Who Would Have Believed The Singularity Would Be So Stupid?: September 2008

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

McCain and Palin are going to win the US election in a landslide

That is my prediction to the outcome.

Obama is un-electable, pure and simple.

And here is why, regardless of what the mainstream media like NBC, CNN, CBS, NYT and the rest of the MSM wants you to believe Obama will lose the election.

One undeniable fact is that the Democrat majority US congress have got the lowest approval rating in history with only a 9% approval rating of congress which is led by virtually insane Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid - Regarding the current financial 'crisis' involving Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which has been blown up in the medias beyond proportion simply by drum beating a 'crisis' which they believe will benefit the Democrats and get Obama elected - Fact is that the two financial institutions has been led by Democrats, run by Democrats, created by Democrats and the entire fault and blame for the meltdown of the two mortgage companies which lended money to people who couldn't afford a mortgage Fannie and Freddie were also Democratic cash cows, Obama recieved more than a $100'000 down his pockets, the voter fraud organization ACORN which used Chicago mob style methods and bullying where Obama had been working as a community organizer recieved millions of tax payer money.

That the Democrats told that Jesus was a community organizer in a campaign battle cry repeated in the medias by the Obamamites was absurd enough, blaming the Republicans for the mess and outright theft of the tax payers money the democrats had endulged in is just as farfetched - Pelosi's insanity shined through by her own merit when she first shunned the Republicans by not inviting them and then attacked them for not being involved calling them 'un-patriotic' and attacked them for being the failure, yet the Democrats have got the majority and do not need the Republicans votes to pass a bill - Still they wanted the Republican vote to bailout Mae and Mac because they know full well how the whole affair stinks - They got none of the Republican votes and 94 Democrats opposed the 700bn bailout and yet again they blame the Republicans - The majority of the American people were and is OPPOSING and protesting the 700bn bailout, it simply goes against the instinct that more government is needed, which is unproductive by the way, a government can only

generate wealth from taxing people and by stealing profits.

To get an idea the Editorial of investor.com summs it up:

One of the sticking points in resolving the crisis was a poison pill in the Dodd/Paulson compromise that would move 20% of profits from the bailout into the Housing Trust Fund, a slush fund for political action groups such as ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) and the National Council of La Raza.

Sen. Lindsey Graham told Greta Van Susteren of Fox News that Democrats had other priorities than just solving this crisis: “And this deal that’s on the table now is not a very good deal. Twenty percent of the money that should go to retire debt that will be created to solve this problem winds up in a housing organization called ACORN that is an absolute ill-run enterprise, and I can’t believe we would take money away from debt retirement to put it in a housing program that doesn’t work.”

Groups such as ACORN and La Raza lobby to secure government-funded services for their members and seek to move them to the voting booth. The housing bill President Bush signed in July contained a similar funding mechanism for the HTF — a tax on mortgages backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The rottenness of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shines through in Henry Lamb's essay Soviet-style collapse in America's future?

To meet its obligations under the U.N.'s Racial Discrimination Treaty, the Clinton administration instructed Fannie Mae to expand loans to low-income borrowers, according to Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman. Thus, the "sub-prime" market was born, and government guaranteed-loans were extended to millions of families who could not qualify for a mortgage in a free market economy, but easily qualified under the new socialist scheme.

In 2005, Republican senators saw the danger and tried to reform these institutions with the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulator Reform Act (S.190), but Democrats blocked the bill.

Both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were institutions that were neither purely socialist, nor purely free market – a blend that is best described as communitarian, in that they allowed private investors to buy and hold shares in the corporations, but were also guaranteed by the federal government. That is, until recently, when the federal government took over both institutions. Now, the federal government essentially owns all those properties – a result that is as socialist as had the government nationalized those properties by force.

AIG, the international insurance giant, and other Wall Street and international financial institutions bought the bundles of mortgage securities that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac offered. Everybody involved made a ton of money, and housing for low-income families expanded exponentially – just as the Treaty on Racial Discrimination and the proponents of sustainable development had predicted. With all the new loans being made, the home building industry flourished, the real estate industry flourished, all industries related to housing flourished – until the market became saturated.

Home values stopped rising. Housing inventories began to rise. Home values began to decline. Foreclosures began to rise. Homebuilding slowed, housing-related industries began to lay off workers. Energy prices began to rise. Paychecks fell short of family needs. Foreclosures skyrocketed. Suddenly, there was little or no value in the bundles of security Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had packaged. Financial institutions found themselves in possession of massive "assets" that had no value. Creak, crumble, crash! The financial markets came tumbling down.

Socialism by stealthy deception, the whole attempt by the Democrats is to make the government control the financial market is to introduce something chillingly similar to Communism into America.
If that is not enough Democrats thrives on disaster, crisis, downfall and to top it up their battle cry for the Iraq war is for failure and for losing the war which is so bad that Reid and Pelosi were mentionned in an Al Qaeda statement:

....the new (American) Defense Minister “Gates” who said, “The American support to the Maliki government is not unlimited”, insinuating that the American administration is impatient with the Maliki government that is incapable of handling the strikes of the Mujahideen. This comes on the heels of an important statement by House Majority Leader Harry Reid who previously said, “The Iraqi war is hopeless and the situation in Iraq is same as it was in Vietnam.”

Then came Bush’s stupid statement where he emphasized that his strategic goal in Iraq is more than a military victory but also to prevent the Mujahideen from benefiting from the fruits of the Jihad to ultimately achieve victory.

Whose side are these people on?

Americans don't like to lose wars, nobody wants to lose wars, calling for a so called 'exit strategy'

which is absurd when any strategist planning a war has got two possible outcomes, to win or to lose - Who makes a strategy for losing a war?
The Democratic party has become a Marxist nest of progressives and the change they envision is disastrous for America and the rest of us.

Melanie Phillips has got this to say in her essay subversives for Obama:

There are two American election campaigns currently running. The first, in the mainstream media, accepts Barack Obama at face value, no questions asked, while it viciously turns over Sarah Palin and her family whom it subjects to lies, smears and character assassination. The second, being conducted in the blogosphere and (with one or two notable exceptions such as the Wall Street Journal) not alluded to at all by the mainstream media, is the site of verbal warfare between Camp Obama and bloggers who are practising journalism as it used to be practised – going behind the propaganda to dig out information and asking questions about it. The blogosphere is not only rebutting the Palin lies but also piling up the most disturbing revelations about Obama’s background and associations -- compounded by the troubling manner in which Camp Obama responds to these discoveries.

[...]
Barack Obama appears to sit on a nexus between Marxist revolutionary activists, unrepentant former terrorists, Black Power racists, Chicago mobsters – oh, and a Saudi who is trying to buy up America. If you were to turn up at US immigration control with a background of such associates, it’s a fair bet they wouldn’t let you off the air-bridge. Yet this man may well become President of the US! If any other candidate had had merely a fleeting relationship with William Ayers, his candidacy would have been terminated before it was even articulated -- let alone what we now know about Obama’s key role in Ayers’s CAC and its funding of radical groups; let alone the fact that Obama had been mentored during his formative years by a Communist Party plant; let alone his work for organisations modelled on the seditious philosophy of Saul Alinsky; let alone his two-decade membership of a Black Power church; let alone his relationship with fraudster Tony Rezko.

And yet despite all of this, virtually no-one in the mainstream media is asking any questions. Has there ever been a more staggering, surreal and scary race to the White House?

Watching the American election is indeed hallucinating, there is so much more to it than meets

the eye, what is written here is just scraping the surface and just my humble observation not even being an American but a European, and despite all this, despite that Obama is a hollow suit and can't speak a coherent sentence without a tele-prompter incapable of forming a sentence in his mind and transfer it into coherent speech most of the time and stuttering with 'err', 'ahh,' 'ehh', I, eh, I's short-circuiting from lunatic leftist ideals and lies which frizzles the neurones preventing any rational thought to emerge, despite the messiah worship which turns off most people for the sheer phoniness and fraud it represents, despite being associated with fringe leftist Marxoid radicals and terrorists, called a muslim brother by Libya's Qadhafi, endorsed by the Hamas terrorist leader and favored by the Iranian president, despite holding his speech in Berlin by the Siegenssaule monument which was put into prominence by Adolf Hitler, last time there were such masses gathered at the monument could be anyones guess, despite the choice of Biden who is yet another chapter and can of worms and more...

Despite all those things if or rather when the Democrats loses the election they will not be shy of accusing Americans of racism for not electing Barack Hussein Obama because of their diversive racist and clichéed race policy and playing the race card - That is how absurd and totally removed from the reality, reason and rational thinking the liberals have become.

To liberals liberalims comes first - The rest be damned - Too them it's all about power and fuck the people, the country and the nation and what anyone else think of it.

Fact Check For Presidential Debates

McCain and Obama contradicted each other repeatedly during their first debate, and each volunteered some factual misstatements as well. Here’s how we sort them out:

Obama said McCain adviser Henry Kissinger backs talks with Iran “without preconditions,” but McCain disputed that. In fact, Kissinger did recently call for “high level” talks with Iran starting at the secretary of state level and said, “I do not believe that we can make conditions.” After the debate the McCain campaign issued a statement quoting Kissinger as saying he didn’t favor presidential talks with Iran.

Obama denied voting for a bill that called for increased taxes on “people” making as little as $42,000 a year, as McCain accused him of doing. McCain was right, though only for single taxpayers. A married couple would have had to make $83,000 to be affected by the vote, and anyway no such increase is in Obama’s tax plan.

McCain and Obama contradicted each other on what Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen said about troop withdrawals. Mullen said a time line for withdrawal could be “very dangerous” but was not talking specifically about “Obama’s plan,” as McCain maintained.

McCain tripped up on one of his signature issues – special appropriation “earmarks.” He said they had “tripled in the last five years,” when in fact they have decreased sharply.

Obama claimed Iraq “has” a $79 billion surplus. It once was projected to be as high as that. It’s now down to less than $60 billion.

McCain repeated his overstated claim that the U.S. pays $700 billion a year for oil to hostile nations. Imports are running at about $536 billion this year, and a third of it comes from Canada, Mexico and the U.K.

Obama said 95 percent of “the American people” would see a tax cut under his proposal. The actual figure is 81 percent of households.

Obama mischaracterized an aspect of McCain’s health care plan, saying “employers” would be taxed on the value of health benefits provided to workers. Employers wouldn’t, but the workers would. McCain also would grant workers up to a $5,000 tax credit per family to cover health insurance.
McCain misrepresented Obama's plan by claiming he'd be "handing the health care system over to the federal government." Obama would expand some government programs but would allow people to keep their current plans or chose from private ones, as well.

McCain claimed Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower had drafted a letter of resignation from the Army to be sent in case the 1944 D-Day landing at Normandy turned out to be a failure. Ike prepared a letter taking responsibility, but he didn’t mention resigning.

For full details, as well as other dubious claims and statements, read the whole thing.

Maldives: President’s Religion On Trial In Supreme Court

The religious conservative Adhaalath Party has lodged a case at the Supreme Court against the re-election bid of President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom on the basis he is not a Sunni Muslim, a prerequisite for the presidency.

The case, received by the court on Wednesday, comes shortly after 44 religious scholars issued a fatwa against Gayoom, urging him to “repent and fear Allah”.

Both arguments centre on statements Gayoom has made on interpretations of Islam, such as that the death penalty and headscarves for women may be considered optional.

Gayoom, himself qualified to masters level in Shari’ah, came to power in 1978 promising a restoration of true Islam, but in recent years has faced mounting opposition from Islamic scholars.

The Roots of CAIR

This is an excerpt from an excellent article entitled The Muslim Brotherhood's US Network:

Following a 1993 Philadelphia meeting of Hamas leaders and activists in which the need to engage in propaganda efforts was discussed, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) was founded in Washington DC. Its stated mission is to “enhance understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.

Although these objectives sound innocuous enough, the Muslim Brotherhood (of which many of CAIR’s founders were members) often uses terms like these as euphemisms for more insidious actions. A Brotherhood memo written in 1991 makes reference to a “dictionary” that the Ikhwanis (the core group of the Muslim Brotherhood) use to decipher the true meaning of their words, which are put in quotation marks in written documents.

The fact is that CAIR was created by Ikhwanis for influencing the U.S. government, Congress, NGOs, and academic and media groups. The Brotherhood identified the media as “stronger than politics,” highlighted the importance of training activists to present a “view of the IAP” that would be acceptable to Americans. One of CAIR’s founders, Omar Ahmad, explicitly suggested the need for “infiltrating the American media outlets, universities and research centers.”

...The Holy Land Foundation trial documents also proved that CAIR was part of the Muslim Brotherhood linked network created to help Hamas in the U.S. Even though it has portrayed itself to be a civil rights group, and is often described as such by the mainstream press, its top leadership is made up of the IAP and the UASR principals mentioned earlier. Despite public denials, CAIR leaders have been heard expressing their support for Hamas both in public and on FBI surveillance tapes. CAIR has received support from, and lent support to, Hamas financial conduits in the United States. Several CAIR officers and employees have been indicted on terrorism-related charges.

This line, in particular, struck me with a lot of impact: "The Brotherhood highlighted the importance of training activists to present a “view of the IAP” that would be acceptable to Americans."

That's what we need to do as well. We need to educate the public, but try to do it in a way that is acceptable. We need to tell them the truth, but tell it in a way it can get through to them, in a way that takes their already-existing point of view into account and doesn't ignore it, but gently alters the point of view.

Right now, CAIR is out-finessing the anti-jihadists. That's got to stop.

Letter to Kansas State Collegian

The K-State student "news" paper has posted my letter to the editor at its website. The paper has a policy of not publishing letters in their print edition due to "space limitations." I suspect that the real reason is a policy of not publishing anything in the Collegian that contradicts Student Publications, Inc's., "diversity" agenda. As they state in today's print (and online edition), "She [Sheila Ellis, president of something called Diverse Mass Communicators] said DMC hopes to make this one of its signature, annual events to promote diversity throughout campus."

So without further ado, here is my letter:

To the Editor of K-State Collegian:

On 12 October 2001 New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani rejected a ten-million dollar donation to the Twin Towers Fund by Saudi prince Al-Waleed bin Talal. Giuliani did so because of the strings that were attached to the gift. Talal stated that the United States “must address some of the issues that led to such a criminal attack." Talal was positing the “blowback” theory of the 9-11 attacks by claiming American policies, such as support of Israel, leads to Islamic terrorism. Talal is an adherent of the extremist Wahhabi branch of Islam, which is the state religion of Saudi Arabia. In Saudi Arabia, the religious police, the Metaween, use extreme repression to maintain Wahhabi orthodoxy.

In the September 26, 2008 Collegian there is a story of Georgetown University’s John Esposito giving the first address for the International Activities Council Lecture Series. Esposito is director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding. That’s right; Talal has found many willing recipients for his cash in academia. And he is getting his money’s worth. On October 23, Esposito will be hosting a conference at Georgetown that asks the question: “Is There a Role for Sharia Law in Modern States?” Of course, this begs the question of whether the medieval theocracy of Saudi Arabia can claim the status of “modern.” Talal and Esposito agree that it’s American “perceptions” that cause terrorism as opposed to Saudi Arabia’s, and other Islamic nations’, religious tyranny. Their idea of “understanding” is to silence all criticism of Islam and discussion on the countless, heinous crimes committed in its name.

Grant Jones
Ph.D. Student
American History

Crossposted at The Dougout

Evidence The Media Wants Obama To Win

Is the media monolithic? Is the media in the tank for Obama? Is it a kind of conspiracy?

It's hard to believe, right?

Except if you look at the facts:

From LGF:

“Off the record, every suspicion you have about MSM being in the tank for O is true. We have a team of 4 people going thru dumpsters in Alaska and 4 in arizona. Not a single one looking into Acorn, Ayers or Freddiemae. Editor refuses to publish anything that would jeopardize election for O, and betting you dollars to donuts same is true at NYT, others. People cheer when CNN or NBC run another Palin-mocking but raising any reasonable inquiry into obama is derided or flat out ignored. The fix is in, and its working.” I asked permission to reprint without attribution and it was granted.

And, as frightening as that might be, it can't get any more surreal and nightmarish than this:

Note the constantly panning camera, the lovely editing, the expensive microphone, the lush lighting.

Just an average day when the Holy Spirit descended on a home in Venice, California in the form of a dove.

Dubious Defense Of Democracy

I don't have a lot of time to analyze this right now, but I thought it was an interesting article, and I'd like to hear what others have to say.

The subject matter impacts on the counter-Jihad, because the parties who are being discussed in the article are "anti-Jihad." They also have a history of being "anti-immigrant".

That's a complicated subject, because in the West, who among us does not believe immigration is out of control.

I think the primary dividing line between the average person who believes in Western values, and those who are "haters", arises over the question of whether or not we believe we can live with the immigrants who are already here.

In the case of Muslim immigrants, I simply do not believe we can live with those who want to import Sharia law in our countries. Nor do I believe we can live those who advocate Jihad against our people.

It's simple, if immigrants respect our laws and the lives of our people, then we can live with them. If they do not, then they are criminals, and they ought to be jailed or deported.

From the New York Sun:

LONDON — Are the streets of Vienna echoing to the sound of jackboots again? Two anti-immigrant parties, the Freedom Party and the Alliance for the Future of Austria, achieved the far Right's best result since 1945 in last weekend's elections. They took 29% of the vote, dwarfing the 18% that the Nazis achieved when they made their breakthrough in Germany in 1930. These are parties that, while avoiding openly neo-Nazi policies, do support symbolic policies such as the legalization of public displays of the swastika. What does their triumph signify? Are we witnessing a re-run of the 1930s, when a Wall Street crash sent shock waves across Europethat swept Hitler to power?

As a journalist who observed the rise of Austria's most notorious demagogue, Jörg Haider, during the Waldheim affair in the late 1980s, I have no doubt that the answer to this question is a resounding no. There is no enthusiasm for Hitler in Austria or anywhere else, except possibly in President Ahmadinejad's Iran. The reason for the rise of such parties in Austria and many other European countries may be summed up in two words: immigration and Islam.

The problem is that the unprecedented mass immigration which Europe has experienced in recent years has coincided with a global jihad that takes both "hard" (terrorist) and "soft" (cultural) forms. In countries where a large percentage of the immigrants are also Muslims, the sense of a way of life under threat is particularly acute. Austria was for centuries a battleground in the confrontation between Christianity and Islam, and a slogan used by Heinz-Christian Strache, the Freedom Party's leader — "Vienna must not become Istanbul" — indicates that the sense of a nation under siege still resonates.

It is true that the rhetoric used by Mr. Strache — warning, for example, against Muslim immigrants "fondling our Austrian girls" — is distasteful and reminiscent of Nazi anti-Semitic propaganda. Neither Mr. Strache nor Mr. Haider has any inhibition about exploiting sometimes irrational fears. But when the mainstream parties claim that what they call "Islamophobia" is mere paranoia, or that the rise of far-Right parties is based on nothing more than "populism," they are deluding themselves.

For the ordinary voters of Europe have good reason to be worried about the rise of Islam. They are angry that the socialist, liberal, or conservative parties that run their democracies appear to have conspired to suppress all public discussion of their private anxiety about the future of their countries. And they are punishing these parties at the ballot box.

Until the centrist parties of Europe take on board the concerns of their electorates about both forms of jihad, the extreme Right will continue to gain. Nor is it sufficient to tighten immigration controls, as most governments are belatedly doing. The concentration of Muslims in the cities of Europe has already reached critical mass and has triggered a political shift towards appeasement by the authorities.

Take two recent examples from Germany and Britain. A fortnight ago, Cologne was convulsed by riots over the building of a huge new mosque to rival the city's celebrated cathedral. The violence was caused, not by the protestors against the mosque, but by a much greater number of "anti-fascists" who successfully prevented them from demonstrating. The police stood by while the protest was crushed and the mayor hailed this shameful affair as a victory for democracy. It was, of course, nothing of the kind; rather, it was a victory for Islam.

Meanwhile in London last Friday Muslims firebombed the house of the Dutch publisher of "The Jewel of Medina," a novel by an American writer, Sherry Jones, about the Prophet Mohammed and his child bride, Aisha. Although the police had received warnings and the fire was doused without any injuries, the publisher has gone into hiding.

On both sides of the Atlantic, self-censorship now silences debate about sensitive aspects of Islam more effectively than any traditional censor could have done. Twenty years after the Salman Rushdie affair, the Islamists have succeeded in their aim of intimidating the guardians of free speech and the free press.

So what is to be done? For a start, we must not allow the devil to have all the best tunes. By leaving it to the neo-, crypto-, and pseudo-fascists to raise the issue of how Islam is to be integrated into European society, the liberal elites have made a big mistake. Telling voters that it is fascist to object to the insidious Islamicization of their environs is liable to drive them into the arms of real fascists.

This is not to exonerate men like Mr. Haider. But he has learned over the years to curb his earlier tendency to make excuses for the Nazis, which doubtless had much to do with the fact that his wealthy family benefited from the expropriation of the Austrian Jews.

Nowadays Mr. Haider focuses on the future not the past — hence the name of his new party, the Alliance for the Future of Austria. The question he poses is the one the voters are asking themselves: does Austria, faced with demographic decline and multicultural insecurity, really have much of a future?

Under the circumstances a nation which has never felt at ease with its own identity will be tempted to vote for the leader who offers the most affirmative answer. There is no reason why liberal, socialist, or conservative leaders, too, should not defend Western values and explain to Muslims why they too are expected to adopt them. It is idiotic to leave that task to those whose own commitment to these values is dubious.

If Europe cannot face the challenge of Islam without electing demagogues, then our democracy is in much worse shape than we thought.

Taking the Jihad Temperature - A Gathering Storm Special Series - INFILTRATION

If you throw a frog into boiling water, he will jump out. If you put it in cold water and slowly turn up the heat, he will not notice the rise in temperature and will eventually boil.

The Islamists are boiling our frog and though this blog and hundreds like it record almost daily the rise in the Jihad temperature, unless we see how far and fast the temperature has risen, we will not know how far along our boiling has progressed.

So, the Gathering Storm will be posting only once a week but these weekly posts will take the Jihadist temperature by looking back at news and events over the last two years. Over the next several weeks in the areas of intimidation, infiltration, disinformation and thoseappeasers and apologists who either knowingly or unknowingly advance the Jihad agenda, the Gathering Storm will show how far our frog has been boiled.

By seeing the boiling water around us, we can see how far the boiling has progressed.

The good news is that we are noticing that the water is getting warmer. There is a glimmer of awareness here - a glimmer of hope there. But we have a long way to go.

Here’s this week’s look back at the rising Jihad temperature of INFILTRATION!!

The Proof’s In the Survey

Muslims for a Safe America conducted a survey at the Islamic Society of North America’s 43rd Annual Convention in Chicago from September 1, 2006 to September 4, 2006. 307 Muslims who are American citizens participated in the survey at the Muslims for a Safe America booth at ISNA.

They were asked many questions to better understand the views of American Muslims on issues relating to Islam, Muslims, and American national security. The answers to one of the first few questions proves the two question test that Muslims should be asked about loyalty to their host country.

They are:

Which nation do you owe allegiance to? The country you live in of the ummah?
Do you adhere to the Sharia Law or the secular laws of your country?

If their answers are:

The ummah
Yes

You are talking to a real Muslim. If other than those answers, ask them why they consider themselves true Muslims? Here are the responses to the first few questions in the Muslims for a Safe America survey.

1. Are you a U.S. Citizen? (If no, then don’t fill out survey.)
YES 307
NO 0

2. Do you consider yourself to be a Muslim first, an American first, or both equally?
MUSLIM FIRST 214
AMERICAN FIRST 4
BOTH EQUALLY 86
UNDECIDED 3

There you go. A Muslim-American, not an American Muslim. Then this.

3. Is the American government at war with the religion of Islam?
YES 208
NO 79
UNDECIDED 20

No surprise here based on the response in question #2.

4. Can a good Muslim be a good American?
YES 292
NO 11
UNDECIDED 4

A perfect example of Taqiyya at work.

Textbooks and Jihad Merit Badges

The camel’s nose is the tent, folks. Will we permit the camel to follow?

CASE #1: The American Textbook Council examined the coverage of Islam in seven widely adopted world history textbooks used in grades seven through twelve. In February 2003, it published its findings in a review, Islam and the Textbooks.

Since 2003, several reports have documented bias and evasions in world history textbooks. Textbooks misrepresent Islam past and present, critics agree. They contain fallacies and untruths about jihad, sharia, slavery, status of Muslim women, terrorism, and international security. These reviews independently reach the same conclusions. Most conspicuously, history textbooks whitewash the meaning of jihad. Houghton Mifflin's seventh-grade text, Across the Centuries, has come in for singular criticism. Houghton Mifflin's books dominate the nation's largest state, but they are in no way worse on this score than competing textbooks. Textbooks make no distinction between sharia and Western law, and they pretend that women are making great strides in the Islamic world, when all evidence indicates otherwise. Social studies textbooks ignore the global ambitions of militant Islam. They fail to explain that Muslim terrorists seek to destroy the United States and Israel. They omit geopolitical goals that include theocracy and world domination by religion.

And how could this come about? You guessed it.

Islamic organizations led by the Council on Islamic Education act as domestic textbook "censors." Strictly speaking, since only governments censor books, the Islamists are merely agents of suppression, using educational publishers to do their bidding. Publishers ignore those who press them about motives, funding, legal status, and strong-arm tactics on the part of their Muslim "consultants."

The latest example.

The latest evidence of Islamist influence is California's adoption of History Alive! The Medieval World and Beyond. According to the History Alive! The Medieval World and Beyond front matter, the chief author-advisor on Islam is Ayad Al-Qazzaz, professor of sociology at California State University, Sacramento. Al Quazzaz is a Muslim apologist, a frequent speaker in Northern California school districts promoting Islam and Arab causes. Al-Qazzaz also co-wrote AWAIR's Arab World Notebook. AWAIR stands for Arab World and Islamic Resources, an opaque, proselytizing "non-profit organization" that conducts teacher workshops and sells supplementary materials to schools. With History Alive! The Medieval World and Beyond, TCI is trying to sell a textbook to California schools that takes dictation from Islamist sources. The proximate question is whether the state's department of education and state school board will let this happen.

CASE #2: Even the Boy Scouts are not immune to the proselytizing of Jihad. In a post entitled Jihad Merit Badges For Boca Boy Scouts?, PipeLineNews called attention to the radical European Muslim community's newfound interest in youth scouting and how some of these recruits found themselves being used as instruments of terrorism in the 7/7 London bombings. It is therefore with a certain sense of alarm that we note this same phenomenon taking place in the United States.

When the Islamic Center of Boca Raton applied to the Gulfstream Council http://www.gulfstreamcouncil.org/0support.html for a charter to incorporate a Boy Scouts of America troop, they joined the approximately 95 Muslim troops nationwide. The BSA's national spokesman Gregg Shields told the Sun Sentinel that: "Boy Scout troops do not require that members adhere to a particular religious faith, as long as they profess belief in a higher power. We make so attempt to interpret God or the practice of religion. Really it's the role of the scout's family and his religious leaders. But what if the scout's family and religious leaders preach and practice jihad? This seems to be the case with ICBR, since the same website page which advertised the newly chartered troop also carries a piece claiming: "…it is the month of Jihad, and the first decisive battle in Islam, the Battle of Badr, occurred during Ramadan…"The same page which contains the Ramadan/jihad claim also announces a Boy Scout camp retreat with a sleepover on the ICBR grounds, perhaps a good opportunity to inspire the fledgling troop with tales of Mohammed's military conquests "...additionally the Messenger of Allah victoriously entered Mekkah during this blessed month" and explain why the "first decisive battle of Islam" represented only the beginning of a jihad to which they remain religiously obligated to wage.

And the activities of these troops are troubling.

Muslim scouts have been instructed on how to conduct Da'wa in a scouting situation, including being told to pray outside their tents in order to awake curiosity which then might lead to questions about religion. "The Muslim troops, in some ways, serve as goodwill ambassadors for their religion and people. They reach out to peers who might have little or no understanding of Islam and whose exposure to it comes from television images of terrorism and Muslim extremists. A Muslim Girl Scout troop from Santa Clara was featured in an ad campaign, "We're Americans and We're Muslims," sponsored by the Council on American-Islamic Relations. A picture of smiling Muslim troop members from a recent multicultural fair at the Islamic Center adorns the 2005 annual report of the Girl Scouts' San Diego-Imperial Council.

“In an age were cowardice borne of ACLU threatened lawsuits rules supreme, common sense and self-preservation are now mislabeled bigotry and discrimination. One must wonder if Muslim scouts and their leaders who succeed in convincing non-Muslims to convert to Islam will be given jihad merit badges?”

Read the rest at The Gathering Storm.

Yo Ho Ho Ho, A Pirates Life: Somali "Pirates" Celebrate Muslim Feast

Usually, the media does their damndest to cover up the fact that various acts of terrorism are being committed in the name of Allah.

In this case, the media let the cat out of the bag:

MOGADISHU, Somalia - Disagreements between Somali pirates holding a ship laden with tanks and heavy weapons escalated into a shootout and three pirates are believed dead, a U.S. defense official said Tuesday. The pirates denied the report.

The U.S. destroyer USS Howard and several other American ships have surrounded the Ukrainian cargo shipFaina, which was hijacked Thursday and is now anchored off the lawless coast of Somalia. The pirates have demanded a ransom of $20 million and the U.S. Navy cordon aims to prevent them from taking any of the weapons ashore.

The official in Washington who reported the shootout spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the record. He refused to elaborate and said he had no way of confirming the deaths.

But the pirate spokesman insisted the report was not true, that his colleagues were just celebrating the Muslim feast of Eid al-Fitr despite being surrounded by American warships and helicopters.

"We didn't dispute over a single thing, let alone have a shootout," pirate spokesman Sugule Ali told The Associated Press by satellite telephone Tuesday.

"We are happy on the ship and we are celebrating Eid," Ali said. "Nothing has changed."

The Islamic feast marks the end of the holy month of Ramadan.

Note that Jihadis can't get along with each other either. They kill Infidels, and when they don't have Infidels to kill, they set to killing each other.

During the Ramadan Feast, Allah must also be satiated.

Allah's neverending thirst for human blood must be assuaged at all costs. If Allah isn't fed, one can assume, the Jihadis believe something even worse will happen to them then simply being a Muslim.

That would be funny, if people didn't have to die for it.

Monday, September 29, 2008

CAIR And Barack Obama Share The Same Tactics

Obama's supporters want to silence criticism of their messiah.

In a somewhat similar manner, CAIR tries to muzzle California politicians.

Read the full report at The Investigative Project On Terrorism.

Stop the Muslim Invasion

Here's a summary post of the article: Seven Ways To Stop The Invasion. Someone asked, "So what do you think can be done besides moral grandstanding and warning about 'our failure to act?'" The original seven answers were:

1. Deportation to countries of their origin.

2. Deportation to Muslim-only towns guarded by the police.

3. One child per family policy reinforced with sterilization.

4. Mandatory lessons about Muslim atrocities.

5. Very strict control of Muslim clergy (mullahs).

6. Tax on Muslims to recompense us for all the harm they have done to us.

7. Sermons (khutbah) and religious instructions must be conducted in the local language, rather than Arabic, so that hate speech can be easily identified.

Then others added additional answers and took exception to some of the seven:

Blogger Pastorius said, "I think numbers 2 and 3 are fascistic. I think numbers 1, 2, and 3 can be taken care of by our proposed idea that Sharia is Sedition, punishable by death or deportation."

Blogger Citizen Warrior said, "My list would be short. I might say:

1. Deport or arrest anyone advocating Shari'a or jihad. Arrest them for sedition.

2. No more concessions to Islam. Period.

Number seven on the unknown guy's list, however, would help reveal exactly what is being preached in the mosques. So maybe that one too."

Anonymous Anonymous said, "8. Ban cousin-mariage to disrupt their breeding cycle.

9. Ban halal slaughter in Dar al-Harb.

10. Massive child-protection intervention to remove children from abusive Muslim families and have them adopted and brought up as Kaffirs."

Blogger Sabra said, "Amend #3 to say, "One wife per husband with one child per family policy reinforced with sterilization." If you just go with that alone, the problem will solve itself. There can only be so much in-breeding before a species starts to die off, right?

Although I agree quite completely with the whole list - and the others added in comments!"

Anonymous Anonymous said, "Number one addresses the next two suggestions as well as number 5. Eliminate 2 & 3. If followers remain in their own nations and breed beyond survivability - so be it.

Number 4 - Absolutely.

Number 5 - Native reverts should be monitored and hold passport with restricted travel.

Number 6 will fund 1, 4 5 and 7

Number 7 - Affirmative

Most important missing guideline: Sharia is Sedition, punishable by death or deportation (ht Pastorius)."

Blogger Andy Armitage said, "Hard to go with some of these without hammering human rights, and that would have to be the same for everyone. I'm in favour of offering them financial incentives to go to a country of their choice; and I'm in favour of discouraging birth, anyway (probably fiscally), because, Muslims apart, we have too many people on this planet and Muslims and Catholics just want us to add more — exponentially. And that ain't good. But it's one we do have to watch, because they do discourage contraception, I think, and irresponsible breeding is going to raise their numbers (not all their kids will hang onto the old dogmas, but enough of them will).

I think mandatory lessons would be a good idea, not just about atrocities, but about what's called for in the Koran, just to show those whose reading of it may be a bit lax and casual that there are calls in there for kafirs to be killed.

There should, yes, be strict control of imams coming into our respective countries. There seems to be an expectation that, because it's to do with religion, any damned preacher will have no difficulty in getting into the country.

Muslim-only towns would just be another ghetto. Yes, it would be guarded, but the innocent are going to get punished with the guilty.

Perhaps a fundamental thing would be to get religion out of the public square altogether, make it clear that religion — whatever religion — is a private thing.

Blogger Aukmuntr said:

#11- No Teaching Islam in the USA, especially in public schools
#12 - No call to prayers that can be audible over ten feet
#13 - Police cannot automatically say the crime that just occurred is not terrorism without proof within 48 hours
#14 - Mandatory classes in school on Islamic terror, with full video and audio with proper translation...

Blogger Citizen Warrior said, "In an interview, one of my heroes, Rita Katz, who knows a lot about the underbelly of jihad in America, had these suggestions for the answer to Islam's relentless encroachment:

8. Freeze the assets of terrorist financiers and shut down sources of money to terrorist organizations, including their numerous "charity" organizations.

9. Destroy training camps and hamper their ability to train new recruits.

10. Change the general perception of the global threat of Islam's relentless encroachment to America and the West. Change perception from a mere nuisance to a major threat to the free world.

And, Katz added something the U.S. could do outside its borders:

11. Islamic terrorism needs to be studied in depth, and it needs to be addressed as a global, long-term problem. The only way we can win this war is if we, the West, will force countries, governments, and organizations that educate, preach, and fund jihad to stop what they are doing. As long as radical Muslim clerics will preach for jihad, and as long as Saudi textbooks will teach their youngsters that we, the "infidels," will always be their enemies, Islamic terrorism will not be eradicated. Through political pressure, diplomacy, sanctions, and similar measures, the West, spearheaded by the U.S., has to force governments such as that of Saudi Arabia to stop spreading this incitement and to engender a new generation that does not have that blind, vicious hate against the West and everything it represents. And then — in a generation — we will be able to win this war once and for all."

Anonymous Anonymous said, "The Muslims aren't the REAL problem.

Future historians, perhaps some Russian or Chinese Gibbon writing 'The Decline and Fall of the Anglosphere', will have an interesting job explaining how the vigorous post-World War II Anglo-Saxon civilisation, which put men on the moon and invented all of modern computer and telecommunications technologies, somehow lost its confidence to the extent that it allowed itself to be taken over by swarms of Dark-Age savages, with hardly a glimmer of resistance.

We tend to think of the causes of the Muslim problem as being external — Pakistan, Saudi Arabia etc. But the real causes are internal: the self-loathing 'intellectuals', the open-door immigrationists, the Effete Elite such as Cameron and the Archdhimmi, the post-colonialist guilt trippers, the multi-culti dumbing-down educationalists, the anti-British Brainwashing Corporation and all the rest of the smirking-class traitors — not only in Britain but in Canada, Australia and the US as well.

A healthy body can resist attacks by parasites, but Anglo-Saxon civilisation, and indeed the whole of European civilisation is very sick indeed.

To return to my first sentence, why did I write a Russian or Chinese Gibbon rather than an Islamic one? Because if the Anglosphere is destroyed by the Muslims, it will go through a stage where it is so anarchic and weak that stronger, more homogenous and more culturally self-confident civilisations will step in to take charge, and deal with the Muslims in the manner of Joseph Stalin and Chairman Mao."

Blogger BabbaZee said, "I have to think about it." Are you done thinking, BabbaZee?

Commenter Lance Corporal Jack Jones said:

Solution Zero:

Fixed bayonet, greased with bacon fat. They don't like it up 'em!

Anonymous Anonymous said:

The Army's Totally Serious Mind-Control Project (using "thought helmets)

Now if the military can develop this for battle, why can't we have it designed to erase Islam from the brain of captive Jihadis?

Commenter Revere Rides Again said, "First order of business should be a massive education campaign to inform every member of the public who is willing to listen of the nature of Sharia and Jihad and why they must be treated as sedition, with appropriate penalties.

Islam must be identified as a politico-religious movement intent on conquering Western institutions and installing itself as a theocratic Caliphate. Concessions to Islam must cease, and any encroachments on the law of this land — attacks on freedom of speech, insistence on special treatment, attempts to establish Sharia courts, etc. — must come up against stone walls of opposition. A campaign of education about Islam's impact on women would be welcome as well. So would some sober reflection on the value of rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's and preserving the secular nature of government.

I don't believe in trying to outbreed a problem that is rooted in philosophy. If the legal constraints coupled with birthrate discrepancies mean that we leave the hordes of Islamists with no outlet but violence, then so be it. Let the violence be dealt with according to Chicago Rules, for as long as it takes for them to get the point or lose the demographic advantage, whichever comes first.

Speaking of which, I'm trying to imagine a billion angry gay Chinese guys and all I can picture is this big chaotic fire drill..."

Blogger Epaminondas said, "Well, let's stick to what's possible and constitutional. That means 1, upon seditious behavior of people who are not citizens, case by case. No mean feat.

The rest are blatantly unconstitutional."

Blogger Always On Watch said, Epa has a valid point about the issue of constitutionality.

Unfortunately, going through the legal system has been less than successful. I recently posted this over at THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS. How well the cases go in court depends a lot on who is sitting on the bench.

As an educator, I'm a strong advocate of truth-filled education as a strong anti-jihad tool.

The big negative: demographics. Now, I'm no advocate of mass sterilization. We've been down the eugenics road before and not only in Nazi Germany.

But our legal system could see to it that polygamy is a no-go and results in deportation.

I favor deportation because our prison system doesn't need a further burden.

And properly vetting immigrants is also essential. No more Wahhabists, including imams.

Mosques and Islamic centers should be thoroughly investigated to see if they are teaching sedition. That's not a violation of freedom of religion at all. In fact, I know a few Moslems who immigrated here, only to discover that the mosques are "radicalized." They no longer attend mosques, BTW, and cherry pick the doctrines of Islam on their own."

Blogger Epaminondas said, "polygamy is a no-go" IT IS, and the courts must be our remedy for those legally in the USA.

Religious freedom was no defense for the radical Mormons.

I will again make the point that if you teach violence, and violence results, YOU and the institution responsible are accountable. That's how the Aryan nation was destroyed.

If my temple through me as a teacher taught that for the final day to arrive and all of us to reach heaven all the Zoroastrians must die, and that the natural world would aid the Jews in this endeavor against the evil ones...and one of my students went out to get those Zoroastrians...the Temple, me and the INDIVIDUALS on the Board every year this was taught would all be liable for civil damages.

Blogger Pastorius said, "Epa says 2-7 are unconstitutional. I say, no I think #5 is not unconstitutional.

What one has to remember is that Islam is not strictly speaking, a religion. It is a virulent political system posing as a religion. it is like Communism.

There is nothing unconstitutional about monitoring the activity of the Communist Party, as it is dedicated to the overthrow of the government.

Likewise, Islam, as it is dedicated to the overthrow of the government of the U.S., ought to be monitored. That means Islamic 'clergy' ought to be monitored."

Blogger Epaminondas said, "Pasto MAY have a point on 5 when the quttbas cross over to non religious issues. I have to think about it some. Bit I have a feeling then, that Jeremiah Wright was close to the line. And so might some critical progressive rabbis I know of. The problem is how to draw such a line which is fair across the board.

Suppose you want to preach against inequality (perceived or real), and urge civil disobedience...is that over the line, and to who? Some future govt that might not be too swift? Suppose it's an executive branch which is topped by Americans who happen to be Muslim, and we have a future Rick Warren preaching against them?

See what I mean?

We can't have laws which pick out one group for RELIGIOUS reasons. However, I think there are oodles of places where the dean seems to require actions which are urging violence, sedition, and govt overthrow (the Muslim Brotherhood of America's 'grand jihad'). It is at that point where our individual freedoms outweigh untrammeled religious freedom."

Light blog alert for me

I will, quite unbelievably be somewhere, where there is no internet until late Thursday

Supermarket sued over booze

If I were an employer, would I employ a Muslim? It’s something I’ve often thought about. It’s against the law here in Blighty to discriminate on the grounds of religion, but I’m sure I’d find myself looking for some way of saying no.

I’m not an employer, so the situation will never arise.

But many employers – and others – will be enraged by a story that comes from Leicestershire (it’s in the Loughborough Echo) about a Muslim who is suing Tesco because he had to handle crates of booze in a warehouse.

Poor, dear Mohammed Ahmed was employed at Tesco’s Litchfield depot in September 2007 to move stuff about on a forklift truck.

But the 32-year-old Saudi told an employment tribunal that he hadn’t been told that he would be moving alcoholic drinks.

What did he think he would be moving? Fresh air? The stores sell alcoholic drinks, so did he think that, by some magic, they wouldn’t be part of his job?

Read the rest here, including a link to another post about how a couple who wanted the contraceptive pill (the morning-after pill here in the UK, but I think Americans call it Plan B) were refused by a Muslim pharmacist at another supermarket chain.

Tesco say they have an open-door policy and try to be sensitive to people’s beliefs. Perhaps these idiot religious types should just be told, “Look, mate, the job’s yours if want it but you’ll have to do it – all of it. If you have any qualms, bugger off and find an employer in Saudi Arabia or somewhere, where your superstitions will be kowtowed to.”

Dhimmitude in Oregon

One of the reasons supporters of Israel have such a hard time making their case abroad is that lots of people in the West don't recognize the threat that radical Islam poses to them and to their way of life. Take Portland, Oregon.

The local newspaper, the Oregonian, is scheduled to distribute free copies of the DVD Obsession in Sunday's editions. Several local businessmen, along with a former mayoral candidate, are afraid that this will lead to imaginary 'Muslim bashing' and 'Islamophobia' and are trying to convince the Oregonian not to distribute the DVD. Let's go to the videotape.

Islamists plunder weapons from hijacked ship in Somalia

From the Times Online:

Islamist extremists prepared last night to unload rocket-propelled grenades and anti-aircraft guns from a Ukrainian freighter seized by Somali pirates even as foreign warships surrounded the vessel.

A US destroyer and submarine from an international taskforce set up to patrol the Gulf of Aden and Indian Ocean and two European-flagged ships were reported to be tracking the freighter that had anchored off the southern Somali coast.

The ship's captain contacted media outlets by satellite phone to say that one of his crew had died during the hostage drama.

The pirates were demanding a $20 million (£10.8 million) ransom for the release of the MV Faina, its 20 surviving crew and cargo of weapons, which include 33 Russian tanks. It was seized on Thursday as it neared the Kenyan port of Mombasa.

“The Islamists have sent pick-ups from Mogadishu to go and collect the gear,” said an analyst with a network of Somali informers. “There's not much they can do with the tanks — they can't get them off — but the rest of the weapons they are trying to move ashore.”

Official Missouri Truth Squad Incident Report

Click here to report an Anti-Obamessiah Incident.

British Counter-Demonstration Against Seditious Jihadis

Muslims who advocate Jihad and Sharia within the West ought to be thrown out of Western nations. They ought to be tried for treason and given a choice, 20 years (or more) in hard-time prison, or deportation to the Sharia-state of their choice.

It seems that some Brits are making the first moves towards what I hope will become the groundswell that will be needed to achieve this fundamental change in the way we treat Muslim seditiounists (to coin a word).

Check it out. (This video was recorded by, The U.B.A (United British Alliance. http://uba.awardspace.co.uk/ ) and March For England ( http://marchforengland.awardspace.co.uk/ )

A few years ago, in the aftermath of the 7/7 bombings, some anti-Jihadists staged a demonstration against the Jihadis, and the police harrassed the anti-Jihadists. In this video, the police are not harrassing the counter-Jihadists, but are instead making sure the Muslims keep moving.

I want to see them keep moving to the border and to get these Sharia-advocates the hell out of Europe entirely.

Sunday, September 28, 2008

British Tories Reject Sharia Courts

From Refuge Resettlement Watch:

A Conservative government would ban sharia courts and impose a tough crackdown on Islamic extremism, the shadow security minister has said. [A shadow minister is the person in the party out of power who will take that position if the party gains power.] Pauline Neville-Jones, a former head of the Joint Intelligence Committee, said: “We are not going to have any status for sharia courts. Absolutely not.”

Earlier this month it emerged that the Government had quietly allowed rulings of five sharia courts across Britain to be enforceable through the county courts or High Court.

Speaking the day after Dominic Grieve, the shadow home secretary, said Britain had “done something terrible to ourselves” by encouraging multiculturalism, Lady Neville-Jones said that the Conservatives would make the case for more “integration” among all British people, whatever their backgrounds.

She said: “We want unity and opportunity, despite difference, through integration.”

She accused the Government of leading the country down the “blind alley of multiculturalism, which has deliberately gone down the road of separation for its own sake.”

Lady Neville-Jones said there was also a clear divide between the Tories and Labour on the question of how to deal with the spread of extremism among some young Muslims.

Multicultural ideal 'terrible' for UK - Tories

Shadow minister issues controversial warning

From the Guardian:

Multiculturalism in the UK has left a "terrible" legacy, creating a vacuum that has been filled by extremists from across the political spectrum, the shadow home secretary, Dominic Grieve, warns today.

In an interview with the Guardian on the eve of the Conservative party conference, Grieve says that "long-term inhabitants" have been left fearful, while second- and third- generation immigrants have felt alienated and unsure what British values stand for. He also warns against downplaying Britain's Christian heritage.

"We've actually done something terrible to ourselves in Britain. In the name of trying to prepare people for some new multicultural society we've encouraged people, particularly the sort of long-term inhabitants, to say 'well your cultural background isn't really very important'." He adds: "In this vacuum the BNP rise and Hizb ut-Tahrir rises. They're two very similar phenomena of people who are experiencing a form of cultural despair about themselves, their identity. And it's terribly easy to latch on to confrontational and aggressive variants of their cultural background as being the only way to sort of reassure themselves that they can survive and have an identity."

The shadow home secretary said multiculturalism was inspired by the "understandable" desire to make people feel comfortable. But he added: "The idea behind it was [to] create the melting pot. But the melting pot needs the ingredients of people's confidence in themselves as they come together. And if it isn't there I think we've done ourselves huge damage."

He also raises fears that "fundamental Islam" is restricting debate. "Our country has adapted because people have been tolerant which has often required a lot of forbearance and acceptance of things they didn't like. We all have to accept things we don't like. That is how Britain has evolved. When I go and address an Islamic audience I always point this out."

An Anglican, Grieve praises the contribution all the major religions have made to Britain. But he says that people should not forget Britain's Christian heritage. "The role of Christianity is really rather important. It can't just be magicked out of the script. It colours many of the fundamental viewpoints of British people, including many who've never been in a church."

Why Is The Muslim World Repressed?

I just thought of something, and I wonder if anyone would like to weigh in on it. When you look at a map of freedom in the world, you see that Muslim countries have fewer freedoms of all kinds than the rest of the world. The whole Muslim world is ruled by kings and dictatorships, and the countries tend to be ruled in a very repressive way. Is there an exception anywhere? I can't think of one. Even in countries that have not been strictly ruled by Islamic law, such as Saddam's Iraq, the government still ruled with an iron fist.

It just occurred to me that when a huge percentage of a country is Islamic, maybe you have to rule with an iron fist. Muslims will push for Shari'a law relentlessly — violently when they can get away with it (non-violently if that's all they can do). The Islamic push is so persistent, so energetic, so resolute, so unyielding, and so relentless, maybe the only way to keep it from usurping power is to forcefully and even cruelly repress it.

So we have what we have now: Countries either repressively ruled by Islamic law, or countries repressively ruled by some other form of law. But no free countries.

Maybe any country that tried to have less repression and more freedom could not survive and it has already been usurped by Islam. In other words, maybe the only non-Muslim governments in Muslim-majority areas that can survive the relentless onslaught are totalitarian, tyrannical regimes.

What do you think?

Taking the Jihad Temperature - A Gathering Storm Special Series - INFILTRATION

If you throw a frog into boiling water, he will jump out. If you put it in cold water and slowly turn up the heat, he will not notice the rise in temperature and will eventually boil.

By seeing the boiling water around us, we can see how far the boiling has progressed.

The good news is that we are noticing that the water is getting warmer. There is a glimmer of awareness here - a glimmer of hope there. But we have a long way to go.

Here’s this week’s look back at the rising Jihad temperature of INFILTRATION!!

The Proof’s In the Survey

They are:

Which nation do you owe allegiance to? The country you live in of the ummah?
Do you adhere to the Sharia Law or the secular laws of your country?

If their answers are:

The ummah
Yes

1. Are you a U.S. Citizen? (If no, then don’t fill out survey.)
YES 307
NO 0

2. Do you consider yourself to be a Muslim first, an American first, or both equally?
MUSLIM FIRST 214
AMERICAN FIRST 4
BOTH EQUALLY 86
UNDECIDED 3

There you go. A Muslim-American, not an American Muslim. Then this.

3. Is the American government at war with the religion of Islam?
YES 208
NO 79
UNDECIDED 20

No surprise here based on the response in question #2.

4. Can a good Muslim be a good American?
YES 292
NO 11
UNDECIDED 4

A perfect example of Taqiyya at work.

Textbooks and Jihad Merit Badges

The camel’s nose is the tent, folks. Will we permit the camel to follow?

Since 2003, several reports have documented bias and evasions in world history textbooks. Textbooks misrepresent Islam past and present, critics agree. They contain fallacies and untruths about jihad, sharia, slavery, status of Muslim women, terrorism, and international security. These reviews independently reach the same conclusions. Most conspicuously, history textbooks whitewash the meaning of jihad. Houghton Mifflin's seventh-grade text, Across the Centuries, has come in for singular criticism. Houghton Mifflin's books dominate the nation's largest state, but they are in no way worse on this score than competing textbooks. Textbooks make no distinction between sharia and Western law, and they pretend that women are making great strides in the Islamic world, when all evidence indicates otherwise. Social studies textbooks ignore the global ambitions of militant Islam. They fail to explain that Muslim terrorists seek to destroy the United States and Israel. They omit geopolitical goals that include theocracy and world domination by religion.

And how could this come about? You guessed it.

Islamic organizations led by the Council on Islamic Education act as domestic textbook "censors." Strictly speaking, since only governments censor books, the Islamists are merely agents of suppression, using educational publishers to do their bidding. Publishers ignore those who press them about motives, funding, legal status, and strong-arm tactics on the part of their Muslim "consultants."

The latest example.

The latest evidence of Islamist influence is California's adoption of History Alive! The Medieval World and Beyond. According to the History Alive! The Medieval World and Beyond front matter, the chief author-advisor on Islam is Ayad Al-Qazzaz, professor of sociology at California State University, Sacramento. Al Quazzaz is a Muslim apologist, a frequent speaker in Northern California school districts promoting Islam and Arab causes. Al-Qazzaz also co-wrote AWAIR's Arab World Notebook. AWAIR stands for Arab World and Islamic Resources, an opaque, proselytizing "non-profit organization" that conducts teacher workshops and sells supplementary materials to schools. With History Alive! The Medieval World and Beyond, TCI is trying to sell a textbook to California schools that takes dictation from Islamist sources. The proximate question is whether the state's department of education and state school board will let this happen.

When the Islamic Center of Boca Raton applied to the Gulfstream Council http://www.gulfstreamcouncil.org/0support.html for a charter to incorporate a Boy Scouts of America troop, they joined the approximately 95 Muslim troops nationwide. The BSA's national spokesman Gregg Shields told the Sun Sentinel that: "Boy Scout troops do not require that members adhere to a particular religious faith, as long as they profess belief in a higher power. We make so attempt to interpret God or the practice of religion. Really it's the role of the scout's family and his religious leaders. But what if the scout's family and religious leaders preach and practice jihad? This seems to be the case with ICBR, since the same website page which advertised the newly chartered troop also carries a piece claiming: "…it is the month of Jihad, and the first decisive battle in Islam, the Battle of Badr, occurred during Ramadan…"The same page which contains the Ramadan/jihad claim also announces a Boy Scout camp retreat with a sleepover on the ICBR grounds, perhaps a good opportunity to inspire the fledgling troop with tales of Mohammed's military conquests "...additionally the Messenger of Allah victoriously entered Mekkah during this blessed month" and explain why the "first decisive battle of Islam" represented only the beginning of a jihad to which they remain religiously obligated to wage.

And the activities of these troops are troubling.

Muslim scouts have been instructed on how to conduct Da'wa in a scouting situation, including being told to pray outside their tents in order to awake curiosity which then might lead to questions about religion. "The Muslim troops, in some ways, serve as goodwill ambassadors for their religion and people. They reach out to peers who might have little or no understanding of Islam and whose exposure to it comes from television images of terrorism and Muslim extremists. A Muslim Girl Scout troop from Santa Clara was featured in an ad campaign, "We're Americans and We're Muslims," sponsored by the Council on American-Islamic Relations. A picture of smiling Muslim troop members from a recent multicultural fair at the Islamic Center adorns the 2005 annual report of the Girl Scouts' San Diego-Imperial Council.

Read the rest at The Gathering Storm.

Pages

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

The Proof’s In the Survey

Textbooks and Jihad Merit Badges

Monday, September 29, 2008

Sunday, September 28, 2008

The Proof’s In the Survey

Textbooks and Jihad Merit Badges