Tuesday, February 28, 2006

Islam the religion, versus Islamism, the totalitarian political movement

Pakistani children during after school activities"Islam" is a religion. "Islamism" is a word that is being used by some authors, to describe the fascist POLITICAL movement that is growing and organizing in and around the religion of Islam. Fascists know they cannot persuade through argument or debate, so they resort to violence and intimidation. It's been done before by the Nazis, and it's now happening again, under the guise of a religion.

David Warren has an excellent essay, titled "Oncoming", in which he talks about the growing movement of Islamism, and how the path it is following is the same as many fascist movments before it, most notably the Nazis. Unfortunately, the insufficiant responce by the rest of the world is also a path that has been followed before. Some excepts:

This will be my 11th consecutive column, directly or indirectly on the “Danish cartoons” issue. The cartoons themselves were a red herring from the start -- a fake issue, trumped up by fanatical Muslims seeking grievances to abet a confrontation, and thereby extract concessions from the West. It is a fire, still being stoked around the world by radical “Islamists”, using shameless lies and misrepresentations...

...It is only in retrospect that we understand what happened as the 1930s progressed -- when a spineless political class, eager at any price to preserve a peace that was no longer available, performed endless demeaning acts of appeasement to the Nazis; while the Nazis created additional grievances to extract more.

This is precisely what is happening now, as we are confronted by the Islamist fanatics, whose views and demands are already being parroted by fearful “mainstream” Muslim politicians. We will do anything to preserve a peace that ceased to exist on 9/11. Not one of our prominent politicians dares even to name the enemy...

(bold emphasis mine) He ends the essay with a segment of a speech given recently in Berlin by a young woman, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali-born politician in the Netherlands. It's a warning, that we all need to heed.

You can read rest of the article HERE.

Two other articles I've found interesting today:

Iraqi People Continue to Disappoint the Pessimists
By Jack Kelley. An excerpt:

...Both Sunni and Shia religious leaders have called for calm. The Moqtada al Sadr, whose militia was in the forefront of the retaliatory attacks on Sunni mosques, prayed publicly Saturday with the Sunni Association of Muslim Scholars. Thousands of ordinary Sunnis and Shias joined together in half a dozen Iraqi cities to demonstrate for peace.

"We have much more evidence of a strong national unity movement in Iraq," said Iraqi Web logger Haider Ajina of the weekend demonstrations. "This attack was supposed to plunge Iraq into sectarian mayhem and senseless massive killing. This did not happen."

These peaceful demonstrations for peace drew little attention from a news media that is eager to report on a civil war, even if it isn't happening.

"Nearly every Iraq story is inaccurate," wrote Ben Connable, a Marine major stationed in Fallujah, in an email to a friend. "The numbers are inflated, the damage exaggerated, the estimates are misleading, and the predictions are based on pure conjecture, often by people far removed from the problem."

"The Iraqi military and police forces have held together and they are doing their jobs," Maj. Connable said. "In 2004, the Iraqi military and police all but collapsed. The fact that Shia soldiers who make up the vast majority of the troops have stayed at their posts, held back the Shia militiamen, and prevented an increase in violence is remarkable. This should be one of the feature stories on the nightly news, but it barely received mention." ...

(bold emphasis mine) You can read the whole article HERE.

Just because you're Islamophobic
. . . doesn't mean you're wrong

By Kathleen Parker. Some excerpts:

...Other justifications for the sale appear to be reasonable -- not least that Dubai Ports World is reputedly competent at managing ports -- and might be convincing if only someone bearing the title President of the United States would articulate those reasons in a spirit of respect rather than as a dismissive parent managing an impudent child.

We're at war, remember? We're fighting terror...

...When 19 men of Middle Eastern descent hijack airplanes and murder thousands on U.S. soil, reasonable, fair-minded people are not going to pretend not to notice that the perpetrators are all Middle Eastern men of a certain complexion. That's not racist, though it may be racially aware. It's not Islamophobic, though a little phobia isn't always inappropriate. I'm cautious around snakes even though many are non-poisonous.

The Bush administration could have defused much of the controversy now swirling had officials clearly explained the practical (business) value of allowing the sale to go through, as well as the larger purpose of demonstrating open-minded goodwill toward allies. Instead, as is too often the case, Bush effectively said, "Trust us. We're in charge; we're on top of this; we'll take care of it." ...

I think Ms. Parker has understood this perfectly. This whole ports deal doesn't sound good to me on the face of it, but I WOULD be willing to hear explainations in support of it. People want the facts, and there is no reason they should not have them.

Ronald Reagan was called "the Great Communicator". George W. Bush is not described that way, for good reason. It's an area he really needs to work on. Too often he fails to realize that he needs to explain. And even in the war effort, he needs to keep the reasons and issues about why we are there, front and center in the publics mind. He certainly can't rely on the Media to do that for him.

You can read the whole of Kathleen's article HERE.

Hat tip to Nealz Nuze for the links.

Hat tip to Michelle Malkin for the photo of the Pakistani school children.

Monday, February 27, 2006

Nasar Khader, moderate Muslim politician, is largely ignored by MSM

Syrian born Nasar Khader, a moderate Muslim and a member of the Danish parliament, displays a tattoo on his upper arm, which says "Democracy" in Arabic.

Naser Khader, MP in the Danish Social-Liberal Party, calls himself "Muslim light" and is insulted by the Cartoon Jihad; his democratic convictions have been insulted, and he demands an apology, but not from the Danish or the cartoonists. From an article called "I Feel Insulted", published in Berlingske Tidende 31. January 2006, Section 2, Magazine, page 15. Here is an excerpt:

...Therefore, as a Muslim and a democrat, I want to stress that: I (and many others) do not feel offended by the drawings. But I do feel deeply insulted that where there was earlier a tradition for religious satire in the Middle East it now seems that a satirical stance on religion has become the privilege of the West. And I am offended that freedom of speech, the press, and artistic expression is predominantly the preserve of the Western world. Why are we not fighting here in Denmark for the right of Muslim artists to enjoy the same privileges as their Western colleagues?

I find it insulting that we in Denmark hear demands for an apology to Saudi Arabia’s fundamentalists instead of demands for democratic freedoms for everyone, Muslims included.

Why don’t we condemn Saudi Arabia’s outrageous failure to implement democratic systems of government? Why does religious insult carry more weight than democratic insult?

Many column inches could be filled debating the wisdom of Jyllands-Posten’s decision to publish the drawings. The same columns could be devoted to discussing whether they amount to more than common provocation. Or whether the government could have acted differently. But it is of course excellent that the foreign minister is now ‘calming frayed tempers by diplomatic means’. Dialogue, yes. Apology, never. What would he apologise for? That we don’t intervene in freedom of the press and freedom of artistic expression? Who should he apologise to? Saudi Arabia?

If anyone should apologise it is Saudi Arabia. Apologise for its open contempt of human rights, its scorn for freedom of religious expression, and its systematic repression of equal rights. For taking away women’s right to vote, for refusing them a passport without the husband’s consent, for crediting their testimony with the validity half that of a man, and for forbidding them something as trivial as driving a car. For the poor and underpaid Philipino Christian guest workers put in jail merely for possessing a personal bible. Apologise for punishment under Sharia. For punishing theft by amputation and alcohol consumption by whipping. For stoning to death for adultery and homosexuality - I could continue...

I find it very interesting that he puts the blame for the cartoon controversy firmly at the feet of Saudi Arabia, home of the radical and intolerant Wahhabi sect, which hates all images of living beings, and other objects it claims will induce Muslims to commit idol-worship. Their fanaticism on this subject is so extensive, that the Saudis are currently engaged in extensive vandalism of ancient Islamic architecture on their own territory; recently they demolished five ancient mosques in Medina, including one built by Fatima, the prophet's daughter. Why is the western MSM allowing THESE extremists to represent the whole of Islam?

In 2002, Mr. Khader made a speech which included the following:

The ten commandments of Democracy

1. We must all separate politics and religion, and we must never place religion above the laws of democracy.
2. We must all respect that all people have equal rights regardless of sex, ethnicity, sexual orientation or religious beliefs.
3. No person must ever incite to hatred, and we must never allow hatred to enter our hearts.
4. No person must ever use or encourage violence – no matter how frustrated or wronged we feel, or how just our cause.
5. We must all make use of dialogue - always.
6. We must all show respect for the freedom of expression, also of those with whom we disagree the most.
7. No person can claim for themselves or assign to others a place apart, neither as superior persons, as inferior persons or as eternal victims.
8. We must all treat other people’s national and religious symbols as we wish them to treat ours – flag-burning and graffiti on churches, mosques and synagogues are insults that hinder dialogue and increase the repression of the other party.
9. We must all mind our manners in public. Public space is not a stage on which to vent one’s aggressions or to spread fear and hate, but should be a forum for visions and arguments, where the best must win support.
10. We must all stand up for our opponent if he or she is subjected to spiteful treatment.

That sounds better than excuse making for cartoon rioters, doesn't it? So why don't we hear more from truely moderate Muslims like him? Why is the western media allowing the Wahhabist sect to speak for the whole of Islam? Are the Saudis using their vast wealth to buy influence? They finance many Muslim groups in the U.S., who seem to have the ear of the MSM. We hear very little about moderate Muslims in the U.S. You can find out about them if you hunt for the information. If it wasn't for the internet, would we even hear about them at all?

You can visit the English version of Nasar Khader's website www.khader.dk. H.T. to the post "Democratic Muslims" at the Danish Mohammed Cartoons blog, for the photo and the link to Khader's website. Please visit there for more information too.

Sunday, February 26, 2006

Sunday Funnies 02/26/06

That Al Gore IS funny, isn't he? Perhaps he's just following Bill Clinton's example of bashing America when speaking overseas. Hat tip to The Chatterbox Chronicles for the comic.


A lawyer went duck hunting in rural Texas. He shot and dropped a bird, but it fell into a farmer's field on the other side of a fence. As the lawyer climbed over the fence, an elderly farmer drove up on his tractor and asked him what he was doing. The litigator responded, "I shot a duck and it fell in this field, and now I'm going to retrieve it."

The old farmer replied, "This is my property, and you are not coming over here."

The indignant lawyer said, "I am one of the best trial attorneys in the United States and, if you don't let me get that duck, I'll sue you and take everything you own."

The old farmer smiled and said," Apparently, you don't know how we settle disputes in Texas. We settle small disagreements like this with the "Three Kick Rule."

The lawyer asked, "What is the Three Kick Rule?"

The Farmer replied, "Well, because the dispute occurs on my land, first I kick you three times and then you kick me three times and soon back and forth until someone gives up."

The attorney quickly thought about the proposed contest and decided that he could easily take the old codger.

He agreed to abide by the local custom.The old farmer slowly climbed down from the tractor and walked up to the attorney.

His first kick planted the toe of his heavy steel toedwork boot into the lawyer's groin and dropped him to his knees.

His second kick to the midriff then made the lawyer loose his early morning breakfast.

The lawyer was on all fours when the farmer's third kick to his rear end sent him face-first into a fresh cow pie.

The lawyer summoned every bit of his will and managed to get to his feet. Wiping his face with the arm of his jacket, he said, "Okay, Now it's my turn."

The old farmer smiled and said, "Naaaaaah, I give up now. You can have the duck."


Here is an interesting photo from the inside of a public toilet in Switzerland. Hat Tip to Blah Blah Blog - The Soap Box, click the link for the full explanation.


About a century or so ago, the Pope decided that all the Jews had to leave Rome. Naturally there was a big uproar from the Jewish community. So the Pope made a deal. He would have a religious debate with a member of the Jewish community. If the Jew won, the Jews could stay. If the Pope won, the Jews would leave.The Jews realized that they had no choice. So they picked a middle aged man named Moishe to represent them. Moishe asked for one addition to the debate. To make it more interesting, neither side would be allowed to talk. The Pope agreed.

The day of the great debate came. Moishe and the Pope sat opposite eachother for a full minute before the Pope raised his hand and showed three fingers. Moishe looked back at him and raised one finger. The Pope waved his fingers in a circle around his head. Moishe pointed to the ground where he sat. The Pope pulled out a wafer and a glass of wine. Moishe pulled out an apple. The Pope stood up and said, "I give up. This man is too good. The Jews can stay."

An hour later, the cardinals were all around the Pope asking him what had happened. The Pope said, "First I held up three fingers to represent the Trinity. He responded by holding up one finger to remind me that there was still one God common to both our religions. Then I waved my finger around me to show him that God was all around us. He responded by pointing to the ground and showing that God was also right here with us. I pulled out the wine and wafer to show that God absolves us from our sins. He pulled out an apple to remind me of original sin. He had an answer for everything. What could I do?"

Meanwhile, the Jewish community had crowded around Moishe. "What happened?" they asked. "Well," said Moishe, "First he said to me that the Jews had three days to get out of here. I told him that not one of us was leaving. Then he told me that this whole city would be cleared of Jews. I let him know that we were staying right here.""Yes, yes,.. and then???" asked the crowd. "I don't know," said Moishe, "He took out his lunch, and I took out mine."


A few more Mohammed TV shows:

You can see more here at Fark.com.


1. If raising children was going to be easy, it never would have started with something called labor.

2. Brain cells come, and brain cells go, but fat cells live forever.

3. The difference between the Pope and your boss: The Pope only expects you to kiss his ring.

4. My mind works like lightning. One brilliant flash and it is gone.

5. The only time the world beats a path to your door is if you're in the bathroom.

6. I hate sex in the movies. Tried it once. The seat folded up, the drink spilled and that ice, well, it really chilled the mood.

7. It used to be only death and taxes were inevitable. Now, of course, there's shipping and handling, too.

8. A husband is someone who, after taking out the trash, gives the impression that he just cleaned the whole house.

9. My next house will have no kitchen -- just vending machines and a large trash can.

10. A blonde said, "I was worried that my mechanic might try to rip me off. I was relieved when he told me all I needed was turn signal fluid."

11. I'm so depressed. My doctor refused to write me a prescription for Viagra. He said it would be like putting a new flagpole on a condemned building.

12. My neighbor was bitten by a stray rabid dog. I went to see how he was and found him writing frantically on a piece of paper. I told him rabies could be cured and he didn't have to worry about a will. He said, "Will? What will? I'm making a list of the people I want to bite!"

13. Definition of a teen-ager? God's punishment for enjoying sex.

14. As we slide down the banister of life, may the splinters never point the wrong way.

15. I signed up for an exercise class and was told to wear loose-fitting clothing. If I HAD any loose-fitting clothing, I wouldn't have signed up in the first place.

16. When I was young we used to go "skinny dipping". Now I just "chunky dunk".

17. The early bird still has to eat worms.

18. The worst thing about accidents in the kitchen is eating them.

19. Don't argue with an idiot; people watching may not be able to tell the difference.

20. Wouldn't it be nice if whenever we messed up our life we could simply press 'Ctrl Alt Delete' and start all over?

21. Stress is when you wake up screaming and then you realize you haven't fallen asleep yet.

22. My wife says I never listen to her. At least I think that's what she said.

23. Just remember, if the world didn't suck, we'd all fall off.

24. Why is it that our children can't read a Bible in school, but they can in prison?

- Author Unknown

And our Ted Kennedy Childrens Book Cover of the week:

And guest book cover:

Now and Beyond

On the day after Jack Benny's death in December, 1974, a single long stemmed red rose was delivered to Mary Livingstone Benny, his wife of 48 years.

When the blossoms continued to arrive, day after day, Mary called the florist to find out who sent them.

"Quite a while before Jack passed away," the florist told her, "He stopped in to send a bouquet. As he was leaving, he suddenly turned back and said, "If anything should happen to me, I want you to send Mary a single rose every day."

There was complete silence on Mary's end of the line, then weeping, she said, "Goodbye."

Subsequently, Mary learned that Jack had actually included a provision for the flowers in his will, one perfect red rose daily for the rest of her life.

A touching and romantic final gesture from a man born on Valentine's Day.

Saturday, February 25, 2006

The Nazi roots of the Muslim Brotherhood

This is a topic that really needs to be talked about more. I've been wanting to write about it, having learned quite a bit about it from Paul Berman's book, Terror and Liberalism (H.T. to Scott at the blog Demosophia, who told me about the book years ago).

Recently I found a good article at Frontpagemagazine.com, that gives a good background of the historical connections between Nazism and radical muslims groups like The Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. An excerpt:

...As described in its Charter (or Covenant), Hamas is the “Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood,” the movement known as “al-Ikhwan al-Muslemeen.” The “Brotherhood” was founded in Egypt in 1928 by the Islamic ideologue Hassan al-Banna (grandfather of today’s controversial Islamic activist Tariq Ramadan). His cornerstone assertion was that true Islam had been diluted and betrayed by Moslem politicians truckling to the West, and that the only way to set Islam back on a true path was to violently replace these traitorous Moslem politicians with true Islamic leaders who would make the Qur’an their nations’ constitutions and Shari’a their civil law. Ultimately, once the trans-national population of Moslems, known as the “umma” (the nation), was under the leadership of right-thinking religious Moslems who eschewed westernization and modernization, the whole concept of nation-states would dissolve and the Moslem “umma” would be united, from Mauritania to India, from Turkey to Yemen, and from Pakistan to Somalia, under one Islamic religious Caliphate.

In short, Hassan al-Banna wanted to take the Moslem world back to the 8th century, and use violence and murder, terrorism and assassination to do so. In the context of this Armageddon-type confrontation between a neo-Caliphate and modern Moslem states, al-Banna saw the Jews of the world (there was not yet a state of Israel) as a major enemy of diabolic proportions. He quoted Mohammed’s extra-Qur’anic teaching that the world would know ultimate redemption, and the resurrection of the dead, only when the Moslems had succeeded in annihilating all of world Jewry, or converting them to Islam. His words would later appear in the Hamas Covenant.

Al-Banna’s disciple was an eloquent writer and preacher, Sayd Qutb. Qutb lived for a bit more than a year in the United States, traveling and acquainting himself with American culture and social mores. His response to democracy and freedom was one of shock and horror. His writings, which lay the groundwork for modern “brotherhood” preaching, regard Western civilization in general, and the USA in particular, as manifestations of demonic licentiousness and sinful hubris. The Brotherhood’s goal must be the destruction of this ungodly and perverse society.

The Brotherhood quickly attracted to its ranks both those predisposed to violence and those for whom violence was only a means to restoring Allah’s will on earth, first with errant Moslem nations, and then with the nations that represented leadership in “global un-belief.” End-of-days rhetoric with apocalyptic prophesies, coupled with training and action in violent attacks on politicians, opposition religious leaders, and civilians, proved effective in drawing into its fold many thousands of followers.

By the late 1930s, Nazi Germany had established contacts with the Brotherhood, and the Haj Amin el-Husseini, father of Palestinian nationalism, was a close collaborator with Hitler. Not surprisingly, the Brotherhood adopted fascist trappings, language and symbolism. In fact, Sayd Qutb’s book “Our Struggle with the Jews” is reminiscent of Hitler’s Mein Kampf. Qutb simply changed the players. Instead of being the eternal enemy of the “Aryan race,” the Jews, in the perception of the Brotherhood, became the eternal enemy of Islam. His central theme was the Jews’ use of Christianity, capitalism and communism as weapons in their war to subvert Islam. Moreover, he re-interpreted history such that the Jews could be blamed for everything from the French revolution to Marxism, materialism, sexual depravity, World War I, World War II, and global poverty...

This article makes excellent reading for anyone who wants to better understand the fascist underpinnings driving radical Islam today. You can read the whole article here:

Hamas Uber-Alles


Friday, February 24, 2006

How do you converse with an Anglican Weasel?

British Conservative Author Melanie Phillips, who is an Anglican, wrote about a group that she was pleased about that was recently formed, called "Anglicans for Isreal". She felt it was much needed to challenge what she described as Anglican animosity towards Isreal. She wrote about why she felt this was an important development, and then described an encounter she had with an Anglican Cleric about Isreal. Here is an excerpt:

...'Anglicans for Israel', has opened its own website, found here, which contains articles that approach the subject of Israel and the Middle East in a spirit of fairness, truth and historical memory.

This is an immensely welcome development for two main reasons. First, it demonstrates that there are Christians in Britain who are motivated by principled impulses, a spirit of generosity and absence of prejudice towards the Jews and a sound understanding of the wellsprings of evil in the world. As a result, they will give heart to others who think like them but who until now have lacked a voice to represent their viewpoint against the decadent prejudices within Anglicanism. Second, they will provide a vital public challenge to those prejudices for Anglicans who genuinely do not realise that the world-view they take for granted as the moral high ground is actually a repository of moral inversion, historical ignorance and the discourse of racial hatred.

I recently found myself confronting this world-view in a conversation with a senior cleric in the Church of England. We had both just heard an account of Israel's history and society which to me was a travesty of the truth, omitting altogether the half-century of exterminatory Arab attacks on Israel, the vilification of Jews in Arab and Muslim discourse and the five year campaign of mass murder against Israeli citizens in the Oslo intifada. Instead, Israel's Jews were presented as motivated by an otherwise inexplicable racial prejudice against the Arabs and a desire to discriminate against them and generally do them down.

When I protested, the cleric declared that he wanted to understand my pain. I replied that my pain was caused by having heard an account of Israel that was not based on the truth and which would further deepen the already toxic prejudice against the Jews. To which this cleric replied that there was no one truth, and that we all had to respect each other's truths. To which I inquired whether this meant that we had to respect each other's lies -- which elicited the reply that these were merely 'competing narratives'.

So to this cleric, it seems, the Arab lie that, for example, Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians -- a lie which has the direct result of inciting the mass murder of Israelis -- has to be respected. Not surprisingly, therefore, he told me that the person to whose narrative I had objected was, to him, 'a hero'. For good measure, dismissing the fusillade of rockets that Hamas had just launched from Gaza against the Israeli town of Sderot, he declared that it was wrong for Israel to attack Hamas in response and that it should be talking to it instead.

When I inquired what they might find to talk about, since Hamas has a non-negotiable postion which happens to be the extermination of Israel, and wondered whether he would have similarly urged negotiations with Hitler instead of declaring war in 1939, he acknowledged that he too had been pondering that very scenario! But attacking Hamas, he persisted, would not achieve anything - a prediction dashed within hours, when after Israel had pounded Hamas positions and thus showed it would not tolerate such aggression but would defend its citizens with tenacity, Hamas was moved suddenly to re-impose its ceasefire...

As I read this, I experienced a severe case of "San Francisco Flashback". I can't tell you how many times, for years, in San Francisco, I had to endure people like this cleric, and their "non-discussion discussions" about whatever it was that they would avoid actually discussing with you. Those phrases: "I want to understand your pain", and "there is no one truth", and "we all have to respect each other's truths", and "these are merely 'competing narratives'". They are classic evasive manuvers. But in my years of living in San Francisco, I learned to understand the "weasel" language, and am happy to provide the following translations:

"I want to understand your pain"
"I'll pretend to care about your feelings, because it's easier to manipulate people emotionally"

"there is no one truth"
"it's not possible to really know what the truth is; therefore I can't be wrong, and there is no point in arguing"

"we all have to respect each other's truths"
"you AREN'T ALLOWED to critisize what I say, and I won't respond to what you say"

"these are merely 'competing narratives'"
"I will NOT respond to what you are saying, BITCH, so stop trying"

As we continue to live in a culture that finds these sort of non-answers acceptable in place of debate or discussion, we end up in a society that can no longer debate or discuss. It's creating an environment where political correctness gets to decide what can be said, by who, when and where, and even what comics can be published and viewed. I believe it is also contributing to the current attitude that says we have to respect lies, such as "Islam is the Religion of Peace, so we must respect all Muslims" despite what evidence we see to the contrary.

You can read the whole of Mellanie's article here: Anglicans for truth and decency.

Thursday, February 23, 2006

ISLAM; Religion of Peace, or Pieces?

We are continually told by the MSM that Islam is a religion of peace, even as many of it's adherents smash and break things to pieces, and hack people into pieces. We are told by Muslim rioters AND by our MSM that we must RESPECT Islam; therefore, we must not show cartoons or discuss things that offend; WE need to demonstrate good manners, taste, and self-restraint.

What a lot of patronizing, self-serving twaddle! I like to think that most of us don't need such instruction. After all, it's EASY to respect a religion of peace. Let these militant groups start to DEMONSTRATE that they are practicing one, or be treated like the POLITICAL totalitarian fascists that they are.

If the peace of Islam is in pieces, then they need to sort it out. If they want the PRIVILEDGE of being respected as a peaceful religion, it has to be earned. They can start by separating the political pieces of Islam from the religous ones, and start behaving like civilized people. We should be INSISTING on it, and not letting anyone tell us otherwise.

Here are two articles written by people who aren't afraid to ask real questions and to say what needs to be said:

Stand up for Denmark!
Why are we not defending our ally?

By Christopher Hitchens. An excerpt:

...The incredible thing about the ongoing Kristallnacht against Denmark (and in some places, against the embassies and citizens of any Scandinavian or even European Union nation) is that it has resulted in, not opprobrium for the religion that perpetrates and excuses it, but increased respectability! A small democratic country with an open society, a system of confessional pluralism, and a free press has been subjected to a fantastic, incredible, organized campaign of lies and hatred and violence, extending to one of the gravest imaginable breaches of international law and civility: the violation of diplomatic immunity. And nobody in authority can be found to state the obvious and the necessary—that we stand with the Danes against this defamation and blackmail and sabotage. Instead, all compassion and concern is apparently to be expended upon those who lit the powder trail, and who yell and scream for joy as the embassies of democracies are put to the torch in the capital cities of miserable, fly-blown dictatorships. Let's be sure we haven't hurt the vandals' feelings...

You can read the whole thing HERE.

Nonsense and sensibility
by Diana West. An excerpt:

...In another context, I wouldn't disagree with the readers' comments I quoted above. Indeed, I've been known to make similar arguments against all manner of fetid cultural excess, from lurid children's fiction to the notorious Sensation Exhibition at the Brooklyn Museum in which Dung Virgin first came to fame in 1999. (Or was that infamy? It's easy to get them confused.)

The topic of Dung Virgin, not to mention its companion piece in shock value, Piss Christ, strikes the Good-Mannerists as an important marker in their personal guides to press etiquette. Not grooving to such "artistic" attacks on Christianity, the Good-Mannerists say they can understand the consternation of the Cartoon Ragers -- at least to some point shy of death threats, arson and murder -- and see media self-censorship as a matter of common decency.

Is the comparison valid? And is the politeness deserved? Absolutely not, and here's one big reason why: Christianity and Islam are not interchangeable belief systems inspired by a generic divinity. One relevant distinction is the way they operate in relation to their societies. Christianity abides by the separation of church and state; Islam knows no separation whatsoever. As a result, the theological teachings of Islam as revealed by Muhammad, which form the basis of the Islamic law (sharia) that drives Islamic societies, necessarily belong to the political sphere in a way that Christianity does not.

This is not to say that Christianity should be, or has been, off the table. Indeed, all the ink (not blood) spilled over assorted Excrement Icons only enhanced their value, not to mention the reputations of their artists (using the word loosely). But the all-encompassing nature of Islam underscores a special need for open, critical examination of the Koran and Muhammad as political, and politically violent, forces that roil our times...

(bold emphasis mine) You can read the whole article HERE.

Wednesday, February 22, 2006

PIGLET strikes back...

... with help from Miss Piggy & Friends. Hilarious!
Thanks to Cox and Forkum, H.T. to Tammy Bruce.

And you may want to check out Tammy's post:
Bush Had No Idea About Port Deal

One again, Fox news changes it's tune...

Clinton's Favorite Country

"[It is] the only one with elections, including the United States, including Israel, including you name it, where the liberals, or the progressives, have won two-thirds to 70 percent of the vote in six elections...

In every single election, the guys I identify with got two-thirds to 70% of the vote. There is no other country in the world I can say that about, certainly not my own."

- Bill Clinton, speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, January 2005

Which country is he speaking of? Where is this wonderful, liberal country where the progressives get up to 70% of the vote? This wonderful country Bill Clinton speaks of is... IRAN.

Yes, Iran. I first heard about this in Tammy Bruce's book, The New American Revolution. Tammy wrote that when she heard that, she thought she must have misunderstood; even HE wouldn't say something like that. I thought the same thing... but it's true, he really did.

He said a great deal more too, of course. The Democrats like to bash America on foreign soil, to the applause of America haters, and Bill did his part (Al Gore would have been proud of him).

Recently, I came across an interesting article by Amir Teheri, that addresses many of the statements Clinton made. Here are some very revealing excerpts from Mr. Teheri's article:

...So, while millions of Iranians, especially the young, look to the United States as a mode of progress and democracy, a former president of the US looks to the Islamic Republic as his ideological homeland.

But who are “the guys” Clinton identifies with?

There is, of course, President Muhammad Khatami who, speaking at a conference of provincial governors last week, called for the whole world to convert to Islam.

“Human beings understand different affairs within the global framework that they live in,” he said. “But when we say that Islam belongs to all times and places, it is implied that the very essence of Islam is such that despite changes (in time and place) it is always valid.”

There is also Khatami’s brother, Muhammad-Reza, the man who, in 1979, led the “students” who seized the US Embassy in Tehran and held its diplomats hostage for 444 days. There is Massumeh Ebtekar, a poor man’s pasionaria who was spokesperson for the hostage-holders in Tehran. There is also the late Ayatollah Sadeq Khalkhali, known to Iranians as “Judge Blood”.

Not surprisingly, Clinton’s utterances have been seized upon by the state-controlled media in Tehran as a means of countering President George W. Bush’s claim that the Islamic Republic is a tyranny that oppresses the Iranians and threatens the stability of the region.

Clinton’s declaration of love for the mullas shows how ill informed even a US president could be.

Didn’t anyone tell Clinton, when he was in the White House, that elections in the Islamic Republic were as meaningless as those held in the Soviet Union? Did he not know that all candidates had to be approved by the “Supreme Guide”, and that no one from opposition is allowed to stand? Did he not know that all parties are banned in the Islamic Republic, and that such terms as “progressive” and “liberal” are used by the mullas as synonyms for “apostate”, a charge that carries a death sentence?

More importantly, does he not know that while there is no democracy without elections there can be elections without democracy?

Clinton told his audience in Davos, as well as Charlie Rose, that during his presidency he had “formally apologized on behalf of the United States” for what he termed “American crimes against Iran.”

But what were those “crimes”? Clinton summed them thus: “It’s a sad story that really began in the 1950s when the United States deposed Mr. Mossadegh, who was an elected parliamentary democrat, and brought the Shah back and then he was overturned by the Ayatollah Khomeini, driving us into the arms of one Saddam Hussein. We got rid of the parliamentary democracy {there} back in the ‘50s; at least, that is my belief.”

Duped by a myth spread by the Blame-America-First coalition, Clinton appears to have done little homework on Iran. The truth is that Iran in the 1950s was not a parliamentary democracy but a constitutional monarchy in which the Shah appointed, and dismissed, the prime minister. Mossadegh was named prime minister twice by the Shah and twice dismissed. In what way that meant that the US “got rid of parliamentary democracy” that did not exist is not clear.

There are at least two things that Clinton does not know about Iran and Iranians.

The first is that the claim that the US changed the course of Iranian history on a whim would be seen by most Iranians, a proud people, as an insult from an arrogant politician who exaggerates the powers of his nation more than half a century ago. The second thing that Clinton does not know is that in the Islamic Republic that he so admires, Mossadegh, far from being regarded as a national hero, is an object of intense vilification. One of the first acts of the mullas after seizing power in 1979 was to take the name of Mossadegh off a street in Tehran. They then sealed off the village where Mossadegh is buried to prevent his supporters from gathering at his tomb. History textbooks written by the mullas present Mossadegh as the “son of a feudal family of exploiters who worked for the cursed Shah, and betrayed Islam.”

Apologizing to the mullas for a wrong supposedly done to Mossadegh is like begging Josef Stalin’s pardon for a discourtesy toward Alexander Kerensky.

Clinton does not know that it was President Harry S. Truman’s energetic intervention in 1946 that forced Stalin to withdraw his armies from northwestern Iran thus foiling a Communist attempt to dismember the Iranian state.

Clinton does not know that if anyone has to apologize it is the mullas who should apologize to both the Iranian and the American peoples. He does not appear to remember images of American diplomats paraded in front of TV cameras, blindfolded, and threatened with summary execution every day — images that did lasting damage to the good name of Iran as a civilized nation...

And the Democrats really wonder why they don't win elections anymore? I wouldn't be suprised if Hillary Clinton is just as fond of the Iranian "progessives"; she seems to respect freedom of speech about as much as they do. You can read the whole of Mr. Teheri's article here:

Who Should Apologize to Whom?

Tuesday, February 21, 2006

Where is the support for the REAL moderate Muslims?

There are truely moderate Muslims, but we don't see them in the MSM.

The CBS program "60 Minutes" recently did a program of about Denmark and the Cartoon controversy, which was very critical of the Danes. Michelle Malkin recently published an email she recieved from a Danish citizen about the program. An excerpt from his letter:

...The people Bob Simon interviewed have played only minor roles in these debates. The imam Abu Laban has been exposed at inciting to boycott Danish products on Al-Jazeera and is therefore no longer used as a reference by Danish television. The others have various personal agendas to nurture such as the ex-foreign minister Uffe Ellemann Jensen, who now is retired but just couldn’t stay away from a brawl even when in office.

The Cartoon issue has set the snowball rolling here in Denmark. We have seen the emerging of a Moderate Muslim movement. The leader of this initiative is member of the Danish parliament and an immigrant from Syria, Naser Khader. This movement has been started on account of the damage to ordinary Danish muslims done by the lies spread by the Danish imams during their visit to Egypt and Lebanon last December. By the way, we have just learned that the Egyptian ambassador in Denmark was the main instigator to the explosion of violence, flag burnings etc. She has now been posted in South Africa...

The bold emphasis is mine. It seems that CBS didn't think Naser Khader was anyone worth interviewing, but did interview people who have been exposed as proven liars.

It is worth reading the whole letter on Michelle Malkin's site, the post is called A LETTER FROM DENMARK.

Here is more From Flemming Rose, the cultural editor of Jyllands-Posten, Why I Published Those Cartoons. (H.T. to Quincy at News, the Universe, and Everything):

...Since the Sept. 30 publication of the cartoons, we have had a constructive debate in Denmark and Europe about freedom of expression, freedom of religion and respect for immigrants and people’s beliefs. Never before have so many Danish Muslims participated in a public dialogue — in town hall meetings, letters to editors, opinion columns and debates on radio and TV. We have had no anti-Muslim riots, no Muslims fleeing the country and no Muslims committing violence. The radical imams who misinformed their counterparts in the Middle East about the situation for Muslims in Denmark have been marginalized. They no longer speak for the Muslim community in Denmark because moderate Muslims have had the courage to speak out against them.

In January, Jyllands-Posten ran three full pages of interviews and photos of moderate Muslims saying no to being represented by the imams. They insist that their faith is compatible with a modern secular democracy. A network of moderate Muslims committed to the constitution has been established, and the anti-immigration People’s Party called on its members to differentiate between radical and moderate Muslims, i.e. between Muslims propagating sharia law and Muslims accepting the rule of secular law. The Muslim face of Denmark has changed, and it is becoming clear that this is not a debate between “them” and “us,” but between those committed to democracy in Denmark and those who are not...

(bold emphasis mine) Doesn't that sound great? England and America ought to be taking notes on this, it's an example we could follow. But you won't here about it in our MSM, you just get warped stories from warped reporters like the ones at CBS.

Why? Because the MSM in Britain is heavily influenced by radical Pakistanis, and in the USA, the extremist Saudi Wahhabi sect dominates how we are allowed to discuss Mulsim issues, through a slew of groups they finance. Their influence on our government may even be manifesting in such issues as domestic security and the control of our ports by a State-run Arab company.

Why support extremists, when we could support true moderates instead?

Related Links:

The West as scapegoat
By Max Boot, Los Angeles Times

WHY ARE SO many Muslims so enraged by a handful of cartoons published in an obscure Danish newspaper? It's not enough to point out how the governments of Egypt, Syria and Iran are stoking the protests in a cynical ploy to deflect Western pressure for democratic reform and to curry favor with Islamic radicals. Their strategy wouldn't be so successful if it didn't resonate with deeply ingrained attitudes among the Muslim multitudes.

I got an earful of those views last week in Kuala Lumpur while attending a conference sponsored by New York University and the Malaysian Institute of Diplomacy and Foreign Relations. The ostensible subject was: "Who Speaks for Islam? Who Speaks for the West?" We never did answer those questions, but the infidel attendees did get a red-hot blast of indignation from the Muslim participants, who hailed not only from East Asia but also from Europe, North America, Africa, the Middle East and South Asia.

Even though all of the Muslim delegates were intellectuals, activists, politicians and other movers and shakers, they resonated with the rage of the dispossessed. With considerable justification, they fulminated against the backwardness of the Islamic world compared to the West. With considerably less justification, they blamed their frustrations on the West.

If only I had a ringgit for every time some delegate complained that the plight of the Palestinians showed the world's anti-Muslim bias. One attendee even had the gall to claim that Israel is allowed to violate U.N. resolutions while no Muslim state has that luxury — at the very moment Iran is thumbing its nose at the United Nations! This was coupled with ritualistic denunciations of other anti-Muslim offenses — from the real (Russian repression in Chechnya) to the farcical (a Pakistani academic blamed the CIA for creating Islamic fundamentalism in his country)...

You can read the entire article HERE.

The Muslim holiday of 'Ashoura': a bloody celebration of intolerance
...The observance of Ashoura is one of the most important events in the Shia calender. Ashoura marks the anniversary of the martyrdom of Husayn, grandson of the Prophet Mohammad, in what is now Kerbala, Iraq. The death of Husayn was the beginning of the Sunni/Shia split, which persists in Islam to this day.

In the past, many Shia men have demonstrated their devotion to Husayn by letting their blood flow freely from self-inflicted wounds. Today, however, many governments have tried to ban this practice, with varying degrees of success. In Lebanon, the practice is permitted, and a bloody commemoration of Ashoura takes place in Nabatieh every year.

Most participants make a small cut on their head, and then beat the wound with their palm--or in this case a sword--to keep the wound open and bleeding.

Participants then march in groups around the town, yelling chants to express their devotion to Husayn and the Prophet...

WARNING: link contains barbaric pictures of people cut and bleeding, including babies and children. It seems they mix politics and religion at this ... "festival", too. If you dare, you can see the whole thing HERE. I hope this isn't the sort of thing we are expected to be "tolerant" of. It's far more offensive than the Danish Cartoons could ever be, IMO.

More Fun From the Palestinians
Cartoons, videos and more. I don't think these folks qualify as moderates, do you? See what you think.

Monday, February 20, 2006

Muslim Deception and our
Government and Media

Recently the US Under Secretary of State Karen Hughes gave a speech in Doha, Qatar, for the U.S.-Islamic World Forum.

Most of the speech was pretty good, but there was one part where she said:
"...In my country certain racial and ethnic slurs are no longer used by civil people even though there is no law prohibiting it – and while newspapers would be free to publish them most would never do so – just as many American newspapers chose not to reprint the cartoons depicting the Prophet because they recognize they are deeply offensive, even blasphemous to the precious convictions of our Muslim friends and neighbors..."

I find it disquieting that she compares the innocuous Danish cartoons with racial and ethnic slurs. I disagree, there is a world of difference, but then how are any of us to judge the cartoons for ourselves or even discuss the issue intelligently if we are not allowed to see them? It would seem that Karen Hughes prefers that we don't. She needs to develop a backbone, and read the article by Flemming Rose, culture editor of the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, defending his decision to commission and publish the Mohammed Cartoons. A brief excerpt:
...Has Jyllands-Posten insulted and disrespected Islam? It certainly didn't intend to. But what does respect mean? When I visit a mosque, I show my respect by taking off my shoes. I follow the customs, just as I do in a church, synagogue or other holy place. But if a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy...

It's worth noting that only the fanatical Wahhabi sect (who control 80 percent of the Mosques in the US, with Saudi money) are against all images of Mohammed. It would seem that Karen Hughes is helping to perpetuate the erroneous view that this applies to all Muslims. Why encourage extremists to think they have a right to insist that
WE SUBMIT to their taboos?

The orginal Danish cartoons were published in an Egyptian newspaper months ago, without any riots occuring. No riots occured when the comics were originally published in the Danish newspaper last September. The riots are happening now because of a deliberate POLITICAL propaganda campaign, with false comics being circulated in the middle east that are much more offensive than the orginials, along with lies such as the Danish goverment controls the newspaper, and is going to ban and burn the Koran, the Danes are going to make a blasphemous movie about the life of Mohammed, etc. THAT sort of crap has got the masses all riled up, NOT the Danish cartoons. And since everyone is forbidden to publish the cartoons, nobody is exposing the lies. Most of the people rioting haven't even seen the cartoons, they have HEARD about them.

This isn't about the cartoons! It's politics masquerading as religion. Karen Hughes touches on that briefly in her speech, but then she goes into the politically correct BS, about how it is important to not publish cartoons that offend "our Muslim friends and neighbors". Once again, she is buying into the trap and making it about the cartoons. Karen, you dupe, WAKE UP: IT IS NOT ABOUT THE CARTOONS.

I am angry with Karen Hughes. Why? Because it is HER JOB to confront and discredit propaganda. She has incredible resourses available to her for this purpose, and yet she is doing way too much butt kissing of the very people we ought to be confronting, which only adds to the confusion. Playing the game on their terms just insures that we will lose.

There is a "good cop,/bad cop" dynamic going on with radical Muslims right now. The bad Muslims riot and threaten, and even kill. Then the so-called "good", "moderate" Muslims, (represented by groups like CAIR in the United States), step in and say "We condem the violence, but you must stop the publishing of things that Muslims find offensive." But they are just playing the "good" cop to the rioters "bad" cop. They are in fact the same people, on the same side, with the same agenda. So what does our government do? They cave-in to this strategy, and respond with all the multi-cultural politically-correct BS. Forget about OUR right to have all the facts and discuss this intelligently; we can't even see the cartoons to even guess what it's supposed to be about, because Muslims find that offensive.

Am I the only one to notice that these Muslims find a LOT of things offensive, including any examination and critical evaluation of themselves? They find it offensive? Well I got news for them, and for our government. I AM OFFENDED BY THAT. No one and nothing is beyond critisism. And there is a lot about political Islam hiding behind religion that NEEDS a great deal of critisism.

There actually are truely moderate Muslims, who are not "deeply offended" at an image of Mohammed, people who came to our country to get away from fanatics like the people our government is now bending over backwards to accommodate. Instead we should be supporting REAL moderate Muslims who want to be free to make choices about how they worship. People who wish to live in harmony with non-Muslims, without being "deeply offended" by EVERYTHING they don't agree with. But they have no voice, and they won't have one, as long as we keep playing the game that organiazations like CAIR play by asserting themselves (with Wahhabi Saudi money) as the "voice" of moderate Muslims. The so-called moderates like CAIR are the same people as the cartoon rioters, just showing a different face. It's a good cop/bad cop schtick. Don't fall for it. And lets not tolerate our government buying into it either.

(P.S. I don't doubt that Karen Hughs is a fine person in many ways, and I'm sure too that what she says reflects not just her views, but those of the President and his Administration. And to me, THAT is cause for concern. As non-Muslims we are infidels, and are by defintion not required or expected to act like Muslims. While it is true that we are dependent on Saudi Oil, and that our relationship with the Saudis is ... difficult, I do not see that we need to be submissive to their religion, or let our decent impulses to be considerate be used disingenuously against us.)

Related links:

Why American Muslims Stay Silent
By Stephen Schwartz.

Four years after September 11, 2001, numerous non-Muslim Americans repeatedly ask, “Why do American Muslims stay silent in the face of extremism and terrorism? Why do they not act to cleanse their religion of the reputation it has acquired?”

Paradoxically, Muslims in the US and Great Britain are, today, far more dominated by Islamist extremism than their counterparts in various Muslim countries. In many lands where the majority follows Islam, a struggle is underway between mainstream moderates and radicals inspired by the ultra-Wahhabi preachers of Saudi Arabia, the agitators of the Muslim Brotherhood in various Arab countries, and the virulent and volatile adherents of Pakistani jihadism. In some places, from Bosnia-Hercegovina to Indonesia and from Morocco to Mozambique, the moderates are winning. Yet the Islamic communities of the U.S. (dominated by the Saudis) and Britain (run by radical Pakistanis) suffer under a totalitarian regime of thought-control.

What happens when ordinary Muslims rebel against radical domination in America? They are ostracized, thrown out of mosques, and subjected to extraordinary public insults and threats. I myself was harassed in a Long Island mosque in 2003, as noted in this article. Shia mosques are excluded from “Sunni,” i.e. Wahhabi-controlled bodies, and numerous incidents of expulsions of individual Shias from Sunni mosques in the U.S. have been reported to the Center for Islamic Pluralism, which I have established.

The “Wahhabi Lobby” -- an assemblage of groupings, headed by the Hamas- and Saudi-backed Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) -- controls the public life of many American Sunnis. It demands certification as moderate, but not in recognition of real moderation or loyalty to the American constitutional tradition. Instead, their demand for recognition and respect is a preemptive strike to shield them from a proper understanding and appreciation of their tactics and aims...

Bold emphasis mine. This article is a Must Read. You see the rest HERE.

Muhammad Caricatured
Journalists and Wahhabis alike are
distorting the Islamic tradition

By Stephen Schwartz.

THE UPROAR IN EUROPE AND some Muslim countries over cartoons of the prophet Muhammad published in a Danish newspaper last September has once again dramatized several dismal aspects of the conflict between radical Islam and the culture of the West. One is that the so-called Arab or Muslim street comprises little more than a rent-a-mob available to burn, loot, and kill whenever Muslim demagogues attack political institutions and media anywhere in the world. Another is the ignorance Western media bring to their reporting on the issues that disturb the global Muslim community...

You can read the whole article HERE.

The "Islamophobes" That Aren't
By Stephen Schwartz
Tech Central Station | April 28, 2005

A continuous propaganda of grievance emanates from the Wahhabi lobby in America - the range of organizations that make up the country's "Islamic" establishment. Backed by Saudi Arabia and its state cult, which is the most extreme form of the religion of Muhammad, as well as by the Muslim Brotherhood (based in Egypt), and the jihadist Jama'ati movement in Pakistan, these groups have benign names: the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Muslim Students' Association of the U.S. and Canada (MSA), the Arab American Institute (AAI), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), the Muslim American Society (MAS), and the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA).

Such entities complain, above all, about "profiling" -- the alleged practice of selecting American Muslims for particular governmental scrutiny as potential terrorism suspects. "Profiling" has become a politically-correct cliché equated with stereotyping and discrimination, to such an absurd degree that in January, during the elections in Iraq, I was confronted by an Iraqi Sunni advocate who accused me of "profiling" Iraqis because I pointed out the differences between Sunnis and Shia Muslims over the future of the Baghdad government.

American governmental "profiling" of Arabs and Muslims has been a trivial phenomenon at worst. U.S. federal investigators have in most cases been extremely cautious, notwithstanding hysterical claims and rumors fostered by the Wahhabi lobby. This blather focuses on accusations of wholesale injustice and supposed preparation of internment for Arabs and Muslims, comparable to the wartime relocation of the ethnic Japanese in the Western U.S. during the second world war.

It is seldom noticed, however, that the Wahhabi lobby engages in its own forms of profiling, which mainly consist of branding every opponent of Islamist radicalism an "Islamophobe." In addition, the charge often includes labeling of such critics as Jews, Zionists, and Israeli agents...

You can read the entire article HERE.

H.T. to The Chatterbox Chronicles for the Karen Hughes profile.

H.T. to Partamian Report for the link to www.freemuslims.org/.

H.T. to Michelle Malkin for the Hughes photo and the link to Flemming Rose's defense statement.

Sunday, February 19, 2006

Sunday Funnies 02/19/06

With all the fuss about Mohammed Cartoons, a thread at Fark.com has some suggestions for possible Mohammed Sitcoms:

You can see more here at Fark.com.

Left or Right?

One day a florist goes to a barber for a haircut. After the cut he asked about his bill, and the barber replies: "I'm sorry, I cannot accept money from you; I'm doing community service this week." The florist is pleased and leaves the shop. Next morning when the barber goes to open there is a thank you card and a dozen roses waiting for him at his door.

Later, a cop comes in for a haircut, and when he goes to pay his bill the barber again replies: "I'm sorry, I cannot accept money from you; I'm doing community service this week." The cop is happy and leaves the shop. Next morning when the barber goes to open up there is a thank you card and a dozen donuts waiting for him at his door.

Later a Republican comes in for a haircut, and when he goes to pay his bill the barber again replies: "I'm sorry, I cannot accept money from you; I'm doing community service this week." The Republican is very happy and leaves the shop. Next morning when the barber goes to open, there is a thank you card and a dozen different books such as, "How to Improve Your Business" and "Becoming More Successful."

Then a Democrat comes in for a haircut, and when he goes to pay his bill the barber again replies: "I'm sorry, I cannot accept money from you; I'm doing community service this week." The Democrat is very happy and leaves the shop. The next morning when the barber goes to open up, there are a dozen Democrats lined up waiting for a free haircut.

And that, my friends, illustrates the fundamental difference between the left and the right.


Mating Season

A famer had five female pigs and, as times were hard , he had determined to take them to the country fair and sell them. while at the fair, he met another farmer who owned five male pigs.after talking a bit, they decided to mate the pigs& split averything 50/50. the farmers lived sixty miles from one another and so they agreed to drive thirty miles & find a field in which to mate their pigs. the first morning, the farmer with the female pigs got up at 5 am, loaded the pigs into the family stationwagon, which was the only vehicle they had, and drove the thirty miles. while the pigs were mating, he asked the other farmer, "how will i know if they are pregnant?" the other farmer replied,"if they're in the grass grazing in the morning, then they're pregnant, if they're in the mud, then they're not." the next morning they were rolling in the mud, so he hosed them down, loaded them into the station wagon and proceeded to try again. this continued each morning for a week, until one morning the farmer was so tired he couldn't get out of bed. he called to his wife,'honey,please look outside and tell me if the pigs are in the mud or in the field." "neither", yelled his wife, they're in the station wagon and one of them is honking the horn!"

Name Calling

A burglar broke into a house one night. he shined his flashlight around, looking for valuables, and when he picked up a cd player to place in his sack, a strange disembodied voice echoed from the dark saying, "jesus is watching you" he nearly jumped out of his skin, clicked his flashlight out, dnd froze. when he heard nothing more after a bit, he shook his head, promised himself a vacation after the next big score, then clicked the light on and began surching for more valuables. just as he pulled the stereo out so he could disconnect the wires, clear as a bell he heard''jesus is watching you'' freaked out, he shown his light around frantically, looking for the source of the voice. finaly,in the corner of the room, his flashlight beam came to rest on a parrot. "Did you say that?'' he hissed at the parrot.''yep'' the parrot confessed, then squawked,''i'm just trying to warn you." the burglar ralexed. warn me huh? who in the world are you? ''moses'' replied the bird. moses?'' the laughed.''what kind of people would name a bird moses?'' the kind of people that would name a rottweiler jesus''


And Now for our Ted Kennedy Children's book cover of the week:

And a guest book cover of the week, from France:

Thanks to the forums at Fark.com.



He Failed His Way to the Top

From time to time, life as a leader can look hopeless.
To help you, consider a man who lived through this:...

Failed in business in '31
Defeated for the legislature in '32
Again failed in business in '34
Sweetheart died in '35
Had a nervous breakdown in '36
Defeated in election in '38
Defeated for Congress in '43
Defeated for Congress in '46
Defeated for Congress in '48
Defeated for Senate in '55
Defeated for Vice President in '56
Defeated for Senate in '58
Elected President in '60...
This man was Abraham Lincoln.

May You Have...

Enough happiness to keep you sweet.
Enough trials to keep you strong.
Enough sorrow to keep you human.
Enough hope to keep you happy.
Enough failure to keep you humble.
Enough success to keep you eager.
Enough friends to give you comfort.
Enough wealth to meet your needs.
Enough enthusiasm to look forward.
Enough faith to banish depression.
Enough determination to make each day better than yesterday

Saturday, February 18, 2006

Firefox memory leaks, Linux Applications and two BSD reviews

It's been a while since I've come across any interesting technology news, but I have noticed a few things lately.

About the Firefox "memory leak"
One of them is about Memory leaks in the Firefox Web browser. There is a blog post about this at Inside Firefox. It seems that with Firefox 1.5, that what some people percieve as a memory leak isn't that at all, it's a feature meant to improve page reloading, and it can easily be turned off or adjusted.

I won't repeat the whole thing here, but if you have any problems with how Firefox 1.5 is using your computers RAM, I would recommend following the link and reading the post. Some of the comments left there indicate that the information has been very helpful to some people.

Applications for Windows wanted for Linux
People who are considering switching to linux, may wonder if there are applications available to them in linux that are the same as or similar to what they were using in Windows. DesktopLinux.com has an article called "Linux substitutes for "most wanted" Windows-only software" that may be of interest to anyone who is considering moving to Linux. It's based on Novell Inc.'s survey of the "most wanted" Windows and MacOS-only applications among Linux users, a result of over 14,000 votes and comments.

Two great reviews of PC-BSD
If you like trying out different Unix based Operating Systems for desktop use, you may be interested in these two fine reviews of PC-BSD. The first one,"PC-BSD : A user friendly BSD flavour geared for the desktop", published on the "All About Linux" blog, walks you through an install, with screenshots, and links to other related subjects, like disk partitioning.

Another good review is "PC-BSD brings BSD to the desktop", at NewsForge.

Friday, February 17, 2006

WAHHABISM; the form of Islam
that tolerates no other

I've been wanting to write for a while now about the Wahhabi sect of Islam. It is said by many to be the most radical and intolerant sect of Islam, popular in Saudi Arabia. 15 of the 19 terrorists in the 9/11 attacks were Saudis. It's estimated that Saudi money has enabled Wahhabis to take over 70-80 percent of American mosques. Saudi money buys a great deal of influence in the USA, and much of what we hear in our MSM is the Wahhabi perspective of Islam. It is the Wahhabis that object to images of Mohammed being shown, but that view is not representative of the entire Islamic world. Yet in the Cartoon controversy, the Wahhabi view is often represented by the MSN as being the preeminent view of Muslims generally.

Wahhabism isn't just a religious sect, it has also become a political movement as well. Many Wahhabists who are frustrated with the Saudi Royal family, are supporters of Bin Laden. There are also offshoots of neo-Wahhabi or Wahhabized ideology, that share in common a political agenda.

There is an informative piece from National Review, dated November 18th, 2002, by Kathryn Jean Lopez. It's an interview with Stephen Schwartz, author of The Two Faces of Islam: The House of Sa'ud from Tradition to Terror.

I haven't read his book, but in this interview, Schwartz gives the historical details and background of Wahhabism, it's interactions with other Islamic sects and other religous faiths, and information about it's current influence abroad and here in the USA. The interview is titled "The Good & the Bad: Stephen Schwartz on Islam and Wahhabism". Here are a few excerpts:

...Unfortunately, the U.S. is the only country outside Saudi Arabia where the Islamic establishment is under Wahhabi control. Eighty percent of American mosques are Wahhabi-influenced...

The entire gamut of "official" Islamic organizations in the U.S., particularly the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) are Wahhabi fronts. In other such groups, like the American Muslim Council (AMC) and the Muslim Students Association (MSA) Wahhabism is in crisis, because of the devastating effect of 9/11. In addition, the Wahhabis are deeply compromised by the exposure of individuals like John Walker Lindh, Richard Reid, José Padilla, and John Muhammad.

...To understand the struggle of the world's traditional Muslims against Wahhabism, you have to get away from the "Arab street" and meaningless people wandering around. You have to sit down with serious Islamic clerics and thinkers and dialogue with them in a way they understand and respect.

...I have never seen a single serious interview with an Islamic religious figure on Western television.

...As for the situation in the U.S., condemnation of Wahhabism and even of terrorism have been sparse for the following reasons:

Wahhabis (CAIR, etc.) are granted status by U.S. media as the main Islamic spokespeople. They issue ameliorative statements intended to end discussion of the problem, and they closely watch the community and prevent traditional Muslims from expressing themselves openly about Wahhabism and its involvement with terrorism. The U.S. media let them get away with this.

Most immigrant Muslims in the U.S. came to this country to get away from extremism and are horrified to see that their faith is in extremist hands here. They believed, before coming here, that the U.S. government would never permit such a thing to happen. However, their children are often indoctrinated and radicalized by extremists operating through Muslim schools, Islamic Sunday schools, and radical campus groups. That the U.S. government turned a blind idea to the Wahhabization of American Islam is deeply shocking and disturbing for them. They feel intimidated and defeated...

Some of the information in the interview may be dated, (such as crisies that were occuring at the time in 2002, but may since have changed) but the background information is static.

Mr. Schwartz is himself a Muslim convert, which influences his opinons. Some have said that his efforts to wall off Wahhabism as the sole source of Islamic extremism go too far at times. Yet there is no doubt that the Wahhabism is a powerful and influential force in the Islamic world, and Schwartz' views offer some interesting facts and insights into it that you won't here in the MSM.

You can read the complete review HERE.

Hat tip to JunkYardBlog where I got the link to this article.

Related Links:

There Are No Moderates: Dealing with Fundamentalist Islam (Fall 1995) An exerpt:

...a Pakistani fundamentalist group recently deemed Michael Jackson and Madonna "cultural terrorists" and called for the two Americans to be brought to trial in Pakistan. As Bernard Lewis notes, "It is the Tempter, not the Adversary, that Khomeini feared in America, the seduction and enticement of the American way of life rather than the hostility of American power." Or, in Khomeini's own words: "We are not afraid of economic sanctions or military intervention. What we are afraid of is Western universities." ...

"Moderate" American Islamism And Terror, Zero Degrees Of Separation An excerpt:

...Modeling its activities upon those established by the left [not the least of which is the faith's near Trotskyite obsession with permanent religious revolution] CAIR wages an intense cultural assault. Hardly a day passes when multiple charges of discrimination, racism and anti-Muslim bias are not directed at American society.

CAIR is probably the most in-your-face proponent of this style of realpolitik - as ultimately threatening as the more graphic and murderous form now seemingly a part of everyday life, because its intent is a forced accommodation with Islam - on its terms - cloaked behind a lexicon of multiculturalism and diversity doublespeak...

Out Foxed(Re: CAIR meeting with representatives of the Fox television network to discuss Muslim concerns about the drama series "24.") An excerpt:

...What Fox has done here - aside from completely caving in to a group of Islamist thugs - is to totally compromise whatever amount of intellectual freedom that still might exist at the so-called conservative network. If - given the backdrop of 911, Afghanistan, Iraq, the Palestinian Intifada, beheadings, torture, Chechen female suicide bombers and the 2002 Bali nightclub attack - an entertainment show can't depict a Muslim as an active terrorist, they have set themselves up to be rolled every time some crackpot group decides to challenge them.

Additionally - and this is a sin not of ommission but commission - this move further legitimizes CAIR at a time when it is moving into American schools - welcomed by multiculturalist fools - under the guise of interfaith outreach, with the intent of convincing children that Islam means them no harm and that something must have gone very terribly wrong at the White House for engaging in a war against the "non-existent" threat of Islamic terror...

Thursday, February 16, 2006

The MSM doesn't wish to offend Muslims ... so who do they WISH to offend?

For a while I was thinking that MSM was afraid to to publish the Mohammed cartoons, and were just using "respect for Islam" as an excuse for not putting themselves at risk. Their personal safty may be an element in their decisions, but I think it is not the primary reason. They continue to publish things disrespectful of Christianity, so it's hard to believe that they suddenly have a newfound respect for religion.

I think it's very simply a variation of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". The MSM is dominated by liberals, who are against the Iraq war, and for whom the enemy is in the White House. They would like us to lose this war, and are acting accordingly. In their opinion, we don't need to see the Mohammed cartoons or any intelligent discussion about what is happening with Islam as a political movement masquerading as a religous one.

The MSM believes THEY should be deciding what we think and talk about, and they have chosen for us, Vice President Cheney's hunting accident, and more Abu Ghraib photos, from 2003. A past event, the trials are over, people are doing time in prison. But showing the photos WILL incite the enemy to kill more of our soldiers, which will hurt the war effort and hopefully, the MSM believes, damage the Presidency.

The MSM says they don't want to offend Muslims, but they certianly do want to offend someone.

From TammyBruce.com, a list of things the MSM didn't think were very important for you to know about:

Here are just five major stories that the MSM doesn't think are as important, or as serious, as the Cheney hunting accident.

1) Cartoon riots in Pakistan kill three

2) Jordan sentences Zarqawi and 8 militants to death

3) Baghdad bomb kills children walking to school

4) Dow back above 11,000; Index up 136 points as oil falls below $60

5) Econ helps Dow overtake 11,000

Why are they NOT reporting these stories as frantically as they are the Cheney non-story? Tammy explains:

...I wholeheartedly agree with my callers on Tammy Radio today that this push by the MSM and the Demoleftists to make this a story (and the main story) is nothing more than an effort to keep the real issues our nation faces out of sight and out of mind. Coverage of the Cartoon Jihad reminds everyone of the madness of the enemy (and exposes the general cowardice of the American MSM when it comes to reprinting those cartoons), the trials of Saddam and Moussaoui (our success at bringing the enemy to justice), Al Gore pandering to the enemy on Jeddah, as well as the continuing and astounding economic boon here at home (despite the manic spending of the president). Had you heard, as an example, that the Dow is once again above 11,000? Nope, but you know all the details of what shot the VP was using...

...Gee, isn't it amazing how today's Islamist enemy isn't treated with the same intense verve by the MSM and leftists? Nope, they save their outrage for the vice president of the United States. Impressive and quite revealing. After all, mass graves with one million-plus murdered people in Iraq doesn't make the Iraq war any more legitimate or worthwhile to leftists, but one accidental birdshot by the VP demands a Grand Jury investigation and the obsessive attention of American media...

(Bold emphasis mine) You can read the whole thing HERE.

Wednesday, February 15, 2006

IT'S IN THE KORAN... or ...
Will Political Correctness Kill Us All?

A couple of weeks ago, I made a post that included a link to a song called "It's In The Koran". It was a satire of the evil deeds of radical Islamists and their justification of them by the Koran.

Not long after, the cartoon Jihad began. Since then, the song has been removed from several places where is was available formerly, due to complaints (and threats?).

The song is still available HERE at Little Green Footballs, with an explaination by the author, of what he believes about Islam and Muslims, and why he created the song. He is obviously not a hateful person, and is in fact quite thoughtful. Anyone who complains about the song being offensive, should consider the events mentioned in the song: They are real and verifiable events, and the people who perpetrated them believe the Koran directs them to do so. I find THAT offensive. And the idea that we can't even talk about (or ridicule) those who expound such ideas, on the grounds that we must be sensitive and not cause RELIGIOUS offense, even more offensive.

Is the whole world losing it's mind? It's apparently loosing it's backbone.

I've been posting links to a lot of articles lately, about the Cartoon Jihad and the lying imams, about dhimmitude, Neo-Islam and the crazy way the media is reacting to all this.

It's impossible to connect the dots without complete information, and the way the MSM insists on not discussing what is happening is distressing to no end.

There is no separation of Church and State in Islam. Many Muslims find the idea offensive, because they believe Islam is a TOTAL path, and that you don't separate it out into different areas of your life, it's a part of everything. I can understand that.

I've known many Christians who also believe the same thing about Christianity. Yet many of these same Christians believed that the separation of Church and State was a GOOD thing, because they felt it protected their religion from the corrupting influences of political power and politics. Their religion would of course influence them in how they would vote; but the wall of separation kept their religion pure, and untainted from worldly forces that might try to subvert it for political purposes.

Islam has no such separation, no protection from political hijacking. Mosques can be used as political meeting halls. Sermons and political speeches can be interchangeable. Yet we have all these politically correct multi-culturalists falling all over themselves not to offend, providing cover for a political movement that is masquerading as a religion. A political wolf in religious sheepskin.

Since 9/11, we have heard so much talk about the dangers of weapons of mass destruction. I'm wondering if the weapon that is most likely of all to do us in, is going to be political correctness.

Some Related Links:

You can download the song "It's in the Koran" as a windows media file or a quicktime file HERE.

Mark Humphrys has an informative webpage called Islamic Fascism, with many educational links and historical references. It's written in easy to follow language with out being too long, dry or academic. It's not an anti-Islam site, it is an anti-Islamic Fascist site. It you are not sure what the difference is, Mark can explain it to you.

Michelle Malkin today has a post about the growing internet attack that is happening, literally, as denial-of-service attacks emanating from the middle east are increasing. The attacks are being directed at Danish websites, and other websites that have shown the Mohammed cartoons or that are critical of Islam in any way. You can see her post here: THE ISLAMISTS' WAR ON THE INTERNET. She also shares some of the threatening emails she has been recieving.

Are these attackers the kind of people we need to be worried about defending from being offended? Since when does their... "religious" freedom, or "right to not be offended", trump our own freedom to have complete information and decide for ourselves?