The Real Meaning of "Universal Health Care"
If you really think universal health care is a right and a necessary thing, read
this post at Eternity Road. It's more chilling than the latest pronouncements from the "Religion of Peace!"
The General Medical Council has won its appeal against a ruling which gave a seriously-ill patient the right to stop doctors withdrawing food and drink.
[...snip...]
Artificial nutrition is classed as a form of treatment by the GMC and therefore last July's ruling, which was hailed as a breakthrough for the rights of terminally-ill patients, raised questions about medical interventions.
In the original case, Mr Burke [Leslie Burke, a seriously ill patient who anticipates losing his power of speech and movement] argued the GMC's advice, which gives doctors in cases such as his the ultimate say on what treatment to give a patient in the final stages, was an infringement of his human rights.
But during the appeal hearing, Philip Havers, QC, representing the GMC, said the original ruling had fundamentally altered the nature of doctor/patient relationships and was not in the best interests of the patient.
He said doctors would have to provide treatment which they knew would be of no benefit or could even be harmful.
Get it? The British court ruled that the doctors have the right to starve a patient to death against the will of the patient because being kept alive might not be "in the patient's best interest". The link to the complete BBC article is
here. Holy slippery slope Batman!
Labels: Eternity Road, Universal Health Care
Support Michael Graham against the Terror Supporters at CAIR
According to
this article, Washington D.C. talk radio host has been removed from the air for speaking
uncomfortable truths, uncomfortable to the
terror-supporting thugs at CAIR. I've already emailed John.E.McConnell@abc.com to support Mr. Graham. It's something we all need to do, otherwise the Islamofascists at CAIR will continue to bully their critics, and take away the voices of those who expose the evil within Islam. For more information and links, go to
here to The Strata-Sphere.
Labels: CAIR, Daniel Pipes, Jewish World Review, Michael Graham
Oprah Winfrey Supports Terrorists
Here is an interesting column by Joseph Aaron in the
Chicago Jewish News. Mr. Aaron finds Oprah petty, defensive, self-absorbed, lacking a sense of humor, and a know-it-all. None of that is cause for concern. That's basic behavior of the rich pampered TV and movie star. Near the end of the article though, he describes an article that ran recently in her magazine, O. And that is a cause for concern.
In the current issue of her magazine, Oprah has a story that truly shows how delusional she is.
It's the story of Yusra Abdu, an 18- year-old Palestinian. "A wonderfully frivolous teenager," "a happy girl with an optimistic smile."
Oh, by the way, Yusra Abdu wanted to be a suicide bomber.
According to the article in Oprah, she was a girl with "velvety skin" who did it all for love. And, of course, because the Jews made her do it.
Indeed, the article's headline is "Love and Terror," and the introductory paragraph refers to Yusra as "one of the youngest casualties of an unending conflict."
Catch that word "casualty?" Yes, according to Oprah, this young woman, who the article says has an "overfull closet of clothes, whose doors are layered with posters of handsome Arab stars," is a casualty. Why? Because she's now serving a 15-month sentence in an Israeli jail. Why? Because she was planning to murder Jews, not that the article would ever use the word murder.
Only in the strange world of the Palestinians, and evidently Oprah, is someone who is setting out to kill innocent people, actually the victim in the whole thing.
That she evidently fell in love with Hani Akad, the top man in the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine in the city of Nablus, as they were planning her mission, makes her all the more the victim, according to Oprah. Oh by the way, Akad, an explosions expert responsible for many suicide bombings and on Israel's most wanted list of terrorists, is referred to by Oprah as a "charismatic young rebel."
And that indeed is the tone of the entire article with every Israeli military operation "bloody" and every Palestinian a victim.
There's more and it's equally as sickening. Read the whole article. You get a better picture of Oprah, the clueless dope.
For more sickening moral ambiguity, courtesy of Oprah, read
this disgusting piece. If she were truly concerned, she would be reaching out to Israeli girls who have been left orphaned or maimed thanks to murderers like Yusra Abdu and Hani Akad, whom she romanticizes.
Labels: Chicago Jewish News, Oprah Winfrey, terrorism
London is bombed. Protect Muslims!
Read
this piece by Julia Gorin at
Jewish World Review. It puts everything into perspective.
Desperation has again led Muslims to commit suicide bombings, this time in London. Brits still bewildered by the attacks, protesting, "But we're not Jewish!" need to get out of their cocoons and start asking the relevant question: Why is this happening? To stop terrorism, one must remove the root causes of terrorism. To that end, maybe it's time England pulled out of occupied Londonistan. Only then will this cycle of violence end. With the unemployment rate among British Muslims at 10 percent above the national average, perhaps a divestment campaign, as well as an academic boycott of England, would help England figure out what it's been doing wrong. Either way, our favoritism toward this colonial power at the expense of Muslims must end.
"Polls of British Muslims show a considerable sense of anger," reports the NY Times. "Eight out of 10 believe that the war on terrorism is a war on Islam, while a poll conducted last year…found a surprising 13 percent who said that further attacks…on the United States would be justified." This is worrisome, considering that Muslims in Europe and America are picking up electoral strength as their numbers grow. In fact, we can expect soon to see a new addition to the bumper sticker genre of "I'm a woman and I vote," or "I'm retired and I vote": "I'm Muslim and I bomb."
Within a day of the 7/7 attacks on British civilians, which naturally resulted in a surge of worldwide concern for Muslim welfare, headlines began streaming in, such as "Muslim Leaders Fear Revenge Attacks from the Extreme Right." ("And Therapy from the Left.") Other headlines have been hailing Britons for their stoicism in the face of terror. The UK Guardian reported that London's pubs were full — a response that sharply contrasted with American "hysteria" over such massacres. Then again, it's not like the Islamofascists have defeated the Brits on the soccer field yet.
There's much more to make you laugh while you shake your head in agreement.
Labels: Julia Gorin, Muslims
Pope Benedict XVI - Say It Ain't So
In the
beginning I really thought Pope Benedict XVI had a grasp of the current Islamic-inspired insanity. I thought he was on the side of civilization against Muslim terrorists. I thought he supported Israel, as Israel's fight is our fight and Europe's fight, even though many Europeans seem to have resigned themselves to becoming dhimmi. I was wrong. As
this news report demonstrates the Pope is willing to sacrifice the Jews (again) to appease the monster.
The Vatican on Thursday denounced some Israeli retaliations against past terrorism as a violation of international law in an ongoing spat over Pope Benedict XVI's failure to specifically condemn terror against
Israel in recent remarks.
The Israeli Foreign Ministry summoned the Vatican envoy to Israel on Monday and complained that Benedict "deliberately" didn't mention a July 12 suicide bombing in Netanya while referring to recent terror strikes in Egypt, Britain, Turkey and
Iraq.
"It's not always possible to immediately follow every attack against Israel with a public statement of condemnation," a statement from the Vatican press office said Thursday night, "and (that is) for various reasons, among them the fact that the attacks against Israel sometimes were followed by immediate Israeli reactions not always compatible with the rules of international law."
"It would thus be impossible to condemn the first (the terror strikes) and let the second (Israeli retaliation) pass in silence," said the statement, which had an unusually blistering tone for the Holy See.
The Israeli Foreign Ministry refused to comment on the Vatican statement.
On Sunday, as Benedict addressed pilgrims while on vacation at his Alpine retreat, he prayed for God to stop the "murderous hand" of terrorists. He denounced as "abhorrent" the terror strikes at a Red Sea resort in Egypt, the mass transit attacks in Britain and other terrorism in Iraq and Turkey.
On Monday, Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls said Benedict had been referring to the attacks of the last few days. He called it "surprising that one would have wanted to take the opportunity to distort the intentions of the Holy Father."
Navarro-Valls said then that the Netanya attack "falls under the general and unreserved condemnation of terrorism" by the pontiff.
Weasel words are offered after the usual condemnation of Israel for defending itelf. The Vatican has joined those who see the existence of Israel as a violation of internatioal law. The terrorists now know Israel still stands virtually alone in the world and will continue in their attempts to destroy it. The Pope, and all of the other terror-enablers needs to remember, if Isreal is destroyed, it will free up a whole mess of terrorists to attack Europe.
Labels: Israel, Pope Benedict XIV
Driving
We drive in the United States. We drive a lot. We have to drive to get places. For most of us there is no reliable mass transit. So we drive. We strap ourselves into a machine made out of a few tons of metal and plastic, and powered by a gasoline engine. As we happily travel down the highway, we carry a few gallons of a dangerous highly flammable liquid, that when it reaches the engine is used to create a series of tiny controlled explosions. That's what makes our car run. And it can run very fast. We can cruise down the freeway at eighty miles an hour surrounded by other drivers also going 70-80 mph. Are we crazy? How the hell do we trust all of these other drivers surrounding us as we all travel at speeds that flesh and blood was never made to travel? We pay so little attention as we travel at these crazy speeds, that we eat, drink, talk on the phone, sing along to the radio; and some fools (I'm told) watch DVDs, while driving . . . fast . . . amongst other drivers, none of whom knows what any of the others are doing or thinking (if they're thinking). This is insane. People are killed and maimed for life while driving. And yet we do it every day as if it were the most natural thing in the world.
Actually this used to feel like the most natural thing in the world. But my son received his learner's permit a few weeks ago. That changed everything.
Labels: Driving
This Cartoon Says it All
I've always loved political cartoons.
This one presents a simple truth in an elegant manner. I found it at
Dr. SanityLabels: cartoons, Dr. Sanity
Harry Potter vs. Islamofascist Terrorism
I just finished reading the fifth Harry Potter book, H.P. and the Order of the Phoenix. I wasn't going to read it until I saw the fourth movie, as that has been my pattern, but my children "encouraged" me to read it now.
I don't want to be one of those cranks who sees reflections of the world in places where they aren't, but this book seemed, in places, to be an allegory of our current war against Islamic terrorists. I'm not going to insist that Rowling planned this allegory. This book was released in July 2003. Yes, the war on terror was going on back then, but the first book is copyright 1997, before we realized that the Islamofascists were serious in their war against us. She had seven books planned from the beginning, I beleive, and there must have been at least a rought outline back then for all seven books. Things change though, and background details that reflect the modern world can be changed over the course of time. I'm sure authors change all kinds of details as they write their books.
Tolkein was accused of writing an allegory of WWII. He denied it. Their are probably other tales of good vs. evil that mirror past situations, but this one had details that were just too close to reality . . . although it could be just coincidence.
First of all, there is the dread, since the first Harry Potter book, of mentioning Voldemort's name. People are so afraid of him that he is "the one who must not be named" or something like that. We have the twin scourges of Political Correctness and Multiculturalism that won't allow many leaders the courage to put the words "Muslim" and "terrorist" together even though it's even been admitted by some Muslims, that almost all terrorists in current times have been Muslims. Also, Voldemort, like our current crop of terrorists will sacrifice the lives of his followers as easily as an Arab camel owner will sacrifice a child slave camel jockey.
In this book, there is a denial by the Wizard/Witch MSM (The Daily Prophet) and government (Ministry of Magic) that Voldemort is alive. They keep insisting that he's dead even though there is evidence to the contrary. Compare that with the current
denial concerning the Islamic attempt to restore the caliphate. Many in our cultural elite insist that simple appeasement or the abandonment of Israel to the devils will solve our problems. We should know better.
Even as Harry, Dumbledore and the Order of the Phoenix battle Voldemort and his evil death eaters, the MSM (Daily Prophet) indulges in constant character assassination and ridicule of the heroes. Compare that with the way our MSM treats our heroes in Iraq and Afghanistan; day after day of body counts, Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, (non-existant) Koran abuse, and a daily damning insistance that we are losing the war. Not to mention the continuous mantra of the left: "Bush Lies . . ." Of course Rowling may just be poking jabs at the irresponsible, government supported British press. Like I said earlier, it may be coincidental.
Teaming up with the Daily Prophet in their quest for self-defeat is the craven and cowardly Ministry of Magic. Hogwarts is taken over by the Ministry and an attempt is made to destroy the curriculum and the school. Teachers are villified for not following the new dumbed down suggestions of the Ministry of Magic's agent now in charge of Hogwarts. Isn't that what's happening in our schools? Students at Hogwarts can't even learn how to protect themselves from the Dark Arts. Harry has to act as a vigilante and teach willing students himself. And in Arizona we have the Minutemen defending our borders because our government (Democrats and Republicans) have their own reasons for letting in a flood of illegal immigrants. OK, so this may be a stretch. But, how can we defend our culture against the Muslim onslaught if our culture isn't taught in school but Multiculturalism is?
Maybe I'm reading too much into the book, but whether I'm being a crank or not, it did add to the enjoyment of the book.
At the end of the book, of course, the good guys win. At least until the sixth book, which I'll read next summer.
Labels: Harry Potter, islam, terrorism
Israel and Iran, and their Priorities.
One country is working for the betterment of mankind, the other is steeped in the mire of hatred and bloodlust. Go to
Atlas Shrugs to see which of the two is working toward life and which is fixated on death. (As if you didn't already know!)
Labels: Atlas Shrugs, Iran, Israel
More on Israel and the Terrorist Threat
We are all Israelis. We are in a war against terrorists and their apologists in the main stream media, the British news services seeming to be the most deranged in their love of terrorists and hatred toward Israel.
Tom Gross offers an important column in the difference between British and Israeli handling of terrorists, and the hypocritical response of the British press.
Contrary to the absolute lies told in the British media in recent days, the Israel Defense Forces have not instituted a shoot-to-kill policy, or trained the British to carry out one. For example, on Friday, at the very time British police were shooting the man in the Tube, the IDF caught and disarmed a terrorist from Fatah already inside Israel en route to carrying out a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv. Israeli forces didn't injure the terrorist at all in apprehending him, and disarming him of the five-kilogram explosives belt, packed with nails and metal shards, that he was wearing.
And yet for taking the bare minimum steps necessary to save the lives of its citizens in recent years, Israel has been mercilessly berated by virtually the entire world. Had Israeli police shot dead an innocent foreigner on one of its buses or trains, confirming the kill with a barrage of bullets at close range, in a mistaken effort to thwart a bombing, the UN would probably have been sitting in emergency session by late afternoon to unanimously denounce the Jewish state.
Debra Saunders takes the left and London Mayor, Ken Livingstone to task for their immoral terror apologist policies.
Livingstone typifies a certain stripe of lefty who so hates President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair that he or she makes excuses for murderers.
Imagine, as I've written before, if anti-abortion terrorists began killing innocent civilians and said they would stop only if the government outlaws abortion. (After all, if terrorism wins for Islamic extremists, why shouldn't U.S. extremists adopt it?) The left would not fault pro-abortion policies. The left would not blame the government for legalizing abortion. The left — correctly — would denounce the terrorists, the violence and any attempt to extort policy by threatening innocent lives.
Yet because the terrorists criticize the Bush and Blair policies, many leftists make excuses for the July 7 murders. These true believers have taken the old saw — the enemy of my enemy is my friend — to such an extreme that they have become apologists for homicidal zealots who, given power, would have little reservations about jailing them (or worse) for their gender, sexual practices or "infidel" status.
Livingstone isn't the only Brit to blame Blair's policies. At a press conference Thursday, journalists asked Blair and visiting Australian Prime Minister John Howard if they felt responsible for actions — sending troops to aid in U.S.-led military efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq — that put Brits and Aussies in peril's way.
Labels: Debra Saunders, Great Britain, Israel, Ken Livingstone, terrorism
Are We All Londoners?
There has been a great show of solidarity among editorial pages and bloggers around the world since the terrorist attack on London. Many are proclaiming "
We're all Londoners". If we really want to show solidarity against the terrorists though, shouldn't we be standing shoulder to shoulder, blog to blog, editorial to editorial, declaring, "We're all Israelis"? London got hit once. We were shocked even though we shouldn't have been. We praised the bravery of London citizenry in their refusal to cower in the face of terror. That's fine.
Israel, however, has been putting up with these murderers for the past 57 years. And few outside of Israel have had the courage or the clear sense of morality to proclaim their solidarity with the Israelis. Not only has Israel not caved in to the terrorists, they've managed to build a thriving country from nothing while battling these vile piles of pig droppings. That kind of steadfastness should be continuously celebrated among the civilized people of the world. Instead, what do the Israelis get from the world press and other "progressives"? Vilification mostly for daring to defend themselves and continuing to enjoy the highest standard of living in the Middle East.
The majority of the world, including that "international bastion of civilization", the U.N. has focused their ire on the Israelis, apolgizing for and excusing terror attacks against the Jewish State, and in some cases, blaming them outright. The
terror supporing mayor of London himself, Ken Livingstone looks the London terrorists in the eye while hypocritically supporting those who attack Israelis.
We can and should support the people of London in their fight against terror. But to ignore or disdain the sacrifice and the stamina of the Israelis in this world-wide battle against Islamofascism is not only hypocritical but self-defeating. The countries and governments of the world who are seriously in this fight should be working hand-in-hand with Israel and publicly supporting them. We need to be as united in our aims as the Islamic terror masters are in theirs.
Labels: Israel, Ken Livingstone, London, terrorism
More Thoughts by Mark Steyn on the Idiocy Known as Multiculturalism
Go
here. Read more intelligent commentary about why the self-destructive religion of Multiculturalism is helping our enemies to kill us.
WITH hindsight, the defining encounter of the age was not between Mohammed Atta's jet and the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, but that between Mohammed Atta and Johnelle Bryant a year earlier. Bryant is an official with the US Department of Agriculture in Florida, and the late Atta had gone to see her about getting a $US650,000 government loan to convert a plane into the world's largest crop-duster. A novel idea.
The meeting got off to a rocky start when Atta refused to deal with Bryant because she was but a woman. But, after this unpleasantness had been smoothed out, things went swimmingly. When it was explained to him that, alas, he wouldn't get the 650 grand in cash that day, Atta threatened to cut Bryant's throat. He then pointed to a picture behind her desk showing an aerial view of downtown Washington - the White House, the Pentagon et al - and asked: "How would America like it if another country destroyed that city and some of the monuments in it?"
Fortunately, Bryant's been on the training course and knows an opportunity for multicultural outreach when she sees one. "I felt that he was trying to make the cultural leap from the country that he came from," she recalled. "I was attempting, in every manner I could, to help him make his relocation into our country as easy for him as I could."
So a few weeks later, when fellow 9/11 terrorist Marwan al-Shehhi arrived to request another half-million dollar farm subsidy and Atta showed up cunningly disguised with a pair of glasses and claiming to be another person entirely - to whit, al-Shehhi's accountant - Bryant sportingly pretended not to recognise him and went along with the wheeze. The fake specs, like the threat to slit her throat and blow up the Pentagon, were just another example of the multicultural diversity that so enriches our society.
For four years, much of the western world behaved like Bryant. Bomb us, and we agonise over the "root causes" (that is, what we did wrong). Decapitate us, and our politicians rush to the nearest mosque to declare that "Islam is a religion of peace". Issue bloodcurdling calls at Friday prayers to kill all the Jews and infidels, and we fret that it may cause a backlash against Muslims. Behead sodomites and mutilate female genitalia, and gay groups and feminist groups can't wait to march alongside you denouncing Bush, Blair and Howard. Murder a schoolful of children, and our scholars explain that to the "vast majority" of Muslims "jihad" is a harmless concept meaning "decaf latte with skimmed milk and cinnamon sprinkles".
Until the London bombings. Something about this particular set of circumstances - British subjects, born and bred, weaned on chips, fond of cricket, but willing to slaughter dozens of their fellow citizens - seems to have momentarily shaken the multiculturalists out of their reveries. Hitherto, they've taken a relaxed view of the more, ah, robust forms of cultural diversity - Sydney gang rapes, German honour killings - but Her Britannic Majesty's suicide bombers have apparently stiffened even the most jelly-spined lefties.
At The Age, Terry Lane, last heard blaming John Howard for the "end of democracy as we know it" and calling for "the army of my country ... to be defeated" in Iraq, now says multiculturalism is a "repulsive word" whereas "assimilation is a beaut" and should be commended. In the sense that he seems to have personally assimilated with Pauline Hanson, he's at least leading by example.
Where Lane leads, Melbourne's finest have been rushing to follow, lining up to sign on to the New Butchness. "There is something wrong with multiculturalism," warns Pamela Bone. "Perhaps it is time to say, you are welcome, but this is the way it is here." Tony Parkinson - The Age's resident voice of sanity - quotes approvingly France's Jean-Francois Revel: "Clearly, a civilisation that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself."
And yet, The Age's editor Andrew Jaspan still lives in another world. You'll recall that it was Jaspan who objected to the energy and conviction of certain freed Australian hostage, at least when it comes to disrespecting their captors: "I was, I have to say, shocked by Douglas Wood's use of the 'arsehole' word, if I can put it like that, which I just thought was coarse and very ill-thought through ... As I understand it, he was treated well there. He says he was fed every day, and as such to turn around and use that kind of language I think is just insensitive."
And heaven forbid we're insensitive about terrorists. True, a blindfolded Wood had to listen to his jailers murder two of his colleagues a few inches away, but how boorish would one have to be to hold that against one's captors? A few months after 9/11, National Review's John Derbyshire dusted off the old Cold War mantra "Better dead than red" and modified it to mock the squeamishness of politically correct warfare: "Better dead than rude". But even he would be surprised to see it taken up quite so literally by Andrew Jaspan.
Usually it's the hostage who gets Stockholm Syndrome, but the newly liberated Wood must occasionally reflect that in this instance the entire culture seems to have caught a dose. And, in a sense, we have: multiculturalism is a kind of societal Stockholm Syndrome. Atta's meetings with Bryant are emblematic: He wasn't a genius, a master of disguise in deep cover; indeed, he was barely covered at all, he was the Leslie Nielsen of terrorist masterminds - but the more he stuck out, the more Bryant was trained not to notice, or to put it all down to his vibrant cultural tradition.
Read it and weep.
Labels: Mark Steyn, multiculturalism
The Latest by Oriana Fallaci
Someguy at Mystery Achievement has translated Oriana Fallaci's latest column into English. If you care about Islam's war against the world, read it. If you don't care, read it anyway.
Here is part 1.
Here is part 2.
Previously, I wrote about Oriana Fallaci
here.
Labels: Mystery Achievement, Oriana Fallaci
Robots to Replace Child Slaves as Camel Jockeys
There have been celebratory reports from various
news organizations on the use of robot camel jockeys in Qatar and The UAE, to replace child camel jockeys in camel races. In all of the wonderment of this new technology, I've been wondering why our ever-vigilant news organizations refused to keep us informed as to the horrors the child camel jockeys faced over the years as slaves to these rich camel racers? Using child camel jockeys was outlawed years ago, but it seems no one bothered to enforce the law - until now, when children are no longer needed. So we get outrageous, self-congratulatory thinking like this, reported in
Middle East Online "This experiment can succeed and be generalised," said Fredj Fenniche, regional representative for the UN Human Rights Commission.
"Our way seeks to make Qatar a state of law and respect of human rights, and we won't tolerate going against this," said Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Faisal al-Thani, president of the organising committee for camel races in Qatar.
According to the
Times OnllineAs many as 1,700 Pakistani children are believed to be working as camel jockeys in the Middle East. Hundreds of children are abducted by traffickers or sold voluntarily each year to camel racing syndicates in the UAE.
Poor parents from Pakistan’s most impoverished southern Punjab region are reported to have sold their children for £1,300 or more. The children smuggled into the UAE and trained to ride. The weight of the jockey is crucial to camel racing, so boys as young as two are considered to be most suitable. South Asian boys are favoured because they are cheap, weigh little and tend to scream loud ly, pushing camels to run much faster.
In 2002, Pakistan made smuggling children abroad for use as camel riders an offence punishable by up to ten years in prison, but the law is often flouted. Human rights groups say that the boys are kept in prison-like conditions where they are half starved to keep their weight down. The tiny riders are bound to a camel’s back, often with Velcro fastenings, as the animals race at speeds of up to 30mph. It is not uncommon for riders to fall from their camels and be dragged to their deaths.
According to
UAE Prison.com A Pakistani boy who worked five years as a camel jockey, starting at age 4, remembers the race as noisy and dangerous, where more than 50 camels with screaming children strapped onto their backs would run. He personally saw about 20 children die, and more than a dozen injured every week. He recalls: "There was this one kid whose strap broke at the beginning of the race. His head was crushed between the legs of the running camel. Once the race has started it cannot stop.
Many of these under-aged riders have been left to die from the appalling injuries suffered on the desert race courses without any medical treatment. The camels are valuable assets worth millions of dollars, instead the children are viewed as cheap and expendable. With camel racing heavily patronized by the UAE's oil-rich rulers, who have least respect in the legislature, thousands of small children from Indian sub continent face a bleak and dangerous future.
A couple of pages of photos of the unfortunate children are
here and
here.
Once again we are treated to world's most popular double standard. Arab Muslims are allowed to enslave Muslim chilren. These chldren, unlike a camel, are thought of as disposable, not even worth the effort to seek medical treatment when inured. Anti-slavery groups have protested, but no action was ever taken . . . until now, when the services of these unfortunate children are no longer needed.
On the other hand, when a Muslim is hurt or killed in the west when trying to murder a non-Muslim, there is a
hue and a cry from Muslim leaders.
The Muslim Council of Britain called on police to explain why the Asian man, reported as a "suspected suicide bomber" by Sky News, was shot dead at Stockwell station in south London.
And we know how Israel is condemned whenever and however they defend themselves from Muslim terrorists.
If Muslims truly wanted to be part of the world community, they wouldn't operate under this odious double standard. But they don't want to be part, they want to control the world community. And so far, there are too many pusillanimous leaders, and dishonest "human rights" groups allowing them that control.
Sickening, ain't it?
Labels: camel jockeys, child slavery, Qatar
Would Senator Durbin Face These Soldiers?
Now he wouldn't. According to
The Washington Times Soldiers from Massachusetts and Hawaii who work at the U.S. military detention facility at U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, gave visiting home-state senators a piece of their mind last week.
Sens. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, and Daniel K. Akaka, Hawaii Democrat, met with several soldiers during a visit led by Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. John W. Warner, Virginia Republican.
Pentagon officials said soldiers criticized the harsh comments made recently by Senate Democrats.
Sen. Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the Senate's No. 2 Democrat, last month invoked widespread military outrage when he compared Guantanamo to the prison labor systems used by communist tyrant Josef Stalin, Cambodia's Pol Pot and Adolf Hitler.
"They got stiff reactions from those home-state soldiers," one official told us. "The troops down there expressed their disdain for that kind of commentary, especially comparisons to the gulag."
A spokesman for Mr. Kennedy had no comment. A spokeswoman for Mr. Akaka confirmed that the senator met with soldiers from Hawaii but did not recall receiving any complaints during the meeting.
Both senators made no mention of the incident in press statements after the visit. Mr. Kennedy, in his statement, said that he is "impressed with the courtesies and professionalism of the men and women in our armed forces."
Mr. Kennedy has been a leading advocate for closing the prison facility. Mr. Akaka in April voted for an amendment that would have cut funds for the prison.
Maybe the senators aren't at their most craven in not reporting the soldiers' comments, but they should think about their slanderous, defeatist, anti-military outbursts and speeches.
Labels: Guantanamo Bay, Washington Times
What We Can Do Instead of Bombing Mecca
I swiped the following, the entire thing, from
Atlas Shrugs. I think she got it from
Jihad Watch.
What We Can Do Instead Of Bombing Mecca
Jihad Watch.org
Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald offers some suggestions of what we can do to defend human rights and resist the jihad threat, in the wake of Congressman Tancredo's remarks:
It would have been better to make the following point: during the Cold War, the Soviet rulers knew that if they did certain things, certain things would be done by NATO or the American government. And the knowledge of what might be done, would be done, in return, helped prevent the Soviet rulers from doing what they might otherwise have done.
So it would be helpful to make suggestions as to what would constitute deterrence.Target_1 These might include, not destroying Mecca, which would cause maddened Muslims everywhere to attack and kill Infidels -- and the problem with Islam is that it contains many elements of a violent cult that cannot be wished away, or hidden any longer. Are maddened millions or tens of millions or hundreds of millions of inconsolable Muslims, for whom Mecca no longer exists, and so with nothing further to lose, what we wish to bring into being? No. But the idea of discussing possible means of deterrence, not of the determined suicide-bomber, but of all those who have helped to fund mosques and madrasas, or to supply the emotional and financial and intellectual support system (including the continued smooth practitioners of taqiyya-and-kitman in the West), and who can be threatened in all sorts of ways.
More sober discussion of how, for example, points of entry and exit into Mecca, could systematically be reduced in number, or airfields used by pilgrims made unusable, is a different suggestion, one that has many advantages, in that it is an incremental response: first this quadrant is closed off, and now this one, and so on.
It is now clear to Muslims in the West, or to some of them, that their assumption about continued Western appeasement, based on continued misunderstanding of Islam by Infidels was wrong. The EU's foreign policy is still in place, but Bat Ye'or's "Eurabia" is circulating -- even at the highest levels of the Pentagon. Eventually, terror, used as an instrument of Jihad, will alert enough Infidels to the permanent problem of Jihad, of all the instruments of Jihad, including that of demographic conquest and Da'wa, and lead inexorably to an understanding that the Muslims in their midst, allowed in by political elites who were either indifferent, or mesmerized by the Idols of the Age, those unexamined assumptions about how Everyone Wants the Same Thing and All Religions Are Alike. Those Muslims may be "moderate" or "immoderate," and the "moderation" may be real, or feigned, permanent or temporary, immune to, or susceptible to, being jettisoned whenever setbacks or depressive fits or any of the ills that flesh and spirit are heir to, may cause a "moderate" Muslim, or even a "Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only" Muslim, to throw off that "moderation" and morph in Jekyll-into-Hyde fashion, into someone ready to blame the Infidels. There have been quite a few examples of such outwardly "moderate" people changing their beliefs and hence their behavior, as a response not so much to political or geopolitical events, but to personal setbacks, emotional disarray. When the universe is viewed through the prism of Islam, it is the Infidels who always wear black.
Discussion of measures that might truly curb, for example, the Saudi money that pours into the Western world, and funds mosques everywhere, all over that world, and madrasas all over the dar al-Islam, and that is furthermore used to buy an army of hirelings, non-Muslim apologists for islam, should be undertaken - out in the open so that Infidel publics can be made aware of the size of the problem.
Deterrent measures, that could be undertaken without waiting in some cases for any further attacks (but further attacks will help to justify the more far-reaching among them) might include, but not be limited to:
1) Seizure of Saudi-owned assets in the West, and sale of such assets to pay for the economic damage, including the cost of surveillance and other security measures, that are attributable to Saudi-funded mosques, madrasas, and propaganda all over the world.
2) Seizure of other Arab-owned or Muslim-owned assets in the West, for the same reasons. There need not be any distinction made between property owned by governments and those who are deemed to be enemy nationals -- no such distinction was made during World War II.
3) A complete ban on Muslim migration to the Western world (which needs to be undertaken in any case), and limits put on any contact between Muslims living in the West, who may already have obtained ciizenship and -- unless they are native-born converts -- their countries of origin.
4) Careful review of how citizenship is obtained, and what oaths of loyalty are administered, and if those oaths can possibly have been meant by those whose sole loyalty, by the very tenets of their belief-system, can only be to Islam and the Community of Believers, the umma al-islamiyya.
5) Government-sponsored centers to teach people about Islam outside of universities, which all over the Western world have been infiltrated, or rather captured by, apologists for Islam both Muslim and non-Muslim.
The study of Arabic under teachers whom the Infidel governments will deliberately find among Arabic-speaking non-Muslims, chiefly from those populations most likely not to supply subtle apologists for Islam - Maronites, Copts, disaffected Berbers, Arabic-speaking Jews. A knowledge of Arabic is not required for an understanding of Islam 80% of the world's Muslims do not speak or read Arabic but have no difficulty knowing what Islam is all about. But it can be of help in studying the history of Jihad-conquest, and certainly it can be of help in debates with Muslims who accuse one of "not understanding Islam without a knowledge of Arabic." Nonsense, of course, but nonsense more convincingly refused if someone has studied Arabic.
6) War-footing (i.e., Manhattan Project support) for solar and wind and nuclear energy projects, for conservation, and for mass transit, including that such as Amtrak which loses money, but should be cheerfully subsidized by an intelligent government bent, even hellbent, on diminishing OPEC oil revenues.
7) An end to all outward and visible signs of rhetorical "respect" for Islam, including the studied refusal to mention "Islmaic terrorism" or "Muslim terrorism" which has gone on for too long. Use these adjectives; never let them go. Use the word "jihad." Stop all attempts at verbal escamotage, where the listener is left, puzzled, dissatisfied with the deliberate vagueness.
8) End all access to Western education, not only for those Arabs and Muslims studying any kind of science, but in every area. Attempting the hopeless project of "educating them" out of their belief-system will not work. Many terrorists have lived in the West, seen the West, studied in the West, taught in the West. Dr. A. Q. Khan did "research" in the West - and we know the results of that research. Muslims in Western universities are dangerous to Infidel wellbeing, not only because of the women they marry and cause to convert (to the subsequent sorrow of many), but because they are, with the odd exception, likely to conduct Da'wa and promote the geopolitics of Islam. Past masters at taqiyya-and-kitman, they should be regarded as akin to enemy agents, promoting a belief-system that means Infidel political and social arrangements and assumptions no good.
Condemning them to the solitary confinement of dar al-Islam will cause a concentration of minds.
9) End all access to the Western world for the children of the ruling elites all over the Muslim world. Without this escape hatch, those rulers will have to begin to consider how to ameliorate things in their own countries.
10) End the jizyah of Infidel aid to Muslim states, such as Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan, and whatever the latest political instrument of the shock troops of the Jihad against Israel, the "Palestinians," may be called. Call attention to the $10 trillion that has already been recdeived by the Muslim members of OPEC in the last 1/3 century, and continue to advise those Pakistanis, Egyptians, Jordanians and "Palestinians" to ask for that aid no longer from the Infidels, who suddenly have to pay higher prices for oil and hundreds of billions more for security all over the Western world, but to those Arab and Muslim states that, not coincidentally, are receiving those hundreds of billions more in oil revenues each year.
11) Keep the focus clearly on the belief-system of Islam and on Jihad. And after the next small terrorist attack on Infidels -- say, 10 killed - begin to legislate to make sure that some of the measures suggested above become not merely ideas but the law.
12) Clean out the taxpayer-funded government radio and television stations of those who have so misled us about Islam over the past 20-30 years. Begin, possibly, by firing John Simpson, the deeply, even conspiratorially, anti-Israel and islamophilic head of the BBC World Affairs broadcasting, the same John Simpson (a close friend of Peter Hounam, whose conspiracy book about Israel is the kind of thing that antisemites love to flog) who described the Muslim bombers in London as "misguided criminals." That should have been enough to cause his discharge. Why wasn't it? What will it take for the long-suffering British license-payers to demand a change in the BBC coverage and, even before that, iin the personnel in charge of reporting on the Middle East and Islam? This domestic Lord Haw-Haw and Tokyo Rose business, where one need not even bother to turn the dial to Radio Berlin or Radio Tokyo to hear the sly propaganda, has to stop.
These are things that can be done, should be done, long before suggestions about "bombing Mecca" need to be bruited about.
Talk of attacking Mecca, instead of concentrating on more plausible suggestions (which do include limiting easy access to Mecca, something which the Saudis already do in limiting the number of visitors), is not likely to be helpful.
Labels: Atlas Shrugs, islam, Jihad Watch, Mecca
Martin Kramer Digs up Dirt for and Gets Under the Skin of Juan Cole
Newsweek's favorite Middle East "expert",
Juan Cole is apparently upset at his ineptitude in his chosen field being exposed so readily and so easily by
Martin Kramer, who really is an expert on the Middle East. Juan Cole had the temerity to request that members of
The Daily Kos try to dig up dirt on Martin Kramer. He also changed some of his more egregious gaffes on the sly without admitting to them as Kramer points out
here,
here, and wow,
especially here. And then there is
this post and
this post, which expose Juan Cole's lack of both expertise and insight. If you want even more, just follow the link at the bottom of that post.
Professor Kramer's
clever, honest, and fearless response to Juan Cole's foolish and cowardly attempt at character assassination should serve as a badly needed lesson to Juan Cole and his ignorant, misguided admirers. Not that they would take that lesson. Are Juan Cole's fans al-Cole-holics? Like an alchoholic, they don't see themselves as needing any help with their twisted world-view.
Labels: Juan Cole, Martin Kramer, Newsweek
More on Ebonics and the Racial Achievement Gap
Here is a
short piece by someone who "gets it" when it comes to how to get an education.
It has not been helpful that LAUSD officials, as well as members of the school board, have allowed the district to become a sounding board for all sorts of suspect theories related to children "of color." Just one of those theories that have gained traction is that "black learners" react in different and unique ways to teaching -- different, that is, from the way other students react. This argument makes the claim that black students think in ways that are distinct from ways white students, in particular, think.
But isn't this a twist on the pseudo-science of old, which claimed that efforts to educate blacks would be fruitless because their capacity to learn was different from that of whites? Why is this argument acceptable today simply because it is being advanced by minority "multiculturalists"? The view that blacks and whites somehow interpret learning differently is -- in part -- a holdover from the silly debates surrounding "ebonics" that raged throughout the 1990s and that continue to handicap discussions of urban education to this very day.
Some 20 years after an onslaught of multicultural teaching techniques and the obsessive celebration of racial and cultural differences, are we actually supposed to believe that today's L.A. schools are inhospitable environments for virtually every ethnic group with the exception of the district's few remaining non-Latino white students? That seems hardly believable.
Evidence of the tendency to make use of crackpot theories was graphically displayed recently when one local high school attempted to hold a discussion about the achievement gap. The discussion went fairly well until one of the many downtown minions of the LAUSD, who had been invited to speak, announced that the problem of the achievement gap was -- drum roll, please -- mainly that of insensitive, uncaring white teachers.
There's more and it all makes sense.
Labels: ebonics, education, multiculturalism
The Left and the Supreme Court Nominee
I was going to write a very thoughtful piece about the impending war between the Left and the President's Supreme Court nominee, John Roberts. Then I found
this knee-slapper from
Iowahawk.
He or She Is The Wrong Man or Woman For The Court
Critical Urgent Community Action Bulletin
from the Progressive Action Network For American Progress
For Immediate Release
The Progressive Action Network For American Progress is extremely concerned by today's news that President Bush has selected ___JOHN ROBERTS___ as his nominee for the vacancy on the United States Supreme Court. Unlike outgoing Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the widely respected and admired moderate consensus-building sensible mainstream compromisist, ___JOHN ROBERTS___ has a shocking record of extremely extreme fringe legal positions that fill us with grave concerns about ___HIS___ fitness for this critically crucial office.
Make no mistake: no one should be fooled by the administration's public relations efforts or ___JOHN ROBERTS___ 's seemingly "moderate" appearance. ___JOHN ROBERTS___ has a record that suggests that ___HE___ would deny women the right to reproductive choice, stop important life-saving medical stem cell research by extending the Patriot Act to draft their unwanted fetuses, and turn these conscripted fetuses over to dangerous tax-supported 'Creationist' religious indoctrination laboratories. The Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment, and America needs to know whether ___JOHN ROBERTS___ supports the GOP's secret plan of a Rush Limbaugh Jesus army of unwanted, unquestioning fetus zombies programmed to urinate on the Korans of Guantanamo detainees.
Go get a good laugh and read the whole thing. While you're reading, be amazed at how much truth their is in this lively little satire.
Labels: Iowahawk, John Roberts
How to Respond to Islamic Violence
Cal Thomas hits the nail on the head with his column,
What happened to unconditional surrender?.
DOLGELLAU, Wales — Thank goodness for those history channels that bring back the generals and politicians of the past who, by contrast, make many of today's leaders look indecisive.
I saw President Harry Truman on one of them last week. In a speech to the nation near the end of World War II, Truman rejected suggestions that the Allies seek accommodation with Japan, rather than victory. Truman would have none of it, saying only Japan's "unconditional surrender" would be acceptable.
Contrast that with the conciliatory blather of today. Prime Minister Tony Blair is inviting British and Muslim leaders to a meeting Tuesday at 10 Downing Street where it is reported he will urge worldwide action to uproot what he has called the "evil ideology" and "twisted teaching" that lay behind the London bombings.
Here's what Blair should say to the Muslim leaders: "The onus is on you guys. You find and shut down the terrorists and their network. You turn those who incite, plan and encourage violence over to the authorities. If you don't act, we will by closing and bulldozing the mosques and schools that incubate and instruct the killers, prosecuting the terrorists we find and deporting them and their clerics, and closing our borders to anyone from countries that harbor and teach terrorists. Those who are British citizens will be stripped of their citizenship."
Some people may be put off by Cal Thomas only seeing black and white in this conflict, and being rather stern in his suggested handling of the Muslim community. But I say, when someone is trying to kill you, I think the grey areas coalesce into black and white. At least they do for me. And I'm sure they do for the Islamic terrorists who have declared war on the infidel. After all, for them the world is divided into dar al-Islam, house of Islam; and dar al Harb, house of war. I don't see any grey there, do you?
Labels: Cal Thomas, islam, terrorism
What? Ebonics Again?
I remember the first time Ebonics were introduced. The entire concept was roundly ridiculed, although it was more of an attempt to teach it to the teachers to better understand their Black students.
Now some genius had decided that Black students would be better served if they were taught in
Ebonics. In other words, instead of demanding that these students and their families take the responsibility to work for an education, the San Bernardino City Unified School District will dumb down the curriculum to bring it down, um, exactly how far? I don't care what anyone says about Ebonics being another language or another dialect. That may be true. But, what's also true, is that Ebonics is not spoken in the halls of power, or in general American society. By using Ebonics as the latest crutch for poor black children, they are condemning another generation to poverty. A better policy would be one that actually taught these children the rudiments of Standard English using a good phonetic program (Riggs, surprisingly enough comes to mind). Education is hard work and we should realize by now, after all these years of falling test scores, and rising rates of illitercy, dumbing down the curriculum, while inventing new educational crutches doesn't work, never has worked, and never will work.
But what do I know? I'm not a sociologist. I'm only a teacher.
I've been teaching middle class, lower middle class, and poor black children for many years now. From personal experience I can say that you don't raise a child up by going down to their level, but by helping them to rise up to a higher level. In order to do this, I've always demanded Standard English in my students' writing and speaking. And yes, some students do get very frustrated when I make them repeat what they've just said incorrectly, correctly (and yes, Ebonics is incorrect English in my classroom). Some will clam up, refusing to talk, and withdraw their question, until I encourage them to try again.
At one point, I was waiting to be called a racist by resentful parents, but the opposite has happened. I've been thanked for insisting on high standards. One father told me derisively, he didn't want his children learning Ebonics. A student who preferred Ebonics accused me of wanting my students to sound educated. She was partially right. I want people to
know that they are educated.
I'd like to know if the geniuses who are pressing to adopt Ebonics will cry "racism" when the products of this program can't get jobs because they speak like they're illiterate street people and don't have the skills they need to succeed because it didn't fit into the Ebonics program.
Labels: ebonics, education
Roman Polanski and the Search for Justice
Roman Polanski is
suing Vanity Fair over an article they printed about him. No big deal. What is a big deal, is that the trial is taking place in Great Britain, but he's testifying from France over a videolink. Why? Because if he goes to Britain, he's afraid of being extradited to the United States to face justice over his rape of a 13 year old girl way back in 1977. Yes, he's a great director, but he's also a hypocritical slimeball, and a fugitive from justice. And a creep.
It soon became clear that Polanski, who stood in a blue suit and tie while giving evidence from his Paris hotel room, was happy to admit to all sorts of past licentiousness - even to an episode in which he seduced an actress in Rome while Tate was in California pregnant with their child - but that he drew the line at the Vanity Fair allegations.
So we are to believe that he does have some shame.
Polanski was giving evidence by video link to avoid the risk of being extradited from Britain to the US. The Oscar-winning director of The Pianist and films like Chinatown and Rosemary's Baby has not set foot in the US since fleeing the country in 1977, hours before he was due to be sentenced after pleading guilty to having unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl, and has not visited this country since 1978.
Or does he?
Polanski, who fled the Krakow ghetto during the second world war after his parents were deported to concentration camps by the Nazis, said Vanity Fair's allegation that he had tried to pick up or seduce a girl by exploiting Tate's name was an "abominable lie. It's not the way I behave as far as my sexual life is concerned.I still had some honour. I still have now".
Is he kidding? Remember the 13 year old girl?
At another point he admitted having sex at least on one occasion with two women at the same time. One was 15 or 16 and the other was 18. He told Mr Shields: "I can assure you it wasn't illegal. It was within the laws of that country. I made only one mistake and I am still suffering for that."
And how he must be suffering!
Personally, I'm having a very difficult time feeling sympathetic toward Mr. Polanski. I hope he loses the suit.
Labels: Roman Polanski, Vanity Fair
Multiculturalism and Its Discontents
Multiculturalism is a popular topic these days. I can remember, many years ago, arguing in favor of Multiculturalism. This was before I understood how far the Multiculturalists are willing to go to destroy Western culture. My thinking moved to Multiculturalism as stupid, now I see it as evil. Other commentators have weighed in. Here is
Diana West.
Only one faith on Earth may be more messianic than Islam: multiculturalism. Without it — without its fanatics who believe all civilizations are the same — the engine that projects Islam into the unprotected heart of Western civilization would stall and fail.
It's as simple as that. To live among the believers — the multiculturalists — is to watch the assault, the jihad, take place un-repulsed by our suicidal societies. These societies are not doomed to submit; rather, they are eager to do so in the name of a masochistic brand of tolerance that, short of drastic measures, is surely terminal.
And then there's
Melanie Phillip's take:
Muslims have been presented not as the community which must take responsibility for this horror, but as its principal victims.
This moral inversion is the result of the cultural brainwashing that has been going on in Britain for years in the pursuit of the disastrous doctrine of multiculturalism. This has refused to teach Muslims — along with other minorities — the core of British culture and values. Instead, it has promoted a lethally divisive culture of separateness, in which minority cultures are held to be equal if not superior to the values and traditions of the indigenous majority.
Even worse, multiculturalism causes the moral paralysis of ‘victim culture’, whereby to say an ethnic minority is at fault is to invite immediate accusations of racism. When Lord Ouseley reported on the 1999 race riots in Bradford, he concluded that many local people did not dare challenge wrongdoing among young ethnic minority people because they feared being labelled 'racist'.
When Ray Honeyford, the Bradford headmaster, warned strongly against multiculturalism in the schools in the eighties, he was branded a racist and hounded from his job. Now those Yorkshire chickens have lethally come home to roost.
The moral bankruptcy of this victim culture is all around us. Thus the BBC instructed its journalists not to refer to the London bombings as ‘terrorism’ because this was a subjective value judgment. And yet it allowed John Simpson, its World Affairs editor, to call these terrorists ‘misguided criminals’ an astounding value judgment which diminished the nature of the atrocity.
The problem is that this inversion of morality can be lethal. Such is the ethos of political correctness in our public services that librarians who want to complain about the potential danger of young Muslims logging onto websites instructing them in making bombs or nerve gas are told to say nothing for fear of being accused of prejudice.
Bruce Thornton has this to say:
For years now we in the West have indulged a whole set of destructive ideas whose bitter fruit we will all continue to harvest, as more and more unassimilated and disaffected immigrant children turn against the countries that welcomed their parents and provided them with a prosperity and freedom unknown in their countries of origin.
This baneful idea goes by the name of multiculturalism. Don't be fooled by marketing: multiculturalism is not simply a call to respect cultures different from one's own. In reality multiculturalism is a therapeutic melodrama of Western crimes against peaceful peoples “of color” who were subjected to racism, sexism, slavery, colonialism, imperialism, and environmental degradation. Given its record of evil, the West owes reparations to all those victims, especially those who emigrate to the West. There these victims will be given public assistance and soothed with repeated public assertions and recognitions of their culture's superiority, coupled with ritualistic confessions of Western guilt and dysfunction.
Some consider this “cultural relativism,” but it isn't really. A genuine cultural relativism would hold that there are no universal standards by which to judge any culture. But most of the time, those who claim that cultures can be judged only in their own terms have no compunction in judging and condemning the West. Nor will they accept that Nazi Germany or the antebellum South or apartheid South Africa were just “different” and so beyond our judgment. And of course, if you pin them down on the standards and values and principles on which they base their condemnations, these will all turn out to be ideals like freedom or human rights or equality that have their origins and most complete development in the West.
This intellectual contradiction suggests that something other than coherent principle lies behind “Occidentalism,” the multicultural caricature of Western culture. Mythic ideas like the Noble Savage account for some of multiculturalism's allure: ever since the Greeks, visions of peoples living simpler, more spontaneous lives have attracted those living in more complex and sophisticated societies. The Romantic fascination with the exotic explains too the West's relentless appropriation of non-Western cultural artifacts.
So, in conclusion, Multiculturalism is an ideology of self-defeat, self-loathing, and suicide. And it's been forced upon us. No matter how they dress is up, or make excuses for it, Multiculturalism is an evil ideology.
Labels: Bruce Thornton, Diana West, Melanie Phillips, multiculturalism, Muslims
The beginning of the reckoning
You have to read
this piece by Caroline Glick on the history of Islamic/Nazi cooperation. Make sure you watch the video. It's ugly, but informative. After seeing it, I have to ask, why haven't the Muslim terror masters, terror preachers, and terror supporters embraced Multiculturalism?
Answer: Because they're not stupidly suicidal, like the Left and MSM, they're homicidal.
Labels: Carolyn Glick, islam, multiculturalism, Nazis
Prison is Too Good for This Kind of Filth
In a
previous post, I suggested that Ali al-Timimi the Islamic "scholar" convicted in Virginia for various crimes, be given the death penalty for his crimes, because now he gets to spend many long years, perhaps the rest of his life doing something he feels obligated to do; converting and recuiting criminal Muslims for Jihad.
Apparently, there's something to my argument. (How about that!) According to
Mona Charen Remarkably, the one area in which officials exercise total control; that is, in prisons, the Islamists have found their most fertile soil. This is true in Spain, where the terrorists who bombed Madrid on March 11, 2004, met in prison, and in America where Jose Padilla, who allegedly participated in a plot to explode a dirty bomb in a U.S. city, was converted to Islam in prison. Wilders told the UPI that in Holland, "Our secret service has already known for two years that the recruitment for jihad in mosques and prisons were no longer incidents but a structural phenomenon."
The U.S. Justice Department inspector general warned recently that federal prisoners were being radicalized by religious services performed entirely in Arabic. Even among native-born English-speaking inmates, radical Islam is making inroads. The Bureau of Prisons was cited in 2003 for hiring Wahhabi imams. According to the Associated Press, 25 percent of the inmates at New York's Riker's Island prison are Muslims. It is impossible to know what percentage may be Islamists — but among a population of already disaffected men, it isn't difficult to imagine the allure of an angry faith. The FBI has called America's prisons "fertile ground for extremists."
She also goes on to suggest deportation, and that's a great idea, but if the Muslim in question is an American citizen, that would make deportation less feasible. Besides, this is war. During wartime, spies and traitors are traditionally excecuted.
Labels: Ali al-Timimi, Mona Charon, Muslims
The Radical Islamic Recipe for Stopping Terrorists
Imam Elahi was given his usual
forum yesterday by the Detroit News in order to offer commentary and take potshots at Jews. After a long condemnation of terrorist bombings, (but no fatwa against terrorists, no offers of help to root out possible terrorists here in suburban Detroit, home of the largest concentration of Muslims in the United States) he offers this gem:
To win the war against terror, force alone is not enough. Honesty and openness come first. The double standard on democracy and human rights doesn't help.
As long as Jews can immigrate to Israel by the tens of thousands each year while Palestinians stay hungry and homeless, I am afraid this will contribute to the violence in the Middle East and elsewhere.
To Imam Elahi, every ill can be blamed on the Jews. As the Detroit News, the conservative Detroit paper prints his swill regularly, one has to wonder if they would print a Jewish columnist who made up lies about Muslims. At least there were no
fake talmudic quotes gleaned from Nazi websites.
Labels: Detroit News, Imam Elahi, Israel, Jews
Multiculturalism, Another Anti-Western Religion
Diana West offers an excellent assessment of multiculturalism and how it's allied with radical Islam in a quest to crush Western Civilization
here at the Washington Times.
Only one faith on earth may be more messianic than Islam: multiculturalism. Without it — without its fanatics who believe all civilizations are the same — the engine that projects Islam into the unprotected heart of Western civilization would stall and fail. It's as simple as that. To live among the believers — the multiculturalists — is to watch the assault, the jihad, take place, unrepulsed by our suicidal societies. These societies are not doomed to submit; rather, they are eager to do so in the name of a masochistic brand of tolerance that, short of drastic measures, is surely terminal.
I'm not talking about our soldiers, policemen, rescue workers and, now, even train conductors who bravely and steadfastly risk their lives for civilization abroad and at home. I'm instead thinking about who we are as a society at this somewhat advanced stage of war. It is a strange, tentative civilization we have become, with leaders who strut their promises of "no surrender" even as they flinch at identifying the foe. Four years past September 11, we continue to shadow-box "terror," even as we go on about "an ideology of hate." It's a script that smacks of sci-fi fantasy more than realpolitik.
Yes, you should read it all.
Labels: Diana West, islam, multiculturalism
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
I took my family to see the new Charlie and the Chocolate Factory last night. We are all big fans of the Gene Wilder version, and of Roald Dahl's book upon which the movies were based, so this was a "must see." We all knew it would be different.
I personally like Time Burton's movies, and I like Johnny Depp as an actor. He was great in Pirates of the Carribean, a movie I had to be dragged to, because I knew I would hate it. I, like so many others, loved it.
I tried to give Depp and Burton a fair chance. Had I not had the previous version in my head I might have liked this one better. Or maybe not. Johnny Depp played a completely different Willy Wonka than Gene Wilder did, and that's OK.
This movie though, didn't have the charm of the first one. Much of the tension was gone. The hunor was too forced, as to lack the punch needed to make the audience laugh. The secondary characters lacked depth. Their demise' were too facile. The special effects, with the benefit of over 30 years of technology make the original's effects look cheesy, but they didn't improve the movie. Neither did Tim Burton's sets. The original Wonka factory was a so much more imaginative welcoming place than the Burton version. Burton was too minimal. There was nothing to feed the imaginaion, nothing to make you wish you were there. Burton was generally (I think, it's been a long time since I've read the book) more faithful to the book, but so what? A movie is a different medium and has different story telling needs.
I could go more into specifics, but I don't want to give anything away if you're planning to see the movie. It wasn't a bad movie, it was OK, but it wasn't as good as the original. If you're like me though, you will have to see it anyway.
Labels: Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Johnnie Depp, movies, Roald Dahl, Tim Burton
Soldier Survives Sniper Attack
I found this over at
Michelle Malkin. The MSM may not report it, so check it out yourself
here. There's also a video which you can link to through Michelle Malkin.
Labels: Iraq, Michelle Malkin
Dallas News Clarifies Their Language
Here is the entire editorial from the
Dallas News.
Two words not uncommon to editorial pages are "resolve" and "sacrifice," especially as they relate to war.
Today, this editorial board resolves to sacrifice another word – "insurgent" – on the altar of precise language. No longer will we refer to suicide bombers or anyone else in Iraq who targets and kills children and other innocent civilians as "insurgents."
The notion that these murderers in any way are nobly rising up against a sitting government in a principled fight for freedom has become, on its face, absurd. If they ever held a moral high ground, they sacrificed it weeks ago, when they turned their focus from U.S. troops to Iraqi men, women and now children going about their daily lives.
They drove that point home with chilling clarity Wednesday in a poor Shiite neighborhood. As children crowded around U.S. soldiers handing out candy and toys in a gesture of good will, a bomb-laden SUV rolled up and exploded.
These children were not collateral damage. They were targets.
The SUV driver was no insurgent. He was a terrorist.
People who set off bombs on London trains are not insurgents. We would never think of calling them anything other than what they are – terrorists.
Train bombers in Madrid? Terrorists.
Chechen rebels who take over a Russian school and execute children? Terrorists.
Teenagers who strap bombs to their chests and detonate them in an Israeli cafe? Terrorists.
IRA killers? Basque separatist killers? Hotel bombers in Bali? Terrorists all.
Words have meanings. Whether too timid, sensitive or "open-minded," we've resisted drawing a direct line between homicidal bombers everywhere else in the world and the ones who blow up Iraqi civilians or behead aid workers.
No more. To call them "insurgents" insults every legitimate insurgency in modern history. They are terrorists.
Will other news services show the same conviction and stop insulting our language and the intelligence of the news consumer?
Labels: Dallas News, terrorism
An Interesting Statistic
Janet E. Smith makes some valid points in this
Detroit Free Press column about Michigan Governor Granholm's mandating contraceptive coverage by health care plans. I listen to the constant battle between the abstinance based sex-ed folk, and the purveyers of birth control camp and I don't know who to believe. They both have claims and, I'm sure, statistics that back up their opposite arguments. But then I came to these lines.
The widespread promotion and provision of contraceptives inevitably nurtures a cultural acceptance of sex outside of marriage -- precisely what any culture friendly to children should be trying to reduce and prevent.
In 1960, before the pill was available, the unwed pregnancy rate in the United States was 6%; now it is 31%. Figure it out. Contraceptives facilitate sex outside of marriage; sex outside of marriage with or without contraceptives is irresponsible.
Remember: All contraceptives have a significant failure rate as used in the real world. Marriage is the only reliable protection against unwed pregnancy.
Since I began teaching I've met some of those 31 percent, and let me tell you, some of them are quite damaged by the time they get to elementary school. I think I'm leaning toward abstinance education. I'm also against mandating contraceptive coverage (and Viagra coverage). Health care is expensive enough already.
Of course, we know what to call a woman who practices "natural family planning", also addressed in the column, - Mom.
Coincidentally, I found
this rather thoughtful essay at Eternity Road, and
this rant at Hog On Ice. They're both worth reading.
Labels: contraceptives, Detroit Free Press, Eternity Road, Hog On Ice, Jennifer Granholm, sex education
Israeli MD hero on bombed London tube
Unless Western nations realize this is a war, and begin fighting the terrorists with every means at our disposal, we can expect more slaughters like the one on the London tube. For years the world has been condemning Israel for battling these Islamic terrorists, with European nations taking the side of the terrorists. And this is their reward.
As we can see from this
Jerusalem Post article, Israelis have too much experience at handling these terrorist attacks.
Dr. Benny Meilik and his young family had finished their breakfast and were getting ready to explore London. It was the first time they had visited the city together and Bar, 17, and Rony, 12, couldn't wait to get out and see the sights they heard so much about.
In his work as an emergency surgeon and consultant at the Tel Aviv Medical Center, he has worked saving lives from terror attacks across Israel – and he wanted some peaceful, reflective time with his wife Libby, away from the trauma of treating victims of violence.
But on the first morning of his trip he found himself dragging victims free from the wreckage of the 8:51 a.m. Piccadilly Line eastbound train and working frantically to save their lives.
The family were staying in the Russell House Hotel, next door to the tube station.
When the bomb went off in the deep underground tunnel, visitors at the hotel felt the tremor and heard the rumbling bang that signalled London's worst-ever terrorist attack.
Meilik did not waste time, and his speedy response saved lives.
"I have heard enough explosions to know what they sound like, and when I heard the boom I sprung into action," he said later.
Leaving his wife and children at the hotel, which was evacuated moments later by the police, he dashed outside to find out what had happened.
Europe should be supporting Israel, asking for Israeli help, not only medically as was given by Dr. Meilik, but in tactics, and working side by side with Israel to defeat the Islamofascist threat. Will this happen? Probably not. The Europeans have to battle their own anti-semitism first, including the vile new strains introduced by their Islamic immigrants.
Labels: Dr Benny Meilik, Jerusalem Post, London, terrorism
Murdering Children in Iraq
As you've probably read by now, one of Michael Moore's heroic Minute Men showed what he and his "insurgent" group is made of again by
murdering a group of children. It was no accident, he drove his bomb-laden car into their midst and blew them up. I am truly impressed with the people of Iraq who day after day, try to rebuild their lives and their country while being attacked by these terrorists whose body count serves to impress the MSM (and certain congressional representatives) in their cries of "quagmire" and "defeat". The thing that really bothered me, however, was this:
"The one who did this has no morality. This suicide bomber isn't an Arab or a Muslim or even a Jew. He's not human," Suheil Abd Ali said as he picked up pieces of the car bomb.
I don't mean to go all "Woody Allen" but I wonder, how many generations is it going to take (if ever) for Muslims to truly accept Jews and be willing to live in peace with Jews and with Israel?
Labels: Iraq, Jews, Michael Moore, terrorism
Islamic "Scholar" Sentenced to Prison
According to
this Associated Press article ALEXANDRIA, Va. - A prominent Islamic scholar who exhorted his followers after the Sept. 11 attacks to join the Taliban and fight U.S. troops was sentenced Wednesday to life in prison.
Ali al-Timimi of Fairfax was convicted in April of soliciting others to levy war against the United States, inducing others to aid the Taliban, and inducing others to use firearms in violation of federal law.
I'm glad that they put him away, but isn't there a bit of treason involved here? He encouraged Americans to fight against their country. In prison, he will spend the rest of his scummy life trying to get criminals to convert to his brand of Islam. Some of them will convert and become radicalized. Some of these criminals will one day walk our streets. Wouldn't the death penalty solve that problem? I do have some problems with the death penalty, but in this case, it may be appropriate.
Labels: Ali al-Timimi, terrorism
Tax Cuts for the Rich, the Deficit, and Serendipity
According to
this article in today's Detroit Free Press,
White House budget officials cut their estimate for this year's deficit to $333 billion Wednesday as rising tax receipts from growth in jobs, income and corporate revenue put President George W. Bush in sight of the first decline in the annual shortfall since he took office.
The midyear estimate is less than the Office of Management and Budget's February forecast of a $427-billion deficit for fiscal 2005, which ends Sept. 30, and will help Bush make the case that he is fulfilling his promise to cut the deficit in half by 2009.
The forecast includes all money appropriated by Congress this year for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan -- approximately $100 billion -- and $50 billion for the fiscal 2006 budget resolution.
The report is "a sign that our economy is strong, and it's a sign our tax-relief plan, our pro-growth policies are working," Bush said.
And according to the
The New York Times,
The White House predicted in February that the deficit would hit $427 billion this year, up from $412 billion in 2004. But tax revenues are running about 15 percent higher, and corporate tax revenues are expected to be 40 percent higher.
For economists, an important measure of fiscal health is the deficit as a share of the gross domestic product. The deficit reached 3.5 percent of G.D.P. last year, not a record, but high enough in a period of expansion to alarm many economists. This year, the administration predicts, the deficit will drop to 2.7 percent of gross domestic product. If the latest White House forecast proves accurate, the deficit would shrink to 1.1 percent of G.D.P. in 2009.
Isn't this what happened after the Reagan tax cuts? More discretionary income, spent on things so that businesses were able to expand, leading to more tax revenue? Of course, Democrats disagree, accusing Bush of overstating the orignal deficit estimates, complaining about the cost of the war in Iraq, the looming problems with social security, etc.
Even a lower projected deficit is pretty huge at $350 billion. Maybe we could save some money if we cut some unneeded government programs.
Since the democrats accuse the Bush administration of only producing tax cuts for the "rich", I decided to run the following chestnut that's been floating around the Internet for the past few years.
Today's Economic Lesson in Taxation
Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.
Suppose that everyday, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
* The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
* The fifth would pay $1.
* The sixth would pay $3.
* The seventh $7.
* The eighth $12.
* The ninth $18.
* The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the
restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until
one day, the owner threw them a curve.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the
cost of your daily meal by $20."
So, now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay
their bill the way we pay our taxes.
So, the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free.
But what about the other six, the paying customers? How could they divvy
up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share'?
The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they
subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth
man would each end up being 'PAID' to eat their meal.
So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each
man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the
amounts each should pay.
And so:
* The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
* The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
* The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
* The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
* The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
* The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued
to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare
their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed
to the tenth man "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar,
too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when
I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get
anything at all.. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat
down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they
discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between
all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our
tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most
benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being
wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are
lots of good restaurants in Europe and the Caribbean.
Courtesy of : ?
I removed the name of the alleged author of this piece because when I went to his website, there was a prominent disavowel of his authorship. According to
Urban Legends Reference Pages The
only question we're covering about this humorous parable explaining "how taxes really work" is its authorship, and the investigation reveals this item to be one of those favored pieces of writing adopted and reprinted by numerous columnists without their knowing (or necessarily caring) who originally penned it.
But is the analogy accurate? It certainly makes sense, even to
William Buckley. Finding new things makes research exciting, even if I don't get the information I was looking for, like the author of the Tax piece, and whether or not the deficit projections are accurate.
Labels: deficit, Detroit Free Press, economy, New York Times, urban legends, William Buckley
Air America's Best?
As I was driving today, I was switching between talk radio stations. I happened upon Jerry Springer, who was in the middle of getting a lecture from a listener about the truth behind the murderous imperialistic cult of Islam. Jerry couldn't refute the caller who was insisting that the goal of Islam is a world-wide 8th century caliphate, the institution of Islamic law, and the conversion, forced or otherwise of all of us infidels. Instead, Jerry pleaded ignorance and asked if there was a Muslim listener who could enlighten him. I switched stations and listened to some commercials rather than put up with any more of his idiocy and dishonesty. I hesitated before calling Jerry Springer a liar, but a person in his position has to know more about Islam than he admitted to knowing. He might deny it's true, but he didn't know? Come on Jerry! No wonder Air America's ratings are in the radio toilet. They have no credibility.
Labels: Air America, Jerry Springer
But None Ever Cried for Me
This
opinion piece was linked to at
Little Green Footballs but it should be linked to from as many sites as possible. As many of us should read it as possible. Go read it, and report back to me.
Labels: Jews, Little Green Footballs
Karl Rove vs. Sandy Berger
One can only assume that
this report on Karl Rove will lead to an "unbiased media" feeding frenzy.
But remember a few months ago when former Clinton Administration National Security Advisor, and advisor to presidential candidate John Kerry, Sandy Berger got into
a bit of mischief over some
pilfered classified documents from the National Archives?
Mr. Berger plead guilty in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on April 1 to stealing classified material from the National Archives, destroying three of the five stolen documents, and lying to federal investigators.
The Rules of Professional Conduct for an attorney in the District of Columbia prohibit a lawyer from committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on trustworthiness; engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, deceit or misrepresentation; and acting in a manner that seriously interferes with the administration of justice.
The stolen documents were copies of highly secret memorandum (possibly with handwritten notes) that were allegedly critical of the Clinton administration’s response to the “Millennium 2000” terror plot to bomb the Los Angeles International Airport.
He was
given a pass. I remember Clinton chuckling over what a absent-minded rascal Sandy Berger was. He didn't mean to abscond with the documents, he just forgot to take them out of his shirt (but not his socks) and return them. It coulda happened to anyone. And the destruction of three of them was, I'm sure, some sort of accident that is quite humorous in retrospect.
So, that said, will Karl Rove be given the same benefit of the doubt that Mr. Berger was given? Or after all these years of being hunted and hounded by the left, will they attempt to go for Rove's throat, whether or not there's any justification?
We already know the answer to that, don't we.
Labels: Karl Rove, Sandy Berger
Normalize Me
Unlike Morgan Spurlock, who comes to a conclusion first and then builds a
"documentary" to force that conclusion on his audience,
Merab Morgan decided to eat nothing but McDonald's for 90 days.
There are many reasons Merab Morgan decided in April to eat nothing but McDonald's fast food for 90 days. There's her weakness for the Filet-O-Fish, slathered with tartar sauce and cheese. And there was that documentary, "Super Size Me," which she thought insulted the intelligence of fat people by implying that they couldn't resist the offer of a gargantuan portion for a few cents extra.
But mainly, the 35-year-old Henderson, N. C., woman concocted this unorthodox diet for herself -- she's memorized the calories in almost every menu item, and limits herself to 1,400 calories a day -- because it fits her life.
At a cost of $9 to $11 for three meals, the single mother of two can afford it. She travels throughout the Raleigh area working construction jobs, and she has never failed to find a McDonald's somewhere. The whole process of ordering and eating a meal takes maybe 5 minutes, and she mostly eats in her car. Sometimes she hits the drive-through only once, ordering enough food to last the whole day. . . .Since April 22, when Morgan launched her diet with a Sausage Burrito and a medium Diet Coke, she's lost 33 pounds, putting her at about 195 pounds. At 5 feet, 9 inches tall, she's dropped from a size 22 or 24 to a size 15. The size 2X and 3X T-shirts she used to wear look like dresses on her. And despite her friends' fears about skyrocketing cholesterol, she feels great.
Tell your friends who became outraged at McDonalds after they saw "Supersize Me" to give it a rest. I never saw the movie, and I only eat at McDonalds occasionally, but it's about time (again) for people to take responsibility for their actions. If they are gaining weight be eating the wrong food and remaining sedentary, then do something about it, etc.
Labels: McDonalds, Merab Morgan, Morgan Spurlock, movies
Vietnamese Money
This lovely bit-o-fun was going around as a chain email before the 2004 presidential election but after the Dan Rather-Memo fiasco. I hadn't started blogging yet, so I just filed it and forgot about it, until now.
The caption read:
Kerry is really going to be mad. The Vietnamese Government wasn't supposed to release this until after the election. This must be for real.............I got it from Dan Rather and CBS.
It is certainly after the election now.
Labels: John Kerry, Vietnamese money
London Calling
LONDON CALLING TO THE FARAWAY TOWNS,
NOW THAT WAR IS DECLARED - AND BATTLE COME DOWN
No, this is not the war The Clash was talking about. But it's here, it's been here and it isn't going away, since as I peruse other blogs, like
Michelle Malkin and
Mediacrity, I read that the British and American press are already
toning down their coverage, or making complete
asses of themselves. I suppose that was to be predicted. We have to constantly be reminded that "they're not all terrorists", and that these "bombers" as the BBC now refers to them, have "hijacked Islam". Yes those are the politically correct things to say, but a certain amount of ignorance of history or willingness to lie through one's teeth, is needed to mouth those platitudes. Fortunately we have the antidote to this idiocy readily available. There are two great recent essays over at
VDH's Private Papers. One is by Victor Hanson, called
The Same Old, Same Old, An Anatomy of the London Bombing.
The British may react very differently than the Spanish did after Madrid — by doing nothing rather than by retreating from Iraq.
In the corrupt West these days, that is something.
We all know the score of this war now in the near four years since September 11. The London bombings should remind us how the old tired game works.
Causes
Failed states in the Middle East — autocratic, statist, unfree, intolerant of women and other religions — blame the West for their self-inflicted miseries. Sometimes they are theocratic, like the late Taliban or the current Iranian mullahs. But more often they are dictatorial like the Syrians, Pakistanis, Saudis, or Egyptians, who all, in varying degrees and in lieu of reform, have come to accommodations with the terrorists to shift popular anguish onto the West and the Jews.
That is the Petri dish of Islamic fascism, an evil that will only disappear when the dictatorships that allow it or nourish it do as well.
The other one, by Bruce Thornton is,
Jihad is Knocking, Another Episode in the War Between Christendom and Islam.
Indeed, what we call Islamic radicals are in fact Islamic traditionalists; it is the so-called “moderates” — those wanting to compromise Islam so it can coexist with Western ideas such as secular government, separation of church and state, and human rights — who are the radicals and innovators. The terrorists are simply fulfilling the traditional and orthodox command of their religion to battle the infidels who resist the revelation of Mohammed and the global socio-political order mandated by Islam.
Listen to one of the most respected and influential of Muslim clerics, Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi, on the legitimacy of jihad: “It has been determined by Islamic law that the blood and property of people of Dar Al-Harb [the Domain of Disbelief where the battle for the domination of Islam should be waged] is not protected. Because they fight against and are hostile towards the Muslims, they annulled the protection of his blood and his property." (See Andrew Bostom:).This interpretation is entirely consistent with fourteen centuries of Islamic theology and jurisprudence, which in turn is based on the Koran's injunction to “slay them [infidels] wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter . . . . Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.” And this jihad is to continue “until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah.”
Islam's divinely sanctioned entitlement to global domination explains the symbolic value of the London attacks: one day after London was chosen to host the 2012 Olympics, and right in the middle of the G8 summit in Scotland.
There are writers and scholars promoting an honest apraisal of Islam and insisting that we have to acknowledge that Jihad is alive and well. And there are certainly Imams and terrorists demonstrating with murder and mayhem that Jihad is preferable to living in peace with "the infidel" to a large segment of Islam. So why aren't Hollywood, our MSM, and political leaders listening?
Labels: islam, London, terrorism
War's legitimate object is more perfect peace. Flavius Vegitius Renatus
This is an optional footer. If you want text here, place it inside these tags, and remove this comment.
CHALLAH AKBAR
