • Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us.William Orville Douglas []

February 26, 2009 Posted by | Fred Thompson, Freedom Of Speech, Political Correctness, Politics | , , , , , | 7 Comments

Islam Archive: What You Think You Know

I discovered Islam Archive through one of my Google Alerts which tipped me off to a post containing “ban Islam” .  Then I discovered a target rich thread too good to pass up. What follows are out of context quotes with my commentary interspersed.
Islam Archive

I studied religion and theology. I have many friends who are of various religions, whom I met in college and grad school.

What did you study, Paman, was it form or substance? Did you read and analyze the Qur’an & hadith?

Where do you uneducated people get the idea that Muslim religion is any harsher that a practicing religous Christian, Jew, or Morman?

From Islamic doctrine & practice. From seeing photos of Queers hung from construction cranes. From seeing photos of women stoned to death in Iran, lashed and shot in Saudi Arabia.  Are Jews & Christians performing such Barbarian acts in the name of their religion?

.001% of Muslims around the world are terrorists.

What percentage of Americans were active supporters of the war of revolution? What percentage of Russians were Bolsheviks? What percentage of Germans were voluntarily members of the Nazi Party when Hitler took over?

Is Moe a role model for all Muslims to emulate? What is the meaning of this ayeh:?

3:32. Say (O Muhammad ): “Obey Allâh and the Messenger (Muhammad ).” But if they turn away, then Allâh does not like the disbelievers.

What is the meaning of this ayeh?

33:21. Indeed in the Messenger of Allâh (Muhammad ) you have a good example to follow for him who hopes in (the Meeting with) Allâh and the Last Day and remembers Allâh much.

Muslims are commanded to obey Allah and Moe. They are advised to emulate Moe. What did Allah command concerning terror? What did Moe exemplify?

8:12. (Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels, “Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes.

33:26. And those of the people of the Scripture who backed them (the disbelievers) Allâh brought them down from their forts and cast terror into their hearts, (so that) a group (of them) you killed, and a group (of them) you made captives.

33:27. And He caused you to inherit their lands, and their houses, and their riches, and a land which you had not trodden (before). And Allâh is Able to do all things.

Bukhari Volume 1, Book 7, Number 331:
Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah:
The Prophet said, “I have been given five things which were not given to any one else before me.
1. Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month’s journey.
2. The earth has been made for me (and for my followers) a place for praying and a thing to perform Tayammum, therefore anyone of my followers can pray wherever the time of a prayer is due.
3. The booty has been made Halal (lawful) for me yet it was not lawful for anyone else before me.
4. I have been given the right of intercession (on the Day of Resurrection).
5. Every Prophet used to be sent to his nation only but I have been sent to all mankind.

Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220:
Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand.” Abu Huraira added: Allah’s Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them).

Allah declared that he would cast terror into the hearts of his intended victims and ordered the Muslims to decapitate them and cut off their fingers and toes. Moe said that he was made victorious with terror; he said that everyone within a one month travel radius was afraid of him. Could that result from his besieging a fort, then, when they surrendered, he had all the men and adolescent boys decapitated and enslaved the women and juveniles?

Moe predated the invention of gun powder, but he made use of the weapons of his time to build a fearsome image of barbarity so that he was widely feared; his approach caused panic which degraded defensive capability. Moe was a terrorist. Muslims are commanded to emulate him. You can’t be a good Muslim without being a terrorist.

Don’t take this wrong. I am only wondering why people use the whole Muslim world as scapegoats for the terrorism that is happening.

Allah set the standard with his word. He commanded Moe to terrorize his intended victims. Examine Al-Anfal 60.

  • Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of God and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom God doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of God, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.
    • to threaten
    • to frighten
    • whereby you may frighten
    • that you may frighten
    • to terrify thereby
    • to make the enemies of God, and your enemies, and others beside them, in dread thereof
    • whereby ye may strike terror
    • whereby ye may strike a terror

Terrorism is not the primary cause of our objection to Islam. Genocidal Jihad is the real problem, terrorism is simply one of its tactics.

8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world ]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do.

9:29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Those are fight…until loops with compound terminal clauses; without geographic or chronological limitations. 8:39 tells us that the scope is global. Abdullah Yusuf Ale says “altogether and everywhere”.  Shari’ah confirms the command by codifying it into law.  Open Umdat as-Salik to Book O, Chapter 9 and read 9.8, which quotes 9:29 as its basis.

O9.8: The Objectives of Jihad

The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: o11.4) -which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral religions) (O: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High,

Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled” (Koran 9.29),…

Further confirmation is found in O25.9

-8- and if the area has a border adjacent to enemy lands, an eighth duty arises, namely to undertake jihad against enemies, dividing the spoils of battle among combatants, and setting aside fifth (def: o10.3) for deserving recipients

We learn from O9.1 that Jihad must be performed annually.

…As for subsequent times, there are two possible states in respect to non-Muslims.

The first is when they are in their own countries, in which case jihad (def: o9.8) is a communal obligation, and this is what our author is speaking of when he says, “Jihad is a communal obligation,” meaning upon the Muslims each year….

The genocide angle comes from two ayat and one hadith which confirms them.

8:67. It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives), but Allâh desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allâh is All-Mighty, All-Wise.

47:4. So, when you meet (in fight Jihâd in Allâh’s Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives). Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity (i.e. free them without ransom), or ransom (according to what benefits Islâm), until the war lays down its burden. Thus [you are ordered by Allâh to continue in carrying out Jihâd against the disbelievers till they embrace Islâm (i.e. are saved from the punishment in the Hell-fire) or at least come under your protection], but if it had been Allâh’s Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allâh, He will never let their deeds be lost,

Abu Dawud Book 38, Number 4390:
Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi:
I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.

Lets show some respect for people who share our planet, and target only those human beings who specifically have done wrong.

Examine Moe’s excellent example of showing respect!

Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.’ And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah.” Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, “O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?” He replied, “Whoever says, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah’, faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have.”

Our blood and property only become sacred to Muslims when we become Muslims; some respect that is.

The thread continues with several reader comments.

I know that the Koran only allows violence in self-defense. The Islamic terrorists are twisting and perverting the Koran and are not really faithful to Islamic doctrine.

The anonymous author of that comment knows something that is not true. Umdat as-Salik makes it obvious that annual aggression against Kuffar is mandated. Ibn Kathir’s Tafsir of the verses cited above also confirm it. Search for them at .

February 26, 2009 Posted by | Political Correctness, Religion of Peace | 1 Comment

Obamination: State of the Union

Remarks of President Barack Obama – As Prepared for Delivery
Address to Joint Session of Congress
Tuesday, February 24th, 2009

[Quoted out of context to expose the most egregious deceptions.Click link above to read the entire speech.]

The weight of this crisis will not determine the destiny of this nation.  The answers to our problems don’t lie beyond our reach.  They exist in our laboratories and universities; in our fields and our factories; in the imaginations of our entrepreneurs and the pride of the hardest-working people on Earth.

The Liar in Chief  depends upon public ignorance of the basic laws of economics. Solutions are not to be found in laboratories, universities, fields or factories. The problem is a set of imbalances resulting from a combination of speculative greed acting in ignorance and bad public policy flowing from well greased palms.

There must be a balance between production and consumption. Unproductive activities can not long produce legitimate income, profits or wealth. It is not possible to maintain a national economy on real estate value appreciation any more than it can be maintained by stock market appreciation. What goes up will go down, then there is a game of musical chairs with many losers.

We need balance between production and consumption  tested by free markets. When the government interferes by force of law, disaster will surely follow in due time.

I say this not to lay blame or look backwards, but because it is only by understanding how we arrived at this moment that we’ll be able to lift ourselves out of this predicament.

We got into this rut by unrealistic expectations:

  1. More for less forever more.
  2. Quick riches through speculation.
  3. Failure to understand how markets function.
  4. Government interference in market functions.

When unions such as the UAW extort exorbitant wage & benefit packages,  they drive up prices for the rest of us who don’t receive those spoils. We pay more and get less. Cost of living adjustments aggravate the problem, they are not part of the solution. Now the auto makers are going broke and their pensioners are sweating, watching their pensions and medical benefits drain away.  Workers in the smaller factories that supply the auto plants with parts are on the unemployment line, watching their homes go into foreclosure. Others who sell goods and services to those laid off workers are feeling the effects as they change their buying habits.

Anyone whose head is not up his anal orifice could see that real estate prices would not escalate forever.  The principle is the same as that behind the stock market crash of  1929: speculating on margin.  The home equity loan industry played a role in this process, as did lawyers, accountants and real estate brokers.  Then the music stopped.

Rapid escalation in the price of motor fuel played an important role in the crash. It resulted from failure to challenge OPEC 30 years ago. It also resulted partly from idiotic regulations which put vast resources off limits. The solution to this problem was in 1979 and 1995, not 2009. Damn  Fools you are who voted  for Liberals!!

The fact is, our economy did not fall into decline overnight.  Nor did all of our problems begin when the housing market collapsed or the stock market sank.  We have known for decades that our survival depends on finding new sources of energy.  Yet we import more oil today than ever before.  The cost of health care eats up more and more of our savings each year, yet we keep delaying reform.  Our children will compete for jobs in a global economy that too many of our schools do not prepare them for.  And though all these challenges went unsolved, we still managed to spend more money and pile up more debt, both as individuals and through our government, than ever before.

The economy fell into decline because your party greased the skids 40 years ago and continuously since then.  Fiscal chicanery, ballooning inflation, stagflation; all of those were warning sides which Democrats disregarded. Republicans abandoned their principles and went along to get along.  Everyones income is someone else’s expense. Everyone’s expense is someone else’s income.  Cost plus is like an eye for an eye.

You knew we needed to find more oil. Instead, you put the off shore resources off limits and blocked development of many resources inland. With one hand you signal for windmill farms, with the other, you wave “not in my back yard”.  You can’t have it both ways.  There is and will be no economical substitute for liquid hydrocarbon fuels. There is no magic wand. Harry Potter is fictional.

The cost of health care escalates because of demand  which results from third party payor plans.  Complex new drugs, treatments and diagnostic tools add to costs.  The tort industry, which finances Democrat campaigns, is a major player in escalating medical costs. Frauds which exploit Medicare and Medicaid also play an important role.  If you want more doctors and nurses, you must offer wages sufficient to attract and retain them. There go the costs again. This problem is insoluble, and you should quit lying and confess the truth. There is no free lunch, and in the long run, no free hospitals. The escalating cost of energy also contributes to this problem, just as the costs of litigation do.

Schools don’t prepare children for jobs, they prepare them for training. Children fail primarily because they have priorities other than learning. There is nothing more important to education than motivation. Without it, the best facilities, curricula and teachers are wasted.

The problems went unsolved because the ‘solutions’ your party proposed were part of the problem, not solutions.  Bipartisan means both parties sharing the work of throwing our money to the winds and the waiting hands of their special interest partners.

In other words, we have lived through an era where too often, short-term gains were prized over long-term prosperity; where we failed to look beyond the next payment, the next quarter, or the next election.

That is a true statement. The most effective con men mix a blend of fact and fiction; that is how President Obama got elected.

A surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy instead of an opportunity to invest in our future.

There is the fiction. There was no such transfer on Shrub’s part. President Obama is playing the class warfare card.  Neither was there a genuine surplus. There is no such thing as investing in our future. Liberals always promise gold and deliver turd. Their idea of investment is lining the pockets of their special interest sponsors who finance their campaigns. Consumption is not investment. Investment is spent on capital goods used to produce products. Investment is done on a cost/benefit analysis basis, not on soaring, meaningless  rhetoric.

Cabinet as well as mayors and governors across the country that they will be held accountable by me and the American people for every dollar they spend.

The feces just keeps flowing. Zero of 535 legislators read the stimulus plan, it was railroaded through so rapidly that they did not have time to red it. That is wasting, not investing.

The concern is that if we do not re-start lending in this country, our recovery will be choked off before it even begins.

You see, the flow of credit is the lifeblood of our economy.  The ability to get a loan is how you finance the purchase of everything from a home to a car to a college education; how stores stock their shelves, farms buy equipment, and businesses make payroll.

Investment require surplus You can not save or invest when inflation causes your entire paycheck to be spent before you receive the next check.  Banks can’t lend when their deposits are exceeded by their liabilities. Your party’s energy policies facilitated the rapid unchecked inflation of fuel prices which drained the surplus from the economy and sent much of it to our enemies.  Without surplus and profit there is no operating capital.  They can not invest what you confiscate with taxes.

We are now carefully reviewing our policies in both wars, and I will soon announce a way forward in Iraq that leaves Iraq to its people and responsibly ends this war.

The first necessity is to accurately identify the enemy and our tactical & strategic objectives.   If you want Afghanistan and Iraq to be free, democratic, prosperous and stable states; not state sponsors of terrorism, then you’d better start converting their populations from Islam, because while they remain Muslim your strategic objectives are impossible. As soon as our forces come home, Afghanistan and Iraq will revert to status quo ante: internal warfare and external terrorism.

And with our friends and allies, we will forge a new and comprehensive strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan to defeat al Qaeda and combat extremism.  Because I will not allow terrorists to plot against the American people from safe havens half a world away.

What will you do? Will you convert them to Christianity or kill them all?  Those are your alternatives; make a choice and stick to it.   Islam is permanent war. Two Surahs declare it, with the most egregious statements being 8:39 & 9:29..  Islamic law requires a minimum of one military attack against disbelievers in every year. This quote from Al-Shafi’i makes it abundantly clear.

The least that the imam must do is that he allow no year to pass without having organized a military expedition by himself, or by his raiding parties, according to the Muslims’ interest, so that the jihad will only be stopped in a year for a (reasonable) excuse.” He said: “If he did not undertake the sending of enough troops to fight, those who are absent (must) go out, and consider as an obligation that which God (who is praised) said.”

Islam’s founder told us how long Jihad will continue.

“…jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal . …

Where there is Islam, there will be terrorism because Islam and terrorism are one. Got a clue yet?

8:12. …”I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes.

  • 8:60.  And make ready against them all you can of power, including steeds of war
    • that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah
    • to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of God
    • to threaten the enemy of Allah
    • to frighten thereby the enemy of Allah
    • whereby you may frighten the enemy of ALLAH
    • that you may frighten the enemies of GOD
    • to terrify thereby the enemy of God
    • to make the enemies of God, and your enemies, and others beside them, in dread thereof.
    • whereby ye may strike terror into the enemy of God
    • whereby ye may strike a terror into the enemy of God

33:26. …Allâh brought them down from their forts and cast terror into their hearts, (so that) a group (of them) you killed, and a group (of them) you made captives.

Got a clue yet? If not, then you should remove yourself from the gene pool.

That is why I have ordered the closing of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, and will seek swift and certain justice for captured terrorists – because living our values doesn’t make us weaker, it makes us safer and it makes us stronger.

Swift and certain justice? How is that accomplished by delaying their trials? How is that accomplished by turning them loose to kill more of our soldiers?  If you want to do justice, kill them on the battlefield; take no prisoners. Once is enough!

We cannot shun the negotiating table, nor ignore the foes or forces that could do us harm.  We are instead called to move forward with the sense of confidence and candor that serious times demand.

What is there to negotiate with a foe who is Hellbent on killing or enslaving you?  Peace and security can only be obtained by making Islam extinct. Cause Muslims to apostatize or usher them into Hell. Your choice; which will it be. That is candor, Mr. President.  All else is deception.

To seek progress toward a secure and lasting peace between Israel and her neighbors, we have appointed an envoy to sustain our effort.

Peace can only be obtained by eliminating Islam. There is no other way. No appeasement, no good will gesture, no ceding of land, no concession will bring peace from a foe Hellbent on genocide & policide. You have no clue because you have not read the Charter of Hamas. Islam and Hamas are one. Read the charter and the Qur’an. What’s the difference? Get a clue!

Abu Dawud 14.2477
Narrated Ibn Hawalah:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: It will turn out that you will be armed troops, one is Syria, one in the Yemen and one in Iraq. Ibn Hawalah said: Choose for me, Apostle of Allah, if I reach that time. He replied: Go to Syria, for it is Allah’s chosen land, to which his best servants will be gathered but if you are unwilling, go to your Yemen, and draw water from your tanks, for Allah has on my account taken special charge of Syria and its people.

Muslim Book 041, Number 6985:
Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.

…In the future, the Jews will support the Dajjal (False Messiah); and the Muslims, along with `Isa, son of Mary, will kill the Jews. This will occur just before the end of this world. … Eternal Humiliation placed on the Jews

Got a clue yet? If not, please remove yourself from the gene pool.

February 25, 2009 Posted by | GWOT, Political Correctness | 3 Comments

Obama Will Pack the Supreme Court!

Document Source:


File Format: Microsoft Word – View as HTML
The proponents do not all agree on all of them, but are unanimous that Congress should soon reconsider the law applicable to the Supreme Court of the United –

I first learned of the proposal to pack the court through this blog post:
My source apparently learned of it from this blog:

The Microsoft Word document is about 77kb and contains a set of four proposed “reforms” .  The “reform” of greatest concern is one to pack the court.

proposal i: regular appointments to

the supreme court

The following is quoted from the narrative accompanying the proposed code.

One question to be considered is the prospect that as Justices retain power for extended lengths of time, appointments to the Court are made so infrequently as to diminish the likelihood that the Court’s many important policy decisions will reflect the moral and political values of the contemporary citizens they govern.

The first reform presented here therefore provides for regular biennial appointments of new Justices selected by the then sitting President and Senate in order to assure timely rotation within the membership of the Court. To assure a Court of nine Justices, this will require a modification of the duties of Justices who have remained on the Court for more than eighteen years. A variation on this specific proposal was advanced and widely discussed in 2005. It won approval from many, including bar leaders and former judges. Most opposition rested on a constitutional argument that any term or age limits imposed by Congress would violate Article III and require a constitutional amendment. But no proposal for such an amendment has been advanced, and we see no serious constitutional problem in legislating regularized appointments with diminished but continuing roles for those Justices holding office for very long terms.

Almost everywhere high court judges are subject to term or age limits that prevent the risk of superannuation. Our proposal is not a term limit but a system of rotation to assure some regularity of change in the composition of the Court. If necessary to meet the constitutional objection, the allocation and assignment of duties when there are more than nine active Justices could be left for the Justices themselves to resolve by a rule of court. There is surely no constitutional objection that could be made to that scheme, but it would be more cumbersome than the one proposed.

Two alternatives for avoiding any constitutional problem are available if thought to be necessary. One response would be to provide a large bonus to Justices who retire in good time. It would seem unjust to give such a bonus to Justices and not to circuit or district judges who now tend to surrender their power and accept senior status in good time. Another response to the constitutional question would be to revive the practice of required circuit riding. If each Justice were required to sit on a district court bench a few times a year, that requirement would again serve, as it long did, to keep the Justices in closer contact with the citizens they govern and the realities that citizens perceive. And it would reduce the likelihood that Justices will cling to an office they are no longer willing or able fully to perform. We do not favor either of these reforms but mention them as alternatives to be considered if the more modest proposal we advance is thought to raise a problem under Article III.

It appears that the legal scholars object to the presence of Conservatives on the Supreme Court bench.

One question to be considered is the prospect that as Justices retain power for extended lengths of time, appointments to the Court are made so infrequently as to diminish the likelihood that the Court’s many important policy decisions will reflect the moral and political values of the contemporary citizens they govern.

Were these legal scholars raising this objection during the terms of Presidents Reagan or Bush? So why the push now? Could it be because they have a Socialist in the White House and hope to keep him there for the next 8 years if not longer?  Could it be that they desire to grease the skids for changes having irreversible negative  impacts upon our Constitutional rights?

Which justice has been on the bench too long? Is it Justice Thomas? Justice Sevens? Justice Scalia? Justice Souter? Justice Ginsburg? Why does the Constitution give them life terms during good behavior?  Could it be the value of Judicial Independence?  What happens to that vital concept if every new President obtains arbitrary power to name new Justices every two years?

Lets be clear about the context. The Socialists have working majorities in both houses of Congress. They intend to repeal the Presidential term limit, pack the court, gerrymander their districts so that no Conservative will ever be elected to replace any of them and squelch dissent with the  ‘fairness doctrine’  &  ‘local advisory boards’ packed with ACORN activists. They have power and they intend to solidify it; forever.
Examine the quote again; notice the red flag?  The intent of this proposal is to dilute the protection of liberty & property ownership by removing the provisions preventing mob rule.

The first reform presented here therefore provides for regular biennial appointments of new Justices selected by the then sitting President and Senate in order to assure timely rotation within the membership of the Court. To assure a Court of nine Justices, this will require a modification of the duties of Justices who have remained on the Court for more than eighteen years.

Does any doubt remain? Does anyone remember President Obama’s remarks to the Chicago NPR station in ’01?  He complained bitterly that the Supreme Court protected ‘negative rights’;  that the Constitution specified what the Government can’t do to us rather than what it must do ‘for’ us?

Now is the time to rise up and raise Hell, before this unconstitutional scheme is fully hatched and railroaded through Congress.  Go at once to and send an email to your Representative & senators. Tell them that their vote for this proposal to pack the court will seal your last vote for them, regardless of all other policies, positions and votes.

Don’t ignore this; don’t brush it off. Don’t assume that someone else will take care of it.

  • Email your federal legislators immediately. Make sure that you absolutely will not tolerate packing the Supreme Court.
  • Phone radio talk show hosts and  inform them about this issue.
  • Send letters to your local newspaper editors.
  • Raise this issue on forums and web sites. Copy and cross post this article.
  • Copy this article and paste it into an email to your family, friends and associates; urge them to forward it.

title 1: the organization of the supreme court

§1. Number of Justices Sitting to Decide Cases on the Merits; Quorum. The Supreme Court shall generally sit as a Court of nine Justices but if necessary six Justices shall constitute a quorum. The Court may by rule authorize a single Justice to make provisional rulings when necessary.

§2. REGULARITY OF APPOINTMENTS. One Justice, and only one, shall be appointed during the first session of Congress after each federal election, unless during that Congress one or more appointments are required by Section 3. Each appointment shall become effective on August 1 of the year following the election. If an appointment under this section results in the availability of more than nine Justices, the nine who are junior in time of service shall sit to decide each appeal certified for its decision on the merits.

§3. vacancies. If a retirement, death or removal of a Justice results in there being fewer than nine Justices, including Senior Justices, a new Justice or Chief Justice shall be appointed and considered as the Justice required to be appointed during that Congress, if that appointment has not already been made. If more than one such vacancy arises, any additional appointment will be considered as the Justice required to be appointed during the next Congress for which no appointment has yet been made.

§4. the ofFICE OF senior justice. A Justice who is senior to nine or more Justices shall unless disabled continue to hold office as a Senior Justice. If there is a vacancy on the Court or if a Justice is recused a Senior Justice shall be called by the Chief Justice in reverse order of seniority to sit when needed to provide a nine-member Court to decide a case. A Senior Justice shall also participate in any other matter before the Court including decisions to grant or deny a petition for certiorari or to promulgate rules of court in compliance with the rules enabling provisions of Title 28.

§5. TEMPORARY DELAY IN COMMENCEMENT OF REGULARITY OF APPOINTMENTS. Justices sitting on the Court at  the time of this enactment shall sit regularly on the Court until their retirement, death, removal or voluntary acceptance of status as a  Senior Justice. No appointments shall be made under Section 2 of this Title before the Congress that begins after the last of the present  Justices so leaves the Court, but any Justice appointed after the date of enactment shall become a Senior Justice in accordance with the   provisions of Section 4 of this Title.

February 23, 2009 Posted by | Constitution, Politics | , , | Leave a comment

Durban II Treachery

Durban II Alert

Durban II Cover-up from the Obama Administration:

American Silence in the Face of More Anti-Israel and Anti-Jewish Venom
at the Latest Durban II Preparations

If the Obama administration does not immediately announce that its foray into the morass of Durban II has led it to decide this is no place for genuine believers in human rights and freedoms, there is only one conclusion possible. His foreign policy of engagement amounts to a new willingness to sacrifice Israel and an indeterminate number of American values for the sake of a warm welcome from the enemies of freedom.

Now that you have read the concluding paragraph of the report, click the title above and read all of  Anne Bayefsky’s very informative revelation the Obama Administration’s treachery.

Eye on the UN’s Durban Watch: has all the information you need to come to an accurate assessment of Durban I and Durban II.

The OIC’s Hellbent determination to single out Israel for undeserved condemnation is not acceptable under any circumstances. Whether they condemn one or two or a dozen  real or imagined offenders,  the fact remains: Israel is being unjustly targeted for defending herself against genocidal Islamic aggression.

The language condemning and demanding criminalization of criticism of Islam is absolutely unacceptable.  The right of free expression protects truthful speech and must do so in every case, regardless of the target of criticism, otherwise it would be of no use whatsoever.  The OIC, UN  & EU bitching & caterwauling over Fitna and Geert Wilder’s parliamentary speeches & interviews is a vital example of this supremely important issue. “reservations” & “concerns” do not cut the mustard.  This issue requires flaming hot rhetoric including the most profoundly profane execrations.  This case demands cursing, not milk toast diplomacy.  Anything less is treasonous surrender to the sworn enemy of life & liberty.

Islam is a War Cult, not a race nor is it a “religion of peace”. Vociferous objection to imperialistic conquest, genocide & terrorism is not racism nor is it incitement to violence. The Qur’an, hadith & Shari’ah are racism, supremacism, triumphalism & incitement to genocidal violence.

There is no possibility that justice will prevail in the Durban II process. There is no reason for us to be involved in it in any way, including paying for it. Please tell President Obama, your Representative & Senators to pull out of the Durban II Preparation Process, boycott the Conference and Quit the U.N..

For detailed documentation of my objections to the OIC demands, refer to these related blog posts:
Durban II: Revised; Reject it!
UN Resolutions Revisited: Defamation of Religions
U.N. Bans Criticism of Islam: Pretext

More UN AssWholliness
Durban II: Egregious Arrogance Part 1
Durban II: Egregious Arrogance Part 2
Durban II: Egregious Arrogance Part 3
Durban II: Egregious Arrogance Part 4
Durban II: Egregious Arrogance Part 5
Durban II: Egregious Arrogance Part 6
Durban II: Egregious Arrogance Part 7
U.N. Bans Criticism of Islam: Pretext

U.N. Interfaith Dialogue Conference
Abdullah: On the Level or Sneaky Devil?
Monologue: Prince Saud Al Faisal Spills the Beans
Culture of Peace Conference
You’ve Been Mooned!

February 23, 2009 Posted by | Political Correctness, Politics, United Nations | 4 Comments

%d bloggers like this: