Sharia is coming, Sharia is coming!

What is it with Leftist and Islamists? Pamela Geller reports on a Shameful State Department Initiative over at the American Thinker. Go and read.

She is right in every particular. The "religion of peace" is not a religion at all, but a brutal political system. It is notoriously intolerant, yet asks for tolerance. It is incompatible with personal liberty and freedom.

Pamela doesn't mention this, but the same government that has been waging a misguided war on Christianity under the idea that the establishment clause forbids all references to God and Jesus, somehow justifies cozying up to Islam?  Does that mean they don't see it as a religion either?

Ten Years Later, Have We Learned Anything?

I remember September 11, 2001 as clearly as the day John Kennedy was killed. I was at the Navy Yard, across the Anacostia River and the Potomac River from the Pentagon that day, as I was every work day. It was a Tuesday, and one of the first days that the humidity was low, the sky was blue and cloudless.  I will not include a lot of the details.  Mine was just a small part of a big event, and others played a more pivotal role.  I have recounted the tale a number of times to folks who were either in Washington or New York.  Then there is the self sacrifice of the heroes on Flight 93 who stormed to cockpit and forced the plane into the ground rather than let it hit another target in Washington.  Pray for these men and women, and remember them always.

I remember M------, one of the women working in the Analyst division came around the corner and said that a plane had hit one of the Twin Towers, and I could see it on live television down in the Milcon department. I ran down there, and as I watched, a second plane hit the tower. I remember saying to the person next to me that we were at war. I imagine a lot of Navy Officers were thinking the same thing.

The Navy Yard went into immediate lock down. All was confusion, as we did not know if other planes might be targeting the White House, the Capitol, the Pentagon, or even the Navy Yard. I heard about the plane that hit the Pentagon an hour later, and went up on the parking deck to look at the black cloud. I had friends in the Pentagon, but there was no word, because the cell phones did not work, and the land lines were overloaded. Mrs. PolyKahr was unable to reach me, so feared the worst. She would not find out if I happened to be at the Pentagon when the plane hit it until 7:00 pm that night.  There were a lot of questions, and very few answers that day.  Who did this and why would not be answered for several days.

In the ensuing years, I have talked to many people who remember 9/11. I even have talked with a contractor who was in the Twin Towers when they were hit. He and his crew got out, because he is a proactive guy. Others were not so lucky.

Of all the remembrances I have read this morning, the one that makes the most sense to me is Francis Porretto's over at Eternity Road entitled Ten Years After. Porretto sets us straight on just who it is that is at war with us, and the need to understand. There is evil in the world, and those who do evil will kill us unless we fight back. There is no reason to be bashful, here. Christ's admonition to turn the other cheek was not a call for pacifism in the face of death. But let Porretto's elegant words say what I can not:

We are at war with Islam, and have been since Iranian "students" stormed the American Embassy in Tehran, took 52 Americans hostage, and kept them for 444 days.

Don't bother to argue with me about this. Either we are or we aren't. If we aren't, the evidence for the proposition demands a better explanation than any I've heard. Worse, there's no objective evidence that we aren't, and no Islamic apologist has dared to present any.

But we're not fighting that war. We're acting, in large measure, as if some other force were responsible for the crimes and atrocities committed in Islam's name. We're acting, in other words, as if Islam and Muslims generally are the victims rather than the cause and the perpetrators.

Just so. There are no "moderate Muslims," and if someone says they are such, you can't really trust that to be true. The practice of Taqiyya means that they will never reveal their true beliefs and motives to you, an infidel, and may even deny their faith. So you have the Christian martyrs who refused to deny their faith, and the muslims who do it as a legal practice. You may have Muslims living among us who claim to be Christian as a matter of Taqiyya.  This is evil.  I place this on the same level as the Marxists who hide behind other names like Communist, Socialist, Fascist, Liberal, and now Progressive. 

More Porretto:

Yes, it's a Christian's part to hate the sin but forgive the sinner and pray for his repentance. But it's a free man's part to fight the evildoer with all his power -- especially when at the end of the contest, one of you will be dead, and the other free to go on as he's done.

We are at war with Islam. We've been at war with Islam for forty-one years. Let's get serious about it.


***

Yes, I'm trying to influence your opinion. Yes, I want you to analyze and respond to events as I do. Yes, yes, yes.

Does that invalidate my argument, or any aspect thereof?

Try reading this concise report on Muslims' behavior in Western countries to which they've been admitted. Try rationalizing its evidence against any other conclusion than that Islam is an aggressive program of totalitarian conquest of the world, with a few theological trimmings as protective coloration.

Try imagining how "tolerance" for such a creed could eventuate any other way than in mass slaughter of the "tolerant" and the subjugation of the survivors.

Never forget

Update: I read this Monday morning from Crime, Guns, and Videotape Airline Hijacking with a Difference. The bloghost relates the story of a hijacking that ended with the hijacker shot, but not killed. If Americans could still carry guns on planes, we would probably have ended the scourge of hijacking years ago. There are all kinds of scenarios where it may not make sense to shoot a hijacker. For instance, where a team of such hijackers took over a flight, and could each watch the others back. But a single hijacker would be at a severe disadvantage against a plane full of people, some of whom were likely armed.  Even a team would still not want to face a possible shooting from an unpredictable member of the public.  Their aim is to terrorize, not go immediately to get their 72 virgins.  For that, becoming a suicide bomber is the best way.

Mordor has Awakened

Thanks to Kevin of the Smallest Minority for point me to the Forbes piece by Jerry Bowyer entitled American Nomeklatura. The whole article is good, and you should read all. I wanted to highlight this though:

“The new order articulated in [the Pentateuch] stands in contrast to a primary socioeconomic structure prevalent … throughout … the ancient Near East: the divide between the dominant tribute-imposing class and the dominated tribute-bearing class… These two groups, the exploiters and the exploited, are opposite sides of the same coin. The dominant tribute-imposing class consists, in short, of the political elite…This class includes not only the nobility but all who benefited by association with it: administrators, military and religious retainers, merchants, and landowners who directly or indirectly benefited from state power. What all of these have in common is that they all participated in the extraction of produce, or surplus, from the dominated tribute-bearing class: agrarian and pastoral producers, slaves, unskilled workers … Their production was drawn as surplus in the form of taxation, slave labor, rent, or debt service…”

Reading about dominant tribute-imposing tribes and their exploitation of dominated tribute-bearing classes by means of debt, tax and mandated labor, seemed strangely similar to modern times. It seems that Washington is not as far removed from Ur, Nineveh, Cairo or Babylon as we would hope. It seems also that our emerging system of central control is not what its advocates claim: It is not new; it is ancient.

There is a point that I have been making as well: that far from being new and improved, original, fresh, innovative, the latest thing! and whatever other buzzwords you want to use, Marxism is just the same old dusty politics of the past dressed up in class envy clothing.  Tribal chiefs, kings, emperors, tyrants, dictators, and whatever title they ascribe to themselves have been around since man first walked the earth.  It is the strong man theory.  The strong man, no matter his initial intentions, always ends up taking your wealth and your freedom, but doesn't fulfil his end of the bargain, which is to protect the freedom of those under him.  Even the ancient tribes of Israel living under the Judges, did not achieve freedom and liberty for the people, though I suspect they had more of it than when they petitioned Samuel for a King.

The first "new thing" under the sun in terms of a system of governance was the Constitution of the United States.  It was the practical working out of nearly 1800 years of Christian philosophy.  For the first time in history, and apparently the last, the philosophical roots of the Constitution set the individual above the collective, and made the government the servant of the citizen.  But what we have going on today, and for almost a century now, is a reversion to older ideas.  Boyer points out that there is little difference between Socialism and Crony Capitalism in practice.  I would also note that there is little difference between these two systems and the old idea of the King's friends getting the Royal franchise, and everyone else gets out of the business.  These are not new ideas.

People are impressed by the Roman Empire.  My high school Latin teacher was mightily impressed, but should have known better.  People are impressed with the roads, the aqua ducts, the stadiums, the imposition of Roman culture, and the Pax Romana.  But if I were to pinpoint the time that the Roman Empire began to crumble, it would be when Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon.  All of the wealth of Rome, you see, was stolen wealth.  When the Empire could no longer extract enough tribute, the Roman Empire began to die.  The truly remarkable thing about Rome wasn't the Empire, but the Republic that preceded it.

A somewhat longer, and I think somewhat angrier argument can be found at the American Thinker yesterday entitled Obama, Islam, and the Forcible Virginity Test by James Lewis. In the opening paragraphs, Lewis gives us some insight into the Egyptian revolution by noting that some of the unmarried women protesting were arrested, and then forced to undergo a "virginity test," without anything being said by various womyn's groups. There should be outrage, but there is not. Then comes this part:

The United States Constitution is still by far the most successful political outcome of the Enlightenment. Nothing else comes close. Constitutionalism is the only successful political tradition that has ever been designed to deal with the disease of abuse of power. If you want an image of raw abuse of power, think Tahrir Square and the forcible virginity test.

Apparently the White House and every liberal looneytunes airhead in the West is stunned, just stunned, m'dear, by the Muslim reactionaries who are grabbing power all over the Arab world. Who coulda thunk? Obama meant so well. All the good libs are eager to vote for him again in 2012, 'cause of all the good intentions and lovely words he has brought to our foreign policy. Liberal delusions are always stronger than reality. If reality had anything to do with it, they would have dumped their dysfunctional beliefs fifty years ago.

Conservatives have known about the threat of Islamic fascism for 30 years, ever since Jimmy Carter let "some kind of saint" Ayatollah Khomeini assume absolute power in Tehran in 1979. When Carter stopped Iran's military from supporting the Shah, Khomeini promptly had assassinated, imprisoned, and tortured the Shah's supporters, plus any democratic opposition groups, plus the Communist faction of the Mujahhedin Khalq, plus anybody else who stood in this way -- including those American diplomats he kept locked up at the US Embassy for a year until Ronald Reagan got elected.

Lewis is angry because time, after time, after time the Left attempts to put its schemes into place, and time after time, after time, they fail. But the Left never sees the failures as a reason to rethink their position. No, instead they begin working on the next moonbattery. They always think the last one didn't work because they didn't have the right people in power.  Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin and Stalin, Castro, Pol Pot, Mao-they all just weren't the right people, but this time we'll get it right.

No kidding. Really?  It is just the strong man theory wrapped up in appealing language.

Another thing Conservatives have known, and are constantly telling Leftists is there are no "the right people." Give a person power, and he will inevitably be corrupted by it. Give a person absolute power, and he becomes a tyrant, a "President for Life," a Dictator, or whatever he wants to call himself.

The New York Times reports that the Egyptian Bros and the military are now allied to take over. Right at the start the Bros called for war with Israel, because it was their enemy Mubarak who kept the Egyptian-Israeli Peace treaty going for three decades. The Bros also brought back from exile their own Ayatollah Khomeini, Al Qaradawi, and celebrated with their own Million Muslim March in Tahrir Square. They also threw out the Google twitter mobster who helped make the revolt happen.

Which brings us full circle. Let me ask this, have you ever wondered why a so called "Abrahamic Religion" which is founded on the same Pentateuch that Christians also use as the Old Testament, hates Jews? Not just hates them, but wants to savagely exterminate them? Are not the Jews God's chosen people to be a light to the nations? Note the word, Light. Christians are also called to be a Light? Islam? Not so much:

Islam came straight from the Arabian desert of the 7th century. It reflects the lives of desert pirates, robbers, rapists and genociders, which was perfectly suited to nomadic life in the desert. That's how tribes conquered each other, as Lawrence of Arabia found out again in World War I. Desert Arabs literally took no prisoners -- except for women and children, who became slaves. Lawrence was a British romantic who hero-worshipped the desert Arabs, and then, after putting King Faisal into power, he decided to disappear forever, in deep disgust with his own romance with murderous primitives.

Wherever reactionary Islam takes over it re-creates the 7th century desert. Since the breakdown of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I, the Muslim world has been zig-zagging between modern values, like equality for women, and medieval desert values. Iran was a great victory for the reactionary throwbacks, and Obama has just tipped the balance in that direction again.

Something ancient is stalking the land again. Mordor has awakened.

Is Islam a Cult?

I took this from a blog, tbirdnow.mee.nu, run by a journalist who occasionally writes for the American Thinker, Timothy Birdnow. It is the tale of a young black man who went off to college to acquire a degree in Business Administration. While there, he met up with some Muslims, who turned him against his family, his friends, his culture. He became radicalized, became a jihadi, and wound up in Yemen. You can read the story from his parents' perspective here.  Parents everywhere should view this as a cautionary tale.

If someone were to describe what happened to this young man, and didn't include the name of the so-called "religion," you would say that he had been brainwashed by a cult. So where is the outrage? If this had been done by any other group than Islam, thousands of people would be demanding that the fraudulent cult be put out of business, that its leaders be jailed, its meeting places be destroyed, its "cultural centers" be torn down and razed to the ground. Some might even suggest salting the ground, for those Biblically inclined.  But the cult would be hounded out of existence, or at least far underground.  This is what the British did to the Thuggee in the 1830s.

Now, I know at this point that some people who follow this blog will ask what they think is a telling question:  "But Poly, couldn't the same be said of Christianity?"  My answer may surprise you, but if certain interpretations of the Bible and the sayings of Jesus are emphasized, Christianity could indeed be a cult.  Certain denominations certainly seem to border on cult status.  But you don't see Christians killing and torturing their fellow countrymen.  You do see adherents of Allah killing and torturing their fellow countrymen, and others.  There is a huge difference between witnessing and proselytizing for your beliefs, and killing someone because he does not agree with you.  As a Christian, I know in my heart that God is Great, and I want to tell the world.  But God does not give me sanction to kill anyone who disagrees.  God will deal with those who do not agree at a time, and in a manner of His choosing, not mine.  On the other hand, Allah does apparently give these people sanction to kill the infidel.  Something is very wrong and twisted with Islam, and the sooner we wake up to it, the sooner we can do something about it.

The Mind of a Jihadist

With the Rep. Peter King hearings going on, it makes a certain amount of sense that Islam would be in the news, so here I am blogging about it today. I had planned a post on the 2nd Amendment, but then I read Mind of a Jihadist by Stephen Simpson over at the American Thinker and realized that it may be more important for the long term than another post on the 2A, important as that is.

The Mind of a Jihadist is a report on a new book by M. A. Khan, Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism, and Slavery. The book can be ordered from Amazon here. I plan to order the book soon myself.  M. A. Khan is an editor for the website Islam Watch, which is a group of apostate former Muslims who came to the realization that Islam is not a true religion.

Mr. Khan describes the concept of Jihad as "the foundational creed of Islam." And the author should know. Born a Muslim in India, Mr. Khan grew up in a conservative background, while still considering himself a liberal Muslim. The events of 9/11 changed him dramatically and led him on an odyssey as to question how his religion -- and co-religionists -- sanctioned, and even reveled in this atrocity. The author himself candidly admits that he too believed that America had justifiably gotten a bloody nose, though he felt that the victims died unjustifiable deaths. As much of a paradox as these views seem, many Muslims felt the same way. The difference is that Mr. Khan looked in the mirror, asked penetrating questions, and had the intellectual honesty to answer these questions.

In the ensuing years after 9/11, Mr. Khan did extensive research on Islam, Islamic theology, and the history of Jihad which is the driving force behind all of Islam's conquests. The results of his findings led him to the conclusion to leave Islam completely, and to write this most masterful and educational book on a controversial aspect of a most controversial religion.

and

It is a devastating indictment of a religion that is generally grouped with Judaism and Christianity. However, the commands of Jihad entail total war, are eternal, and cannot be revoked as they are enforced with absolute legitimacy by and through Sharia. The author leaves us with the question as to whether or not Jihad will return in the 21st century with a force comparable to previous centures. Islamic Jihad is a riveting book that will leave the reader armed with a knowledge he or she may never have had, and will also leave the reader with the disturbing question as to whether the religion of Islam can ever come to terms in a peaceful way with non-Islamic religions. Given the history of Jihad and the slaughter of 9/11, the reader can only come away with a pessimistic viewpoint.

Khan's book joins a growing list of people who have "come in from the cold" and reported on the horrors being perpetrated on them by Islam.  Like the Communists before, who would report occasionally to the West that life under the Soviets was a hell hole, you are being told not to believe these people.  CAIR spokesmen come out to say, in essence, that these are exaggerating sore heads, and that reasonably considered, Islam is a virtual paradise on earth.  Consider that in the 7th century, the West and Arab cultures were on a par.  But Arab culture has produced very little since, and indeed, must use our own technology against us.  In the The Victory of Reason Rodney Stark argues convincingly that Christianity was the spur for the West's great leap forward.  I believe God wants us to be prosperous, so that we can use our prosperity to help others.  Is it enough?  Well, no, it is never enough, though Americans have done more of it than any other country, as you would expect from her great prosperity.

I believe that Islam will only be stopped by a fight, God versus Allah.  Which side will you be on?

Submit or Die

It has been a while now since I risked a fatwa against me, so I guess it is time I did so again. Today in the American Thinker, Amil Imani has an article entitled Dear Rep. King: Forget 'Radical'-Islam is the Culprit. A quote:

The pundits, the analysts and the politicians are doing a great disservice to the public, each segment for its own expedient reasons, by parroting the mantra regarding the peaceful nature of Islam. As a matter of fact, the so-called small band of Islamic extremists is the true face of Islam. Admittedly, from time to time and place to place, Muslims have shown a degree of tolerance for non-Muslims. This tolerance dates back to the very early years of Muhammad himself. Early on Muhammad was meek and proclaimed, "For you, your religion, and for me, my religion." This assertion lasted but a few years until Muhammad's movement gathered strength and Islam became the only alternative to death or heavy taxation. The imposition of 'jizya' was a clever ploy for filling the Islamic coffer to support its armies and to finance its further conquests.

The liberal media and pundits engage in willful misinformation and deception when it suits them. Terms such as "Political Islam," or "Radical Islam," for instance, are contributions of this group. These terms do not even exist in the native parlance of Islam, simply because they are redundant. Islam, by its very nature and according to its charter -- the Quran -- is a radical political movement. It is the liberal media and politicians who sanitize Islam and misguide the populace by saying that "real Islam" constitutes the main body of the religion; and, that this main body is non-political and moderate.

Today, the Constitution has two enemies, whose goal is the same. The Left, meaning Marxism in all its faces, whether Communist, Fascist, or Socialist, and Islam. While the Left continues to be a threat, I think we have finally awakened enough people to, if not the evil, at least the impracticality of Leftist policies. Islam, on the other hand, is gaining strength in this country.  Both religions have a blood soaked history, and if they gain the upper hand, this country will be no different. 

I have wondered for some time about why Islam seems to be given a pass that Christianity never gets. It seems as if the news media, the schools, and Government bureaucrats and the Courts all have reached a secret agreement that Allah is the true god. Or, perhaps the Left recognizes in Islam the same hollow imitation of life that marks the existence of the Left. So, it was with interest that I read Anthony Martin's Conservative Examiner article today. Martin has an exclusive interview with an ex-CIA agent who warns us that various Islamic groups have penetrated our institutions and are feeding us a politically correct pablum about the true nature of Islam. Sounds like the Left's "long march through the institutions." And that maybe where they learned the strategy. In any case, read the article, and read the follow up whenever Anthony can get it posted. It is sobering.

I have read Revelations on several occasions. I never really understood all the symbolism. Some have said it is really about the dangers faced by the early church. Even if that is true, I think it has relevance today, or the early Fathers would not have been inspired to put it in our canon. In many ways it does seem to be coming true. Armageddon may be fought in the streets of this country.  I can only have faith that my God, the one whose ineffable name nobody can know, will see his will done. I pray I am on the right side, His.

Muslims Take Kissing Cousins Seriously

I was not aware of the degree to which Muslims are apparently inbred. That is, Islam allows the marrying of first cousins. For whatever reasons, Muslims seem to have taken to marrying their first cousins with a vengeance. The results are detailed at the link, and as you might expect, they are not pretty. Go check it out. The summation:

Bottom line: Islam is not simply a benign and morally equivalent alternative to the Judeo-Christian tradition. As Sennels points out, the first and biggest victims of Islam are Muslims. Simple Christian compassion for Muslims and a common-sense desire to protect Western civilization from the ravages of Islam dictate a vigorous opposition to the spread of this dark and dangerous religion. These stark realities must be taken into account when we establish public policies dealing with immigration from Muslim countries and the building of mosques in the U.S.

Cold Fury at the Imposition of Shariah

Cold Fury has a post up entitled "When rage and hatred blaze in the dark corners of the earth, the symbol of American freedom is usually the first to catch fire." A quote to give you a taste:

If Muslims the world over must rise up in blind hatred and rage at modernity, why do we act as if the fault were with us, and the blame for this odious backwardness ours? The usual rioting, violence, burning, and murder that these animals unleash at the slightest provocation — and threaten us with as a preemption, without any real provocation at all, as the phony “healer” Rauf did last week — is not something that should be kowtowed to. It is certainly not something that America should apologize for. Rather, it is THEIR fault, THEIR problem, and the obligation for apology, contrition, and shame belongs to THEM, not us.

We owe these deviant, yodeling freaks nothing. NOTHING. Well, nothing beyond swift, crippling vengeance for each successive trespass against decency and humanity the bolder of them commit, the more powerful of them clandestinely enable, and the lesser of them applaud from their filthy, perpetually-impoverished village squares.

Editor Mike Hendrix has named his blog well. Go read the whole thing. A tip of the hat to Bubba of the blog What Bubba Knows for pointing out the site to me.

Having gotten that out of the way, let's move on to more sobering reading, shall we? A number of sources point toward a recently released report indicating the dangers to the United States of Sharia law. I selected The Shariah Threat to America by David Yerushalmi from today's American Thinker. But Frank Gaffney has long beat the drum (see here) and Andrew McCarthy has joined in from the terrorism angle (see here.) Gaffney and McCarthy are two of the panel who wrote the report, entitled The Shariah Threat to America. Go read the whole thing. You can access the report through the article at American Thinker.

For many people, accustomed as they are to Christianity, the idea that Islam is fundamentally different comes as a surprise. In Christianity, God wants each man and woman to come to have a relationship with him out of his own free will. In Islam, you MUST have a relationship with Allah, whether you want to or not. Every jot and tittle of Shariah MUST be obeyed, theoretically. I say "theoretically" because the Jews tried for a millennium to obey all the law, and were unsuccessful. How the Arabs were going to accomplish what the Jews could not is something a thoughtful Christian might like to as the so-called "prophet," but I digress. Shariah is not compatible with man-made law, nor democracy, nor a Constitution. You have no rights under Shariah.

We can not, and must not, allow Shariah to gain a foothold in this country.  I would suggest that maybe the wall of separation they are always yacking about might help us here, but our Supremes have already shown a willingness to throw First Amendment free speech rights under the bus when confronted with the burning of the Koran, so don't expect help from that quarter.  It is unfortunate that we have allowed Muslims to immigrate into this country, but now that they are here, they are welcome to stay so long as they obey OUR laws.  Muslims who are not satisfied with our laws, and would prefer Shariah are welcome to leave.

Don't let the door hit you in the a** on the way out either.

You're not Paranoid if they're Really Trying to Get you

What to post about?  What seems most important today? So many things are happening, it seems like we are being pushed on all sides.  Dinesh D'Sousa has an article at Forbes entitled How Obama Thinks that is very intiguing. In Mr. D'Souza's formulation, Obama is an anticolonialist. Now you may be thinking "Huh?" But read on, D'Souza has a point, and it is a good one:

An odd choice, certainly, as an inspirational hero. But to his son, the elder Obama represented a great and noble cause, the cause of anticolonialism. Obama Sr. grew up during Africa's struggle to be free of European rule, and he was one of the early generation of Africans chosen to study in America and then to shape his country's future.

and:

Anticolonialism is the doctrine that rich countries of the West got rich by invading, occupying and looting poor countries of Asia, Africa and South America. As one of Obama's acknowledged intellectual influences, Frantz Fanon, wrote in The Wretched of the Earth, "The well-being and progress of Europe have been built up with the sweat and the dead bodies of Negroes, Arabs, Indians and the yellow races."

Where I think D'Souza goes astray is that when you pare anticolonialism down, at its core it is still Marxism.

Then there is this article in the American Thinker by Michael Zebulon entitled General Petraeus' Mistake which asserts that when Petraeus made his remarks about the Florida Koran Roast, that he telegraphed the following to the enemy:

The net effect of his going public with it early in the game was tantamount to giving an engraved invitation to the enemy to "up-the-ante." (And eventually they will, rest assured, now that everybody and their Aunt Mathilda has piled on, and made the thing exponentially bigger than it had to be.) Effectively he told the bad guys

- that we are generally afraid of Muslims;
- that, more specifically, our men-at-arms and their commanders can be intimidated; and

These are the reasons why I said I would have done it. It shows weakness to an enemy for whom any sign of weakness is a reason to attack.

Michael Barone points out how Gangster Government Stifles Criticism of Obamacare in an article today at Townhall.com. Go read the whole thing. It will make your blood boil.

Finally, for today, the American Thinker has an article by Lance Fairchok entitled Reaping the Whirlwind. It describes the reasons for the general anxiety being expressed by the Tea Parties, the 9/12 Project the Three Percent and others. You aren't paranoid if they're really trying to get you, and it appears they are. Go have a look.

Thoughts on the Anniversary of 9/11

Many of us have been trading stories of 9/11/2001.  I always ask people if they remember where they were, and what they were doing.  I talked to one guy who was on the 35th floor of the Trade Center when the first plane hit.  He said it wasn't immediately obvious.  At first he thought it might be an earthquake or something.  But in any case, he ordered his crew to leave the building, and he said everyone packed up and left.  He was the last of his crew out the building, and he just started running.  He is lucky to be alive.  I have talked to many who knew people, and some who witnessed the event from further uptown.

Me?  It was a surprising nice fall day after a hot summer.  I was in my office at the Navy Yard in Washington, DC, when a woman came running by saying the Twin Towers were hit.  I ran down to where there was a television, and saw the horror of the first plane's damage.  I watched for a while, and suddenly a second plane struck the the towers.  I said then we were at war.  Some folks looked at me.  I pointed out that one plane hitting the towers could be a freak accident.  But two planes mean someone has deliberately done this.  An hour later, this fact was confirmed when the plane hit the Pentagon, just across the Potomac from where I was sitting.  I did not find out about the fourth plane until the next day.  I crossed the road, and went up on top of a parking garage to see the smoke billowing from the Pentagon, and knowing folks who were in there and might be hurt or killed.  Communications, were of course, totally jammed, though one Amateur Radio repeater site quickly set up and began relaying from the Pentagon to get word out.  Still, news was scarce, which added to the feeling that things had changed forever.

Of course it was only later that I found out who had planned and carried out this heinous deed.  It took more time to realize who our enemy truly is.  We are not at war with terror, for terror is a technique, not an enemy.  The people we are at war with are radical Islamist, from outside, and Marxist/Fascist/Socialist/Communist/Collectivist/Statists from the inside.  The radical Islamists are supported, in this country and abroad, by millions of so-called "moderate Muslims."  They will not take up arms against us, but at the same time, they would gladly see this country become part of the Caliphate.  In this country, the active Leftist community is fairly small, but again the sympathisers represent perhaps 25% of the voting population.  Taken all together, the odds are not good. Still, you must decide which side you are going to be on.  There soon will be no room for folks in the middle.

Bon fire of the Korans

The Curmudgeon Emeritus has an excellent post up over at Eternity Road entitled The War with Islam, "Moderate Muslims," and the Florida Koran Roast. The Curmudgeon Emeritus is Francis W. Porretto's alter ego. It is a thoughtful post on all counts, and deserves to be read. One thing that the Curmudgeon says is:

But Islam is not a religion. It's a totalitarian ideology with a few theological trimmings. If you're aware of its prescriptions, its proscriptions, and its record when in the saddle, you cannot sincerely disagree. If not, you need to complete your education before allowing yourself an opinion on the subject.

I can not emphasize this enough. Islam is not a true religion, but a totalitarian ideology with some whiff of religion to give it legitimacy and cause the people to be more docile. It partakes of the "divine right of kings," of the old religion of the Pharaohs, or of the notion of Caesar as a god.  All such ideologies are bunk and hokum.  But, it goes far in explaining why Mayor Bloomberg favors the Ground Zero Mosque while making no effort to get St. Nicholas Church rebuilt after it was destroyed by the toppling of the Twin Towers.  It explains why the Hartford City Council apparently voted to ask Muslim Imams to conduct prayers at the start of Council meetings, even though Christian prayers at the same meetings  would be unwelcome.  Such people look at us as children who must be controlled-for our own good, of course.  A totalitarian ideology fits right in, and they instinctively know it.

Another point the Curmudgeon makes is that we are at war with the people who believe Islam.  We have been at war with these people since the day Mohammad founded his crazy "faith."  We are at war whether we want to be or not, whether we recognize it or not, whether we are prepared or not.  There can be no peace with these people.  Islam is an implacable enemy, who will not stop.  That being the case, I think burning some Korans is not a bad idea.  Not a bad idea at all.  Throw in some copies of Mein Kampf while you're at it.

Did Obama Tell Egyptian Foreign Minister "I am a Muslim"?

Pamella Geller over at Atlas Shrugs has a post up entitled "I Am a Muslim" Obama tells Egyptian Foreign Minister Gheit Islamic Coup on the White House making the case that Obama is in fact a crypto-Muslim. Go read the whole thing; it will take a while. I'll wait.

Surprise, surprise! In addition to being a Progressive/Marxist/Fascist/Socialist he is also a Muslim.  Well, well... One wonders if Obama thinks of himself as the next Calif?  In all seriousness, I think Ammadinnerjacket has the same idea.

The god of Islam-this so called Allah, is not the God that we Christians worship, and that we still hope our Jewish friends will one day come to know.  It is also not the God in whom we place our trust.  Our God desires that men and women come to have a relationship with him of our own free will.  He is the God who sent is Son, who was called Jesus, to us out of love for us, and we killed his Son.  Still, the Son of God had mercy on us, and still asks us to have a close relationship with him.  The Allah worshipers believe this makes Christians pagans.  They don't understand that God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is just one God, manifesting himself to us differently in different situations.  We pray to God, in the name of his Son.  They do not understand that our God can truly do anything, be everywhere at all times, is omnipotent.  To say that God is great is to sell Him short.  But to know God, one must know the Son.

On the other hand, this so called Allah partakes of none of that.  He demands submission, and like all tyrants, a failure to submit is punishable by death, preferably a horrible death.  Still, Muslims have a right to worship and pray to whom, and as they wish-so long as they obey our laws that are written in accordance with our Constitution.  They have not.  They have murdered 3,000 or our citizens on 9/11/2001, and many of their own in so called "honor killings."  These things, and others, make those who subscribe to the Muslim faith suspect.  We have a right to self defense, and our right to free association says we have the right to not allow more of these people to enter our country.  We shouldn't.

Now they want to build a Mosque 60 steps away from, and overlooking ground zero.  New York planners, and Councilmen have moved heaven and earth to make this Mosque happen.  They have ignored the name of the Mosque, the Cordoba House.  Meanwhile, the Greek Orthodox church, which was destroyed in the 9/11 attack, St. Nicholas, can't seem to be rebuilt.  You think there might be some hypocrisy going on there?  This is not about rights.  If this was about "rights" then the Anthony Martin's piece in the Conservative Examiner would all be a sad joke. But it is not. This Mosque is a trophy for Islam and its god Allah.  At the same time, Progressives/Marxist?Fascists attack Christianity at all levels. Why, if the Mosque about religious liberty? Do not Christians deserve similar consideration?  Christian Americans can not let this stand.

Meanwhile, the mask keeps coming off.  It turns out our President, who assured us he was a Christian, may actually be a Muslim, by his own words.  What other lies did he tell us during the campaign.  For those of you who are Obama supporters, when will enough be enough?  Or is there nothing that will turn you away from him?

Update:  If you've stayed with me this long, take a look at Eternity Road in this post by Mark Alger. No wonder the Left and Islam seem to get along so well.

A Scholar Looks at Islam and the Practical Effects

Are Judaism and Christianity as Violent as Islam?,by Robert Ibrahim in the Middle East Quarterly is a scholarly look at the Koran, the teachings of Muhammad, and how these have been interpreted and carried out by Muslims over the years. It is long, but go check it out.

Then ask this question: How can this "religion" and the Constitution possibly be made compatible. The Constitution recognizes individual rights, individual freedom and liberty. Islam, on the other hand, requires submission. The two philosophies run counter to each other. But, if you need more proof, please read
Tolerance and the Other American Muslim Tragedy in today's Townhall.com by Austin Hill. A quote:

By now, the horrific profile of Army Major Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan is widely known. And despite President Obama insisting that we must not “jump to conclusions” about this American Muslim man, the picture is still horrifying: an American soldier who openly disagreed with the policies of two American Presidents (the “Hawk” George W. Bush and the “Dove” Barack Obama), who complained about deployments, and made “outlandish statements” against his nation and its government, was nonetheless allowed to rise through the ranks of the U.S. Army.

The obvious question – the “elephant in the living room,” to use a term from the world of family psychology – is “why was this kind of behavior tolerated and apparently overlooked?” And the only obvious answer, at least at this point, is simply “because he is a Muslim.”

Muslims, of course, are notoriously sensitive about anything that smells of a criticism. Why would that be? Why the defensiveness? This is just a theory, but I think it's because they know their actions will not stand up to scrutiny. Outside of the hermetically sealed Muslim world, where Sharia is recognized, they have no way to justify their actions. And they know that. Another quote:

Before dying, Noor was hospitalized and remained in a coma for several days. And just like the Muslim men we have seen on video recordings who hide their identities with masks when beheading “infidels,” Faleh Hassan Almaleki sought to “hide” by fleeing the country after he ran over his daughter.

One who is forced to change his opinion on the outside, will still hold to that opinion in his heart. This is true for Christians, Muslims and anyone else. A person must see the light for himself. So, while Obama can make all the nice speeches he wants, I don't think Muslims should be allowed to immigrate to the United States unless, and until, the "moderate" Muslims renounce Jihad. They can not be allowed to continue to spread their teachings by the sword.

Are there any Americans Left

Bill Murchison has an article in today's Townhall.com entitled simply
The Fort Hood Massacre that questions whether the things being said about the murderer are in fact true. He points out that claims of "harassment" are unlikely, since he is an officer, and soldiers don't harass officers. He also points to the gunman yelling "Allahu Ackbar" just before beginning to fire. This is the cry of all Islamic terrorists before they begin their bloody work. Murchison's point is that we should look closely at whether this treasonous SOB's "religion" should be taken into account when trying to figure out what went wrong.

But right now, we are not. We are being told that this was not an act of terrorism; in essence to "move along, there's nothing to see here."

So Francis W. Porretto's post entitled Where Are the Americans over at Eternity Road came as a relief. It's a relief because I had begun to believe that everyone was crazy. The government and the media would rather not offend Muslim's delicate sensibilities by telling the truth, straight up, American style. Of course, the government has been trying to convince us that Islam is a "religion of peace." Rather than call the current war by it's real name, the Bush administration coined the term "War on Terror." More apt might have been "War on Terrorists," but only slightly. Then came the Obama administration to downgrade even that tepid statement of purpose to simply dealing with "man caused disasters," as if having 3000 Americans killed on 9/11 was merely some accident. A couple of planes simply got their wires crossed, and suddenly there was a "man caused disaster."

Look, Islam is not the "religion of peace." Indeed, it is not a religion at all, unless one counts the Thugee of India, who reputedly worshipped Kali as a "religion." Porretto concludes with:

Time was, the slogan: "America: Love It Or Leave It!" was on many lips. Those who used it probably meant it sincerely. Who could use it sincerely today?

Not our president, who thinks abasing our country before foreign tyrants is the right way to conduct American foreign policy.
Not our news media, who routinely slant their offerings, both reportage and commentary, to conduce to the greatest possible harm to the United States.
Not the spokesmen for the FBI, who repeatedly issue proclamations designed to deflect attention from the near-perfect correlation of Islam and terrorism.
Not Nidal Malik Hasan's superiors at Fort Hood, who permitted him to remain there, a place bristling with weapons and men intended to wield them, despite his long-obvious animosity toward the United States.
Not the Quislings and spineless ones of the Left, to whom this is more of an indictment of the United States -- in the person of the Bush Administration, of course -- than a fresh new data point about the dangers of having Muslims among us.

Where are the Americans?

Where, indeed.

Can Islam Reform?

Madeline Brooks asks Can Islam Reform from Within? in an article from the American Thinker today. Ms. Brooks answer seems to be "maybe." She points to Bangladeshi journalist Shoaib Choudhry's efforts meet with counter-jihad groups and form alliances among them. Shoaib believes that Muslims don't have to give up Islam as long as they can believe that the Koran's demand to submit or die wasn't meant literally. At least, I think that is what he is saying.

Hmmmm.

Except that Muslims have their founder, Mohammed's, actions to show that in fact all the things the Koran instructs are to be taken quite literally. I don't really see how Shoaib thinks he can walk that fine line here, and I suspect Muslims can not see it either. So that means they will keep on killing us when they can. That means that if we show any weakness at all, we are in immediate danger. Consider that when a Muslim moves in next door.

I think Ms. Brooks is whistling past the graveyard, hoping against hope that nothing will have to change. I don't think that is very likely, though.

Oh, and of the 14 commenters so far, 13 seem to agree with me. Just sayin'

Update: Frans alter ego, the Curmudgeon Emeritus has an interesting post over at Eternity Road entitled Propaganda and Threats on a similar topic to this one. The Muslim population in France stands at 8%, and has France's hands tied, so to speak. Even if they were inclined to move against the Muslims, say to start deporting them, they would find in all likelihood that their middle east oil would be shut off. For the moment, they seem unwilling to face these consequences. Here in the United States, the current Muslim population stands at only 1.5%. Many of those, however, are home grown, so that deporting them would be against our principles and our law. But if the percentage rises to, say 4%, they could become quite dangerous. In my opinion, no one should be allowed to immigrate who confesses Islam.

I know, you are going to point out that we have never discriminated on the basis of religion before. On the other hand, we have never faced a population whose religion is hostile to the very nature of our Constitution, our rule of law, and our traditions, indeed which says we are evil. The Constitution was not intended to be a suicide pact. Given enough of them, they would vote for Sharia to replace the Constitution. Of course, before then, our quisling courts would have already made Sharia the law of the land in many areas. This would be to step back 2000 years, to where women and children would be treated as property, punishments such as beheading would routinely be administered for various infractions, and socially, everyone would be stuck pretty much in his place. Honor killings and other barbaric practices would be the law of the land. The poor person would be reduced to accepting alms, because that is Allah's will (praise be to Allah.) I don't know about you, but I would be pretty upset if I was a poor person living under Sharia, with no hope and no prospects. I just might start blowing things up so I could leave this earth and claim my 72 virgins.

Update 2: As if to make my point that if you show weakness you could very well be attacked, comes this post from Pamela Gellar at Atlas Shrugs. Go read what she has to say.