Today's ChauvinisticManwhorePig (stand tall and be counted!) video brought to you by

Brantley Gilbert
G.R.I.T.S.
(Girls Raised In The South)

(thanks R.T.)

There is not now, nor was there ever ANYTHING to discuss between Israel and the Palestinians

Abbas: We will not recognize Israel as a Jewish state

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas told interviewers that he would not recognize Israel as a Jewish state, Israel Radio reported on Tuesday.

Abbas reportedly said that his position is no different from those Arafat present in previous negotiations, and that his staff is the same as Arafat's.

He also hinted that the PA may fall apart if there is no hope for a solution in the near future. He then repeated that the PA will not recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

Israel will simply have to make up it's mind to be a garrison state until Islam is reformed by humans worried about the lives of their children in the here and now

No Remorse: George Soros Worked As Nazi Collaborator Confiscating The Property of Fellow Jews - In This 60 Minutes Interview He Declares, "If I wasn’t doing it, somebody else would be taking it away"

Please ignore the Lyndon LaRouche crap in this video. The point is the 60 Minutes Interview with Soros.

"ALLAHU AKBAR" ENGRAVED ON CATHEDRAL IN FRANCE

BBC: 'Muslim' gargoyle adorns French cathedral

It has been traditional for stonemasons to be featured on gargoyles.

A Muslim stonemason in France has been immortalised by having his face carved on a gargoyle on the side of the medieval cathedral in Lyon.

Ahmed Benzizine - a 59-year-old master mason who worked on the renovation - was used as a model for the carving.

Next to it is an inscription in Arabic and French which reads: Allahu Akbar, God is Great.

Get the whole story at Astute Bloggers.

The Blaze:

Rare Color Footage of London Blitz Found in Attic

LONDON (AP) — Rare color footage of the bomb damage inflicted on London during World War II has surfaced on the eve of the 70th anniversary of the Blitz.

The dramatic footage shows the destruction of several London landmarks, including the flagship John Lewis store on Oxford Street.

The film was released Monday by Westminster Council to mark the start of the devastating German bombing campaign that began September 7, 1940, and continued until May 1941.

The film was found in the attic by the family of an air raid warden who shot it on the home movie equipment in use in the 1940s.

The footage also shows wartime leader Winston Churchill visiting bomb sites to assess the damage.

Jerusalem Post:

Abbas: No 'historic compromise' on Jerusalem, borders
By KHALED ABU TOAMEH
09/07/2010 13:35

In 'Al-Quds' interview, PA president says Palestinians won't recognize Israel as Jewish state, accuses PM of trying to "strip" Israeli-Arabs' rights.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas rejected Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's talk about an "historic compromise" and said there would be no compromises on core issues such as Jerusalem and borders.

Abbas also reiterated his rejection of Netanyahu's demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state. "We're not talking about a Jewish state and we won't talk about one," Abbas said in an interview with the semi-official Al-Quds newspaper. "For us, there is the state of Israel and we won't recognize Israel as a Jewish state."

Abbas said that in recent meetings with leaders of the Jewish community in the US, he made it clear that the Palestinians would not recognize Israel as a Jewish state. "I told them that this is their business and that they are free to call themselves whatever they want," Abbas said. "But [I told them] you can't expect us to accept this."

Abbas said that by raising the issue of Israel's right to be a Jewish state, Netanyahu was seeking to "strip" Israeli-Arabs of their rights and turn them into illegal citizens. He said that Netanyahu's goal was also to block any chance of Palestinian "refugees" from returning to their original homes inside Israel.

Asked about the possibility of dismantling the PA, Abbas said he did not rule out such an option if he reached the conclusion that the peace talks are hopeless. However, he stressed that this option was not on the table at present.

Dick Morris at Front Page Mag:

The Summer of Unemployment
Posted by Dick Morris
In our book “2010: Take Back America — A Battle Plan,” we write:

“The prospect we now face is not the intermittent up-and-down fluctuations of
unemployment we have had since the Great Depression. Thanks to Barack Obama’s
policies, we’re confronting the possibility of an unemployment rate that never
comes down, just as they have in Europe. If we stay on Obama’s course, lower
joblessness in the United States will be a thing of the past.”

The recent rise in unemployment back up to 9.6 percent and the loss of 54,000 jobs in August suggest that our prediction is — dismally — coming true.

The Obama stimulus plan has finally kicked in: The higher spending he brought to our nation and the debt levels that are accompanying it are the result.

Why is unemployment remaining so high? Because the totality of Obama’s policies are dragging us into a depression.

— The prospect of dramatically higher taxes next year is freezing consumer spending, particularly in the upper-income ranges, which spend a third of America’s consumption.

— The huge changes that are looming in medical care brought about by Obama’s health care legislation are freezing new employment and expansion in the medical sector, which accounts for 16 percent of gross domestic product.

— The financial reform legislation has so raised the prospect of a federal takeover of any bank that makes “imprudent” loans that financial institutions are afraid to lend, freezing new job creation.

— The looming possibility of cap-and-tax legislation in the name of halting climate change is freezing any expansion in the manufacturing and energy sectors, since these policies will force jobs to move overseas to locations that do not impose such a tax (e.g. India and China).

— The massive expansion in the deficit and in the resulting debt has so eroded confidence in our nation’s future that Americans are now saving 6 percent of their income, up from 1 percent in the past, sapping consumer spending.

— The threat of new rules for union elections that will spread private sector unionization is freezing business expansion plans.

Obama’s rush to spend, regulate, re-engineer, redistribute and tax have stopped any recovery and are sending us back into recession.

In her wonderful book, “The Forgotten Man,” Amity Shlaes notes how FDR’s policies in the late 1930s did the same thing. She notes how the imposition of the Social Security tax in 1937 (benefits did not start until 1941) and the rapid wage hikes that accompanied the passage of the Wagner Act (steel worker wages rose 40 percent in 1937) sent a recovering nation back into a new depression that lasted until the war started in 1939.

In his haste to remake America and bring us the “fundamental change” he promised as he campaigned for president in 2008, Obama has torpedoed the recovery and sent us back into a double-dip recession.

The answer is to cut spending back to pre-Obama levels, reduce taxes and eliminate the threat of tax increases, zero fund the changes Obama has legislated in health care (and repeal them in 2013), eliminate the threat of cap-and-tax and lay the basis for solid economic growth.

We have left the recession that started in 2007 and entered a new recession caused by Obama’s policies.

American Spectator:

What Bibi Is Thinking
By Robert M. Goldberg on 9.7.10 @ 6:08AM

So much spin from so many mavens.

They think they know what makes me tick, what will shape my decisions. But they are really trying to tell me what to do. The left-leaning journalistas think Israel's Holocaust obsession (their crude phrase) will lead the Jewish State to attack Iran. They are joined by American Jews for whom self-defense and Israeli security are more problematic than Palestinian terror.

I know what my opponents told President Obama and his team. That I bend to pressure and will cave to American interests. So they tried to intimidate me and Israel by condemning the construction of a few apartments in a crowded Jewish neighborhood in Jerusalem more viciously then they condemned terror.

I did not waver. To me the President's statement was not just another example of a belief that "getting tough" with Israel was necessary to win over the Palestinians and Arab states and form a grand alliance to pressure Iran into not going nuclear. Every administration makes this mistake in one way or another. But Obama really believed that Israel needed to be brought down a peg. The American "silence" in the face of the Goldstone report and international criticism of our enforcement of the naval blockade was not just calculated but the product of a worldview in which democracies should defend themselves in terms acceptable to the UN.

All it did was signal to Abu Mazen that Obama could not be counted on to stand up to Iran or stand by us if we had to go to war again against Hamas, Hezbollah or Iran. And in the weird world of Middle East politics, Obama's words and deeds made Abu Mazen and other Arab states who fear Iran less confident about America. If I were Abbas I would dig my heels in too. Without America willing to stand up to terrorism (what was the deal about trying to sweet talk Syria out of transferring missiles to Hezbollah with promises of an American ambassador to Damascus?) he is weaker, not stronger. And by making settlements an issue the Obama administration made our "partner in peace" more vulnerable to Hamas.

Obama called the murder of four Israelis by Hamas terrorists "a senseless act of violence." Wrong again. It was a direct result of removing security checkpoints and turning the patrol of the highway where the four were killed to Palestinian security forces. And it's only the beginning.

Both my friends and enemies take my caution as a sign of weakness. But I've already made my decision: I will not let the West determine Israel's destiny. I told Obama, "We left Lebanon, we got terror. We left Gaza, we got terror. We want to ensure that territory we concede will not be turned into a third Iranian-sponsored terror enclave aimed at the heart of Israel."

The West will pressure Israel to take down even more security checkpoints, require the massive relocation of entire communities and the partitioning Jerusalem. And it will try again to entrust Israel's security to hapless international forces.

The only way a Palestinian state would not become a forward base for Iran and threaten Israel is if the West can guarantee that Iran will not have a military nuclear capability. The Palestinians and Arab states have a problem; to them peace is a smaller, weaker Israel limited by world opinion, perpetually indicted for acting in self-defense by the media and international courts. But a smaller, weaker Israel will be unable to prevent Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah from launching an attack or spreading weapons. That means Arab states would not support meaningful sanctions or military action against Iran to eliminate its nuclear weapons capability. I still don't know if Obama understands how all this is connected.

No one wants war. But the greatest threats to world security over the past 100 years are focused on exterminating the Jewish people. Days before The Six Day War, then-Prime Minister Levi Eschol told Menachem Begin he worried the risk of casualties and enraging Arabs more were too high. Begin told Eschol: "We are going to war. When an enemy of our people says he intends to destroy us, the first thing we have to do is to believe him. People did not believe Hitler. The Arabs say they want to destroy us and so we must believe them. We must seize the initiative and destroy our enemies first."

If forced, Israel will do the same today. The people of Israel have lived 3,800 years without American or international approval and it will continue to live for another 3,800. It may be the only way we can.

Washington DC: Islamists Alongside Code Pink’s Medea Benjamin Hold “Quds Day” Rally, Wave Hezbollah Flags, Blame 9/11 on da Jooos 

From Weasel Zippers:

George Soros: Monster

From Roger Simon:

Were I a biographer Soros would be my first choice for a subject. He is a paradigmatic figure for our times, a kind of a monster created in the twentieth century, inexorably metastasizing into the twenty-first.


Now I realize monster is a big word to call someone and I don’t use it lightly. It’s just the one that comes to mind — there is something almost inhuman about Soros.

Most of us know him as the multi-billionaire financier of ultra-liberal causes (love them or leave them) whose fortune, ironically, comes from currency speculation — the “man who broke the Bank of England” during the 1992 British pound currency crisis. Never mind that thousands lost their pensions in the process. It’s the breaks of the game — capitalism as practiced by a quondam anti-captialist.

But that’s far from the most troubling thing about Soros. What disturbs most is something you will not read about in his Wikipedia entry, except in the most veiled manner. Soros — who appears in the right-hand column of that entry as a “Hungarian American” and an “atheist” — is a Hungarian Jew who, when 14 at the height of the Holocaust, was, well… no Anne Frank.

The Ottawa Sun’s Ezra Levant, quoted by Kimball, puts it succinctly:

To survive, George, then a teenager, collaborated with the Nazis.
First he worked for the Judenrat. That was the Jewish council set up by the Nazis to do their dirty work for them. Instead of the Nazis rounding up Jews every day for the trains, they delegated that murderous task to Jews who were willing to do it to survive another day at the expense of their neighbours.
Theodore [his father] hatched a better plan for his son. He bribed a non-Jewish official at the agriculture ministry to let George live with him. George helped the official confiscate property from Jews.

Well, okay, you’re thinking — he was fourteen. Give the guy a break. And I must admit that I — a secular Jew like Soros — have occasionally speculated about how I would have behaved in similar circumstances. And, although in my fantasy I might be a noble resistance fighter, laying my life on the line against fascism the way Primo Levi and others have described it, I certainly have no way of knowing. I might have been a sleazy collaborator myself. But I do know this: if I had done something like that just to survive, it would have haunted me the rest of my days.

And here’s the really creepy part: not so George Soros. In a sutprisingly overlooked interview with 60 Minutes‘ Steve Kroft, Soros denied guilt or second thoughts about his World War II activities.
From Levant again:

How does Soros feel about what he did as a teenager? Has it kept him up at night?
Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes asked him that. Was it difficult? “Not at all,” Soros answered.
“No feeling of guilt?” asked Kroft. “No,” said Soros. “There was no sense that I shouldn’t be there. If I wasn’t doing it, somebody else would be taking it away anyhow. Whether I was there or not. So I had no sense of guilt.”

Somebody else would have done it. Sound familiar? It’s just the kind of excuse you might use when devaluing the British pound. A psychoanalyst might call it “splitting,” taking a part of your personality and splitting it off, as if there were two disconnected parts of you — the monster and the good citizen. The good citizen provides a mask, a disguise for the monster to do his work.

Am I calling Soros a disturbed person? In probability, yes. A man with two sides who is all the more dangerous for having both.

Page 1 of 2  Next ->

Great Moments In The History Of Islamic Human Rights Organizations

From Maclean's:

Let’s pretend for a moment that the London-based Islamic Human Rights Commission, an “independent, not-for-profit, campaign, research and advocacy organization,” really exists to champion human rights, as its website claims. Let’s even allow that, as an Islamic organization, it might be more concerned with human rights abuses perpetuated against Muslims. Its website, after all, urges readers not to be a “silent victim,” and to contact the organization if they have suffered anti-Muslim harassment or discrimination. One would assume, then, that the Islamic Human Rights Commission would be very concerned about the oppression, incarceration, murder, and rape of dissidents in Iran — almost all of whom, after all, are Muslims.


Asked about these events at a recent “Al Quds Day” rally, though, the IHRC’s chair, Massoud Shadjareh, replied: “I don’t know what you’re talking about.” I wonder why that is?

Shorebank and The Carbon Exchange - Potentially, The Largest Legal Heist In History

From Her Royal Whyness:

Shorebank failed Friday and it's deposits and most of its assets were acquired by a consortium of major U.S. financial institutions and philanthropic groups and will reopen under the name Urban Partnership Bank. Major investors in Urban Partnership include American Express Co., Bank of America Corp., Citigroup, Ford Foundation, GE Capital's equity investments arm, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Key Community Development Corp., Morgan Stanley, Northern Trust Corp., PNC Investment Corp., Goldman Sachs Group Inc., and Wells Fargo & Co. Former First Chicago executives who joined ShoreBank in recent months will run the bank. Sunday, September 05, 2010 1:27:00 PM

Read more »

R.L. Burnside
Hard Time Killing Floor Blues

Got Messed Up

Markos say what?

"Fact is, progressives hate the Taliban and other Islamic fundamentalists precisely for the same reason we hate rabid conservatives at home …"

This curious line is from American Taliban by Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas (page x of the Introduction). This may be the first sign that a leftist has come out and damned “Islamic fundamentalists.” Michael Moore use to call them “freedom fighters” in Iraq.

For close to a decade I’ve been reading National Review Online and they have condemned the anti-women anti-gay ethos of Islamic societies. They continually chide leftists for failing to condemn these Islamic practices. Where is the evidence that “progressives hate … Islamic fundamentalists?”

Ask Phyllis Chester, who has tried to get the left interested in the plight of women living under Islamic oppression. Ask Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who has exposed the suffering of women like herself in Islamic lands. Ask Bruce Bawer about anti-gay hatred among Europe’s Muslims. Ask David Horowitz who has continually called on the left to condemn the misogynist Islamic cultures. Ask Pamela Geller who continues to highlight victims of honor killings here in America.

The left was AWOL.

Sorry, Markos, we ain’t buying it. But if you are going to start vilifying “Islamic fundamentalists” do it ... don't posture.

More on Sharif el-Gamal

A quote from that CBS interview reveals another lie by el-Gamal: Pelley: Did it occur to you when you were putting this together that that was two blocks too close to a place that many, many people feel very strongly about? El-Gamal: Not at all. It did not even cross my mind once. REALLY?! It did NOT cross his mind - not even once? Is that why he pursued this purchase for EIGHT F**King YEARS?! Recall also this deceiver also claimed: ". . .In July 2009, the real estate company and developer Soho Properties, led by Sharif El-Gamal purchased the Burlington building “, initially planning to build a condominium complex at the site.” So, the msm simply ignores these inconsistencies so as to avoid confronting the reality facing them. Insert long string of foul profanity here.

Oh, and by the way - El-Gamal was not doing business as SoHo Properties when he purchased 1/2 the property and leased the other 1/2. The contract was made between the Pomerantz family and and a newly minted Llc - 45 Park Place Partners Llc. This Llc - limited liability corporation - has some unusual paperwork - in that this application lists "Registered Agents" as "None". New York State rules for Registered Agents mentions the following: Quote: ". . .Every state requires that an LLC organized under its laws have a registered (or "resident" in some states) agent at a physical location within the state. The purpose is for the government to be able to deliver official documents to the LLC. The most likely documents are tax forms and notice of lawsuits." Also Quote: " . . .The registered agent must have a physical address in New York, a Post Office Box or Drop Box is not acceptable. If the registered office includes a suite number, it must be included in the registered office address." I don't know how significant that detail is, but it is clearly missing information that is required by law. About that eight years of negotiating, lusting for the prize . . . The son of a bank executive, El-Gamal has said he turned to Islam after 9/11 and that his religious awakening followed a troubled youth. -New York Daily News Still think it NEVER CROSSED HIS MIND?

Peace-Loving Muslims

A thought to ponder from Jason Pappas:

German isn't Nazi. The peace-loving German should have opposed Nazism. One can denouce Nazism and still be a German.

Muslim is Muslim.

How does the average peace-loving Muslim, who might be lax or confused about Islam, denouce Islam and still be a Muslim?

The so-called fanatics have the Koran and Hadith on their side. The lax or lapsed Muslim has nothing but a wish that the fanatics would shut up about the all this jihad stuff.

Wishes make for passive side-liners who let it all happen.

Stevie Ray Vaughan
Crossfire

German View of Islam

The author of this is said to be Dr. Emanuel Tanya, a well-known and well-respected psychiatrist.

A German's View on Islam

A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism. 'Very few people were true Nazis,' he said, 'but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.'

We are told again and again by 'experts' and 'talking heads' that Islam is the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectre of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.

The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.

The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the 'silent majority,' is cowed and extraneous.

Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.

The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet.

And who can forget Rwanda , which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were 'peace loving'?

History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points:

Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence.

Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend from Germany , they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.

Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late. As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts--the fanatics who threaten our way of life.

That Spinning Sound You Hear Is General Patton

This just makes my hair hurt. Since when does a general of the US military, in the field, express concern about protests against the ENEMY that are being conducted at home?

I don't care whether Terry Jones' "burn a Koran Day" idea is a "good" one or not. He and his church are not committing censorship or preventing anyone from obtaining their very own copy of the Krayon. Assuming they bought those Korans and didn't cat-burgle a mosque, this protest of theirs falls under acts of free speech, period. (It doesn't get anywhere near "yelling fire in a crowded theater" because there is no rational reason for anyone to react to it by rioting and killing.)

This is so infuriating that if I weren't going to be in NYC at the GZ protest -- NOT holding a sign for some reason -- I'd be down there in Florida holding Terry Jones' coat for him.

If some moron decided to stage a "Burn Atlas Shrugged Day" I'd say meh, the more fool he, and ignore him. The fact that Muslims are hysterical immature savages with no concept of individual rights is no concern of General Petraeus. His job is to KILL THE TALIBAN BASTARDS, not to worry about whether their feelings are hurt.

And while we're at it, General, would you like us to destroy all remaining prints of those old Donald Duck anti-Nazi WWII cartoons? I suppose it might have been feared that such "offensive" expressions would "endanger" General Patton's Third Army. Care to guess what General Patton would have had to say about that?

Petraeus Warns Against Church's Koran Burning
Published September 06, 2010
FoxNews.com

A Florida church's plan to burn Korans on Sept. 11 isn't doing the troops in Afghanistan any favors, Gen. David Petraeus said Monday.

Hundreds of Afghans protested Monday in Kabul over the decision by the Gainesville, Fla.-based Dove World Outreach Center's decision to burn copies of what Muslims consider the word of God.

Petraeus said he's concerned that the protests could spread across the country.

"It could endanger troops and it could endanger the overall effort in Afghanistan. It is precisely the kind of action the Taliban uses and could cause significant problems. Not just here, but everywhere in the world we are engaged with the Islamic community," Petraeus said in a statement provided to Fox News.

Though Dove World Outreach Center has been denied a permit to hold a bonfire, the Koran burning is still scheduled to proceed on Saturday. The burning -- set to mark nine years since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks -- follows a campaign last year in which the church distributed T-shirts that said "Islam is of the Devil."

In a blog on the church's website, writer Fran Ingram offered the groups’ reasoning for burning the Koran, arguing that it is not God's word and denies Jesus is the son of God, that Islam is totalitarian and that the religion teaches idolatry, paganism, rites and rituals.

"We are using this act to warn about the teaching and ideology of Islam, which we do hate as it is hateful. We do not hate any people, however. We love, as God loves, all the people in the world and we want them to come to a knowledge of the truth," the blog reads.

Other writings by the same blogger include headlines like "Islam is Cursed by Cursing Israel" and "The Koran: A Sorcerer's Scroll."

The U.S. Embassy in Kabul issued a statement condemning the church's plans, saying Washington was "deeply concerned about deliberate attempts to offend members of religious or ethnic groups."

But outside the U.S. Embassy, where as many as 500 protestors chanted "Long live Islam" and "Death to America," demonstrators argued that the church isn't acting of its own will.

"We know this is not just the decision of a church. It is the decision of the president and the entire United States," said Abdul Shakoor, an 18-year-old high school student who said he joined the protest after hearing neighborhood gossip about the Koran burning. [Get your sorry ass into a Taliban gang, Abdul, the Marines need you for target practice.]

Burning a Koran is considered by Muslims among the most offensive actions taken against Islam. In 2005, 15 people died and scores were wounded in riots in Afghanistan sparked by a story in Newsweek magazine alleging that interrogators at the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo Bay placed copies of the Koran in washrooms and had flushed one down the toilet to get inmates to talk. [Can't make up their effing minds, can they? Which is it that's offensive, burning them or tossing them in the toilet to put them out?] Newsweek later retracted the story.

Fox News' Mike Emanuel and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

The Fatal Links of Servitude

Guest Commentary by Edward Cline:

Quo Vadis, Redux

I sometimes imagine myself in the role of a latter day Roman contrarian, living in a time of my country’s certain dissolution on the eve of an invasion by barbarian hordes bent on loot and conquest. On one hand, will granting twelve million illegal, mostly Mexican aliens the right to vote and so skew the November election returns, secure for Democrats their continued occupation of Congress and President Barack Obama the freedom to “transform” the country? The Democrats have been put on notice by the electorate that they will be bounced, so will they resort to underhanded immigration reform and gerrymandering to ensure their hegemony?

On the other, will the country be inundated with hordes of Muslims, whose first allegiance is to the Islamic Ummah, whose creed regards the Constitution as an abomination? I would not be the first observer to note that illegal (and even many legal) Mexicans and Muslims harbor a peculiarly insular and ingrained xenophobia for their adopted country and a bizarre fealty to the countries they fled.

There is a synergistic linkage between submission to Islam, even to Christianity, and to Congress. All three institutions require, insofar as obeying the “law” is concerned, absolute and unquestioning obedience. These forces complement and buttress the other.

In Islam’s Koran -- and this is applicable to Christianity and Congress, as well -- there are no optional laws, proscriptions, and commands to observe or obey. It is all or nothing, either immediately, or in increments or stages over a lifetime. Once set in motion, however, regardless of the schedule, the observance and obedience cannot surcease unless the perils of submission are identified and the submission repudiated.

A modern Petronius might ask of the influx and presence of Muslims, as, in Henryk Sienkiewicz’s Quo Vadis, Petronius might have asked about Christians: Who are these strange people who cling together in this weird, joyless cult? What is this creed that brags so loudly and insistently that it is peaceful and loving? All I can espy, milord, are crossed scimitars on a black banner. I am sure they are not banquet carving knives. Is it the peace of the conqueror over the conquered that the cult offers? Its glossolaliac shamans do not say. They speak in tongues, behind the Thespian masks of comedy and tragedy.

The spectacle of grown, articulate adults believing in supernatural beings, whatever their names, attributes, characters, and legends, baffles me. Many authorities on Islam and its jihad subscribe to the notion that there are "moderate" Muslims who condemn terrorism in the name of Islam. Aside from its obvious totalitarian nature, what is there to Islam that stakes a claim to a "moderate" Muslim's devotion and loyalty to it? What is it about Islam that beguiles thinkers and observers, who concede its cruel, utterly primitive character, that it can be made benign? Is it the altruist morality of self-sacrifice and selflessness, which it shares with Christianity and practically all other creeds? Is it the seductive language of its "pacific" imperatives in the Koran and Hadith to do "good" and be civil to and tolerant of Muslims and non-Muslims alike?

Of all the religions I detest -- and oppose as an observer and critic, not as a obsessed proselytizer -- I detest Islam the most, because of its totalitarian nature (of governing every aspect of one's life and thinking, as Christianity did in the Dark and Middle Ages, up until the Enlightenment); because of its endless checklist of disparate, arbitrary imperatives both banal and belligerent; because its "prophet" was a barbarian, who, besides his belief in faith or force, is a personification of some unattractive personal characteristics which past and present Islamic theologians do not deny existed; and because its deity, Allah, is perhaps a worse psychopathic being than Jehovah of the Old Testament.

I recently came upon a site that features the “scientific” Koran. Reading the rationalizations of the various Suras is akin to reading the fortunes one finds in Chinese cookies. The language of the verses is so vague that it can be interpreted any way one wishes. It is elaborate tarot card reading. They are unintentionally humorous. It is like comedian Professor Irwin Corey declaiming and expecting one to take him seriously.

The Koran, unlike the Bible, does not cite Original Sin as one of man’s failings. It actually professes that men have a choice to follow good or evil. Only the instances of good and evil cited in the Koran are a bewildering kaleidoscope of virtues and sins. In Islam, however, there is a form of Original Sin; the only men who are innately evil are non-believers. Allah commands them to be enslaved or extinguished.

The relationship between the doctrine of Original Sin and the alleged necessity of regulating men by faith or force is also synergistic. Because men are by their nature irrational and criminal, men must be controlled by a moral code that sets them against their “nature.” Unquestioning faith in authority, selflessness and self-sacrifice, all redeem a person in the eyes of God or society. These are the links between Christian doctrine, Islam, and collectivist ideologies.

If man has any trace of innate (or potential) “evil” in him, it is the capacity to abdicate the responsibility for thinking, and surrender to the temptation to defer to the collectivists in the moral sphere. It is easy and requires no effort to otherwise maintain one’s life. One can have one’s mind and body without the burden of maintaining one’s freedom. All the abdicator asks of his master -- whether it is God, society, or government -- is to be allowed a modicum of time to pursue his own selfish values without interference. He cedes all his other time to authority.

But to abdicate and surrender is to sanction -- ultimately -- the full range of servitude over one’s existence, to defer to the “moral authority” of God or society or government, is to grant unlimited power over one’s every action and value. As the narrator of “Three Things You Didn’t Know about Islam” emphasized, there is no picking and choosing.

To secular statists like Obama and his Congressional and appointive cohorts, the American “original sin” is to have been born in independence. Americans, to them, need to “get religion” of the socialist/fascist kind, and just keep quiet.

Can Islam be reformed?

Christianity underwent reformation over several torturous and bloody centuries. In the end, in the West, religion was largely separated from the state. Why? Because one crucial element in Christian (and Jewish) doctrine emphasized one’s personal, private salvation and state of grace beyond the approval or control of any established authority, religious or secular. This was the wedge that allowed, over a few centuries, exponential swaths of dissension to be achieved, some measure of tolerated questioning. It led to much turmoil within Christianity itself, such as Henry II’s conflict with Thomas à Becket, Henry VIII’s conflict with Thomas More and the Church, and Martin Luther’s conflict with the Vatican, and so on. These conflicts within a moral system also contributed to the development of a philosophy of individualism vis-à-vis political power. The United States was the first to incorporate the idea of a necessary separation of church and state into its political philosophy.

But, in Islam, the union of religion and politics is essential to its existence. Dissension, questioning, and doubts about theological authority are absolutely and utterly forbidden on pain of death, except over picayune matters that do not create umbrage over the core tenets. One without the other would make them mutually irrelevant and impotent. Islam is a political/religious ideology, very similar in theory and in practice to Nazism and Communism. That is its prime identity. I think that many perceptive non-Muslim critics of Islam and some more thoughtful Muslims believe Islam can be "reformed." I do not think it can be "reformed" without killing it. Subject its doctrine to moral surgery to remove its belligerent, homicidal, racist, and rapacious elements, and what would be left but a creed as pacific as the Quaker or Amish? It could no longer be "Islam," but something else entirely.

The most important organ to remove from Islam would be its heart, the codified, nihilist hatred for life and existence.

As an atheist, I can score Christianity for as many valid reasons as I can Islam (or any other creed that claims fealty to a supernatural being, and that asserts that such an entity was the "first cause" of everything). But believing in a pacific Jesus Christ who counseled passive altruism and non-violence, and believing in the words of a barbarian who bypassed persuasion and resorted to the scimitar to spread his "faith," are two different things. Christ was a "flower child" to Mohammad's Attila the Hun. Mohammad is the source of all that "radical extremists" and "moderate passive" Muslims believe. Muslims, imams, mullahs, and rank-and-file of the two dominant sects, Sunni and Shiite, do not budge on that point. They are quite pentecostal on the matter. Mohammad received the word of God through the angel Gabrial, and that cannot be questioned. Jefferson, a Deist, held Christ to be his ideal man. I think he was wrong to and I do not esteem him any the less for that error. But who in his right mind would esteem Mohammad as an "ideal man" and practically a saint? One may as well elevate Hitler, or Mao, or Pol Pot.

Do the "moderate" Muslims rationalize Islam and compartmentalize it so they can get on with living? If they feel it necessary to compartmentalize it in their minds, wouldn't that suggest its impracticality as a guide for living on earth? I observe the same phenomenon in Christians and followers of other creeds, and I would pose the same question to them, as well. I think that attempting to "reform" Islam would not only be a dangerous enterprise -- its more doctrinaire spokesmen would raise holy hell and call for fatwas on anyone who tried it -- I think it would be a futile and profitless enterprise. Islam, like Christianity, must be renounced and repudiated in its entirety, and reason and rationality proclaimed in all things moral and political.

I do not think there is such a thing as "radical Islam." There is just "Islam." The "radicals," or the terrorists, are the ones implementing it in its purist, most consistent form, just as Mother Teresa practiced selflessness in India, acquiring her “saintliness” by keeping her fingers in the sores, wounds, and diseases of her charges. One may as well make the false distinction between Nazism and "radical Nazism" or between Communism and "radical Communism." Islam is more an ideology than it is a religion.

The religious elements of Islam are identifiable, and buttress the political or ideological elements (Allah, miracles, angels, Paradise, etc., all other-worldly). Islam can command the same loyalty and conformity as would a straight "...non-religious" ideology such as Nazism, which had its own here-on-earth mysticism (the "race" or the German Volk) to "justify" its programs. Like Communism, it promised a better life for Germans "in the future." Aside from these differences, Islam and Nazism each found the other compatible as ideologies. Islam had a god, the unknowable Allah (by way of Mohammad), and Nazism had as its "prophet," Hitler. But the religious element is there, and so it is proper to refer to Islam as a political/religious ideology.

Mohammad the barbarian can no more be removed from Islam and Islam remain “Islam,” than can Christ the flower child or Moses the Law Giver be removed from Christianity and Judaism and those creeds retain their moral suasions.

In the main, however, one can view Islam as a purely political ideology, because, first, it requires literal submission to all its imperatives, in the same way federal law can override and subsume state and local law; not to mention Constitutionally guaranteed individual rights; and second, because its stealth jihad acts as a corrosive to insinuate itself into the “democratic“ secular jurisprudence of a nation. Its chief goal is to establish political hegemony. When viewed from this perspective, the religious element becomes a secondary factor. But together, the political and religious elements constitute an all-encompassing theocracy.

The Conservative Alternative

In a classically conservative article on what is necessary to move American away from socialism and collectivism, Adam Graham, in “To Reform Government, Reform the Culture First,” asserts, among other things, that “In the end, the majority of the world has little in common with the libertarian archetypes of Howard Roark or John Galt. We will either have strong families, strong houses of worship, and strong communities, or we will have strong government to take the place of all three.”

This triumvirate of cultural requisites for the survival of America is false. I am sure there are countless liberals, leftists, and welfare statists (the legislator and beneficiary kinds) who have “strong families,” attend “strong houses of worship,” and live in like-minded “strong communities.” The world may not now have little in common with the figures of Ayn Rand’s Howard Roark and John Galt, but its survival depends on how soon men recognize their value as individuals not beholden to God or society. They stand in stark contrast to what Mr. Graham claims are the fountainheads of moral strength. He does not dwell on why families, churches, and “communities” establish “moral strength.”

How does having or growing up in a “strong family” imbue one with the value of limited government? No answer. How does regularly worshipping a supernatural being instill the value of limited government”? No answer. How does living in a “community” move one to advocate limited government? No answer. In Rand’s novels, Howard Roark was always at odds with the architectural “community” of his time, while John Galt walked out on one that sought to condemn him to a lifetime of servitude to it.

To be sure, Mr. Graham is correct in saying that “We cannot effect a permanent reduction in the size and scope of government, or meaningful government reform, unless we change our culture’s demand for the government to provide our every need.” Conservative politicians, both the religious and middling kind, share with the collectivists the same altruist morality that is responsible for “big government.” Because they do not or will not challenge the morality of selflessness and self-sacrifice, all they have been able to do is simply endorse the more “radical” programs proposed and enacted by the more blatant collectivists, and merely criticize the size and cost of those programs.

I have always questioned the fearful reluctance of conservatives to champion the likes of Howard Roark and John Galt, or to acknowledge that they are the fundamental models of what this culture needs more of. I have always suspected that these heroes represent a morality as much a perilous nemesis to conservatives as they represent to the Obamas and Pelosis of the world. Roark and Galt are deemed “too extreme” examples of individualism. But in the final analysis, their “extremism” is precisely what makes living and innovation and progress possible, and their freedom to live and act for their own reasons are primary requisites, not families, churches, or society. No productive individual honestly acts out of a sense of family, church, or society. If he claims he does, he is deceiving himself and perpetuating a fraud.

The Question of “Is” And a Big Hunk of Stuff

Why cannot men just accept the fact that existence exists? Why must existence -- the universe -- have a prior or "first cause“, usually ascribed to a supernatural ghost whom no one has seen (except Moses) and who seems to be a bit shy about showing His face (unless it is in the form of “miracles“ and catastrophes that claim millions of lives and cause incalculable destruction and burning bushes and a divine derriere)? Scientists have kept going further and further back in time to date the “Big Bang.” But, was there ever such an event?

What is the nature of this obsession with “first causes” and the “Big Bang”? The two phenomena -- God and this measureless hunk of stuff (was it square, round, or Platonically “extra-dimensional?) that just exploded to form galaxies and everything else -- are manifestations of the same fallacy. They are conceptual doppelgangers. What caused the big hunk of stuff to explode? Aha! It must have been God snapping his fingers! For if this big hunk of stuff had existed for measureless time, why could it not have continued in that state? What caused God to snap his fingers? Was he bored with having this big hunk of stuff as his sole companion? Was he in a mischievous mood? One cannot imagine that the hunk of stuff was very talkative.

But, wait -- where did He come from? What are His antecedents? Can he produce a birth certificate? How did He come by his whimsical powers? What is His true gender? Or does that question apply? Is He genderless? How long has He been around? Or is “time” an inappropriate measurement? How did he occupy his time (not yet invented) throughout eternity? Did he just sit on His throne, tattooing His fingers on the not-yet celestial armrests, and then yawned? No answers are forthcoming, nor will they ever be found because God’s existence requires proof of a positive, and that will never be accomplished, because…there is no evidence. The concept of God and the concept of a “Big Bang” of a hunk of stuff that just grew tired of being a big hunk of stuff (was it mater as we know it, or just incomprehensible fairy dust?) are two sides of the same coin.
It is an illogical fallacy that philosophers and theologians have been wrestling with for centuries, sometimes as allies, sometimes with mutual, finger-wagging animosity, trying to find answers from the perspective of "infinite regression," which is as impossible as attempting to square a circle. Those who follow the path of infinite regression will find only madness. They simply cannot fathom the concept that existence exists, and has always existed in one form or another. I have always been skeptical of the "Big Bang" theory, anyway. It exactly parallels belief in a supernatural being. It is a “first cause.“ But no one has been able to credibly reconcile the existence of either as mutual phenomena. There was God, and there was this big hunk of stuff (not yet "matter" or "energy") floating in an indescribable void (the “nothingness“ of space, which to exist, must have at least two objects by which to measure it). Their other alternative to the exploding big-hunk-of-stuff hypothesis is that God simply wished existence into existence.

Then they face the questions of: What is He made of? And where did He get the idea of "existence"? If space and matter had yet to be created, where exactly did He exist? Believers will reply that such questions invalidly assume that God’s (or the big hunk of stuff‘s) resident venue of spatial dimensions is similar or are our own. After all, before God snapped his fingers, or the big hunk of stuff exploded, there were no “spatial” measurements. But if we can assume no commonality of spatial attributes -- if we cannot even know them -- why should we bother with speculation on what cannot be known?

A long line of philosophers, from Plato to Kant to Nancy Pelosi (she of the pass-the-bill-so-she-can-let-you-see-what’s-in-it school of reality) averred that we cannot know anything for certain or at all. The same approach applies: Why bother contesting the non-rational or the irrational?

You see that this cannot be resolved rationally. It is a close cousin to that hoary old lawyer chestnut, "When did you stop beating your wife?" The big-hunk-of-stuff argument and the supernatural argument both rest on the premise that there must have been a "first cause," which is an invalid application of cause and effect, which can only be applied to what one can perceive as real, that is, to what is, and not to what is unproven, unknowable, or impossible.

I can hardly improve on James M. Kaufman’s humorous queries to President George W. Bush about how to observe Jewish (and, by implication, Christian and Islamic) religious law. Kaufman is Professor Emeritus at the University of Virginia’s education department I will merely settle for this observation about Moses.

According to Exodus, 33:21-23, the Lord said, “Behold, there is a place by me and thou shalt stand upon a rock. And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a cleft of the rock; and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by. And I will take away mine hand and thou shalt see my back parts,” First, He appears to Moses as a burning bush. He, in effect, then moons him. What bizarre behavior. Then, like Mohammad, he has a secret meeting with God (or his envoy) and descends the mountain with the Ten Commandments and God knows whatever other instructions.

Furthermore, Moses was not what one could call a “nice guy.” He was as barbaric as Mohammad. Numbers 31 reports him as ordering his Israelite soldiers to kill every Midianite woman, boy, and non-virgin girl; virgin girls were shared amongst the soldiers. The Israelites killed the kings of other tribes. Moses was no exemplar of civil behavior, either. One could take bets on a contest between him and Mohammad on who was the most homicidal, rapacious, and looting. And his dealings with other tribes could be deemed “sharp practice,” in the same sense that Barack Obama, Charles Range, Barney Frank, and Nancy Pelosi could be charged with it.

I have always thought the Bible was just as bad and bloody-minded as the Koran. In fact, I suspect that the Koran is largely a knock-off of the Bible with great dollops of dogma and ritual borrowed from other Roman Empire and post-Empire creeds. Christian dogma, itself was a shameless shoplifter of other doctrines and dogmas, particularly pagan ones. It had a head start and began accumulating texts and apocryphal tales long before Mohammad's ear was bent by the angel Gabriel. He and Islam burst upon the scene a few centuries later. Only the names and places have been changed to protect the guilty and various tongue-in-cheek plagiarists who contributed to both texts over the centuries.

I am certain that the authors of the Koran cadged from the Bible and from other creeds. Both tracts emanated from the Mideast. The similarities between the Old Testament, which is about the adventures and longevity of primitive tribes (the bloody-minded and begetting and enslave and slay unbelievers part of the Bible, together with a psychopathic deity) and the Koran (with the same descriptive elements), which is a unified whole, with no "old" and "new" parts to it (except later verses or suras), are too eerie. Christ may have been an actual historic person, but probably one of many who "died for your sins" on a crucifix. Perhaps he was selected by lot by later authors of the Bible. It would be interesting to learn why him, and not someone else. (Recall Monty Python's The Life of Brian.). Mohammad may have been an actual historic person, as well, and I am inclined to believe he was, given how touchy Muslims are about him, because he was nothing to boast about. But on the other hand, that touchiness (excuse me, "sensitivity") may be rooted in their own suspicion that he was as fictive and attractive as Jabba the Hutt. No other religion shares so many prophets: Christ, Abraham, and Moses: Did the Koran cadge them, too?

Another aspect that makes me think Islam copy-catted Christianity's texts (and whatever actual holy books existed during Rome's decline and the beginning of the Dark Ages) is the Ten Commandments. I cannot help but suspect that the Muslims (Moslems, Mohammedans, whatever) seized on them and added about three or four dozen commandments of their own to fill out a pretty thin Koran. Then there is the anti-Jewish element in the Koran, which probably stems from the Hebrew tribes' conflict with Mohammad during the Arabian Peninsula conquest and his finally taking Medina. The Hebrews, after all, were just one of many such Semitic tribes in the region. And you must wonder when and how the anti-Jewish element evolved from being a mere difference in religious doctrine to an ethnic hatred of Jews, because everyone living in that region in that period was Semitic.

I fly in the face of countless academic careers and theological authorities here. It is the similarities in content and message in the Old Testament and the Koran that makes me think the Koran is a knock-off of early Christian holy texts, before the latter were assembled into one book, the Bible. Compilation of the Koran began probably after Mohammad's death in 632 A.D., and was added to and refined as circumstances permitted or allowed for centuries after. Islam was, after all, in direct competition for "men's souls" up to and during the so-called Islamic "Golden Age," it was the only truly rival creed, all the others having perished for a variety of reasons. Islam’s "birth" was about 500 years after Christianity's, and so there was a wealth of ready-made content Muslim theologians could adapt and tweak for their own purposes and claim was the true and only "word of God." After all, we have only their word for it that the Koran which exists today is the same which existed in Mohammad's time.

Deadness. That is what I see in Muslims here. Which is why I call them manqués -- human in form, but otherwise lifeless inside. Soulless and incomplete, from choice. Zombies who wish to feast on the flesh of the living. More so than in Christians and Jews, because Islam really does govern every aspect of a Muslim's life. I have no sympathy for them, and do not think "religious freedom" is their primary concern. No one who allows that to happen to him should be respected. Despised, yes. And it is a special malevolence in the creed and in the more "activist" ones -- not the terrorists -- but in the "community" types who are sanctimonious about their creed and "way of life," that should be identified and excoriated. Islam is not a way of life. it is a way of death, of living death.

The Last Link

Our federal government, together with Congress, also presumes it is a “first cause” of freedom, a font of freedom of speech, of property, of religion. Those “freedoms,” of course, are the inviolate political expressions necessary for men to live and trade together in organized society, “organized,” not by government, but by the nature of men. Those freedoms do not originate with government. They originate in man. They are recognized as rights by government, whose purpose is to defend them. Government cannot “big bang” legitimate, non-coercive rights into existence, it cannot simply wish them into existence. It can only invent privileges at the expense of real rights.

So, every time I hear a Democrat pronounce on the power of the federal government to compel Americans to buy health insurance or to submit to its edicts, I am reminded of a line from The Jerk, in which Steve Martin, a nouveau riche imbecile and ignoramus, instructs the sommelier in an elegant restaurant, “No more 1966. Let’s splurge! Bring us some fresh wine! The freshest you’ve got -- this year. No more of this old stuff.” Obama, Pelosi, Frank, Dodd -- the whole fascist/socialist crew -- treat those liberties as that-was-then-this-is-now “old stuff,” and insist on serving Americans their bogus “fresh wine.” They are as ignorant and crude as Martin’s Navin R. Johnson -- but with this difference: They truly know what they are doing.

And those are the links between mysticism, belief, submission, and power that together form a chain being fitted around our minds, necks and ankles. Does anyone hear the clanking?

Crossposted at The Dougout

Muslim Wants Culturist Discrimination Against Muslims in the U.S. Military

Through a wave of conflicting and ironic multicultural platitudes, Private First Class Nasser Abdo has made the case for, at very least, discriminating against Muslims in the military.  Abdo joined the military in April of 2009.  Since then, he has filed for conscientious objector status because, he says, one cannot be true to their Muslim faith and fight for the U.S. in Afghanistan.  He is right.  Private Abdo’s case perfectly illustrates why the military must drop multiculturalism and employ discrimination.[i]

Abdo’s multicultural hypocrisy is common when he claims that he was irrationally discriminated against while simultaneously asking for special treatment because his cultural differences are so significant that we should pay attention to them. When facing any discrimination, after calling you racist, multiculturalists claim that culture provides no rational basis for discrimination.  Multiculturalists, you see, do not really take culture seriously.  But, they then turn around and tell you that culture is very important when they want special treatment.[ii] 

Either we should take culture seriously or we should not take culture seriously.  Aldo makes a powerful case for discrimination when he tells the media that fighting in the US military runs counter to his “maintaining his Islamic faith.”[iii]

Of course, I do not hold out much faith that we’ll learn Abdo’s lesson.  Even after US Army Majory Nidal Hassan killed 13 people on a military base in the name of Islam, the military continues to enroll Muslim into its ranks. That is because politically correct multicultural thinking forbids all historical and logical thought that question its precepts by calling such thought intolerant, racist, and discriminatory.[iv]

Abdo showed just how completely multiculturalism has destroyed our ability to think when no one laughed at the obvious falsehood of his statement that, “Islam does not allow me to operate in any kind of warfare.”[v] In no forum has he been asked about the concept of Jihad.  Even Fox News blithely avoided editorial commentary on his quote that “"Islam is a peaceful religion, it's not a religion of warfare." And so, multicultural logic dictates that 1400 years of Islamic military expansion from Spain to India to 9 – 11 must be ignored to further the idea that all cultures adhere to the same values.[vi]

If we have any hope for learning about cultural diversity, it will have to come from Islamic media.  All non-Western nations assume a culturist, rather than a multiculturalist, perspective. They routinely take their culture’s side in textbooks, international diplomacy and, even, television.  While Aldo claimed that universal culture-neutral precepts embodied in Islam prevented him from being violent in our media, he told Al-Jazeera he wanted out of the US military because Islam told him he was, “forbidden to kill Muslims.”  The implication, of course, is that he could kill non-Muslims. [vii]

Wanting it both ways, again, multiculturalists often take the globalist tact of invoking the “world community.”  Abdo advocated stopping war in the Middle East by “coming together as a community and portraying Islam as the peaceful religion that it is.”  In this explanation he calls the Islamic community his community.  But immediately after he claimed we need “a spiritual approach, the community approach, the diplomatic approach” for peace in the Middle East.  Herein the world community has no sides.  Again, with multiculturalists and their globalist brethren, in one sentence culture exists and the next minute it melts away.  

Notwithstanding Abdo’s historical and cultural ignorance, the military must assume that the very fact of War negates the ideal of the “world community.”  The military, by its very nature, cannot entertain such multicultural pap.[viii]

When Private Abdo told his people via Al-Jazeera television, “I Don’t believe I can involve myself in an army that wages war against Muslims” he provided a slew of valuable culturist lessons. Cultural identity is important and conflict between civilizations persists.  This statement also gives lie to multiculturalists’ universal “global community” sentiment.  And, since the West’s wars will likely be against Muslims for the foreseeable future, Aldo’s honest and truthful estimation of the influence of culture on the individual provides adequate justification for keeping Muslims out of our military.[ix]  

For good measure, Abdo complained that in the military, “There were racial slurs.”  Well the obvious fact of the matter is that there were no racial slurs.  Abdo is white.  If there were slurs they were about his religion.  And religions are not races.  We can clear up this dangerous conflation by using the word “culturist.”  The slurs referred to his culture, not his race.  We should thank Abdo because he has not only shown us the irony in multiculturalists not wanting to consider culture unless they want special treatment, he has shown us how spurious their charges of racism are.

As a culturist, I concur with Private Aldo.  He and the Islamic Fort Hood massacre demonstrate that Muslims should not be in our military.  But to make this a policy, the military must drop multiculturalism’s blindness to culture in favor of culturism.  As its very reason is fighting conflicts between civilizations, the U.S. military cannot safely entertain the multicultural platitudes that have crippled civilian discussion and reasoning.  The military must separate irrational racism from rational culturism. Private Aldo declared that he could not, “Serve both the US Army and his God simultaneously.”  We must listen to Private Aldo.[x]  

John K. Press, Ph.D. is the author of the Book, “Culturism: A Word, A Value, Our Future.”  www.culturism.us has more information about culturism.

---

[i] Free Nassar Abdo Website,  http://www.freenasserabdo.org/

[ii] The Atlantic Journal, History Repeats in Anti-Islamic Mood, http://www.ajc.com/opinion/history-repeats-in-anti-605758.html

[iii] CNN Interview, http://www.freenasserabdo.org/2010/08/cnn-interview.html

[iv] Wikipedia, Fort Hood Shooting, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting

[v] CNN Interview, http://www.freenasserabdo.org/2010/08/cnn-interview.html

[vi] Fox News, U.S. Soldier, Citing His Muslim Religion, Seeks Conscientious Objector Status, Joshua Rhettt Miller, Sept, 02, 2010, http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/02/muslim-soldier-refuses-deploy-afghanistan/

[vii] The Middle East Media Research Institute, August 21, 2010, http://www.memri.org/clip_transcript/en/2594.htm

[viii] Interview with KPFA’s Aimee Allison, http://www.freenasserabdo.org/2010/09/interview-with-kpfas-aimee-allison.html

[ix] The Middle East Media Research Institute, August 21, 2010, http://www.memri.org/clip_transcript/en/2594.htm

[x] CNN Interview, http://www.freenasserabdo.org/2010/08/cnn-interview.html

Sharif el-Gamal

Thanks to Will.

15 years ago Sharif el-Gamal was hustling cell phones at the Roosevelt Field Mall on Long Island NY, anything for a buck. During the late 1990's and up to 2002 Sharif El-Gamal was waiting tables at Serafina’s Restaurant and Michael’s on West 55th Street in New York City and brother Sammy El-Gamal was waiting tables at Tao Restaurant on the Upper East Side of Manhattan NY, from there they both broke into the real estate business by renting apartments on commission, they were not selling any properties at this time.

 

Sharif el-Gamal's guarantor's (co-signer) on a $39 million mortgage, Hisham Elzanaty, is evidently the same person listed as having contributed $1,000 to Obama's campaign, as well as numerous other donations to other politicians, including recently to Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a mosque supporter. Hisham Elzanaty is the owner of several medical companies run out of a building in the Bronx. East Tremont medical center is a clinic. In the reception area, there is a picture of Elzanaty proudly posing with his staff.  But as state records show, Hisham Elzanaty was ordered to repay more than $331,000. An audit showed that one of his companies was overpaid by Medicaid, see more info below.

 

Monday, November 1, 1999 Passengers aboard Flight 990 included Egyptian parents of Hisham Elzanaty.Just hours after Hisham Elzanaty, 40, of Searingtown, New York, put his parents on their plane home to Cairo Egypt, he was awakened with the news that their flight was missing. 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/501347.stm

 

Is Hisham Elzanaty the real money behind the mosque?Is he putting up the money to build a shrine for his parents for further glory of Islam?

 

http://pibillwarner.wordpress.com/2010/08/26/exclusive-sharif-el-gamal-bio-hustling-cell-phones-at-the-roosevelt-field-mall-in-li-to-mega-real-estate-deals-with-hisham-elzanaty/

 

 

"El-Gamal had his eye on the property for years before buying it in 2009. CBS News interview of el-Gamal clarifies:
Pelley: Did it occur to you when you were putting this together that that was two blocks too close to a place that many, many people feel very strongly about?
El-Gamal: Not at all. It did not even cross my mind once.
Pelley: Why not?
El-Gamal: Because I did not hold myself or my faith accountable for that tragedy.
El-Gamal didn't spring this on the neighborhood. He says it took eight years to negotiate the purchase. EIGHT YEARS OF NEGOTIATING! El-Gamal closed on this property Jul 16, 2009, just two months shy of the eight year anniversary of 9/11. IT IS NO COINCIDENCE that the property in question at GROUND ZERO was a coveted prize given El-Gamal's own recollection of "EIGHT YEARS" of negotiations.
El-Gamal was lusting for this conquest while the city of New York was still blanketed in the ash containing incinerated human flesh. By his own account, according to this CBS interview, el-Gamal & company (full disclosure please) were negotiating a piece of 9/11 while families were yet to be notified of the status of missing loved ones, while volunteers were carefully pulling apart the tangled carcus of both towers, gingerly hand filtering and cateloging personal artifacts from Islam's act of war on 9/11.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/30/eveningnews/main6820511.shtml

German Banker Hits Nerve With Anti-Muslim-Immigration Book

From AFP:

His publisher is rushing to print more copies of "Germany Does Itself In" to meet demand. Online retailer Amazon.de has a massive 207 reader reviews on its website, with the average score 4.4 stars out of a possible five.

The Social Democrats (SPD), the centre-left political party Sarrazin belongs to, has been inundated with thousands of letters, emails and phone calls attacking the central bank board's desire to expel him.

"Listen to the voice of the people for once," Spiegel quoted one of the almost 4,000 emails as saying.

In the book, Sarrazin says Europe's top economy is being undermined, overwhelmed and made "more stupid" by poorly educated, fast-breeding, badly integrated and unproductive Muslim immigrants and their offspring.

"If I want to hear the muezzin's call to prayer, then I'll go to the Orient," he says, saying that allowing in millions of "guest workers" in the 1960s and 1970s was a "gigantic error."

He also says that Turkish and Kurdish "clans" have a "long tradition of inbreeding," leading to higher rates of birth defects, and ponders whether this might be one reason for immigrants' poor school performance, Spiegel said.

As 9/11 Approaches ...

From Trencherbone:

As 9/11 approaches, expect crocodile tears from 'moderate' Muslims who will quote cancelled verses from the Koran to explain how Islam is a religion of peace.

Don't believe a word of it, Islam encourages them to tell lies to fool gullible non-Muslims.

Their only loyalties and moral obligations are to one another, and they believe all non-Muslims are 'najis' - filth on a par with urine and feces.

Zakaria calls him a jihadi and extremist and interviews him anyway

Fareed Zakaria interviews Anjem Choudary, who has defended both the 7/7 London attacks and 9/11 and calls for the imposition of Sharia in England.

On the Caliphate News Network

(thanks to Felix)

The Religion Of Peace

In the guise of religion

Watching Inside 9/11 on NatGeo.

They are talking about before that day, inside mosques all over America, groups of radicals were gathering. That Imams were preaching jihad.

What is so different today? The planner of the mosque in New York is known for his radicalism, yet nothing is being done about the plans. All in the name of protecting freedom of religion?

Is that part of the constitution going to be our death knell?

Under the guise of religion, a group of radicals are still able to gather and plan our destruction.

Wouldn't want to offend the Imam by doing any type of investigation, would we?

It is only a matter of time before their plans will be complete and a day much blacker than 9/11 will be before us.
.
What will it take before eyes are finally open about islam, the NOT religion.

10,000 dead? A couple of schools? Or, suicide bombers at Walmart.

It's not like they have given up you know.

And what better place to privately plan the destruction than a mosque. Protected by the constitution of the country you are plotting to destroy.

And of course if anyone tries to ask too many questions, plenty of American/Muslim attorneys, ACLU and african americans to stand up for your rights to practice your religion.

LOL, fuck you America.