Crusader Knights Of The Two Swords

New Blog

2005-12-29T13:59:00.000-06:00

This blog has moved. Please access it here.

Islamic Mindset At Work Against Women

2005-12-29T11:07:00.000-06:00

Nazir Ahmed is extremely calm for a man who just committed a horrible crime. His only regret is that he didn't kill his 25-year-old daughter's alleged lover. He did, however, slit the throats of his stepdaughter, Muqadas, and his three younger daughters - Bano, 8, Sumaira, 7, and Humaira, 4 - while his wife, Bibi, watched and cradled the couple's three-month-old son. Ahmed warned Bibi that if she moved, raised the alarm, or tried to save her daughters, he would kill her too.

Ahmed claims his crime was one of "honor". "'I thought the younger girls would do what their eldest sister had done, so they should be eliminated," he said, his hands cuffed, his face unshaven. "We are poor people and we have nothing else to protect but our honor.'" This supposed "honor killing" means Ahmed thinks he is not guilty of anything.

Muqadas was accused of adultery by her husband, but several villagers say she was abused and forced to work in a brick factory. Her only crime was trying to flee. The whereabouts of this supposed lover are unknown, as is his identity. Chances are, there was no lover. In most Muslim theocractic countries, the testimony and word of a woman counts for one-half that of a man's. This means Muqadas' husband could levy a false charge and have it believed unless two or more witnesses contradict his claim.

And some in this country think Christianity is oppressive to women.

The above is taken from my daughter-in-laws blog. My only question is why there have been so many women converting, in recent days, to Islam. Perhaps, they have a death-wish---Which some of them have expressed by being "suicide bombers".

Islamic Rape Spree

2005-12-27T10:49:00.000-06:00

THE ITEM BELOW DOES NOT EVEN BEGIN TO HINT AT THE ABUSE OF WOMEN IN SUCH PLACES AS THE SUDAN'S SOUTH WHERE AN ACTIVE FORM OF JIHAD IS IN PLACE AGAINST ALL BLACKS---CHRISTIAN, MUSLIM, PAGAN.

Western Muslims' Racist Rape Spree

By Sharon Lapkin
FrontPageMagazine.com | December 27, 2005

In Australia, Norway, Sweden and other Western nations, there is a distinct race-based crime in motion being ignored by the diversity police: Islamic men are raping Western women for ethnic reasons. We know this because the rapists have openly declared their sectarian motivations.

When a number of teenage Australian girls were subjected to hours of sexual degradation during a spate of gang rapes in Sydney that occurred between 1998 and 2002, the perpetrators of these assaults framed their rationale in ethnic terms. The young victims were informed that they were “sluts” and “Aussie pigs” while they were being hunted down and abused.

In Australia's New South Wales Supreme Court in December 2005, a visiting Pakistani rapist testified that his victims had no right to say no, because they were not wearing a headscarf.

And earlier this year Australians were outraged when Lebanese Sheik Faiz Mohammed gave a lecture in Sydney where he informed his audience that rape victims had no one to blame but themselves. Women, he said, who wore skimpy clothing, invited men to rape them.

A few months earlier, in Copenhagen, Islamic mufti and scholar, Shahid Mehdi created uproar when – like his peer in Australia – he stated that women who did not wear a headscarf were asking to be raped.

And with haunting synchronicity in 2004, the London Telegraph reported that visiting Egyptian scholar Sheik Yusaf al-Qaradawi claimed female rape victims should be punished if they were dressed immodestly when they were raped. He added, “For her to be absolved from guilt, a raped woman must have shown good conduct.”

In Norway and Sweden, journalist Fjordman warns of a rape epidemic. Police Inspector Gunnar Larsen stated that the steady increase of rape-cases and the link to ethnicity are clear, unmistakable trends. Two out of three persecutions for rape in Oslo are immigrants with a non-Western background and 80 percent of the victims are Norwegian women.

In Sweden, according to translator for Jihad Watch, Ali Dashti, “Gang rapes, usually involving Muslim immigrant males and native Swedish girls, have become commonplace.” A few weeks ago she said, “Five Kurds brutally raped a 13-year-old Swedish girl.”

In France, Samira Bellil broke her silence – after enduring years of repeated gang rapes in one of the Muslim populated public housing projects – and wrote a book, In the hell of the tournantes, that shocked France. Describing how gang rape is rampant in the banlieues, she explained to Time that, “any neighborhood girl who smokes, uses makeup or wears attractive clothes is a whore.”

Unfortunately, Western women are not the only victims in this epidemic. In Indonesia, in 1998, human rights groups documented the testimony of over 100 Chinese women who were gang raped during the riots that preceded the fall of President Suharto. Many of them were told: “You must be raped, because you are Chinese and non-Muslim.”

Christian Solidarity Worldwide reported that in April 2005, a 9-year-old Pakistani girl was raped, beaten with a cricket bat, hanged upside down from the ceiling, had spoonfuls of chillies poured into her mouth, and repeatedly bashed while handcuffed. Her Muslim neighbours told her they were taking revenge for the American bombing of Iraqi children and informed her they were doing it because she was an “infidel and a Christian.”

In Sudan – where Arab Muslims slaughter black Muslim and Christian Sudanese in an ongoing genocide – former Sudanese slave and now a human rights’ activist Simon Deng says he witnessed girls and women being raped and that the Arab regime of Khartoum sends its soldiers to the field to rape and murder. In other reports, women who are captured by government forces are asked; “Are you Christian or Muslim?” and those who answer Christian, are gang raped before having their breasts cut off.

This phenomenon of Islamic sexual violence against women should be treated as the urgent, violent, repressive epidemic it is. Instead, journalists, academics, and politicians ignore it, rationalize it, or ostracize those who dare discuss it.

In Australia, when journalist Paul Sheehan reported honestly on the Sydney gang rapes, he was called a racist and accused of stirring up anti-Muslim hatred. And when he reported in his Sydney Morning Herald column that there was a high incidence of crime amongst Sydney’s Lebanese community, fellow journalist, David Marr sent him an e-mail stating, “That is a disgraceful column that reflects poorly on us all at the Herald.”

Keysar Trad, vice-president of the Australian Lebanese Muslim Association said the gang rapes were a “heinous” crime but complained it was “rather unfair” that the ethnicity of the rapists had been reported.

Journalist Miranda Devine reported during the same rape trials that all reference to ethnicity had been deleted from the victim impact statement because the prosecutors wanted to negotiate a plea bargain.

So when Judge Megan Latham declared, “There is no evidence before me of any racial element in the commission of these offences,” everyone believed her. And the court, the politicians and most of the press may as well have raped the girls again.

Retired Australian detective Tim Priest warned in 2004 that the Lebanese gangs, which emerged in Sydney in the 1990s – when the police were asleep – had morphed out of control. “The Lebanese groups,” he said, “ were ruthless, extremely violent, and they intimidated not only innocent witnesses, but even the police that attempted to arrest them.”

Priest describes how in 2001, in a Muslim dominated area of Sydney two policemen stopped a car containing three well-known Middle Eastern men to search for stolen property. As the police carried out their search they were physically threatened and the three men claimed they were going to track them down, kill them and then rape their girlfriends.

According to Priest, it didn’t end there. As the Sydney police called for backup the three men used their mobile phones to call their associates, and within minutes, 20 Middle Eastern men arrived on the scene. They punched and pushed the police and damaged state vehicles. The police retreated and the gang followed them to the police station where they intimidated staff, damaged property and held the police station hostage.

Eventually the gang left, the police licked their wounds, and not one of them took action against the Middle Eastern men. Priest claims, “In the minds of the local population, the police are cowards and the message was, 'Lebanese [Muslim gangs] rule the streets.'”

In France, in the banlieues, where gang rape is now known simply as tournantes or ‘pass-around,’ victims know the police will not protect them. If they complain, Samir Bellil said, they know that they and their families will be threatened.

However, Muslim women in the French ghettos are finally fighting back against gang rape and police non-action. They have begun a movement called, “We’re neither whores nor doormats.” They are struggling against the intrinsic violence that plagues their neighbourhoods and the culture that condones it.

In most French prosecutions, the Muslim rapists state that they do not believe they have committed a crime. And in a frightening parallel with the gang rapists in Australia, they claim the victim herself is to blame and accuse her of being a “slut” or a “whore.”

According to The Guardian, during the recent French riots, a Saudi Prince with shares in News Corporation boasted to a conference in Dubai that he had phoned Rupert Murdoch and complained about Fox News describing the disturbances as “Muslim riots.” Within half an hour he said, it was changed to “civil riots.”

Swedish translator, Ali Dashti, stated that in Sweden when three men raped a 22-year-old woman recently, they said one word to her. “Whore.” Such stories, according to Dashti, are in the Swedish newspapers every week. And, the politically correct “take great care not to mention the ethnic background of the perpetrators.”

Sweden’s English newspaper The Local reported in July that Malmo police commander Bengt Lindström had been charged with inciting racial hatred. He sent e-mails from his home computer to two city officials. To the head of healthcare, he wrote: “You...treat old Swedes who have worked hard building up the fatherland like parasites and would rather give my taxes to criminals called Mohammed from Rosengärd.”

In Malmo, the third largest city in Sweden, the police have admitted, Dashti says, that they no longer control the city. “It is effectively ruled by violent gangs of Muslim immigrants.” Ambulance personnel are regularly attacked and spat upon and are now refusing to help until a police escort arrives. The police are too afraid to enter parts of the city without backup.

In early 2005, Norwegian newspapers reported that Oslo had recorded the highest ever number of rape cases in the previous twelve months. However, Fjordman explained, the official statistics contained no data regarding “how immigrants were grossly over represented in rape cases”, and the media remain so strangely silent.

Oslo Professor of Anthropology, Unni Wikan, said Norwegian women must take responsibility for the fact that Muslim men find their manner of dress provocative. And since these men believe women are responsible for rape, she stated, the women must adapt to the multicultural society around them.

The BBC pulled a documentary scheduled for screening in 2004, after police in Britain warned it could increase racial tension. “In these exceptional circumstances... Channel 4 as a responsible broadcaster has agreed to the police’s request...” The documentary was to show how Pakistani and other Muslim men sexually abused young, white English girls as young as 11.

The number of rapes committed by Muslim men against women in the last decade is so incredibly high that it cannot be viewed as anything other than culturally implicit behaviour. It is overtly reinforced and sanctioned by Islamic religious leaders who blame the victims and excuse the rapists.

In three decades of immigration into Western countries, Islam has caused social upheaval and havoc in every one of its host countries. No other immigration program has encountered the problems of non-assimilation and religious ambiguity.

Everywhere in the world, Muslims are in conflict with their neighbours. And as Mark Steyn recently said, every conflict appears to have originated by someone with the name of Mohammed.

In July 2005, Melbourne Sheik Mohammad Omran told Sixty Minutes that “...we believe we have more rights than you because we choose Australia to be our home and you didn’t. “

In the same interview visiting Sheik Khalid Yasin warned “There’s no such thing as a Muslim having a non-Muslim friend, so a non-Muslim could be your associate but they can't be a friend. They're not your friend because they don't understand your religious principles and they cannot because they don't understand your faith.”

Despite being told over and over by Islamic scholars, and witnessing massive influxes of Islamic crime, Western countries continue to believe in the reality of assimilation and moral relativism.

In Australia, Lebanese Christians have assimilated and become a respected part of our community. The Premier of Victoria is a Lebanese Christian as is the Governor Of New South Wales. However, Lebanese Muslims have encountered serious problems because of their refusal to accept our right to live our way of life. Nothing so clearly demonstrates that it is not an issue of race — but of culture.

Pentagon VS. Islam Taboo

2005-12-14T10:52:00.000-06:00

The Pentagon Breaks the Islam Taboo
By Paul Sperry
FrontPageMagazine.com | December 14, 2005

Washington's policy-makers have been careful in the war on terror to distinguish between Islam and the terrorists. The distinction has rankled conservatives who see scarce difference.

A little-noticed speech by President Bush in October gave them some hope. In a major rhetorical shift, he described the enemy as "Islamic radicals" and not just "terrorists," although he still denies that radicalism has anything to do with their religion.

Now for the first time, a key Pentagon intelligence agency involved in homeland security is delving into Islam's holy texts to answer whether Islam is being radicalized by the terrorists or is already radical. Military brass want a better understanding of what's motivating the insurgents in Iraq and the terrorists around the globe, including those inside America who may be preparing to strike domestic military bases. The enemy appears indefatigable, even more active now than before 9/11.

Are the terrorists really driven by self-serving politics and personal demons? Or are they driven by religion? And if it's religion, are they following a manual of war contained in their scripture?

Answers are hard to come by. Four years into the war on terror, U.S. intelligence officials tell me there are no baseline studies of the Muslim prophet Muhammad or his ideological or military doctrine found at either the CIA or Defense Intelligence Agency, or even the war colleges.

But that is slowly starting to change as the Pentagon develops a new strategy to deal with the threat from Islamic terrorists through its little-known intelligence agency called the Counterintelligence Field Activity or CIFA, which staffs hundreds of investigators and analysts to help coordinate Pentagon security efforts at home and abroad. CIFA also supports Northern Command in Colorado, which was established after 9/11 to help military forces react to terrorist threats in the continental United
States.

Dealing with the threat on a tactical and operational level through counterstrikes and capture has proven only marginally successful. Now military leaders want to combat it from a strategic standpoint, using informational warfare, among other things. A critical part of that strategy involves studying Islam, including the Quran and the hadiths, or traditions of Muhammad.

"Today we are confronted with a stateless threat that does not have at the strategic level targetable entities: no capitals, no economic base, no military formations or installations," states a new Pentagon briefing paper I've obtained. "Yet political Islam wages an ideological battle against the non-Islamic world at the tactical, operational and strategic level. The West's response is focused at the tactical and operation level, leaving the strategic level -- Islam -- unaddressed."

So far the conclusions of intelligence analysts assigned to the project, who include both private contractors and career military officials, contradict the commonly held notion that Islam is a peaceful religion hijacked or distorted by terrorists. They've found that the terrorists for the most part are following a war-fighting doctrine articulated through Muhammad in the Quran, elaborated on in the hadiths, codified in Islamic or sharia law, and reinforced by recent interpretations or fatwahs.

"Islam is an ideological engine of war (Jihad)," concludes the sensitive Pentagon briefing paper. And "no one is looking for its off switch."

Why? One major reason, the briefing states, is government-wide "indecision [over] whether Islam is radical or being radicalized."

So, which is it? "Strategic themes suggest Islam is radical by nature," according to the briefing, which goes on to cite the 26 chapters of the Quran dealing with violent jihad and the examples of the Muslim prophet, who it says sponsored "terror and slaughter" against unbelievers.

"Muhammad's behaviors today would be defined as radical," the defense document says, and Muslims today are commanded by their "militant" holy book to follow his example. It adds: Western leaders can no longer afford to overlook the "cult characteristics of Islam."

It also ties Muslim charity to war. Zakat, the alms-giving pillar of Islam, is described in the briefing as "an asymmetrical war-fighting funding mechanism." Which in English translates to: combat support under the guise of tithing. Of the eight obligatory categories of disbursement of Muslim charitable donations, it notes that two are for funding jihad, or holy war. Indeed, authorities have traced millions of dollars received by major jihadi terror groups like Hamas and al-Qaida back to Saudi and other foreign Isamic charities and also U.S. Muslim charities, such as the Holy Land Foundation.

According to the Quran, jihad is not something a Muslim can opt out of. It demands able-bodied believers join the fight. Those unable -- women and the elderly -- are not exempt; they must give "asylum and aid" (Surah 8:74) to those who do fight the unbelievers in the cause of Allah.

In analyzing the threat on the domestic front, the Pentagon briefing draws perhaps its most disturbing conclusions. It argues the U.S. has not suffered from scattered insurgent attacks -- as opposed to the concentrated and catastrophic attack by al-Qaida on 9-11 -- in large part because it has a relatively small Muslim population. But that could change as the Muslim minority grows and gains more influence.

The internal document explains that Islam divides offensive jihad into a "three-phase attack strategy" for gaining control of lands for Allah. The first phase is the "Meccan," or weakened, period, whereby a small Muslim minority asserts itself through largely peaceful and political measures involving Islamic NGOs -- such as the Islamic Society of North America, which investigators say has its roots in the militant Muslim Brotherhood, and Muslim pressure groups, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations, whose leaders are on record expressing their desire to Islamize America.

In the second "preparation" phase, a "reasonably influential" Muslim minority starts to turn more militant. The briefing uses Britain and the Netherlands as examples.

And in the final jihad period, or "Medina Stage," a large minority uses its strength of numbers and power to rise up against the majority, as Muslim youth recently demonstrated in terrorizing France, the Pentagon paper notes.

It also notes that unlike Judaism and Christianity, Islam advocates expansion by force. The final command of jihad, as revealed to Muhammad in the Quran, is to conquer the world in the name of Islam. The defense briefing adds that Islam is also unique in classifying unbelievers as "standing enemies against whom it is legitimate to wage war."

Right now political leaders don't understand the true nature of the threat,\ it says, because the intelligence community has yet to educate them. They still think Muslim terrorists, even suicide bombers, are mindless "criminals" motivated by "hatred of our freedoms," rather than religious zealots motivated by their faith. And as a result, we have no real strategic plan for winning a war against jihadists.

Even many intelligence analysts and investigators working in the field with the Joint Terrorism Task Forces have a shallow understanding of Islam.

"I don't like to criticize our intelligence services, because we did win the Cold War," says a Northern Command intelligence official. "However, all of these organizations have made only limited progress adjusting to the current threat or the sharing of information."

Why? "All suffer heavily from political correctness," he explains.

PC still infects the Pentagon, four years after jihadists hit the nation's military headquarters.

"A lot of folks here have a very pedestrian understanding of Islam and the Islamic threat," a Pentagon intelligence analyst working on the project told me. "We're getting Islam 101, and we need Islam 404."

The hardest part of formulating a strategic response to the threat is defining Islam as a political and military enemy. Once that psychological barrier has been crossed, defense sources tell me, the development of countermeasures -- such as educating the public about the militant nature of Islam and exploiting "critical vulnerabilities" or rifts within the Muslim faith and community -- can begin.

"Most Americans don't realize we are in a war of survival -- a war that is going to continue for decades," the Northcom official warns.

It remains to be seen, however, whether our PC-addled political leaders would ever adopt such controversial measures.

NOTE BY ME: Well--It is about time that someone "official" finally studied Islam and its history of war, terror, oppression, murder, enslavement and the other horrors it has so clearly demonstrated over the last 1500-years.

Separation VS Free Exercise & Speech

2005-12-14T10:38:00.000-06:00

The Constitution of the United States does NOT contain the expression "separation of church and state". It does contain prohabitions against any federal law restricting the "free exercise" of religion and, likewise, of free speech. The provision against the "establishment" of a (State or official) religion was to prevent the type of established churches (Chruch of England or the Scots Kirk) as had taxing and the ability to use the civil law of Great Britain at that time to enforce its own theologies and practices on others---And, for no other restrictive reasons.

The use of Christian symbols, prayers and speech in the public schools (When they were established much later) and in all public forums was expected, legal and not challenged until very recent and degenerate times.

This is all our elected officials, judges, editors and other citizens need to know about the Constitution and religion.

Democracy, Majority Rights, Common Good

2005-12-04T19:45:00.000-06:00

Let me get this straight! Democracy = rule of the majority---Unless someone “feels” hurt or put upon by the decisions of that majority AND gets some tyrannical judge or fool bureaucrat to order that a minority (Sometimes of one person) has more “rights: than everyone else.

No—I am not using any “mind altering substances”! This appears to be the ultimate solution to getting rid of the concept of “the common good” and such governmental practices as, at one time, encouraged that apparently defunct goal and ideal.

Perhaps, we should recall (And put into practice) that principle as once gave the majority certain rights, powers and authority. That principle is called democracy!

Instant Gradification & War

2005-11-27T17:08:00.000-06:00

It may be that the greatest fault in the USA and what is left of Western Civilization is the drive for each persons instant gratification of desires. There is an ever decreasing number of persons who are willing to take the “long view”, putting off pleasures until they can be maximized as the least risk to self and to the “common good” (The last a term which seems to have gone out of use and usage).

This unsettling aspect of our society first came to my attention as a common characteristic of the criminals and criminal thinkers I met during my 30-plus years of professional work in a State Department of Corrections. In fact, the desire for instant self-gratification was once almost a defining characteristic between “common” criminals and either law abiding citizens or more sophisticated criminals. HOWEVER, I began to notice the spread of this self-defeating attitude to others---Noting first that weakness in the American stockholder of corporations who became more-and-more unwilling to look beyond the last or current financial-quarter's earnings and consider the possibility of growing companies by short term losses in exchange for long term gains. This attitude has spread to the world of news reporting where “breaking news” is more important than gathering all available facts and looking for the deeper meaning of such. This is specially noticeable as to the reporting done on medicine and science where every new research report, even if it can not be determined to be “reliable (By some independent repetition of it) and valid (As having real meaning and application to the scientific problem or question addressed)”OR is considered “politically correct” or, to some politician, “politically useful pork”.

This growing need for instant or short-term gratification is of great importance as we consider the war-against-terrorism—Especially that part being waged in Iraq!

As an alternative view I offer Winston Churchill's “blood, toil, tears and sweat” plan for the defeat of Nazi terrorism and the long term and great sacrifices made by America's “greatest generation” against those Nazis, Imperial Japan and foolish Italy.

Had today's attitude, for short term satisfactions, been in place in the years 1939-1945 our world would be one of gas chambers, “comfort women” for imperial troops and the other horrors of that age. If that attitude had prevailed during the “Cold War” the USA would be, at best, an isolated island in a Marxist sea and at worst a land where the speaking of Russian or Chinese would be mandatory.

Today's Members of the Congress (Including at least one ex-Marine who has forgot why and how he fought) journalists and others, with a basically “common criminal mentality”, are all taking a short term view toward the war in Iraq. (My own, more radical, position is that they are taking a very, very, short term view as to a 1500-year old war with Islam OR, at the least, that large proportion of Muslims who strictly hold to the teaching of Mohammed that there is a perpetual state-of-war between Muslims and all others who have not “submitted” to Islam.)

Certainly we cannot win any short term war in Iraq OR a longer war against the more generalized terrorism of our age OR (Again, in my more radical position) any successes in the 1500-year long war with Imperial Islam by any hedonistic attitudes for immediate gratification-of-desires. To win we must be able (As rational, strategic and balanced thinking beings) to invest “blood, sweat, toil and tears” to preserve our “common good” (And must bring that term back into use and effect), personal security and national safety.

A Soldier On Freedom & Sacrifice

2005-11-19T18:21:00.000-06:00

Ends Justifying The Means

To anyone who ever had the gall to doubt your own country….or freedom.

Sure Fire says,

Mom,

Be my voice. I want this message heard. It is mine and my platoon’s to the country. A man I know lost his legs the other night. He is in another company in our batallion. I can no longer be silent after watching the sacrifices made by Iraqis and Americans everyday.Send it to a congressman if you have to. Send it to FOX news if you have to. Let this message be heard please…

My fellow Americans, I have a task for those with the courage and fortitude to take it. I have a message that needs not fall on deaf ears. A vision the blind need to see. I am not a political man nor one with great wisdom. I am just a soldier who finds himself helping rebuild a country that he helped liberate a couple years ago.
I have watched on television how the American public questions why their mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters are fighting and dying in a country 9000 miles away from their own soil. Take the word of a soldier, for that is all I am, that our cause is a noble one. The reason we are here is one worth fighting for. A cause that has been the most costly and sought after cause in our small span of existence on our little planet. Bought in blood and paid for by those brave enough to give the ultimate sacrifice to obtain it. A right that is given to every man, woman, and child I believe by God. I am talking of freedom.

Freedom. One word but yet countless words could never capture it’s true meaning or power. “For those who have fought for it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know.” I read that once and it couldn’t be more true. It’s not the average American’s fault that he or she is “blind and deaf” to the taste of freedom. Most American’s are born into their God given right so it is all they ever know. I was once one of them. I would even dare to say that it isn’t surprising that they take for granted what they have had all their life. My experiences in the military however opened my eyes to the truth.

Ironically you will find the biggest outcries of opposition to our cause from those who have had no military experience and haven’t had to fight for freedom. I challenge all of those who are daring enough to question such a noble cause to come here for just a month and see it first hand. I have a feeling that many voices would be silenced.

I watched Cindy Sheehan sit on the President’s lawn and say that America isn’t worth dying for. Later she corrected herself and said Iraq isn’t worth dying for. She badmouthed all that her son had fought and died for. I bet he is rolling over in his grave.

Ladies and gentleman I ask you this. What if you lived in a country that wasn’t free? What if someone told you when you could have heat, electricity, and water? What if you had no sewage systems so human waste flowed into the streets? What if someone would kill you for bad-mouthing your government? What if you weren’t allowed to watch TV, connect to the internet, or have cell phones unless under extreme censorship? What if you couldn’t put shoes on your child’s feet?

You need not to have a great understanding of the world but rather common sense to realize that it is our duty as HUMAN BEINGS to free the oppressed. If you lived that way would you not want someone to help you????

The Iraqi’s pour into the streets to wave at us and when we liberated the cities during the war they gathered in the thousands to cheer, hug and kiss us. It was what the soldier’s in WW2 experienced, yet no one questioned their cause!! Saddam was no better than Hitler! He tortured and killed thousands of innocent people. We are heroes over here, yet American’s badmouth our President for having us here.

Every police station here has a dozen or more memorials for officers that were murdered trying to ensure that their people live free. These are husbands, fathers, and sons killed every day. What if it were your country? What would your choice be? Everything we fight for is worth the blood that may be shed. The media never reports the true HEROISM I witness everyday in the Iraqi’s. Yes there are bad one’s here, but I assure you they are a minuscule percent. Yet they are a number big enough to cause worry in this country’s future.
I have watched brave souls give their all and lose thier lives and limbs for this cause. I will no longer stand silent and let the “deaf and blind” be the only voice shouting. Stonewall Jackson once said, “All that I have, all that I am is at the service of the country.” For these brave souls who gave the ultimate sacrifice, including your son Cindy Sheehan, I will shout till I can no longer. These men and women are heroes. Their spirit lives on in their military and they will never be forgotten. They did not die in vain but rather for a cause that is larger than all of us.

My fellow countrymen and women, we are not overseas for our country alone but also another. We are here to spread democracy and freedom to those who KNOW the true taste of it because they fight for it everyday. You can see the desire in their eyes and I am honored to fight alongside them as an Infantryman in the 101st Airborne.

Freedom is not free, but yet it is everyone’s right to have. Ironic isn’t it? That is why we are here. Though you will always have the skeptics, I know that most of our military will agree with this message. Please, at the request of this soldier spread this message to all you know. We are in Operation Iraqi Freedom and that is our goal. It is a cause that I and thousands of others stand ready to pay the ultimate sacrifice for because, Cindy Sheehan, freedom is worth dying for, no matter what country it is! And after the world is free only then can we hope to have peace.

SGT Walter J. Rausch and 1st Platoon
101st Airborne Division (Air Assault)

NO Islamic-Other "Clash Of Civilizations"

2005-11-12T11:56:00.000-06:00

There is NO “Class Of Civilizations” between the West and Islam for the very simple reason that “Islam” is not a civilization nor is it civilized. Some maintain that Islam had its own “golden” age. If so, it was built on the foundations of Indian, Egyptian, Greek and the pre-Islamic Middle-Eastern thoughts and accomplishment---An as such as did flourish was destroyed by those who insisted on a return to Mohammed's teachings as based on war, murder, rape, genocide, robbery and all of the other horrid practices taught by that desert bandit, liar and sexual predator.

Although all real civilizations (Please see below) have had their times-of-horrors (eg The “religious” wars of the 1600s, the thuggee in India and Mao's abuse of the Chinese People), only Islam declares the practice of evil as an unalterable article-of-Faith, claiming such teachings to be the word of God (ie Allah).

What are the lasting and true civilizations of this world? They appear, by many proofs, to be that of the West, of China and, perhaps, of India. These are the root sources of retaining old knowledges and of creating new knowledge. These are the sources of art, music, science, non-theological political theory and experiments and other like, creative, gifts of the human mind and spirit.

Since I know the West best, it is easy to point our the basis of its civilization in the thoughts of the Jews, classical Greeks, the Christian founders of the West's universities (The first and only true model for that force-of-thought, with their very Christian philosophies) and the practical borrowings from outside of Europe. The languages of the West, from the exactness of Greek and German to the poetry of Iberian languages to the incredible flexibility of English have all contributed to the success of the West as an economic, military and exploring (Lands AND ideas) culture and civilization.

China's intellectual, artistic and, for a short time, technological creativity are all based on the family-as-the-basic-unit concept so much emphasized by Confucius---And, only slightly modified by the potential compassion and “right thinking/actions” of Buddhism, the mysticism of Taoism and the materialism of Mao (After Marx). The Chinese languages seem to lend themselves, in a special way, to the study of Physics and related arts and sciences. Certainly, the Chinese have given us some of the greatest art and crafts in human history and have, in recent years, integrated their rich musical history with that of the West.

I know far less about India and its culture(s?). However, the rich music, art, philosophies and other gifts of that sub-continent are well known to most.

The West, China and India are all true civilizations. They may compete economically or in other manners; But, they do NOT clash.

Islam has only taken (Too often by force) from others, creates nothing but hate and cannot be considered a civilization—Clashing or otherwise competing with real civilizations.

Rebalencing Law & Attorney Power

2005-11-09T06:13:00.000-06:00

I think it well past the time to rebalence the now too great authority of attorneys in the USA and the “Several States”. If you consider that lawyers (Reasonably) control the Courts, are most of the Members of the Congress and Legislatures and, too often, the heads of Administrative agencies you begin to see the impact of only one, self-interested and self-protecting (When did you last hear of an attorney having his/her license revoked rather than merely suspended?) sub-group of Americans upon the rest of us and the Common Good (A term and concept largely forgotten in this self-centered, “individual rights are everything” society).

If you add to this the fact that there are too many judges “making law from the bench”, often in direct opposition to the legislatively expressed will of the People AND the like mis-use of “administrative tricks” by lawyer-dominated/abused administrative agencies, you begin to “get the idea” that attorneys have seized control of this land---And, often not in a manner for, again that term-and-concept, “the common good”.

The horridly over-large fees paid to lawyers (Sometimes even when they claim to be doing free, pro bono, work) is a tax on all of us never approved by our elected representatives, but enforced by the “old boys club” of bar associations and the (Lawyer dominated) three branches of government.

Well then---What should be done to return the basic power of the government to the
non-attorney citizens?

My first and very radical proposal is that, after the year 2050 and by Federal and State Constitutional Amendment, that no attorney should be allowed to be a member of the Congress or the States' Legislatures AND that any attorney who wishes to sit in such a body must first give up his/her law license and post bond in the sum of $10,000,000 that s/he will never again practice law or work for a law firm.

In addition, every state should required that any attorney found guilty of certain crimes (Any felony, any assaultive crime and any theft or misuse of a client's property) shall have his/her law license permanently revoked and that such a law should make any para-legal work done by such a person a felony.

I will not “hold my breath” to see such laws or constitutional provisions in place OR even seriously considered. Well---I can hope.

2005-11-04T15:02:00.000-06:00

Lessons From The Past . . .

As Americans we began to pay the PRICE of blood and self-sacrifice in 1776 at Concord and Lexington. Small payments were made, in spreading this nation (Which now has more Native Americans than in 1776) from coast to coast up to 1860 when many (Mostly White) Americans paid to define the unity of this nation as, for better or worse, The United States rather than These United States and, as a perhaps unintended result, the freedom of many slaves from White, Native American and Black slave holders.

In 1898 the USA began to “mount the tiger” of world leadership through our low blood investment in defeating Spain and taking over, at least for awhile, Cuba, Puerto Rico, The Philippines and many other smaller islands. World War I began the true role, if not intended as such, of the USA as a world leader and power and, thereby, the payment of a considerable PRICE in the pain, bleeding, gas-rotted lungs and death of our troops.

Of course, the greatest PRICE was paid by this land's “greatest generation” during what we call World War II and some view as a continuation of the 1914-1918 war. How many Americans were killed in combat or training or civilian and military support operations? I doubt that, even today, the exact number of deaths, physical-and-emotional maiming and other injuries are known. We do know that the blood-and-suffering had some and very positive results, TO WIT:

The truly anti-civilization forces of Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany and foolish
Italy were stopped from their genocidal and enslaving programs;
Many women were saved from being “comfort women” in Japanese military
brothels and others humans saved from being treated as trash and burnt up in
German ovens;
The boundaries between the freed nations and Soviet aggression were set, sometimes by physical walls built by the USSR or its slaves—Thus, allowing for the eventual destruction of that horrid regime; And, most of all,
Our military began the path towards its present, knight like, professional
capabilities.

The Korean War PRICE paid was frustrating as our best generals (And I do NOT mean Douglas MacArthur) were not allowed to use the full force of our weapons. But, this war began our instruction in the importance of military technology (Which has “paid off” in many civilian and life-saving applications).

The Viet Nam War taught us the essential wrongness of political micro-management of military operations and the need to “win the People”--Both in the USA and where we are fighting. Of course, committed communists and dedicated followers of Mohammed (Especially the more aggressive Sunni fanatics and all followers of the Wahabi school of Islam) are well beyond reason and the only solution to those people is to “put them out of action” and “liquidate” them as quickly as possible.

The “cold war”, of which I was a part as I served in the US Navy form 1956 to 1959, was won by maintaining our guard against foreign enemies, demonstrating the essential inefficiencies, technological backwardness and economic wrongness of all “socialist states”. If you think no PRICE was paid during the “cold war”, you are ignorant of the facts. (eg During my two years of sea duty on an aircraft carrier, over 20 lives were lost to aviation mishaps or other accidents. Deaths by murders committed by North Korean troops against our troops and that of our allies should be better known.)

The first Iraq war should have taught us the old lesson that compromise with evil is a defeat. It was with Hitler and was there by not finishing off the genocidal government of Saddam Husein when we could---And, be dammed to the limp-wristed twits in the UN and our State Department.

The first phase of the second Iraq war clearly demonstrated the technological and moral supremacy of the forces of the USA and its allies. We are still attempting to learn how to fight the war of ideas and that against the fanatics of Islam.

Since the Spanish-American War of 1898 the USA has not asked for any more land than was necessary to bury our honored dead. We have given to our time-to-time enemies wealth, the services of our citizens and our good will to the extent that we may have all but economically destroyed ourselves in our ongoing efforts to be the most charitable and civilized of nations. Those of our troops who do not behave in a truly knightly manner are punished for their offenses. Our people do not “dance in the streets” when our foes are killed as did so many Muslims upon hearing the dreadful news of “9/11”.

We are still paying the PRICE to maintain civilization in lands where it existed and where, as in Iraq, where it did not exist---At least for the centuries since the hate-filled ideology of Mohammed has been in place.

. . . And For The Future

We must remember that being a world power and leader requires the ongoing payment of the PRICE. The people of this time are not responsible for the USA “mounting the tiger” of world leadership; But, are finding it impossible to be in any other position and would not wish to be an inferior nation unable to project power (See below) against all who would destroy us and our defense of what is left of Western civilization.

We have must remember that it is far better to have our enemies concentrated, where we can “neutralize” them, far away (Such as in Iraq and Afghanistan) rather than in our homeland---A strategic and tactical situation made possible only by our technological advantages, military power and our willingness to pay the PRICE for a trained, experienced, knightly and effective military---The PRICE being paid by actual combat, assassinations bu Muslim fanatics OR the sometimes deadly risks of realistic military training..

We must remember that there is such a principle as the common good and that there is a difference between good-and-evil, two ideas which the secular humanists and other opponents of civilization would have us forget.

We must remember that compromises with evil are, in themselves, wrong and, as to geopolitics, eventually lead to the payment of a greater PRICE than otherwise (eg With Hitler at Munich)..

On All Saints Day---The Armed Saints

2005-11-01T20:32:00.000-06:00

At tonight's All Saints' Day mass my pastor gave a homily in which the great saints of old were mentioned and the great numbers of such Holy Ones marching forward through time was presented to the people.

In my mind's eye, I found myself seeing many columns of God's saints marching behind their special patrons: All the brown-robed Franciscans and those of that persuasion behind St. Francis of Assisi and St. Claire of that same town; Dominicans and many saintly scholars behind St. Dominic, St. Thomas of Aquino and St. Albert the Great; Those attorneys who, somehow, have become saints behind St. Thomas More; All good pastors (Including our beloved John Paul II) behind his countryman St. John Kanty; And, so forth---Each behind her or his leader in the march to glory.

As for myself, I hope to someday (If that term has any meaning in eternity) take my very, very, humble place behind St. Bernard of Clairvaux (Doctor of the Church and author of De Laude Novae Militae). My view of his column of saints puts the Knights of The Temple (Knights Templar), with their swords used and bloody wounds suffered in the defense of the Holy Land against the followers of that false prophet Mohammed, first behind him. Following them are such as: The Spanish Crusaders who drove those Muslims out of Iberia; King Jan of Poland and all the Poles who suffered, died and yet were victorious at the gates of Vienna and many other places against the Muslim-Turkish hords; Don Juan of Austria and all of the brave seamen who sent the Turkish fleet to the deeps in defense of Christianity and true Civilization; And, the true Crusaders of today who battle the false, Muslim, prophet Osama bin Laden and his ilk throughout the world.

We should not forget the other false prophets such as the Imperial aggressors of World War I, Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan & Italy of World War II and the atheist communist and very false leaders, Lenin, Stalin Pol Pot, Mao and all of that evil lot against whom many stood guard and many more suffered and died. In defense of my nation, Christianity and Civilization I served for three years in the US Navy, my only claim to be a follower of St. Bernard and his holy troops---Among which are those who suffered and died at such places as Flanders' fields, the Bataan Death March, Normandy's beaches and hedgerows, upon and under the the too-hot and too-cold mountains of Korea, the jungles of Viet Nam and all the other places where evil is confronted, by true knights, throughout history and the world.

TO THOSE WHO MAINTIAIN THAT THERE ARE NOT JUST WARS AND THAT THE BATTLES FOUGHT, EVEN TODAY. AGAINST THE FOLLOWS OF SUCH FALSE PROPHETS AS MOHAMMED AND OSAMA BIN LADEN WILL BE UNLIKELY TO BE AMONG THE FOLLOWER OF ST. BERNARD ON THE ROAD TO GLORY.

The Division Of The USA & Judge Alito

2005-10-31T15:22:00.000-06:00

In an unseemly rush to judgment and attack there are those who have already begun to claim that Judge Samuel Alito, if confirmed as a Justice of our Supreme Court, would “divide the nation”. The USA is already divided beyond the ability of any one person to increase or further define that division.

It is divided between those people who believe that: There is a difference between good and evil and those who think such divisions are outdated and, perhaps, the product of unreasonable religious beliefs; There are just wars and those who have forgotten about Nazi death camps, the “rape of Nanking” and the forced use of women and girls in Japanese military brothels and assert that all wars are unjust; That the “free exercise of religion” and free speech guaranteed by our Constitution allows citizens, as both individuals and groups, to publicly proclaim their Faith in public places (By word or symbols) VS. those who argue that there should be NO public proclamation of religion in any place or at any time; That homosexual acts are physically-and-morally unhealthy for both the individual and the community against those who, for whatever reason, are “pushing the homosexual agenda and life-style”; That the USA has a natural right to choose who comes into this nation VS. those persons who would fully open our borders to any disease bearing, drug smuggling or other person wishing to begin life here as a criminal; That the media should truthfully report the news without bias against those who see nothing wrong in reporting lies as news with such bias as they can, for themselves only, justify for what they, alone, see as the common good; The 1500-year history of rape, genocide, retail murder and other crimes-against-humanity which is typical of Muslims' actions against others, to this very day, justifies the condemnation of their ideology against those who maintain that Islam is “only just another religion”; It is the cultural and moral tradition of the Jews and Christians which has lifted up Western Civilization in opposition to those who hold that such is not true and that the Judeo-Christian heritage has no place in the “modern” world; That the Courts have no right to establish new “rights” under and protected by our Constitution as that is reserved to the People by the constitutional process of amending that sacred document, a view opposed by those who use and mis-use “tame judges” to preempt the authority of the People and their elected representatives and allow or encourage them to “make laws”---Even if such actions are in violation of constitutions and the constitutional laws of our States and of the USA; AND, too many other and like differences to list here.

My real question is, “Which side are you on?”!

Shortness & Mixed Feelings

2005-10-29T11:00:00.000-05:00

I have very mixed feelings about the following item as I have taken too much gaff as to being the "mighty mean midget"; But, I am opposed to all "special protections" under the Law.

Another Evil Ism: Heightism

This is not a joke or parody site. They are serious.

If you are tired of being called “Shorty” or “Pee-Wee,” you might want to go to their “get active” page and become politically involved. If your nickname is “Shrimp,” you definitely do!

Indeed, in some jurisdictions you can sue if you think you have been discriminated against. The site informs its readers that:

The State of Michigan and Cities of San Francisco and Santa Cruz, California have laws in place prohibiting height discrimination. The District of Columbia prohibits appearance-based discrimination.

We wonder whether the law in DC protects ugly people who want to be news anchors.

New Qualifications For Judges

2005-10-28T06:30:00.000-05:00

If you have not yet guessed, I am a conservative in many ways. Here is my menu for selecting justices or the US Supreme Court and other federal judicial positions as of28 October 2005----Not in order of priority; But, on a “as many qualifications as possible” basis.

Such persons must be firmly dedicated to the proposition that any new “rights”
(eg “Privacy”) added to those protected by our Constitution must be put into
place by the People (Through the members of the Congress and the Legislatures
of the Several States) in accordance with the constitutional provisions for
amending that document---And NOT by judicial fiat.
There should or must be an influx of such justices and judges from outside the
Federal Court and bureaucracy to prevent the “intellectual incest” of those classes
of persons. [I have recommended, to President George W. Bush Michigan State
Supreme Court Justice Stephan Markman and Professor William Bradford (Whose
anti-Ward Churchill stance endears him to me as a very NOT “politically correct”
person—Who happens to be a Native American)--As long as they are firmly in
favor of the provisions of item #1 above.]
Such nominees should have a very good understanding of the arguments in favor
of the proposition that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to the People at
large and NOT to only those serving in a militia---As declared and carefully
laid out by the office of the US Attorney General.
If possible, such persons should have honorably served in the Armed Forces or in
the Coast Guard or as a fire fighter or as an on-the-streets police officer as it is
far better to have our officials those who were willing to put their lives on the
line to protect us than fill up our offices with those who have avoided such duty.
If possible, there should be a considerable portion of judges who have a sound
education in engineering or the “hard sciences” (Physics, Math, Chemistry, Biology)
as they would be very useful in educating fellow justices, attorneys and the general
public as to law cases, involving science and technology, which are becoming
more-and-more common.

"Saudi Dollars and Jihad"

2005-10-24T10:05:00.000-05:00

Saudi Dollars and Jihad
By Rachel Ehrenfeld
FrontPageMagazine.com | October 24, 2005

Earlier this month, President George W. Bush finally declared that our war is with Radical Islam. He said: “In pursuit of their goals, Islamic Radicals are empowered by helpers and enablers…They are strengthened by front operations – such as corrupted charities – and those who aggressively fund the spread of Radical, intolerant versions of Islam.” Defeating “the murderous ideology of the Islamic Radicals,” he stated, is the “great challenge of our century.” This plague cannot be eliminated by appeasement, dialogue, or negotiated solutions.

The religious and philosophical justifications for promoting Jihad – which means holy war – around the world, is found in the Quran, says Dr. Hussein Shehata, a leading Islamic scholar at al-Azhar University in Cairo. According to Dr. Shehata, the following terms in the Quran seek to justify the spreading of Jihad: in Arabic, Al-Jihad bil-Lisan, which means Jihad of the Tongue, and al-Jihad bil-Qalam, Jihad of the Pen, both combine to promote Jihad.

These commands are complemented by Al-Jihad bil-Mal – the Financial Jihad – which is raising and contributing money to support the Jihad warriors – known as the Mujahideen. The Islamists of al-Qaeda, Hamas and Hizballah – from Egypt and Saudi Arabia to Spain, England, Africa, Asia, South America, the Caribbean, the U.S. and Canada – vow to convert the world to Islam. As documented by Jonathan Dahoah Halevi, Director of Orient Research Group in Toronto, “if a country does not allow the propagation of Islam to its inhabitants, then the Muslim[s] ... would be justified in waging Jihad against that country.”

President Bush declared repeatedly that, “money is the lifeblood of terrorist operations.” Stopping the flow of money to the terrorists would stop the Financial Jihad which feeds the efforts to revive the Islamic Caliphate. It would also stop the financing of terror attacks, hate propaganda and education, and their undermining of democracy. In Israel, Financial Jihad has funded more than 26,000 terror attacks in the last five years, including 144 suicide attacks. This comes to at least 14 attacks a day in a country the size of Vancouver Island.

While acknowledging the dangers of Radical Islam, and the support its propagators receive from “authoritarian regimes – allies of convenience like Syria and Iran,” the President neglected to mention Saudi Arabia, and the illegal drug trade that provides major financial resources for Islamist and other terrorist organizations worldwide.

Despite the oil crisis, we can no longer pretend that the Saudis are our allies in the war against Radical Islam. Continuing to do so only sets us up for failure.

Former U.S. Central Intelligence Agency Director James Woolsey testified before the U.S. House of Representatives’ Committee on Government Reform in April this year that “Some $85-90 billion has been spent from sources in Saudi Arabia in the last 30 years, spreading Wahhabi beliefs throughout the world.” The U.S. National Intelligence Reform Act of December 2004 requires development of a Presidential strategy to confront Islamic extremism, in collaboration with Saudi Arabia. So far, says a September Government Accounting Office (GAO) report, U.S. agencies have been unable to determine the extent of Saudi Arabia’s domestic and international cooperation.

Indeed, the Saudis continue to fund terror: in August, Y'akub Abu Assab, a senior Hamas operative, was captured after he opened the Judea regional Hamas Communication Center in East Jerusalem. Assab transferred hundreds of thousands of dollars, as well as operational instructions from Hamas headquarters in Saudi Arabia to Hamas operatives in the West Bank and Gaza for terror attacks in Israel, as well as funds for the families of suicide bombers.

On Iqra TV, on August 29, 2005, Saudi Arabia's secretary-general of the official Muslim World League Koran Memorization Commission, Sheikh Abdallah Basfar, urged Muslims everywhere to fund terrorism. He said: "The Prophet said: 'He who equips a fighter -- it is as if he himself fought.' You lie in your bed, safe in your own home, and donate money and Allah credits you with the rewards of a fighter. What is this? A privilege.”

Under U.S. pressure, Saudi Arabia declared repeatedly that it would close some charities identified as spreading Wahhabism and funding terrorism. However, the GAO report notes that “in May 2005, ...it was unclear whether the government of Saudi Arabia had implemented its plans.” Despite Saudi promises to establish a new National Commission for Relief and Charity Work Abroad, the GAO said:” “as of July 2005, this commission was not yet fully operational.”

At least two members of the Saudi government, Riyadh Governor Prince Salman and Minister of Defense Prince Sultan, are sponsors of the Saudi High Commission, which evidence in the 9/11 victims lawsuits shows “has long acted as a fully integrated component of al-Qaeda’s logistical and financial support infrastructure.” Moreover, the lawsuits detail that “the Sept. 11 attacks were a direct, intended and foreseeable product of [the High Commission’s] participation in al-Qaeda’s jihadist campaign.”

Princes Salman and Sultan are also affiliated with the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO), which “had been involved in terror plans and plots and had purposely directed its activities against the United States.” The Princes have also been affiliated with the Saudi Charity al- Haramain, whose U.S. branches were shut down.

The most important finding by the GAO, however, was buried in a footnote. It says: “the distinction between the [Saudi] government’s support and funding, versus that provided by entities and individuals, especially in the case of Saudi charities’ alleged activities, is not always clear.”

While the U.S. Treasury Department is obligated to monitor funders of terrorism, the GAO reports that Treasury is not fulfilling its duty, in that Treasury “does not identify, monitor, or counter the support and funding or the global propagation of Islamic extremism as it relates to an ideology.” This ideology, according to the GAO, “denies the legitimacy of non-believers and practitioners of other forms of Islam, and that explicitly promotes hatred, intolerance, and violence…”

Meanwhile, legal systems in the West are doing their best: the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in California decided on October 20th that the U.S. can designate foreign organizations as terrorist groups and bar Americans from financially backing them—in a case involving money raised for the Iranian terrorist group, Mujahedin-e Khalq.

Similarly, The European Court of Justice ruled on September 22, 2005 that the EU has the right to freeze assets belonging to suspected terrorists on a United Nations list. The case was brought by the Saudi based Al Barakaat International Foundation and two individuals, Ahmed Ali Yusuf, a U.K. citizen of Pakistani origins, and Yassin Abdullah Kadi, the Saudi who headed the Muwafaq foundation. Both organizations and individuals were identified as funding al-Qaeda.

The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) meeting, which was held in Paris earlier this month, and the many other conferences devoted to terrorism financing, have issued self-congratulatory statements and plans for further meetings. But as important as the statements, new laws and banning of terrorist organizations are, they are useless as long as the financing of Radical Islam is allowed to flourish. Indeed, without the political will to stop the direct and indirect financing of terrorism, no law or convention will stop it.

Until we face up to sources of terrorist money being provided or condoned in various ways by our putative allies, we will continue to issue more lame statements condemning future attacks without implementing real measures that can protect our country. We have the ability to end the plague of terrorism if we only target the funding that makes it possible. We owe it to future generations to do so.

Not All Police Are "Good Guys"

2005-10-17T10:03:00.000-05:00

As much as I admire most police officers and other law enforcement agents (And, their departments/agencies) there is a too-large minority of both individuals and organizations in that “work” who do NOT meet with my approbation as they grow and have grown too powerful, too far beyond the control of the People, too forgetful of the fact that the “common people” also have rights, powers (eg In most of the USA, the ability to buy and keep-at-hand modern weapons) and a strong desire to NOT be abused.

Politicians and those who elect them should be specially aware of the following statement (Adapted from Jack Vance's The Demon Princes:

“As soon as the police slip out from under the firm thumb of a suspicious and careful legislative body, they become arbitrary, merciless, a law unto themselves. They think no more of justice, but only of establishing themselves as a privileged and envied elite. They mistake the attitude of natural caution and uncertainty of the civilian population as admiration and respect, and presently they go about their land with superior fire-power and a megalomaniac tendency to use such. Citizens become, therefore, not masters but servants or slaves. Such a police force becomes merely an aggregate of sanctioned criminals, the more baleful as their power and actions are sanctioned by the Law. For this sub-class of police operatives and their like agencies, humans are not understood in terms other than objects to be dealt with at the convenience of these overly powerful persons.

Citizens' desires or dignity mean nothing to them.

If such a police officer kills a civilian, it is a “regrettable circumstance”. HOWEVER, if a citizen kills a police officer, all hell breaks loose and all other police business comes to an effective stop until “someone” is arrested (Or, killed by the police) for that offense. All too often the rights (eg To no searches of private homes without judicially approved warrants) of all the People are ignored. All too often, any captured suspect is subjected to physical abuse (To the level of torture) or “killed while attempting to escape”. Such police consider any attack OR even lesser opposition to their desires and intolerable presumption!

Better a hundred unchecked criminals that the operations of such a police force!”

Examples of this type of “police work” include the FBI at “Ruby Ridge” (Where an unarmed woman, holding her infant, was murdered by an FBI sniper) and all of the Federal authorities at the “Branch Davidian” compound near Waco, Texas (Where Janet Reno, the USA's, Democrat Party, Attorney General ordered an assault resulting in the deaths of many children and non-combatant women when the ongoing siege would have resulted, in time, to the surrender of the people there to face the probably unfounded criminal charges which might have been brought against them.) Too many local police department (eg Milwaukee) have too many examples (eg The beating of Mr. Frank Jude, Jr.) of such abuses.

Therefore, keep a doubtful and analytic mind open as to any requests for the increase of police power in this land!

Theft = Murder

2005-10-17T05:36:00.000-05:00

Property represents the time someone expends in creating it. The crops of the farmer come only with the farmer's great efforts; The iron smelted, cast, forged and formed all are from the worker; The composition of music or artistic-design or engineering or scientific concept all represent effort----And, all of these represent some part of the workers' life!

THEREFORE, the theft of such property is the taking of some part of another person's life which can not be replaced and is a “small murder”.

It does not matter if the stealing is done with a gun or a legislative act or by plagiarism or industrial espionage or by a "welfare cheat" or the papers of an attorney enforced by a court---They are all stealing and the taking of a part of a human life! Even insurance coverage or presumed, but corrupted, consent-of-the-citizen to legislative acts only spread the theft and loss of life-time over many individuals.

When the acts of any such thief (Common robber or plagiarist or lawyer or legislator) add up to one human life, that person should be punished as a murderer.

(nb The above is adapted from a quote in Jack Vance's The Anome.)

Cube & Cathedral: A Book Review

2005-10-06T16:19:00.000-05:00

Weigel, George
The Cube and the Cathedral
Basic Books (Perseus Books Group)
New York; 2005
ISBN 0-465-09266-7

This is most certainly not an easy book to read in spite of its shortness and shortness of each chapter. In many ways it reminds of Eric Hoffer's The True Believer—Some Notes On Mass Movements as to the compactness, logic and challenge of its thoughts AND my need to re-read much of it as a first reading of and reflection upon their contents was not enough for me to really grasp the essential meaning of the authors.. This is very interesting because the two authors are worlds apart in basic assumptions about the reality of the the true nature of humans. However, both authors had (Mr. Hoffer is dead) or have commanding personal (On TV) presences and spoke/speak with a passion not understood from their written words.

Mr. Weigel lays out the current and probable future of what was a European Civilization with special references to: The French; The EU's purposeful and even hateful rejection of Europe's Christian roots and foundation in its proposed constitution and even the current administration of its affairs; The contrasting Slavic view of human and humanity, as well as the very modern (Perhaps, too modern for the EU's bureaucrats who are “stuck in the 1960s”); The pathological and self-destructive (Even suicidal) loss of population; And, many other and very interesting facets of European dynamics.

This book is worth your time and reflection---And, will make demands on both.

2005-10-05T17:01:00.000-05:00

It certainly appears that the “left” supports “secular humanism” which, in turn, is really atheism flying under a false-flag as would a pirate ship. This “European disease” is endemic, if not epidemic, in those counties of the USA in which Mr. Kerry received a majority of votes in the November, 2004 election and was well represented by him and by the current Chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

One of the goals of that movement is to remove religion from the public's hearing and view in all public places (Such as schools and court houses) and to make it a non-factor in the political, social and intellectual life of the United States of America. Such atheists, posing as “secular humanists” have had a great measure of success, in large part, through the rulings of law-making (NOT law interpreting) judicial tyrants.

In Europe this disease is no less epidemic than the Black Plague was and the “action” is from EU and national (Especially in France) bureaucrats who fear or despise Christianity and, in fact, Christ. The extent to which this loathing of Christianity, its thoughts and its followers can be clearly seen in the case of Rocco Buttiglione as described in Mr. George Weigel's most excellent book The Cube and the Cathedral (Basic Books; NY; 2005), TO WIT:

“Judging from the Buttiglione case which roiled European political and journalistic circles
in late 2004, it seems that orthodox Christians are also to be excluded from the new
Europe's public space, or at least, its public offices.

Rocco Buttiglione, a distinguished Italian philosopher and Minister for European Affairs
in the Italian government was chosen by the incoming President of the European Commis-
sion , Portugal's Jose Manuel Durao Parroso, to be commissioner of justice on the new
Commission. Professor Buttiglione was then subjected to a particularly nasty
inquisition by the justice commission of the European Parliament. His convictions about
the morality of homosexual acts and the nature of marriage were deemed by Euro-
-Parliamentarians to disqualify him from holding high office on the European
Commission---despite Buttiglione's clear distinction, in his testimony, between what
he, a committed and intellectually sophisticated Catholic, regards as immoral behavior andwhat the law regards as criminal behavior, and despite his sworn commitment, substan-
tiated by a lifetime of work, to uphold and defend the legitimate civil right of all. This
did not satisfy many members of the European parliament, who evidently agreed with one
of their members in his claim that Buttiglione's moral convictions---not any actions he had
undertaken, and would likely undertake, but his convictions---were in direct contradiction
of European law.”

If you think this is only a “European thing”, then you should reflect on the atheistic attacks made by “secular humanists” on potential or real nominees for Federal judgeships, on President George W. Bush and on a certain Georgia judge who insisted that the public display, in a Court House, of the Ten Commandments was a matter of “the free exercise of religion” and an expression of “free speech” as allegedly guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

In every way possible we must maintain the right to have religion firmly in the public's view and hearing and, as exercises of Constitutional Rights, in public places!

What part of "NO!" do you fail to understand?

2005-10-05T11:42:00.000-05:00

“What part of the word “NO” do you fail to understand?” was (Perhaps, is) a question many parents put to disobedient children and many rational people put to those who seem to be disconnected from the realities of limits on their behaviors as if they, also, were spoiled brats.

Today, in this time but in every place, the real adults of the world must say “NO!!!” to both those who would convert or subjugate all to the death cult of Islam (Which would destroy our civilization) and the equally dangerous death cult of “militant secular humanism” (Which would kill the true human spirit and, thereby, also destroy civilization).

The nature and dangers of Islam are well documented over its last 1500-years and in such places as <www.crusaderknightstwoswords.blogspot.com” and in the books and articles noted or reviewed at that site (Especially “The True Face Of Islam”; Contained in its May, 2005 archives). The nature and dangers of secular humanism (Especially as to the European variety of that disease) is well laid out in Mr. George Weigel's The Cube and the Cathedral (Basic Books; New York; 2005) as well as in some places in my blog.

Therefore, we must use the strongest way of saying “NO!!!” to both of those dangers in our frequent written and spoken words to officials, ministers-of-religion, journalists, teachers and anyone else in positions of power or influence---As well as at the ballot box, with our check books and spending patterns and other like means. If those methods do not stop the noted and evil ideologies, then we may have to resort to “other means”.

In Praise Of Soldiers # 2--A Book Review

2005-09-24T11:41:00.000-05:00

REJOICE!!!---That the USA can still raise up the types of military personnel (Especially senior NCOs and mid-range, Captain to Colonel, officers described in that book---Who do much, much, more to preserve peace in this world and to bring credit to the USA than all of the “cookie pushers” employed by “Foggy Bottom” (ie The State Department).

Kaplan, Robert D.
Imperial Grunts---The American Military on the Ground
Random House; New York; 2005

This book very clearly lays out the reasons for my commands that you rejoice through the author's reports on his travels throughout the world, to those places where our troops are making a difference or, most certainly, attempting to do so as to gaining allies, fighting terrorists, defining the real enemies of Western Civilization (ie Islam), and generally doing good for the our sake and that of all other, civilized, peoples.

The troops (One ex-Coast Guard) described by Mr. Kaplan would be recognized by St. Bernard ***(Who lived when the first Crusaders were trying to take back what had been illegally and illicitly taken by Muslim thieves and aggressors) and by any real student of history as the new, devoted, disciplined, right-thinking and right-acting Crusaders of this Age.

This book should be read by: All of our nations military leaders and by those civil officials concerned with the military and with “foreign affairs”; By all editors, reporters, columnists and commentators who deal with those subjects; By all “peaceniks”, so called “religious leaders” and others who so shamelessly criticize our troops; And, by everyone else who wishes to feel thankful for the efforts of those best of our citizens who so reliably serve in our armed forces (I exclude the military bureaucrats and “political generals and admirals who are money wasting “time servers”).

*** Please see the “In Praise Of Soldiers # !” just previously on this blog.

In Praise Of Soldiers # 1--Of Ancient Days

2005-09-22T19:53:00.000-05:00

This is the first of (At least) two entries "In Praise Of Soldiers"; That is soldiers who meet the highest standards of morality and personal excellence. This, first entry, is many hundreds-of-years old and refers to the (Then) new, Order Of The Temple (Templars), a military order of monks which later fell to the greed of secular rulers and the corruption of some in the Catholic Church.

DE LAUDE NOVAE MILITAE

“IN PRAISE OF THE NEW KNIGHTHOOD”--INTRODUCTION:: This work was written by Saint Bernard of Clairvaux one of the few declared “Doctors of the Church” in the year of our Lord, 1129 and was addressed to the first Master General of the Military Order of Templars. Although almost 1,000-years old, this document can still speak to us at a time when the Churches and Peoples of God are under external and internal attack by those who would destroy them and leave only a desolation of moral and intellectual emptiness as is the apparent goal of the Evil One.

THE AUTHOR AND HIS AUTHORITY: Saint Bernard was born in 1070 and died in August, 1153. As a “Doctor of the Church” his writings have great weight in the definitions of what is the correct view of the Church and its teachings. It applies to all Christians in all subsequent times, especially those under attack by the followers of that false pseudo-prophet Mohamed.

DE LAUDE NOVAE MILITAE-THEN: This work addressed the spiritual direction of what was then a new order of knights, the Templars, who were pristine in their commitment to the Church and their willingness to physically protect it in the Holy Land. If that Order became corrupt at a later date (The downfall of the Templars may have been caused by the greed of a French king and jealousy within the Church), that does not detract from the teachings of St. Bernard and the value of such knighthood in 1129AD; And for all who are, formally or informally, knights who protect us from evil, even to this time..This direction was specially needed after the misbehavior of some crusaders in both Constantinople and in the Holy Land.

DE LAUDE NOVAE MILITAE—NOW AND IN THE FUTURE: At the very least and at this time the Church is being attacked by external enemies, generally “muslims”, in the Sudan, the Philippines and in other places. Many of those who support the teachings of the Koran and the Hadith are attacking (Directly or by giving active support to those who do) all civilization every where, even in “islamic” nations. This is not a new conflict as those who follow the teachings of that false and pernicious prophet Mohamed have, for more than 1400-years, have continued their adherence to the Koran's commands for aggressive war (Jihad) against all others and, thereby, work the evil of retail murder, genocide, rape, pillage, the destruction of cultures and the social, political, legal and economic subjugation of those not “muslims” and of all women.

It seems reasonable that we need a new military order of knights who will have that same commitment as did the early Templars and will follow the teachings of St. Bernard as to the proper way in which to be knights and to “fight the good fight”. Why?

Because, with the exception of too few in the USA and even fewer in other places, no one in this world is willing to declare the truth about the danger of “islam” (Perhaps motivated to silence by Arab controlled oil or pathological pacifism or “political correctness” or (Like France} a large and aggressive “muslim” community or a hate of the Churches' moral teachings (Which teachings confront their self-centered, fragile and meaningless senses-of-self-worth).

Therefore, we now require some organized force or agreeable class of unorganized persons who will defend the Churches of God and civilization from such attacks as now exist and have existed for almost 1500-years.

What then did Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, Doctor of the Church, write about the proper way of being a Christian knight?

SAINT BERNARD'S STATEMENTS: I have reviewed the translation of De Laude Novae Militae available to me, edited out those parts which were specific to only the time in which they were wrote, made slightly free with the translation (To suit modern usage) and am left with the following, given as if there were such a new military order in this time and already at work in this world, especially the Middle East.

“It seems that a New Knighthood has recently appeared on the earth, and precisely in that part of it, the Orient (nb The Middle East), in which He visited from on high in the flesh. As He then troubled the princes of darkness in the strength of His Mighty Hand,so there he now wipes out their followers, the
children of disbelief, scattering them by the hands of His mighty ones. ... Thisis, I say, a new kind of knighthood and one unknown to the ages gone by. It ceaselessly wages a twofold war both against flesh and blood and against a spiritual army of evil ....Go forth confidently then, you knights, and repel the foes of the cross of Christ with a stalwart heart. Know that neither death nor life can separate you from the love of God which is in Jesus Christ; And in every peril repeat, “Whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's.” What a glory to return from in victory from such a battle! How blessed to die there as a
martyr! Rejoice, brave athlete! If you live and conquer in the Lord; But, glory and exult even more if you die and join your Lord. Life indeed is a fruitful thing and victory is glorious, but a holy death is more important than either. If they are blessed who die in the Lord, how much more are they blessed who die
for the Lord! ....Indeed, danger or victory for a Christian depends on the dispositions of his heart and not on the fortunes of war. If he fights for a good reason, the issue of his fight can never be evil; And, likewise, the results can never be considered good if the reason were evil and the intentions perverse. If you happen to be killed while you are seeking only to kill another, you die a murderer. If you succeed, and by your will to overcome and to conquer you perchance kill a man, you live a murderer. Not it will not do to be a murderer, living or dead, victorious or vanquished. What an unhappy victory---To have conquered a man while yielding to vice and to indulge in an empty glory at his fall when wrath and pride have gotten the better of you. ...

But, the Knights of Christ may safely fight the battles of their Lord, fearing either sin if they smite the enemy, nor danger at their own death, since to inflict death or the die for Christ is no sin, but rather, an abundant claim to glory. In the first case, one gains for Christ, and in the second, on gains Christ Himself. The Lord freely accepts the death of the foe who has offended Him, and yet more freely gives Himself for the consolation of the fallen knight.

The knights of Christ, I say, may strike with confidence and die yet more confidently, for he serves Christ when he strikes and serves himself when he falls. Neither does he bear his sword in vain, for he is God's minister, for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of the good. If he kills an evildoer, he is not a mankiller; But, if I may so put it, a killer of evil. He is evidently the avenger of Christ towards evildoers and he is rightly considered a defender of Christians. ... When he inflicts death it is for Christ's profit and when he suffers death, it is for his own gain. The Christian glories in the death of the pagan (nb At that time, “muslims” were considered pagans), because
Christ is glorified ....

I do not mean to say that the pagans are to be slaughtered when there is any other way to prevent them from harassing and persecuting the faithful, but only that it now seems better to destroy them than evil should come to their just and that the righteous be tempted into wrongdoing (i.e. Converting to
“islam” for economic or social or status reasons OR by force?).

What then? If it is never permissible for a Christian to strike with the sword, why did the Savior's precursor (nb St. John the Baptist) bid the soldiers to be content with their pay, and not forbid them to follow their calling? ...

Thus when the transgressors of divine law have been expelled, the righteous nation that keeps the truth may enter in security. Certainly it is proper that nations who love war should be scattered, and those who trouble us should be cut off and that all the workers of iniquity should be dispersed .... Let both words (Emphasis added; Probably a reference to: Luke 22: 35-38) of the faithful fall upon the necks of the foe, in order to destroy every high thing exalting itself against the knowledge of God, which is the Christian faith ....”

FURTHER COMMENTS: The language of this document is, by modern standards, very elaborate and convoluted. Much of this document applies only to the time in which it was written and to the Jerusalem and Templars of that time.

However, much of the teaching applies to all ages and to the use of military force by Christians. If the Christian warrior avoids pride, vengeance and other like weaknesses and battles only for justice, for the punishment of evildoers and for the protection of innocents (e.g. Christians in “islamic” nations), then killing incidental to such noble activities is not sinful and is not murder.

The calm, without-hate, professional and focused waging of war by the forces of the USA, Poland, the UK and a few other nations in Iraq and Afghanistan appear to generally meet the standards set by this noted Doctor of the Church. The reflective person might compare such knightly waging of war with the emotional, hateful, vengeful and assassin-like behaviors of such organizations as Hitler's SS {Einsatzgruppen}, Serbian genocidists, Latin American death squads, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbullah, Black September, the insane persons who follow Osama bin Laden, those who directed the Iraq-Iran war of a few years ago and too many others to name.

If the modern, Christian, knight now serves under the flag of a secular nation, it does not matter. If such a knight serves privately, it does not matter. What does matter is service up to the standards set by St. Bernard and what is in the mind and heart of every such knightly person.

I note that those who, in Iraq, did not come up to these standards are being punished.

Although St. Bernard questions the propriety of killing to defend ones self, the Catechism Of The Catholic Church declares the ultimate right to self-defense and the duty to defend others to be proper and does not put excessive limits on the use of force to do so; And, by extension and so as to not make that teaching meaningless, on the access to effective and individual weapons when the civil authorities cannot provide effective and immediate protection.

Of course, such a knighthood as is described above cannot flourish in an unjust society (This lack may have been at the base of the failure of the Templars and of the Crusades of ancient times). Therefore, our posited and new knighthood must look to their own society as to instilling justice and morality. By preference, this should be done by the persuasion of others to just and moral ways OR by prayer OR by political and economic actions. Lacking success by those means, other methods may be required.

CREDITS: The translation, of De Laude Novae Militae, used can be found at the “ORB Online Encyclopedia”. No copyright notices was seen at that site. In any case, this essay is a “fair use” of that material.

This essay is not copyrighted and way be used as the reader sees fit.

HABEMUS GLADII DUO
DEUS VULT

The Fall Of Europe & Why

2005-09-21T10:22:00.000-05:00

The reader is refered to "The Second Fall Of Spain" and "1492---A Very Good Year" which are also found in this blog.

From Front Page Magazine Of 21 September 2005

The following is an article written by a Spanish journalist,
Sebastian Villar Rodriguez.

Europe died in Auschwitz

I was walking along Raval (Barcelona) when all of a sudden I
understood that Europe died with Auschwitz. We assassinated 6 million Jews in order to end up bringing in 20 million Muslims!

We burnt in Auschwitz the culture, intelligence and power to create.
We burnt the people of the world, the one who is proclaimed the
chosen people of God. Because it is the people who gave to humanity the symbolic figures
who were capable of changing history (Christ, Marx, Einstein,
Freud...) and who is the origin of progress and wellbeing.

We must admit that Europe, by relaxing its borders and giving in
under the pretext of tolerance to the values of a fallacious
cultural relativism, opened it's doors to 20 million Muslims, often
illiterates and fanatics that we could meet, at best, in places
such as Raval, the poorest of the nations and of the ghettos, and
who are preparing the worst, such as the 9/11 and the Madrid
bombing and who are lodged in apartment blocs provided by the social
welfare.

We also have exchanged culture with fanaticism, the capacity to
create with the will to destroy, the wisdom with the superstition.
We have exchanged the transcendental instinct of the Jews, who even
under the worst possible conditions have always looked for a better
peaceful world, for the suicide bomber. We have exchanged the pride
of life for the fanatic obsession of death. Our death and that of our
children.

What a grave mistake that we made!!!

Clarification Of Judicial Actions

2005-09-19T10:46:00.000-05:00

THE ARTICLE BELOW IS A "SENDING" , ALTHOUGH UNEXPECTED, AS TO MY CRY FOR HELP IN UNDERSTANDING THE COURTS.

September 19, 2005, 8:40 a.m.
Clarifying “Extremism”
It’s more than just politics.

By Stephen Markman

Senate Democrats have warned the president to avoid sending them "extremist" judges. While there is considerable room for debate as to how best to identify truly "extremist" candidates, a starting point might be to focus on those nominees who are most inclined to disregard the admonition of Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, which established judicial review, that the role of the judge is to say what the law is rather than what it ought to be. For, if there is any aspect that is central to the proper exercise of the judicial power, it is respect for the separation of powers and an appreciation of the distinction between the judicial and legislative roles in a tripartite government.

While there are few judges who ever expressly assert their disregard for the words of the lawmaker (whether that lawmaker be Congress, a state legislature, a county commission, or simply the parties to a contract), such disregard is often effectively achieved through a variety of alternative, less noticeable means. Therefore, to assist the Senate in assessing “extremist” tendencies in judicial nominees, I offer for consideration several of the more prominent rhetorical devices that often cloak judicial fiats. Senators may wish to examine the prior opinions of nominees in order to assess their propensity for employing devices like the following, with the purpose of replacing the policy choices of the lawmaker with those of the judge.

Spirit of the Law: Where the actual language of the law is incompatible with the policy preferences of a judge, it is not uncommon for a judge to claim that the “spirit of the law” nonetheless compels the preferred result. A judge may invoke such a “spirit” as a basis for decision-making as if somehow, via this necromancy, that which is not within the law may be conjured into it. Opinions relying upon a "spirit," nowhere incorporated in the actual language of the law, should be scrutinized carefully.

Balancing: The process of “balancing” rights and interests is predominantly a legislative, not a judicial, function. When, in the course of interpreting the law, a judge purports to engage in a “balancing” determination, more often than not he has misconstrued one of the allegedly-competing rights or interests. Concluding that one interest or right is entitled to a 30-percent weight, instead of a 70-percent weight in the “balancing” process not only constitutes an essentially standard-less, legislative decision, but it also implicitly concedes that neither of the rights or interests established by the lawmaker will be accorded full respect.

Public Policy: A judge will often resort to “public policy” as a basis for disregarding the words of the law. Unless such policy is grounded in the actual words of some law, this is simply another way for a judge to replace the determination of the lawmaker with his own determination of what the law ought to be. The most reliable basis for ascertaining “public policy” is for a judge not to examine his own sense of conscience, but to examine the principle repository of such policies in a democratic society, the actual enactments of representative, public bodies.

Equity: A judge may sometimes speak of “equity” as a basis for rendering a decision incompatible with the language of the law. While there is a longstanding body of Anglo-American law that is grounded in the concept of equity, it is nonetheless a body of law. “Equity” should not be invoked simply to enable a judge to override the words of the law and achieve a preferred result. Equity understood broadly as the power generally to do “good” things, and to avoid the consequences of the law when the results are not as the judge prefers, is an equity in which the rule of law is subordinated to the rule of individual lawyers in robes.

Ambiguity: While the law is sometimes truly ambiguous, it is not as ambiguous as some judges often find it to be so. The consequences of finding a law to be ambiguous, rather than striving through the use of time-honored interpretative tools and techniques to determine the better meaning of a law, is that some judges end up believing themselves to be empowered to give their own meaning to the law. The conclusion that a law is “ambiguous” should be a final resort, not one undertaken with haste so that a judge can impart his own meaning to that law.

Broad Construction: When a judge announces that a law is to be construed “broadly” or “liberally” (or “narrowly” or “conservatively”), his analysis should be scrutinized closely. For it is the role of the judge generally to interpret the words of the law “reasonably.” When a judge purports to interpret the law by some alternative standard, it is reasonable to inquire why judicial thumbs are being placed on one side or the other of the scales of justice.

Legislative History: While there is a legitimate, albeit limited, role for reliance upon “legislative history” in the interpretation of statutes, excessive reliance upon legislative history may simply be a means by which the words of the lawmaker are replaced or modified by a “history” that was never enacted into law. This is an especially questionable endeavor when it is recognized that there are usually multiple legislative histories that can be picked from by a judge intent on reaching a particular result. Is the “legislative history” of a statute derived from the testimony of a legislative witness, from a committee report, from the statement of a single legislator on the floor, or from a colloquy among two or three legislators?

While there can be no purely mechanical process for evaluating judicial nominees — any more than there can be a mechanical process for judging — an intelligent and thoughtful assessment of judicial opinions invoking these rhetorical devices is a far better starting point in assessing genuinely “extremist” nominees than, for example, calculating judicial “batting averages” or identifying “politically-incorrect” decisions on matters of high public profile. (“Isn’t it true, Judge Bork, that your opinions favored environmental defendants 69.3 percent of the time?”) If there can be no consensus that a judge who fails to give faithful meaning to the words of the lawmaker is acting beyond his authority, then there can be no consensus as to who is acting as an “extremist.”

— Stephen Markman is a justice on the Michigan supreme court. He served as assistant attorney general under Ronald Reagan, during which time he was responsible for the federal judicial selection process.

Comments Welcomed !

2005-09-18T16:33:00.000-05:00

I am a technological "loss" and failed to note or know that this blog was NOT set up for comments. IT IS NOW!

You are encouraged to make comments. After very many years of marriage and three children with well developed "critical abilities" I have developed a "thick skin"! Whatever you have to write I have been the subject of worse.

The Right To Keep & Bear Arms

2005-09-16T20:38:00.000-05:00

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the USA and Article-25 (Section-1) of Wisconsin's Constitution both grant to the People the "right to keep and bear arms"---Notwithstanding the actions of the Courts which have castrated this right of the Citizens.

Finally a definitive legal argument has been, in defense of that right, published by the office of the Attorney General of the USA, TO WIT: WHETHER THE SECOND AMENDMENT SECURES AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT: The Second Amendment secures a right of individuals generally, not a right of States restricted to persons serving in militias.

Although long and very "legal", it should be read and studied by: All members of the Congress;
All Federal Judges; All other legislators and judges; The President of the USA and all Governors of the "Several States"; All law professors and newspaper editors; And, anyone interested in this subject.

Typing in the title above, in any good "search engine" should allow you to access it.

Those interested in this subject should also look to the site put out by "Keep And Bear Arms".

Please remember that the Second Amendment is the Constitution's way of enforcing the restof the Bill Of Rights!!!

nb This blog site does not allow me to enter e-mail addresses.

Help Me Understand The Courts !!!

2005-09-15T17:06:00.000-05:00

PLEASE HELP ME !!! I do not understand the decisions of the Supreme Court of The USA and other courts.

First a “right to privacy” exists to allow a woman to have someone murder her unborn child---Although not such “right” is noted in the Constitution of the USA or in the writings of the founders of this nation and the authors of that Constitution and its Bill-of-Rights. But, no such right to privacy appears to prevent the FBI from making searches, without a judge's approved and issued warrant, even though the Constitution calls for such warrants and the writings of our Founding Fathers are full of concerns about that subject.

The Court(s) have supported something called “the separation of church and state” (Based on a private letter of Thomas Jefferson and ignoring the fact that the “non-establishment clause” was originally included in the Bill-Of-Rights to protect those states (ex-colonies) who had an established church from some over-powering, national, church as had England). Those same courts ignore the neighboring “free exercise of religion” and “free speech” provisions and will not protect groups of citizens who wish to exercise those rights by their erecting or placing religious statements (eg The Ten Commandments) in public places or on civic coats-of-arms without making them meaningless, as free speech and free exercise of religious expression, by drowning them in a sea of secular symbols. (The courts appear to be using such rulings in making Atheism or “Secular Humanism” the “Established Church Of The United States Of America”)

“Freedom Of Speech” was well established in our Constitution and Laws until the Supreme Court declared, in supporting the McCain-Feingold law, that it may be severely limited for certain periods before elections---When, such speech is most necessary and should be as free as is possible.

“Freedom Of The Press” is strongly protected in our Constitution and Laws---Unless the reporter is a student at a public school.

Protection against racial and other “class-based” discrimination is illegal---Unless the victim is Male or White/Oriental.

Even in Wisconsin, its Supreme Court took a very clear Constitutional Amendment (Section-1, Article-25), as approved by the People and with very clear language as to the People's right to keep and bear arms and subjected it to the type of “up is down, black is white, war is peace, good is evil” analysis as found in the novel 1984 and, by such judicial tyranny, destroyed the intent of the People.

Can anyone explain these contradictions to me?

HELP !!!

ACLU Vs. America---A Book Review

2005-09-14T16:10:00.000-05:00

The ACLU vs. America Exposing the Agenda to Redefine Moral Values	Book Review
by Alan Sears and Craig Osten
Review by Chris Banescu (archive) September 12, 2005

In The ACLU vs. America, authors Alan Sears and Craig Osten argue that despite its carefully cultivated image as a defender of individual "rights" and advocate for "the people," the American Civil Liberties Union stands for intellectual elitism, hypocrisy, and a blatant disregard for democratic processes. The ACLU, write Sears and Osten, want "one set of rules for itself" and the ability to dictate "other rules for everyone else." These malevolent and destructive traits are not a new development in the history of the ACLU, but represent the dominant characteristics of its members. The book focuses on key cases and positions the ACLU has supported and promoted in order to drastically affect the American cultural landscape and impose the extreme views of its members on the rest of the country.

One of the great myths about the ACLU is that it "started out as a good, pro-America, pro-liberty organization that somehow got off the track." Nothing could be farther from the truth. From its very foundation the mission of the ACLU was well defined by its founder, Roger Baldwin: "I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class… Communism is the goal."

The ACLU vs. America reveals countless instances where the ACLU has taken contradictory positions concerning fundamental rights and liberties. The common thread that emerges from these situations is a brazen hypocrisy and erratic twisting of legal standards in order to reshape American social structure to fit the militant, perverted, and atheistic philosophy of its radical members. Note Sears and Osten, the ACLU seeks a secularized America "with little or no public vestige left of religious faith and the traditional family."

On one hand, the ACLU vigorously defends the constitutional rights of child pornography distributors, despite the fact that the recorded acts represent serious, heinous, and vicious crimes against innocent children. Sears and Osten document the ACLU's reasoning: "all such material, once created, is fully protected by the First Amendment. ... No government should be allowed to limit the distribution of child pornography between 'consenting adults.'" Worse still, the ACLU also supports the rights of perverse organizations like the North American Man/Boy Love Association to post "web pages that provide advice on how to seduce and rape young boys." For those unfamiliar with this group, NAMBLA is known to teach "their members how to rape children and get away with it. They distribute child pornography and trade live children among members with the purpose of having sex with them."

On the other hand, the same ACLU then uses "its huge war chest ... to wage an unrelenting war against any public expression of religious faith but in particular Christianity and Orthodox Judaism." It has the audacity to sue public officials to force them to remove Nativity scenes and Christmas trees from most public areas, remove crosses and plaques quoting Bible passages from national parks, censor any mention of God in any public discourse, and strong-arm school administrators with misleading and threatening letters demanding the censorship of Christmas carols from school activities and the word Christ from any student speeches. Remember, communism is the stated "goal."

While its founder stated that the ACLU is a "private organization" that is "like a church" in which "you don't take nonbelievers," such privileges are not afforded to other organizations that dare to honor God and uphold traditional Judeo-Christian values, like the Boy Scouts of America. The ACLU has undertaken a relentless legal war against the Boy Scouts for daring to "not allow those who openly practice homosexual behavior to be Scoutmasters for teenage boys" and promoting a family friendly and God-honoring and respecting environment.

Under the guise of diversity and tolerance, the ACLU has been advancing a comprehensive process of indoctrinating and brainwashing school-aged children into accepting and embracing the homosexual agenda. While claiming that the Constitution "does not mention the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children," the ACLU has blatantly ignored and overridden parental rights to direct and control the education and upbringing of their children. In California, the ACLU boldly undermined parental authority by requiring mandatory attendance of school children in "tolerance-building and diversity education programs" rife with homosexual propaganda and misinformation.

As Sears and Osten note, the ACLU "positions itself as the great defender of rights, [but] is against the right of parents not to allow their children to participate in assemblies and curricula that actively undermine and ridicule their religious beliefs." Such violations of individual rights are perfectly acceptable according to ACLU's twisted logic and hypocritical stance. As such, the traditional American values of faith, family, and morality are labeled by the ACLU as "extreme," while the extreme positions and organizations it embraces are labeled as "tolerant" and "diverse."

Finally, the ACLU's "long history of advancing unrestricted access to abortion, right up to the moment of live birth," its vigorous and uncompromising defense of partial-birth abortion with no limitations, and its latest enthusiastic embrace of euthanasia represent some of the most illogical, dangerous and deadly positions the organization has taken.

The ACLU's strategy is simple: "challenge every statute restricting reproductive freedom," attack all legislation that tries to restrict partial-birth abortions by trotting out the bogus "health of the mother" argument, and search out sympathetic judges to help bypass the will of the voters and strike down any regulations that attempt to limit this barbaric and murderous practice. And don't forget to label anyone that dares to disagree as a "right-wing, religious fanatic."

Clearly, the ACLU has not learned from history. Its position on human life, write Alan Sears and Craig Osten, "is dangerous to all individuals, no matter what stage in life." It has even prompted former ACLU members like Eleanor Smith, "who is confined to a wheelchair because of childhood polio," to boldly state: "At this point I would rather have a right-wing Christian decide my fate than an ACLU member."

The most dangerous and ominous aspects of the ACLU's strategies, write Sears and Osten, is their support in creating a "nation that sees all values as relative, with no moral absolutes." To achieve those ends this institution will say and do anything (often taking the exact opposite position on issues) in order to re-shape American society into its own vision. Patently offensive and discriminatory practices that violate the religious liberties and free speech right of individuals are tolerated, while the extreme and dangerous beliefs of a tiny minority are fully defended and promoted.

Sears and Osten correctly remind us of what we have already witnessed as a result of ACLU's malice and prejudice: "Public school officials are afraid to say, "Merry Christmas,"… for fear of an ACLU lawsuit. Many people are afraid to talk openly and publicly about their sincerely held religious beliefs in their workplaces because of fear of legal action against them." That sounds more like communism than democracy.

Luckily, there is hope and some much needed light at the end of this dark tunnel. The Alliance Defense Fund, an organization headed by Alan Sears, is dedicated to the "defense of religious freedom, the sanctity of human life, and traditional values." The ADF has been able to effectively challenge the ACLU and in many instances reverse the damage done by its radical and unconstitutional agenda. The ADF is committed and ready to help educate "pastors, along with school and public officials, on the legal misinformation spread by the ACLU and provide them with solid legal resources to stand up to the ACLU's intimidation tactics."

Thank goodness the good guys finally have an advocate.

Islam & Humanism VS. Civilization & Culture

2005-09-13T08:27:00.000-05:00

(nb--What this author writes about "pure Islam" is reflected in other places in this blog. HOWEVER, the "secular humanists" desire to remove all religion from the public sector is much the same as the "pure Islamic" movement. This is because the Christianity has been the well source of most of the real culture and creativity in our Civilization. Therefore, both Islam and "Militant" Secular Humanism are the deadly foes of creativity, culture and civilization.)

THIS ARTICLE IS FROM THE AMERICAN THINKER
(On line) of 13 September 2005

Cultural genocide in the name of Islam
September 13th, 2005

The Islamic Republic of Iran has renewed its war of destruction on Persian antiquities. Its intention is to build up an Islamic empire and to change the whole face of Iran into a backward purely Islamic nation. The Islamic Republic of Oran sees its Persian heritage as a formidable enemy of its conquest. It aims at turning Iran into a pure form of an Islamic nation. Hence, they have waged a war on Persian antiquities in the hope of suppressing Persian pride and nationalism.

"Cultural genocide" is a term sometimes used to describe the deliberate destruction of the cultural heritage of a people or nation for political or military reasons. Since its inception twenty-six years ago, the Islamic Republic of Iran has been in a state of constant war with the Iranian people as well as the Iranian heritage.

Over its life span, the Islamic Republic zealots have tried many times to cleanse the pre-Islamic Persian heritage in the name of Islam. First, they declared war against the Persian New Year or “Nowruz”, and then they attacked other Persian traditions and customs. At the beginning of the revolution, Islamic zealots rushed to the site of the Persepolis, the magnificent palace of the Achaemenid kings. Fortunately, the total bulldozing of the relics of the Palace was averted by Iranian patriots who wished to preserve their heritage.

In their latest attempt in the war of destruction, the Islamic Republic has been insidiously planning to obliterate some of the most cherished places in Persian history. They intend to eradicate the Pasargad, the Bolaghi gorge and the Persepolis. Most of all, they are obliterating the memory of one of history's great rulers, Cyrus the Great.

In Pasargad is found the tomb of Cyrus the Great, the King of Kings and the founding father of Persia. Cyrus the Great, who is mentioned twenty-five times in the Bible, is known for his passion and compassion and his unprecedented tolerance. Cyrus the Great's Charter of Human Rights is known to be the first such charter written, and refers to the concept of humans as having universal rights, regardless of legal jurisdiction, ethnicity, nationality or religion.

Cyrus the Great's most notable reputation of a great leader stands high as a Persian king who freed the Jews from captivity by Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon.
Cyrus the Great, not only allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem to rebuild their temple, but assisted the Jews in this endeavor, something which was followed by his heirs.

Cyrus the Great proclaimed more than 2500 years ago,

"Today, I announce that everyone is free to choose a religion and free to live in all regions and take up a job provided that they never violate other's rights."

Cyrus the Great declared himself not a conqueror, but a liberator.

It has been said that Alexander the Great set the torch to Persepolis in a drunken rage, regretting it the following day. Alexander the Great plundered Persia. He destroyed and burned Persepolis, the magnificent palace complex of the Achaemenid kings. Yet, Alexander the Great paid tribute to Cyrus the Great at his tomb. This shows how much the king of kings was respected, even in the eyes of his fierce enemies. What Alexander came to set on fire to more than 2200 years ago, the Islamic Republic intends to submerge today.

In its war of construction and destruction, the Islamic Republic has been building "Sivand Dam" near the Persian antiquities. The construction of the Sivand Dam on the Polvar River began in 1992 without consultation with or the knowledge of the World Cultural Heritage Organization officials. The dam's opening was planned in March 2005, but the Iranian energy ministry has delayed it to early 2006 to give the archaeologists more time to examine the sites.

This dam will flood the entire Tang-e Bolaghi (Bolaghi Gorge) mountain pass and the surrounding region. That would lead to some 8 kilometers of the Bolaghi Gorge being submerged and lost forever. Thus, experts of ICHCTO and the Pars-e Pasargad Research Foundation quickly undertook a project to study the area. So far they have identified more than 100 archeological sites there

The Islamic Republic's ulterior motive in building "Sivand Dam" so close to the archeological sites was to intentionally flood the vast archeological area of Pasargad, including the tomb of Cyrus the Great, Bolaghi Gorge, the King's path and the main historical road of Persia, which was constructed by order of Darius of the Achaemenids and the relics of the magnificent palace of Persepolis.

Although the Islamic Republic’s records speak dismally for itself, there are numerous reasons for this cultural genocide by the Islamic regime, in Iran.
The Islamic regime's decision to destroy Cyrus the Great's tomb is due to their inner fear of the personification of Cyrus the Great in the heart of every Persian. Since Cyrus the Great released the Jews from captivity some 2500 years ago, the Islamic Republic's intense hatred of Jews has fueled their mission of destruction. Also, fear of Persian nationalism is so immense that it stands in their way of creating an Islamic Utopia. These fears are justified, especially following the news on the future release of a British movie on the life of Cyrus the Great.

Today, we are up against a truly malignant force in radical Islamism that is breeding, sheltering and financing its terrorist armory. This new enemy of humanity and world heritage is far more radical and dangerous than the Nazi Germany or the old Soviet Russia ever were. The Islamic Republic’s ultimate objective is the destruction of everything in the world that is good and leaving behind a network of Islamic terror around the free world.

Let us hope that people of the earth become united against the forces of evil and evildoers of radical Islamism. Let us hope that the free world applies pressure to the Islamic Republic to prevent them from purging the Persian heritage.

Amil Imani

Does America Have A "Muslim Problem"

2005-09-09T09:50:00.000-05:00

Does America Have a "Muslim Problem"?
By Robert Spencer
FrontPageMagazine.com | September 9, 2005

Does the United States have a “Muslim problem”? Bret Stephens and Joseph Rago of the Wall Street Journal say no; on the contrary, they say, “America’s Muslims tend to be role models both as Americans and as Muslims.” Stephens and Rago grant that “it takes no more than a few men (or women) to carry out a terrorist atrocity, and there can be no guarantee the U.S. is immune from homegrown Islamist terror.” However, evidently Hillary Clinton has the measure of Islamic terrorism as well as child-rearing: “But if it can be said,” Stephens and Rago continue, “that ‘it takes a village’ to make a terrorist, the U.S. enjoys a measure of safety that our European allies do not. It is a blessing we will continue to enjoy as long as we remain an upwardly mobile, assimilating — and watchful — society.”

This is an apt expression of the prevailing conventional wisdom that a lack of upward mobility and assimilation causes jihad terrorism. For Stephens and Rago base their sanguine view of American Muslims on purely economic and social factors: “59% of American Muslims have at least an undergraduate education, making them the most highly educated group in America. Muslim Americans are also the richest Muslim community in the world, with four in five earning more than $25,000 a year and one in three more than $75,000. They tend to be employed in professional fields, and most own stock, either personally or through 401(k) or pension plans. In terms of civic participation, 82% are registered to vote, half of them as Democrats. Interestingly, however, the survey found that 65% of Muslim Americans favor lowering the income tax.” Stephens and Rago report that “according to Ishan [sic] Bagby, a professor at the University of Kentucky who recently made a study of mosque attendance in Detroit, the average mosque-goer is 34 years old, married with children, has at least a bachelor’s degree, and earns about $74,000 a year. If this is representative of Muslim Americans as a whole, it suggests that the religiously committed among them hardly fit the profile of the alienated, angry young Muslim men so common today in Europe.”

On top of this affluence and civic mindedness, “the overwhelming majority of Muslims arrived here legally”; “21% of Muslim Americans intermarry”; and “Muslim Americans benefit from leaders who, despite some notable exceptions, are generally more responsible than Muslim leaders in Britain and Europe.”

Unfortunately, however, none of this data amounts to what Stephens and Rago wish it did. It is noteworthy in the first place that they invoke Ihsan Bagby’s study as evidence of the comfortable assimilation of American Muslims, since Bagby himself has rejected the notion of assimilation: “Ultimately,” he has remarked, “we [Muslims] can never be full citizens of this country. . . because there is no way we can be fully committed to the institutions and ideologies of this country.” He said this in the early 1990s and may have changed his views since he said this, but note that his quarrel was with American “institutions and ideologies,” not with economic injustices real or perceived.

While American Muslims may indeed be role models in their wealth and high voter registration rate, it is not at all true that only ill-educated poor people actually commit terrorist atrocities. This has been disproved again and again. A forensic psychiatrist, Dr. Marc Sageman, recently conducted a study that led him to conclude that, in the words of the Times of London, “the typical recruit to Al-Qaeda…is upper middle class, has been educated in the West and is from a professional background.” Likewise, Princeton economist Claude Berrebi studied over twenty years of data on suicide bombers from Hamas and Islamic Jihad, only to conclude, according to the Sydney Morning Herald, that “only 13 per cent” of the jihadists “were from a poor background, compared with 32 per cent of the Palestinian population in general,” and that “suicide bombers were also three times more likely to have gone on to higher education than the general population.”

We have witnessed the same phenomenon in the United States. Maher Hawash worked at Intel. He made $360,000 a year. He was in the U.S. legally — in fact, he was a naturalized citizen. I would be surprised if he had not been registered to vote. He married an American. Stephens and Rago would have confidently held him up as a role model and considered inconceivable the idea that he could turn out to be a jihad terrorist. And yet that is exactly what he turned out to be.

The WSJ article is yet another manifestation of a fundamental misunderstanding that blankets the public discourse about Islamic terrorism. Even at the Wall Street Journal they don’t understand that the primary motivation of the jihadists is a religious ideology, not resentment born of economic injustice or marginalization. Economic injustice and marginalization are things they understand; a religious ideology that can move men to give up good lives and devote themselves to murder and destruction is so far out of their purview that they cannot even imagine it, and take all the evidence of it that is in front of their faces as indications of something else.

There very likely are model citizens among American Muslims. But none of the statistics marshaled by Stephens and Rago does one thing to establish whether or not there among all these affluent and law-abiding Muslims there are people who, like Mike Hawash, are nursing jihadist sentiments.

Stephens and Rago do include a caveat: “neither a first-rate Western education nor economic affluence offers any inoculation against extremism: Just look at the careers of 9/11 ringleader Mohamed Atta, educated at the Technical University of Hamburg, or Daniel Pearl killer Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, who did undergraduate work at the London School of Economics.” One may hope that these Wall Street Journal reporters will one day undertake to find out why Atta and Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh turned to jihad terrorism — if they aren’t too afraid of what they might find. That fear, and the general unwillingness to face the real causes of Islamic terrorism, is what constitutes America’s real “Muslim problem.”

NOTES BY JAMES PAWLAK: For an opposing point-of-view, please go to the following web site:
.

Muslim Opinions Be Dammed !!!

2005-09-08T10:27:00.000-05:00

Before reading this item, I ask you to reflect on: The compromises made with Adolf Hitler, up t his 1 September 1939 attack on Poland; The attempted compromises with Japan, which continued even while they attacked us on 7 December 1941; And, the maxim, "THOSE WHO REFUSE TO LEARN FROM HISTORY ARE CONDEMNED TO REPEAT IT !".

"Muslim Opinion" Be Damned
By Alex Epstein
FrontPageMagazine.com | September 8, 2005

To listen to most of our foreign-policy commentators, the biggest problem facing America today -- four years after Sept. 11th -- is the fact that many Muslims are mad at us.

“Whatever one's views on the [Iraq] war,” writes a New York Times columnist, “thoughtful Americans need to consider...the bitter anger that it has provoked among Muslims around the world.” In response to Abu Ghraib, Ted Kennedy lamented, “We have become the most hated nation in the world, as a result of this disastrous policy in the prisons.” Muslim anger over America’s support of Israel, we are told, is a major cause of anti-American terrorism.

We face, these commentators say, a crisis of “Muslim opinion.” We must, they say, win the “hearts and minds” of angry Muslims by heaping public affection on Islam, by shutting down Guantanamo, by being more “evenhanded” between free Israel and the terrorist Palestinian Authority -- and certainly by avoiding any new military action in the Muslim world. If we fail to win over “Muslim opinion,” we are told, we will drive even more to become terrorists.

All of this evades one blatant truth: the hatred being heaped on America is irrational and undeserved. Consider the issue of treatment of POWs. Many Muslims are up in arms about the treatment of prisoners of war in Iraq and at Guantanamo--many of whom were captured on battlefields trying to kill Americans. Yet these same Muslims are silent about the summary convictions and torture -- real torture, with electric drills and vats of acid -- that are official policy and daily practice throughout the Middle East.

Or consider “Muslim opinion” over the U,S, handling of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in which the United States is accused of not being “hard enough” on Israel -- a free nation with laws that protect all citizens, Jew and Arab alike -- for Israel’s supposed mistreatment of Palestinians. Yet “Muslim opinion” reveres the Palestinian Authority, a brutal dictatorship that deprives Palestinians of every basic freedom, keeps them in unspeakable poverty, and routinely tortures and executes peaceful dissenters.

So-called Muslim opinion is not the unanimous and just consensus that its seekers pretend. What is passed off as the view of all Muslims is the irrational and unjust opinion of the world's worst Muslims: Islamists and their legions of “moderate” supporters and sympathizers. These people oppose us, not because of any legitimate grievances against America, but because they are steeped in a fundamentalist interpretation of their religion, one that views America's freedom, prosperity, and pursuit of worldly pleasures as the height of depravity. They do not seek respect for the rights of the individual (Muslim or non-Muslim), they seek a world in which the rights of all are sacrificed to the dictates of Islam.

The proper response to Islamists and their supporters is to identify them as our ideological and political enemies, and dispense justice accordingly. In the case of our militant enemies, we must kill or demoralize them, especially those regimes that support terrorism and fuel the Islamist movement; as for the rest, we must politically ignore them and intellectually discredit them, while proudly arguing for the superiority of Americanism. Such a policy would make us safe, expose Islamic anti-Americanism as irrational and immoral, and embolden the better Muslims to support our ideals and emulate our ways.

President Bush, like most politicians and intellectuals, has taken the opposite approach to “Muslim opinion”: appeasement. Instead of identifying anti-American Muslims as ideological enemies to be discredited, he has appealed to their sensibilities and met their demands, e.g., sacrificing American soldiers to save Iraqi civilians and mosques. Instead of seeking to crush the Islamists by defeating the causes they fight for -- such as Islamic world domination and the destruction of Israel -- he has appeased those causes, rewarding the Palestinian terrorist jihad with a promised Palestinian state. Instead of destroying terrorist regimes that wage war against the West -- including, most notably, Iran -- he has sought their “cooperation” and even cast some as “coalition partners.”

Such measures have rewarded our enemy for waging physical and spiritual war against us. Condemn America,” they have learned, and American leaders will praise your ideals and meet your demands. Attack America via terrorist proxy, terrorist states and movements have been taught, and America will neither blame you nor destroy you, but redouble its efforts to buy your love.

Every attempt to appease “Muslim opinion” preserves, promotes, and emboldens our enemies. Every concession to angry Muslim mobs gives hope to the Islamist cause. Every day we allow terrorist regimes to exist gives their minions time to execute the next Sept. 11. America needs honest leadership with the courage to identify and defeat our enemies -- “Muslim opinion” be damned.

Free Muslims

2005-09-07T16:40:00.000-05:00

There is an organization call "Free Muslims". I have examined their web-site and will have it added to my list of links as I think it is worth reading.

I do not think that they have made a final commitment to what they describe as their mission or function, which I this is the setting of Islam into the modern and civilized world, and will not be able to do so until such time as they: Comdemn all that is horrid and evil in the Koran, the Hadith (The sayings of Mohammed) and the Sharia (The codes of Islamic laws); And, print a "new and revised" Koran which does NOT contain all those hateful verses. (For more on this subject, please go the "True Face Of Islam" which is in the May, 2005 archives of this blog OR most of the books and articles otherwise noted in it.)

Muslims VS. Academic Freedom

2005-09-07T16:29:00.000-05:00

INTRODUCTORY NOTES AND COMMENTS: Dr. Rubenstein is President Emeritus of the University of Bridgeport, Bridgeport, CT.

I think the reaction he discovered was only one of many, many examples of Muslims not wanting the world to know the "dark side" of their ideology. Such reactions go even to such as the late (Murdered by a Muslim) Theo van Gogh, in the Netherlands, who "merely" exposed Islamic mis-treatment of their own women, the burning down of a French court house where a Muslim was very properly convicted of a very serious crime and sentenced to prison, and too many other examples to list here.

Althogether too many academics, journalists, religious leaders, politicians are either too afraid to note such attacks or are too"politicly correct" to do so. Therefore, all persons who rely on such for full and proper instruction, guidance and education are deprived of what is needed--Truth.

Encounter with an Angry Muslim Academic
By Richard L. Rubenstein
FrontPageMagazine.com | September 7, 2005

In the aftermath of the ritualistic near-decapitation of Theo van Gogh in Amsterdam, as well as the death threats and frivolous “hate-crime” lawsuits directed against honest scholars writing about Islamic extremism, some Muslims and their western sympathizers appear determined to control, by fair means or foul, what is said and written about Islam in the West.

A first-hand example of this trend can be seen in the response to the keynote address I delivered on June 9, 2005 in Krakow, Poland at the Annual Meeting of the Public Administration Theory Network (PAT-Net), an international academic organization, in which I discussed the problems raised by the rapidly increasing number of Muslims in Europe. Some of the immigrants and their European-born descendants have made no secret of the fact that they regard their religion and culture as destined by divine ordinance to transform Europe into a Muslim-dominated imperial realm. Although many have chosen the path of integration, an unknown number have repeatedly stated that they seek to replace the western secular order with a new sacred, absolutist Islamic order.

This problem is aggravated by known demographic trends. According to the U.S. Department of State's Annual Report on International Religious Freedom 2003, more than 23 million Muslims reside in Europe, excluding Turkey. That is almost 5 percent of the population. With indigenous Europe’s declining birthrate and the increasing immigrant birthrate, many observers, including Princeton’s Bernard Lewis, anticipate a Muslim majority in Western Europe before the end of this century.

Such a monumental transformation required the active involvement of senior European officials as documented by Bat Ye’or, an internationally-recognized authority on Euro-Arab relations. She has shown that the Muslim immigration was the result of political decisions taken, more often than not, without public debate, by those same officials and their Arab counterparts in the aftermath of the Arab oil embargo of 1973-74.

The purpose of my paper was to analyze the consequences of these decisions not to offer a solution. Of the three respondents to my paper, two academics offered reasonable critiques in a civil manner. The third respondent, Professor Mohamad Al-Khadry of West Virginia University, began by revealing that he had demanded that the program committee withdraw my invitation and apologize to the Muslim community because my speech was “bigoted, racist, hate speech.” He went on to portray me as a racist whose views resembled those of Nazi scholars dealing with Jews.

Disregarding official statistics, Al-Khadry claimed that Muslims constitute only 2% of Europe's population. He complained that I had used “the works of authors and sources who have often been accused of Islamophobia,” as if any apprehension concerning Islam was out of bounds. He spoke contemptuously of Bernard Lewis and dismissed the views of Bassam Tibi of Germany’s Göttingen University and Mahmoud Ayoub of Temple University, both respected Muslim scholars, whom I cited on population issues.

His worst spleen was reserved for Bat Ye’or and MEMRI (Middle East Media Research Institute). He labeled Bat Ye’or a bigot, a racist, and an “Islamophobe” and attacked MEMRI as a “pro-Israel propagandist website.” Actually, MEMRI makes available in reliable text translation and subtitled streaming video what is really said and written in the mosques and media of the Middle East. MEMRI has often been attacked for its provenance but never successfully for the accuracy of its translations.

Al-Khadry concluded his rant by repeating his Nazi allegation and accusing me of using “made-up evidence” to create “a crisis of Muslim presence that could be dealt with in one of very limited ways, 1) Mass deportations, 2) Sterilization (for lack of Judeo-Christian purity, 3) Incarceration, 4) Mass Murder.”

Al-Khadry’s diatribe did not deserve the dignity of a denial. I simply told the group that if they found Al-Khadry credible, they should feel very comfortable about Europe’s future. I also suggested that they pay attention neither to me nor Al-Khadry but judge for themselves by reading Bat Ye’or and viewing MEMRI’s web site. For those interested in genuine “hate speech,” I recommended MEMRI’s translations and video presentations of the sermons of extremist Muslim preachers.

Al-Khadry’s label-and-libel technique worked. Many, perhaps most, Pat-Net members agreed with him. But later I was told that most Pat-Net professors lacked knowledge of religion and history, as professional training in the field tended to ignore these subjects. Unfortunately, absent such knowledge, academics are ill-equipped to evaluate the kind of unsupported defamations that are a major component in the propaganda weaponry of people like Al-Khadry. Subsequently, I also learned that only a few Pat-Net members had actually read my paper.

I was later informed that motions were introduced at the conference business meeting to repudiate my address as not representative of PAT-Net and to censure Professor Dan Balfour of Michigan’s Grand Valley State University who had originally proposed inviting me and continued to support me. One member characterized the meeting as “a public, metaphorical lynching” and “a stunning display of anti-intellectualism.” There was some unpleasant debate, but no action was taken. On July 10, three days after the London bombings, Balfour wrote to PAT-Net’s executive committee: “Do you still want to repudiate Rubenstein for daring to suggest that the Muslim population of Europe includes a dangerous and intolerant minority who see themselves as at war with Europe and America?”

To add to the damage, the essay was clearly marked “DRAFT NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION WITHOUT PERMISSION,” but somehow the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) was given a copy. On June 23, 2005, its legal counsel wrote to the president of Grand Valley State University, one of the conference’s sponsors, expressing “strong concern” about the address, essentially repeating Al-Khadry’s invective in abbreviated form. Nevertheless, I was not the letter’s real target; Balfour and his university were. Michigan has the highest concentration of Arab Americans of any U.S. state, an estimated 490,000. One might surmise that the letter’s real intent was to caution, if not warn, the university about what could and could not be said about Islam.

ADC falsely, and perhaps intentionally, alleged that I used the terms redundant and expendable “to describe the Muslim population across the world (emphasis added),” thereby implying that the address contained a rationale for global religio-ethnic cleansing! I did use these common sociological terms not nefariously but to describe the political and demographic consequences of the Muslim world’s population explosion since the nineteen-fifties, as well as to suggest why so many young Muslim males may be willing to give substance to Osama bin Ladin’s boast that religious Muslims “love death whereas cowardly westerners cling to life.”

By linguistic slight-of-hand, ADC further distorted my meaning by a simple change of tense. Mindful of the 732 C.E. Battle of Tours, the 1453 conquest of Constantinople, the 1571 Battle of Lepanto, and the Turkish siege of Vienna in 1683, I described Islam as having been “Christianity’s greatest adversary. In ADC’s letter that objective historical statement is changed to Islam is Christianity’s greatest adversary. ADC also complained that I “described in length ‘radical Islam’s current assault against the West.” It is hard to see how any fair-minded person could protest an objective description of radical Islam’s assault on the West, when Muslim extremists themselves proclaim it so openly.

ADC’s strangest charge was that I encourage Muslim “separation rather than integration.” In my career as a professor and an academic administrator, I have dealt with both Muslim students and faculty. My record is clearly one of encouraging integration. If ADC wants to complain about those opposed to integration, they have plenty of Muslim organizations far more deserving of its attention.

There were further PAT-Net entailments. On August 1, Assistant Professor Frank Scott, acting for the editors of PAT-Net’s quarterly journal, Administrative Theory and Praxis, sent an e-mail informing me that the editors planned to publish “a Forum discussion” on my Krakow address in the September 2005 edition without publishing my paper. He asked for permission to e-mail the paper to those who requested it. Of course, I refused. He then offered to make the paper available on PAT-NET’s web site but not in the journal. Once again, I refused.

Scott did not give up. On August 9, he sent me one last e-mail stating:

Because the collection of brief essays in the Forum will not be in the format of a scholarly debate, but rather of personal responses to what the participants found to be a largely irrelevant, offensive, and not properly authorized plenary presentation at our conference in Krakow, we find no basis for giving further voice to the ideas expressed in that presentation (emphasis added).

Scott’s statement is patently ridiculous. For “personal statements” to take the place of scholarly debate is an extraordinary admission by an editor of a supposedly scientific journal. Moreover, there was nothing unauthorized about the address. I submitted a written proposal almost a year before the conference. PAT-Net has no by-laws or guidelines for such matters and the invitation was extended by Balfour, PAT-Net’s site host. Had the address not been “properly authorized,” I would never have been on the program.

As noted above, there are Muslims who seek to control what is publicly written and said about Islam. At times, they are abetted by western sympathizers acting either out of ignorance or alienation from their own culture. In addition, many public officials and much of the press are more comfortable talking about the “war against terrorism” than radical Islam’s war against the West. There is risk in openly identifying, as I did, a religious war for what it is. There may be greater risk in failing to do so.

People Of Faith In Positions Of Authority

2005-09-06T09:16:00.000-05:00

The following is a much more kindly entry than you will usually find in this blog. It applies to all "People of Faith" who find themselves in such public judicial, other governmental, academic, journalistic and like postions were there is teaching authority AND responcibility. (Sorry--I could not get rid of the ads.)

Judge Roberts, Religion and Work

Raymond J. Keating

No endorsement implied. <img>

Church and Society

Judge John G. Roberts Jr. has been called a "devout" Roman Catholic. That would not draw much attention except that Roberts, of course, is President George W. Bush's choice to fill the vacancy being left on the U.S. Supreme Court by the retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

So, questions have sprung up in media and political circles about Roberts' ability to deal with issues before the court that overlap with church teachings. Can a faithful Christian do the job?

I wonder why this question suddenly has gained attention. We've long had Catholics on the federal bench, including three on the Supreme Court right now Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas.

However, a strong secular streak in our culture doesn't mind religious people, but it prefers that religion remain private. It's okay to go to church on Sunday, just leave all that God stuff in the pews.

Lots of people seem comfortable compartmentalizing this way. They attend church on Sunday, but during the week, God rarely enters into the equation and certainly not at work. How many times have we heard a liberal Catholic politician, for example, proclaim that he personally might agree with the Catholic Church's teachings on abortion, but can't impose his beliefs on others? (Of course, they don't mind imposing their views regarding other issues.)

This not only raises questions about governing and conscience, but also misses the role of work in the Christian life. St. Paul made clear the importance of work: "For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat." (2 Thessalonians 3:10) He also declared: "Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men..." (Colossians 3:23)

Many theologians have spoken of work as a calling or vocation over the centuries. In the 1500s, Martin Luther, for example, declared: "Your work is sacred." This was echoed more than 400 years later by the twentieth century writer Dorothy Sayers: "It is the business of the Church to recognize that the secular vocation, as such, is sacred. Christian people, and particularly perhaps the Christian clergy, must get it firmly into their heads that when a man or woman is called to a particular job of secular work, that is a true vocation as though he or she were called to specifically religious work."

Christians cannot divide their lives into neat separate spheres. Faith should affect one's entire life, including work as we recognize our talents and abilities as gifts from God. That doesn't mean one preaches at the water cooler, but it is important that we do our best to live, work and play according to the values of our faith as examples to the world.

And if our job calls for something Holy Scripture deems immoral, we need the courage to quit. Similarly, do we really want elected officials who abandon conscience when making laws and policies?

So, can faithful Christians be judges? Of course, especially when understanding that the proper role of a judge all the way up to thhe Supreme Court is to apply the law and the Constitution. There are laws that many, including judges, find morally bankrupt, but we still live under the law as we work for change through our elected representatives.

Judges get into trouble by embracing judicial activism, that is, inappropriately making law. One thinks of the Justice William J. Brennan, a Catholic, who played a key role in manufacturing the so-called constitutional right to abortion in the Roe v. Wade decision. He didn't do his job properly, and violated the moral teachings of the church.

Do the job right, and a devout Christian, including John Roberts, should not have any problem answering the call to sit on the Supreme Court.

Raymond J. Keating can be reached at ChurchandSociety@aol.com.

Posted: 04-Sep-05

Article link: http://orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/KeatingCSRoberts.php

People Of Faith In Public Positions

2005-09-06T09:10:00.000-05:00

The following (And, much more kindly than usually found here) article deals with, in a broad sense, all men and women who are both "People of Faith" and are in such government, acacemic, journalistic and other positions where they have teaching authority and responcibility.

Judge Roberts, Religion and Work

Raymond J. Keating

No endorsement implied. <img>

Church and Society

So, questions have sprung up in media and political circles about Roberts' ability to deal with issues before the court that overlap with church teachings. Can a faithful Christian do the job?

And if our job calls for something Holy Scripture deems immoral, we need the courage to quit. Similarly, do we really want elected officials who abandon conscience when making laws and policies?

Do the job right, and a devout Christian, including John Roberts, should not have any problem answering the call to sit on the Supreme Court.

Raymond J. Keating can be reached at ChurchandSociety@aol.com.

Posted: 04-Sep-05

Article link: http://orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/KeatingCSRoberts.php

Islam = Terrorism (By Muslims' Own Words)

2005-09-03T17:15:00.000-05:00

September 03, 2005

"Whoever denies that terrorism is a part of Islam is an unbeliever"

While the Islamic Society of North America condemns terrorism for an appreciative audience of one, Bush advisor Karen Hughes, some of ISNA's fellow Muslims are doing just the opposite: declaring that terrorism is an essential element of Islam.

When I report on this kind of thing, non-Muslims and Muslims alike tend to act as if I made it up. For years now those who have opposed my work have pretended that I am simply searching around in the Qur'an for a few violent verses and thereby trying to defame Islam, when in fact all I have ever done is report on how jihad terrorists themselves use the Qur'an and other Islamic texts to justify their actions and make recruits.

This article, "Whoever Denies That Terrorism is A Part of Islam is Kafir" (that is, an unbeliever) from the pro-jihad British Muslim site, Al-Ghurabaa (thanks to The One Who Must Not Be Named) is just one more case in point. It is a carefully argued exposition of the Qur'an ("EMQ" below) and Islamic tradition to defend attacks against innocent non-Muslim civilians and other acts of violence.

If ISNA is sincere about condemning terrorism, it should refute this piece and others like it, in order to convince violent Muslims to lay down their arms. Otherwise its protestations of moderation and opposition to terrorism are just window dressing for gullible non-Muslims.

We do not speak about terrorism to provoke people, but only because there is Haq that must prevail and there is nobody else speaking about it. Ibn Qudama Al Maqdisi said that,
“If someone is in dar ul harb and builds a platform for Islam, and then he leaves it - he is sinful.”

When Allah (swt) sent the messenger Muhammad (saw), there was no one else on the earth who knew the Haq [truth], even those who embraced Islam, they were so few in number that you could count them on your hand. They were the only ones who knew the Haq, he (saw) said,

“Allah looked to the earth and he hated them, the Arab and the ajam except for the remaining true people of the book.” [Muslim]...

TERRORISM IS A PART OF ISLAM

Allah (swt) says,

“Prepare as much as you can from power (missile weaponry) and steeds of war, in order to terrify the enemy of Allah” [EMQ Anfal: 60]

Allah (swt) made it obligatory in this ayah [verse] to prepare (Al I’daad) and to terrify (Al Irhaab) the enemy of Allah. This is waajib [compulsory] and this ayah is qati’ (clear cut) and whoever denies it’s meaning is kaafir regardless of his ‘interpretation’ of terrorism. Allah (swt) says,

“Nobody rejects the ayat except the Kafirun.” [EMQ Ankabut: 47]

The ayah mentioned Al Ijhaad, which means:

“To reject and say by the tongue: ‘it is not true’.”

Furthermore, Allah (swt) says,

“Who is more oppressor than the one who lies about Allah or denies the truth when it comes to him? Is there not a place in hell for the Kafirun? As for those who strive hard in our cause, we will surely guide them to our paths. Verily, Allah is with the Muhsinun.” [EMQ Ankabut: 68-69]

Whoever says that Islam is free from terrorism or wants to differentiate between Islam and terrorism is committing Al Juhoud and that is Kufr Akbar – and will take them out of the fold of Islam.

The one who says ‘we should fight against terrorism’, he is fighting against Islam. We know very well that USA meant no one else by the term ‘terrorists’ but Islam and Muslims and the one who wants to avoid terrorism, is avoiding Islam.

THE KUFFAR ARE THE ENEMY

It is known that the USA is the enemy of Islam and Muslims. The fact that it is Dar ul Kufr Asslie, by default it is the enemy of Islam and Muslims. The original rules for any state that is not dar ul Islam nor has a treaty with it is that it is the enemy. There should be no doubt in the minds of any Muslims that the jews and Christians are kafir and the enemy of Islam and Muslims. Allah (swt) says,

“Those who disbelieve of the people of the book and the mushrikeen are in the hellfire forever, they are the worst of creation.” [EMQ Bayyinah: 6]

and Allah (swt) says,

“Those who claim that Allah is Jesus ibn Maryam, they are kafir …” [EMQ Ma’idah: 17]

In this ayah, there is the manifestation of the anger of Allah (swt) when he said,

“Those who claim that Allah is ‘Isa ibn Maryam, they are kafir, who can have any protection if Allah decides to destroy Isa and his mother and all the people of the earth?” [EMQ Ma’idah: 17]

Allah (swt) says,

“Fight those who do not believe in Allah nor in the last day, nor do they forbid what Allah and his Messenger forbid, and they do not follow the deen of Haq among the people of the book (jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.” [EMQ 9: 29]

The Base For Civilization

2005-09-02T17:22:00.000-05:00

Civilizaton is based on order, law and justice. There are (At least) two ways of looking at the structure of that base or foundation.

The first is to visualize it as the three-legged stool---Where if one of the three is missing, it collapses and is of no use.

The second is as a foundation to a building---Where order provides the ultimate base, upon which is then built law and only then can justice be set as a superstructure.

Examine any society (eg New Orleans before and after Hurricane Katrina) and you will be able to determine if all three are there to support a civilization or not. As to New Orleans, order must first be reestablished (By gun fire as appears necessary) before law can be put back into place and, God willing, some measure of justice created out of chaos.

Religious Secular Humanists

2005-09-01T15:45:00.000-05:00

From what I read and hear, evey true (Militant) "secular humanist" is very, very, religious.
Why? Because ever one of them is his/her own God (Or, is it god?)! After all, they set the moral rules and social duties for themselves and as many others as they can command or influence.

Daniel Pipes On "Islamists"

2005-08-30T08:00:00.000-05:00

Islamists, Get Out
By Daniel Pipes
FrontPageMagazine.com | August 30, 2005

As the full implications of the London’s terrorism by domestic jihadis sink in, Westerners speak out about the problem of radical Islam with new clarity and boldness.

The most profound development is the sudden need of the British and others to assert what it means to be British, Australian, or some other nationality. In the face of the Islamist challenge, historic identities taken for granted must now be explained and codified.

This can be seen on a diurnal level, where Islamist assertion has provoked a new European willingness in recent months to stand up for historic customs – as seen by the banning of burqas in Italy, requiring a German school boy to attend co-ed swimming classes, and making male applicants for Irish citizenship renounce polygamy. When a ranking Belgian politician cancelled lunch with an Iranian group after it demanded that alcohol not be present, his spokesman helpfully explained, “You can’t force the authorities of Belgium to drink water.”

As shown by two statements on the same day last week (Aug. 24), leading Western politicians are going beyond these minor specifics to address the civilizational heart of the matter.

David Cameron, the British shadow education secretary and one of the Conservative Party’s bright prospects, defined Britishness as “freedom under the rule of law,” adding that this expression “explains almost everything you need to know about our country, our institutions, our history, our culture - even our economy.” Peter Costello, the treasurer of Australia and regarded as heir apparent to Prime Minister John Howard, asserts, “Australia expects its citizens to abide by core beliefs: democracy, the rule of law, the independent judiciary, independent liberty.”

Cameron also spoke with a bluntness unique in four years of politicians’ discourse since 9/11: “The driving force behind today’s terrorist threat is Islamist fundamentalism. The struggle we are engaged in is, at root, ideological. During the last century a strain of Islamist thinking has developed which, like other totalitarianisms, such as Nazi-ism and Communism, offers its followers a form of redemption through violence.”

Most striking are the growing calls to extrude Islamists. Two politicians have advised foreign Islamists to stay away. Monique Gagnon-Tremblay, Quebec’s international relations minister, retracted the welcome mat from those “who want to come to Quebec and who do not respect women’s rights or who do not respect whatever rights may be in our Civil Code.” Bob Carr, premier of New South Wales, Australia (which includes Sydney), wants would-be immigrants to be denied visas if they refuse to integrate: “I don’t think they should be let in.”

Costello goes further, observing that Australia “is founded on a democracy. According to our Constitution, we have a secular state. Our laws are made by the Australian Parliament. If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Shari’a law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you.” Islamists with dual citizenship, he suggests, could be asked “to exercise that other citizenship,” i.e., leave Australia.

Likewise, Brendan Nelson, Australia’s education minister, also on Aug. 24 urged immigrants to “commit to the Australian constitution, Australian rule of law.” If not, “they can basically clear off.” Geert Wilders, head of his own small party in the Dutch parliament, similarly called for the expulsion of non-citizen immigrants who refuse to integrate.

But it was the British shadow defence minister, Gerald Howarth, who went the furthest, suggesting in early August that all British Islamists must go. “If they don’t like our way of life, there is a simple remedy: go to another country, get out.” He directed this principle even to Islamists born in Britain (such as three of the four London bombers): “If you don’t give allegiance to this country, then leave.”

These statements, all dating from the past half-year, prompt several observations. First, where are the Americans? No major U.S. politician has spoken of making American-based Islamists unwelcome. Who will be the first?

Second, note the consistent focus on the law and legal issues. This correctly picks up on the fact that ultimately, the Islamist project concerns the application of Islamic law, the Shari’a.

And finally, these comments are likely to be leading indicators of a broader campaign to restrict and remove Islamists – a move that comes none too soon.

Boy Scouts & Terrorists

2005-08-26T10:09:00.000-05:00

The 29 August 2005 issue of Time magazine had two articles as to Muslims. The first concerned the increasing violence and increasingly inter-sect violence in Iraq where barbers and their family members are being murdered as the Koran forbids the cutting of beards. The second article was about Muslim Boy Scouts in a largely Christian organization.

I fear for the future of those fine young men now involved in the Scouting movement---If they go to the typical Muslim school where they are likely to be corrupted by Wahabi trained or orientated teachers who will instruct them to hate every thing and every body who does not join or surrender to Islam and, most specially, the Wahabi view of Islam and the World.

"Give unto Caesar ....."

2005-08-25T18:17:00.000-05:00

In the world into which Jesus the Christ was born, lived, died and rose and the world his followers worked within, Rome was the “great power”. Roman citizenship has its rights and was limited to those born to it---And to who it was given as a special privilege. It appears that Saint Paul had that citizenship; But, none of “The Twelve”, nor Jesus Himself, had the rights and duties of Roman Citizenship.

The granting of such citizenship was from Caesar and the Roman Senate. It, like the coin of tribute, was “unto Caesar” and not what was God's.

In a republic like our own, citizenship is limited to those born to it (By being born in the USA per our Constitution) or to whom it is granted by compliance with our naturalization laws or by very special acts of the Congress. As you can see from the first, two, paragraphs above, citizenship is a civil and not a religious matter!

THEREFORE, I fail to understand the position taken by too many of the Bishops of my church (The Catholic Church), leaders of other religious groups and so many others of the fuzzy thinking sub-classes, that there is some moral or religious right to both entry into the USA, in violation of our democratically passed laws, and even US citizenship for such illegal immigrants and, because of the crimes of their parents, their children.

MY RECOMMENDATION, to clarify this matter and better protect the laws and essential nature of our nation, is to Amend our Constitution as follows:

“No person illegally in the United States of America shall have any

rights or protections, except against cruel and unusual punishments,

under this Constitution or its amendment. The discrete but effective

physical marking of such persons shall not be considered cruel and

unusual punishment. The children of such persons born, after the year

1990, to persons illegally in the United States of America shall not be

considered citizens of this nation.”

ONE FURTHER THOUGHT: As citizenship, and even residency, in the USA is to valuable that many will risk death on the open seas or on the burning desert to gain it, why not make citizenship in this land a reward for six or more years of fully honorable service in our armed forces for those who meet strict standards for physical-condition, mental ability, lack of criminal convictions (In the USA and other lands) and like standards? This cannot but give us the type of new citizens we most need and will further protect us from the many who wish to destroy us.

Inbreeding & "Islam"

2005-08-25T09:34:00.000-05:00

Perhaps, I was (At least in part) wrong about “Islam” and the people who follow the teachings of that desert bandit Mohammed. I thought they followed “Islam” for a share of the power and wealth gained by Mohammed's example of the use of aggressive war, genocide, robbery, retail murder, rape and other sexual perversions. I have also wondered why there has been so little, if any, creativity in “Islamic” cultures as to art, science and music. I had thought it was Mohammed's (And following theologians') declarations against art, music and anything which contradicts the Koran.

Could it be that 1500-years of genetic inbreeding is, at least in part, responsible for the growing-over-time faults in “Islamic culture”? (Please see the article below.)

Quoted Article

Inbreeding and the Arab World's Pathologies
By P. David Hornik
FrontPageMagazine.com | August 25, 2005

The lead article in the August issue of the Israel Medical Association Journal reports success in lowering infant mortality rates among Arabs in the Western Galilee. These rates being generally twice as high among Israeli Arabs as among Israeli Jews, by 2002 an Israeli health program launched in the late 1980s had lowered the rate among Western Galilee Arabs to about 1.5 that of the Jews in the area.

The program found three main factors causing the high rates among the Arabs: infections, home births, and diseases resulting from inbreeding. About 40 percent of Muslim and Druze women and 70 percent of Bedouin women in the region were found to be married to first- or second-degree relatives.

Through an information campaign, the infant mortality from infections and home births has almost been eliminated in Western Galilee. The health program is now trying to tackle the inbreeding problem, using ultrasound screening for pregnant women in consanguineous marriages, articles in the media, and study days for health workers, schoolteachers, and religious and community leaders on the harmful effects of inbreeding. The program emphasizes the fact that consanguineous marriage is in no way mandated by Islam.

Rooted in ancient custom, consanguinity is nonetheless widespread in the Arab world; for example, a 1989 study in Iraq found 53 percent of the subjects to be consanguineously married. One result is the prevalence of extended clans that lead to nepotism and lower levels of identification with the state. The clan structure is a major factor in the Arab world’s endemic corruption and lack of civil society.

But if, as the Israeli study highlights, inbreeding is also a major cause of disease, another conclusion seems inescapable. Just as modern medicine recognizes genetic sources of many physical illnesses, modern psychology recognizes genetic components in many psychological problems including criminality. Presumably, a region where inbreeding is rife—and reinforced through successive generations—should also have a greater frequency of such mental ailments. Though, not surprisingly, there seem to have been no studies in that regard given the delicacy of the subject, the high levels of social pathology, violence, and terrorism in the Arab world suggest that inbreeding is one of the causes.

Such observations are not, of course, comfortable because they are likely to inspire absurd charges of racism. Racism, of course, is not the issue; inbreeding is equally bad for all kinds of people, but Arabs happen to practice it. Indeed, in today’s world it is found mainly in a salient extending from Morocco to Southern India.

Skeptics about attempts to reform or democratize the Arab world often point to Islam as a factor more fundamental than political practices such as elections. It seems they should also emphasize the separate problem of inbreeding. Although it would require great resources, it may be that programs like the Israeli one in Western Galilee could contribute more to helping the Arab world overcome its problems than strictly political reforms for which it may not be ready.

Additional Comments By James Pawlak

Of course, the Amish are very, very, inbred (To the point where their collective health and culture are in great danger) AND a more integrated, rational, Christian and peaceful culture is hard to find. Maybe I was right in the first place!

Another Excellent Book--US History

2005-08-22T09:05:00.000-05:00

Woods, Thomas E. Jr., PhD.

The Politically Incorrect Guide To American History

Regnery Publishing, Inc.

Washington, DC; 2004

ISBN 0-89526-047-6

I find it difficult to find words strong enough to praise this work! However, I specially like it for:

Its clarity of language;
The many references given -Especially as to books “some people” do not want us to read; And,
That it exposes and destroys the myths, misconceptions and just damn lies that have crept into and taken over too many (Most) of our other American history books, teachers' lecture notes, other books and teachers' notes and newspapers' and magazines' presentations of our history, laws and form of government.

This clarifying book should (Must?) be:

Required reading in every one-year American History course as taught in grade schools, high schools and universities;
Referred to and made available to students taking other, more specialized American history, economics, world history (Since 1776), political science (Especially as to our Courts and the balance-of-powers in our government) and other selected courses;
Read by every US Senator before-voting on judicial nominations and granting

“war powers” to the President without a formal “Declaration of War”;
Anyone (eg Newspaper editors) who comment on any of the above subjects;

And,
Any citizen who wishes to really be informed about this nation's history.

I found of very special interest the presentation of a very, very, good argument that our Constitution's “First Amendment” prohibition against the national government's establishment of a religion (Like England's “Church of England) was to protect each State's (ex-colony's) rights to each maintain an approved religion, if they had one, and NOT to keep such actions out of the control of the “Several States”, each for for their own purposes! Therefore, such states as Alabama had and have a true and Constitutional Right to set Christianity as its official or primary religion!!!

I am fortunate that my library (The Milwaukee County System) has several copies of this book. If your library does not have it, insist (Demand?) that they get one or more copies.

The Emptiness Of Islam

2005-08-19T12:53:00.000-05:00

Islam is the “religion” of a desert bandit named Mohammed. It creates nothing, but only steals and destroys. It has no music except some, mostly pre-Islamic, folk songs. It has no art except sterile geometric forms and an, admittedly, elegant script---Which dates to the era before Mohammed. Islam created no poetry and, in fact, destroyed a rich tradition of Arabic, pre-Islamic, literature. Such poetry as was developed in the lands ruled by Islam tends to be “heretical” and, in a large measure, is based on pre-Islamic Persian traditions. The so-called “Golden Age” of Islam was based on pre-Islamic Indian, Persian, Greek, Jewish and other sources. Even the so-called “Arabic numerals” and concept of “zero” are Indian in origin.

The claimed early and great universities of Islam are only theological schools which tend to suppress thought as much or more than create it. The other universities in lands considered Islamic (And, some of them are very good) are based on the traditions of European and New World schools. Where are the truly Islamic Nobel Prize winners? What great medical or scientific discoveries can be attributed to the true believers of Islam? What musical or artistic geniuses have come out of Islam?

As to destruction, that is a very old Muslim tradition. In the final destruction of the Library of Alexandria, the invading Muslim general was, to paraphrase, quoted as saying, “If the books (In that library) are not the Koran, there is no need to not burn them!”. Muslims took the “Land of milk and honey” and converted it into a desert---Which the People of Israel have, in the last 100-years, mightily worked to turn it back to what it was before Islam---and better.

The only thing that Islam has to offer the world is genocide, rape, robbery, destruction of property, retail murder, suppression of creativity, terrorism and hate for everything not like it.

A Better (Best?) Book On Islam

2005-08-14T17:07:00.000-05:00

Spencer, Robert
The Politically Incorrect Guide To Islam (And The Crusades)
Regnery Publishing, Inc.; Washinton, D.C.
Copyright 2005; Library of Congress cateloging in process; No ISBN given.

I cannot praise this book enough for its: Research base of Muslim, Christian and other reliable sources; Its references to various other books and its quotes from the best thinkers of our civilization; The clarity and lucidity of the text; Its close attention to every aspect of Islam over its 1400-plus years of conflict with every other thought system in our world; The internal structure of the sects and legal systems of Islam, with special atttention to the problem of conflicts within the text of the Koran; And, most specially, the application of all of the above to today's world.

Although the section on the Crusades is not quite as good as that on Islam, it is still worth reading to "seriously" dispell the myths and violent falsehoods all too commonly put forth about the motives and behaviors of the Crusaders.

No person having any authority in our world should not read this work before dealing with Islam on any level.

2005-08-07T19:44:00.000-05:00

How to evaluate the extent of the threat of "militant Muslims"?

Please follow along with me in some basic calculations as to the level of the present and future threat that “activist”, “jihadist”, Muslims represent to the world.

There are about One Billion (1,000,000,000) Muslims alive. If we eliminate, in good Muslim tradition, all females as meaningless, that still leaves us with 500-Million male muslims. I think we must assume that at least 80% of those male Muslims do believe, as commanded by their ideology or “faith” that: The Koran is the collection of the true, unalterable and absolute words and commands of God (Allah); The Hadith (The collected sayings of Mohammed) is a guide to right thinking and actions; And, that the Sharia (The codes of Islamic law) is the only correct legal rule and system in the world.

Those 400-million male Muslims are not necessarily a threat to us. But, we must note that such “faith” requires them to believe that it is correct to: Use aggressive war to spread “Islam”; Sexually use (ie Rape) female captives taken on jihad; Believe that there is a state of perpetual war between Muslims and all other persons; That all “unbelievers” and all women are entitled to only very inferior legal, social and political power or rights; It is correct to kill Jews anywhere and at any time; That anyone who insults the Koran or Mohammed must be killed (ie Murdered); That the same fate must be given to any Muslim who converts to another religion or, even by exposing such a person to the Bible or Sutras or other non-Islamic works, encourages such a conversion; That lying to or stealing from a non-believer is no crime or sin; That any attack by a Muslim, with a claim of defending his “faith” is encouraged, but any defensive action by a nonbeliever against a Muslim is a crime worthy of punishment; That “good Muslims” must either be on active and military jihad or support those who are, as a precondition to going to Paradise; That such support is as much, perhaps greater, an act of "charity" as supporting the poor or widows or orphans; That any treaty or peace or truce with “unbelievers” is only hudna and can be broken at any time, without warning for any reason whatsoever; That there is no non-Islamic government or government or laws which need be obeyed except under threat of force or for convenience's sake; And, many other like beliefs.

If we assume that only one-eigth of those “true believers” are of an age (16-to-35 years old) and geographic position where they could effect active and physical actions against non-Muslins or those Muslims who do not believe as they do, that still leaves us with

50-Million (50,000,000) high risk, potential, terrorists! Of those 50-Million persons, those who represent the greatest treat are those who live in non-Islamic nations, with strong free speech traditions, which have a history of welcoming strangers---Such as the United Kingdom, other Commonwealth Nations, Canada, France, The Netherlands, the Scandinavian countries and the United States of America !!!

The real Islamic threat is NOT some army of jihadists coming out of Turkey or North Africa or Egypt or Central Asia BUT from within our own free nations.

At some future time I will address dealing with that internal threat.

Worshiping Death: Islam & Securlar Humanism

2005-08-04T09:54:00.000-05:00

It appears that secular humanism, the public face of atheism and “islam” both worship death. A reading of the Koran and of the other basic documents of that ideology presents the reader with an inordinate number of passages calling for the death of Jews, “unbelievers” and, in the spreading or “defense” of “islam”, the death of believers. A review of the 1400-year history of “islam's” use of aggressive war, genocide, retail murder, killing of women considered to have been impure and other forms of terrorism all support my contention here.

Secular humanism's arrogant support of abortion and euthanasia are its contributions to the common worship of death.

Even the “worst” of Eastern religions show only an indifference to death due to their common belief in reincarnation and typically have some “do no harm” or Karma cautions which discourage murder.

The Very Big Lie About "Islam"

2005-08-04T09:17:00.000-05:00

“Islam is a religion of peace”-----Is one of the all time, big, lies. Even Joseph Paul Goebbels, Hitler's Minister of Propaganda, or many of the deluded voices who supported Stalin's Soviet Union could appreciate the magnitude of this, very critical, lie.

What? You do not agree with me? Let me dissect this “two lies in one” on as rational a basis as I can. My only question is do you have the intellectual honesty to continue?

First, is Islam “peaceful”? To know the truth about this you must, as I did, read both the basic texts (The Koran, the Hadith, being the sayings of Mohammed, and the Sharia, the codes of Islamic law), or as much of them were available to me and as are available to you. You must also read some basic, honest, history of Islam, especially one which addresses both its foundation, later development, expansion and interactions with other cultures and religions. (I specially recommend: The Sword Of The Prophet: Islam---history, theology, impact on the world; by Serge Trifkovic; Regina Orthodox Press; Boston, MA, USA; 2002.) If you are fortunate, you will have access to people of Armenian decent or those who recently lived in the South of The Sudan with whom to discuss this subject as they are likely to have such personal insights, as no book can provide, as to the real nature of Islam in practice.

Islamic Charities Support Terrorism

2005-07-30T18:37:00.000-05:00

This is all too common as many sects in "islam" consider the support of military and armed jihad a work of charity, as commanded by Mohammed. This is specially true of the Whahib movement as supported by the Saudi govenment.

Extremists rip off tsunami charity cash

IAN JOHNSTON

CHARITABLE donations to help people affected by the Asian tsunami disaster are falling into the hands of radical Islamic groups linked to terrorists in Indonesia, a leading expert on the global al-Qaeda network warned yesterday.

Relief money had become the "primary source" of income for two militant groups, including one founded by a Muslim cleric serving a prison sentence in connection with the Bali bombing in 2002 in which more than 200 people were killed.

Dr Rohan Gunaratna, head of the international centre for political violence and terrorism research at Singapore's Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies, told the Asia-Pacific Financial Crime Conference that the Boxing Day disaster had given "unprecedented opportunities for these groups to expand their areas of influence".

The UK Department For International Development (Dfid) said it was "concerned" about his comments and urged him to provide more information so it could take action if necessary. However, the Red Cross, Oxfam and Cafod aid agencies insisted that strict accounting procedures saw to it that no money given to them had fallen into the wrong hands.

Dr Gunaratna, author of the book Inside al Qaeda: Global Network of Terror, said the radical Islamic groups Mujahideen Kompak and Majelis Mujahideen Indonesia, or MMI, were moving into the Aceh region, where 130,000 people were killed and entire villages demolished by the devastating tsunami.

He told the conference, organised by banks in Singapore, that steps had to be taken to ensure that charitable donations did not go astray.

"Charities are a primary source of income for these groups," he said. "That's why there has to be more accountability in where donations go."

MMI, which has been called the Indonesian equivalent of Sinn Fein, was founded by militant cleric Abu Bakar Bashir, who is serving a 30-month jail sentence for conspiracy in the Bali bombings. Its name means the Council of Mujahideen For Islamic Law Enforcement.

The Brussels-based International Crisis Group has said Mujahideen Kompak plans to wage holy war in Indonesia.

And, according to the US-based analysts Global Security, Mujahideen Kompak has been responsible for attacks on Christians, including the nail-bombing of a church in North Jakarta during evening prayers in November 2001. Its leaders are also sometimes drawn from the infamous Indonesian terrorist group Jemaah Islamiyah.

Indonesian authorities have arrested scores of al-Qaeda-linked militants suspected of being involved in the Bali bombings, last year's attack on the Australian Embassy in Jakarta, or in the 2003 attack on the city's Marriott Hotel. But some critics still accuse the government of being soft on terrorists for fear of escalating conflicts in a land which is home to more Muslims than any other.

Dr Gunaratna said: "Indonesia must suffer more from terrorism for the people and their leaders to realise that terror is serious business and you can't flirt with terrorists."

Terrorism expert Professor David Capitanchik, formerly of Robert Gordon University, told The Scotsman that terrorist groups were known to have set up charities to act as money-laundering operations.

"Around mosques, there are lots of people standing outside with boxes asking people to give to charity," he said. "It is rare that people who donate money know exactly where it is going. Organisations banned in this country - like Hamas - raise funds like that here."

Patrick Nicholson, of Catholic aid agency Cafod, who was in Aceh in early this year and again in June, said that while radical Islamic groups had first tried to exploit the situation to whip up anti-Western feeling, they appeared to have given up.

"I would challenge him [Dr Gunaratna]. There aren't the same sort of groups [in Aceh] as you see in other parts of Indonesia," he said. "They [Islamic extremists] turned up after the tsunami and tried to get Western aid agencies kicked out.

"But they got no support from local people, and they all left."

When he returned in June, there was no sign of Islamic radicals. He added that Cafod's accounting allowed a £10 donation in Britain to be traced to the building of a house or buying of a boat.

A spokesman for the International Committee for the Red Cross said simply: "If the question is, 'Is Red Cross funding falling into the hands of terrorists?', in our view, it isn't."

However, the UK government appeared to be taking the claim seriously. A Dfid spokesman said: "We are concerned to hear these allegations. We encourage Dr Gunaratna to approach Dfid with more information."

The Vitrue Of War---A Book Review

2005-07-30T13:14:00.000-05:00

Webster, Alexander Ph.D. & Cole, Darett Ph.D.
The Virtue Of War: Reclaiming The Classic Christian Traditions East And West
Regina Orthodox Press; 2004
ISBN 1-928653-17-0

At last! A book which provides a contemporary, rational, historicaly correct, professional and theologically& philosophically sound examination of "just war" from Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant points-of-view. The objections of strict pacifists are fairly noted and fairly rebutted.

Any person who wishes to be informed about this subject and, most specially, teachers, appointed and elected civil officials, all military officers of the rank of Lt. Col. (Navy Commander) and above, "talking heads" and ministers-of-religion must read this work.

This book has been favorably reviewed by eminent Christians from many traditions. It is NOT an easy book and is, for someone like myself who is not trained in theology or philosophy, somewhat strained by those disiplines.

In short, the basic premise of this well worth-the-while book appears to be that the use of force, to combat evil, is requied of humans by God.

Jihadist-Terrorists On Themselves

2005-07-08T09:09:00.000-05:00

This defines jihad and islamic terrorism in terms of the Koran and in muslims' own thinking. Read and think!!!

FROM: The American Thinker of 8 July 2005

Jihad terrorism in London
July 8th, 2005

Within hours of the four reported explosions in London yesterday—three in the subway, and one on a crowded double-decker bus—the so-called “Secret Organization of al-Qaida in Europe” claimed responsibility for the attacks. This same group previously took credit for another major act of jihad terrorism in Europe: the series of Madrid, Spain commuter train bombings in March 2004, which killed 191 people.

A video was found in a trash can outside a Madrid mosque, two days after that attack, with a statement purported to be from the group’s spokesman, nicknamed “Abu Dujan al Afghani.” In the July 7, 2005 statement, the group proclaimed, “…the heroic mujahedeen carried out a blessed attack in London, and now Britain is burning with fear and terror, from north to south, east to west.”

As the toll of deaths and injuries mounts from these horrific blasts—aptly termed by London emergency management officials as, “A callous attack on innocent members of the public”—the intent of the self-proclaimed “mujahadeen” perpetrators merits examination within the overall strategy of Islamic jihad. Indeed to sow terror, and thus promote the Islamization of infidel territories, is consistent with jihad tactics that date back well over a millennium.

Ibn Hudayl, a 14th century Granadan author of an important treatise on jihad, explained the original methods which facilitated the violent, chaotic jihad conquest of the Iberian peninsula, and other parts of Europe, during the prior six centuries:

It is permissible to set fire to the lands of the enemy, his stores of grain, his beasts of burden – if it is not possible for the Muslims to take possession of them – as well as to cut down his trees, to raze his cities, in a word, to do everything that might ruin and discourage him, provided that the imam (i.e. the religious “guide” of the community of believers) deems these measures appropriate, suited to hastening the Islamization of that enemy or to weakening him. Indeed, all this contributes to a military triumph over him or to forcing him to capitulate. [1]

And the 20th century historian Charles Emmanuel Dufourcq characterized the impact of these repeated attacks, indistinguishable in motivation from modern acts of jihad terrorism, such as the Madrid bombings on (3/11/04), or yesterday’s London bombings (7/7/05):

It is not difficult to understand that such expeditions sowed terror. The historian al-Maqqari, who wrote in seventeenth-century Tlemcen in Algeria, explains that the panic created by the Arab horsemen and sailors, at the time of the Muslim expansion in the zones that saw those raids and landings, facilitated the later conquest, if that was decided on: ‘Allah,’ he says, ‘thus instilled such fear among the infidels that they did not dare to go and fight the conquerors; they only approached them as suppliants, to beg for peace.’ [2]

Writing in 1978, Dufourcq (d. 1982), one of the preeminent scholars of European Islam, worried (even then) that historical and cultural revisionism of this established legacy of jihad might precipitate a recurrence of,

…the upheaval carried out on our continent (i.e., Europe) by Islamic penetration more than a thousand years ago [3]

Less than a decade after Dufourcq’s death in 1982, the historian Bat Ye’or (from a 1991 French interview, published in English translation in 1994) echoed his intuitive concerns about Europe’s re-Islamization, and warned more broadly,

I do not see serious signs of a Europeanization of Islam anywhere, a move that would be expressed in a relativization of religion, a self-critical view of the history of Islamic imperialism...we are light years away from such a development...On the contrary, I think that we are participating in the Islamization of Europe, reflected both in daily occurrences and in our way of thinking...All the racist fanaticism that permeates the Arab countries and Iran has been manifested in Europe in recent years...

Julien Benda in his classic 1928 La Trahison de Clercs (The Treason of the Intellectuals) decried with prophetic accuracy how the abandonment of objective truth promoted the rise of totalitarian ideologies. Ignoring, dismissing, or worse, continuing to vilify thoughtful and intrepid scholars such as Dufourcq and Bat Ye’or reflects the broader La Trahison de Clercs of our time: the complete failure of Western intellectuals to study, understand, and acknowledge the heinous consequences of the living Islamic institution of jihad war.

Those myriad intellectuals in denial might now, at last, wish to study with care the continuing legacy of jihad war, and pay serious attention to its modern Muslim proponents—including the renowned jihadist cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi recently lionized—with tragic irony—by London’s own current mayor as a “progressive.” Here are some of Qaradawi’s views on jihad and jihad terrorism:

It has been determined by Islamic law that the blood and property of people of Dar Al-Harb [the Domain of Disbelief where the war for the domination of Islam should be waged, i.e. including within Western Europe and America] is not protected. Because they fight against and are hostile towards the Muslims, they annulled the protection of his blood and his property… in modern war, all of society, with all its classes and ethnic groups, is mobilized to participate in the war, to aid its continuation, and to provide it with the material and human fuel required for it to assure the victory of the state fighting its enemies. Every citizen in society must take upon himself a role in the effort to provide for the battle. The entire domestic front, including professionals, laborers, and industrialists, stands behind the fighting army, even if it does not bear arms. [4]

Allah has also made the prophet Muhammad into an epitome for religious warriors [Mujahideen] since he ordered Muhammed to fight for religion… the first assignment is to prepare the hero who is willing to put his life in his own hands for Allah's sake, and he who does not care whether he encounters death or death encounters him…He [i.e., a self-immolating bomber] kills the enemy while taking self-risk, similarly to what Muslims did in the past… He wants to scare his enemies, and the religious authorities have permitted this. They said that if he causes the enemy both sorrow and fear of Muslims… he is permitted to risk himself and even get killed. [5]

And Qaradawi stated his ultimate goals explicitly—consistent with orthodox jihad ideology—at a Muslim youth convention in 1995 in Toledo, Ohio: “We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America!”. In light of the London bombings, will the West’s intellectuals finally awaken to this threat—the jihad? Will they study with seriousness and urgency the theological-juridical underpinnings of the Islamic jihad, and its 14 centuries of brutal, imperialistic conquests, continuing through the present? Hope springs eternal.

Dr. Bostom is an Associate Professor of Medicine, and the author of the forthcoming The Legacy of Jihad, on Prometheus Books (2005).

Notes
[1] Ibn Hudayl (French translation by Louis Mercier), L’Ornement des Ames, Paris, 1939, p. 195. English translation by Michael J. Miller
[2] Charles Emmanuel Dufourcq, La Vie Quotidienne dans l’Europe Medievale sous Domination Arabe, Paris, 1978, p. 20.
[3] Dufourcq, La Vie Quotidienne dans l’Europe Medievale sous Domination Arabe, pp. 9-10.
[4] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), July 19, 2003. “Those Who Oppose Martyrdom Operations and Claim that they are Suicide are Making a Great Mistake”
From the July 2003, European Council for Fatwa and Research, headed by Sheikh Al-Qaradawi, which convened in Stockholm. Middle East Media Research Institute. July 24, 2003 No.542 http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP54203
[5] Al-Jazeera Television [Qatar], June 19, 2001. “The Prophet Muhammad as a Jihad Model” Middle East Media Research Institute, July 24, 2001 No.246. http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP24601

The Islamic Terrorists' Best Allies

2005-07-06T17:31:00.000-05:00

Who are the best allies of Islamic terrorists? We have met that enemy and it is us---Or at least those in the West who: Encourage sexual license---Even with and for young children; Support the destruction of personal and collective discipline under “color of law”; Attack the institutions which was the strength of this land [eg Traditional marriage and families; Traditional Christian Churches' traditional teachings; The severe punishment of crimes---Especially against children and the aged; Constancy in our laws and courts---Where judges should only interpret and execute the laws and do not make them]; Maintain that there is no firm standard of right VS. wrong and that every person is his/her own judge of such---If they even admit that such a concept exists; And, wish the entire concept and practice of religion to be totally removed from the public places, view and hearing as something which is an insult to the “modern humanist human”.

The Islamic preachers are correct in assailing the West, or that part of it described above, as not moral and without the strength to resist men-of-faith, the men-of-Islam. They realize, as too many of us have forgotten, that belief in and worship of a real God, eternal and all-powerful, provides the necessary strength to any real civilization.

To the East of the Atlantic Ocean the “European Disease” of self-indulgent self-satisfaction has taken hold and destroys too much of the power of Western Civilization to resist its own destruction and, I suspect, the primitive-but-forceful power of Islam. Spain, which regained its land and culture from Islam by the use of discipline learned in the Church and battle field up to the year 1492, has thrown away much of its hard earned power, which was based on the internal discipline of traditional families, by recently approving homosexual “marriages” and like perversions into law. The Muslims are beginning their own “reconquest” of a morally degenerate Spain---This time by infiltration rather than military conquest.

In France and The Netherlands, the Muslim minorities have become a real threat to law-and-order even to the point of murdering individuals who disagree with their teachings or burning down a court house in which one of their own was, very properly, convicted of a sexual assault.. In the United Kingdom the leaders of the Islamic community declared that they are not bound by British Law, but only by their own Sharia.

The many thousands of words in the proposed “Constitution” for the European Union make no mention of Christianity as an historical force and strength there.

In the USA such organizations as the ACLU, the “Man-Boy Love Association”, “Move On-Org.” (ie Mr. Soros' slave organization), most of our university and other teachers, many-too-many of our Judges and, I am very sorry to write, too large a part of the Democrat Party all support those forces which are destructive of Western Civilization. It is even horrid to write, but too many of the once traditional churches are defending those anti-civilization positions

Fortunately, many of the American People have understood the degeneration of those once-traditional churches (eg Congregational, Episcopal) and have fled from them to those religious organizations which support nation and human saving teachings.

The Roman Catholic Church is at its lowest point of moral strength since before the Reformation. Its American Bishops stand on an eroding dung heap of “teaching authority” without making any real efforts at climbing the mountain of “teaching responsibility”. They claim the power to manage the affairs of that Church, but have clearly failed to safeguard the children and others so often abused by its priests and others (Especially those bishops) who had a special responsibility to do so. They have, in fact, treated the Church as an “old boys' club” run for the benefit of the bishops and their cronies.

The Orthodox Churches are alas, in spite of their excellent teachings, too few in numbers to have any real impact in the USA. We should attend more to their views of Islam as they have suffered more than the Western Churches from that evil force.

From my Catholic point-of-view, the American Lutherans appear to still be fighting a “holier than thou” war among themselves and do not publicly speak out about the dangers facing all of us from political-militant secular humanism and Islam. (In Northern Europe, the Lutheran and other non-Catholic Churches have lost any social meaning or force they once had.) The United Church of Christ is in disarray over its leadership's approval of gay “marriages”.The old main line churches are losing members to other churches or religious indifference in huge numbers. The Evangelicals seem to be, very properly, focusing on the basics of Christ's teachings; But, also are not addressing the need to defend civilization.

All of the leaders of America's Christian Churches are either ignorant of the dangers from Islam OR are afraid to speak/write on such. The same holds true, for too many of them, as to the “militant secular humanists” and their supporters in the Congress, the Courts and our Universities and other schools (Including some seminaries).

WHAT TO DO NOW? The above should be presented to (And, if necessary, rubbed in the faces of) our religious leaders, government officials (Especially those involved in running or funding public universities and other public schools), the “media” and anyone else having any impact on our nation's thought and laws.

(As always, I refer the reader to the May, 2005 archives and "The True Face Of Islam" which is
on file there.)

We Have A State Religion

2005-06-28T18:14:00.000-05:00

Our law has a “holy book”, called the Constitution. Our judges claim that they cling to the teachings of that document; But, vary from it as much as did the Catholic and Protestant fanatics of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation varied from the teachings of Jesus Christ when they burned and murdered each other. The “priests” or “mullahs” of that religion are, of course, judges. The “High Priests” are the Supreme Court Justices. Their “dogma” is set in their judgments. Our judges take the clear and simple teachings of the Constitution and subject them to “mystical interpretation” in an effort to make us think that black-is-white, up-is-down and truth-is-lies. They claim to uphold the Constitution's protection of individuals, but allow children, at the point-of-birth, to have their brains sucked out of their little skulls to facilitate abortions---Even when there is no threat to the life of their mothers. They attack the war powers of the President at a time when our nation is in great danger from a new type of war by the attack of terrorists. Those judges claim to only interpret our American Constitution in light of the democratically passed laws of the People's elected representative, but use the legal decisions of foreign nations in their making of laws. They ignore the provision in our Constitution for its amendment and declare that new “rights” exist without the consent of the People. They repeatedly inflict their own social and political judgments and show great disdain for democratically approved laws. They suppress the joined freedom-of-speech and free expression of religion by denying the People to present their religion by such expressions as posting or exhibiting the Ten Commandment or other like symbols on public land. [This last technique is one common to power hungry priest- hoods, which is to do every thing possible to suppress and destroy other religions.].

When the founders of this nation outlined our government in our Constitution, they set a careful balance between the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches. That balance has been seriously disturbed and the whole structure of our government now is moving towards collapse and the dictatorship of the judicial elite---Who care little for democracy. That balance must be reset. My suggestion to enact the following Amendment to the Constitution, which would give the Congress the power to correct the errors which have infiltrated our society by judicial usurpations.

The Congress of the United States may reverse or nullify any decision of the

Supreme Court of the United States or of the lesser Courts of Appeal by a two-

thirds vote of the member present and voting in either House OR by a simple

majority of the members present and voting in both the Senate and House of

Representatives. The vote of each member of the Congress in such matters is to

be separately recorded and immediately made public. Such matters are to have

priority over all other business of the Congress.

The recording and immediate release is to prevent the members of the Congress from hiding behind the curtain of voice votes. The granting of such matters absolute priority is to prevent such matters from being “buried in committee”..

Simularities: Islam & Secular Humanism

2005-06-28T18:07:00.000-05:00

My instinctive thinking has led me to a tentative conclusion that both “Islam” and “militant secular humanism”are dangers to civilization, real religions and humanity. I also realized that there should be some common basis for that threat with,perhaps, more than one issue of similarity. I think I have detected such after my recent reading assignment (1).

The first correlation is that both are based on “instant gratification” of the senses. “Islam”, based on Mohammed's desire for power and sexual gratification by the shortest path possible (ie Kill those who oppose you, take and rape their women, steal their property, ignore “right VS. wrong” in favor of appeals the authority of Allah) has much in common with “militant secular humanism” (ie Use the laws and courts to suppress your opponents, use appeals to democracy to destroy it, deny that there is any meaning to “right VS wrong” and ridicule-and-suppress those teachers and others who hold to firm ethical principles).

The related issue is individual and collective self-discipline. Japan was able to rapidly go into the real and modern world as its people are very disciplined and willing to put off immediate gratification for long term results. This is the basis of their business successes where a bad financial quarterly statement does not bring a revolt of stock holders who know that the hoped-for rewards will come in time. Muslim nations (eg Imperial Turkey) could buy technology, but did not create it. Iraq's horror Hussein built up his military with borrowed technology (Yes, with weapons of mass destruction---Now probably in Syria or Saudi Arabia or Iran), but lacked the creativity to develop weapons which would counter the superiority of the West.

The next correlation is in the matter of the creation of knowledge and wealth. “Islam” is based on a predatory, bandit society which existed on plunder and rapine for too many years to change. For a short time, the fictional “golden age of Islam”, Muslims rode on the creativity of the ancient peoples of India, Persia, Iraq and Egypt. But, they created nothing and have fallen behind in an increasingly technological age---Except for what they steal or borrow from others. On a land basis they, for example, took the “land of milk and honey” and converted it into a desert, which it remained until the Jews founded the State of Israel and began to re-green the land. The modern secular humanists are parasites living off the cultural inheritance of a 1000-years of cultural, economic, scientific and social development. Perhaps, this is why the real thrust of scientific and business development passed to the USA and, if we are not careful in avoiding the “European disease” of secular humanism, will pass to Japan, China and India.

In short, both Islam and secular humanism are empty and void, lacking creativity,

self-discipline and usefulness in either the modern world or for-the-ages.

Trifkovic, Serge; The Sword Of The Prophet; Islam, history, theology, impact on the world;

Regina Orthodox Press; Boston, MA, USA; 2002; ISBN 1-928653-11-1.

A Very, Very, Important Book On Islam

2005-06-26T15:26:00.000-05:00

I bring to your very special, immediate and close attention the following book:

The Sword Of The Prophet: Islam—history, theology, impact on the world
Trifkovic, Serge
Regina Orthodox Press
Boston, MA, USA; 2002 ***

This is not an easy book. Even though I am an avid reader of history books, some of them of a difficult nature, with this history I find it necessary to frequently stop in mid-chapter to assess what I have read. Even though I have read many books and articles as to Islam, this work brought new revelations and points-of-view. This is not a “politically correct” discussion of Islam and related subjects as it shows all of the “warts” and basic wrongness of both Islam and its founder, Mohammed. The author, out of fairness, notes the shortcomings of many in the West, including those Crusaders who forgot the principles of Christianity and both attacked their Orthodox brothers and were involved in the one, great, Crusader massacre of innocents (As opposed to many more such crimes inflicted on Jews, Christians and others by Muslims) at Jerusalem. Due to the graphic nature of the descriptions of Mohammed's sexual life and other like matters this is NOT a book for children.

This book clearly shows the great gap between other religions and Islam, with the latter's commitment to: Aggressive war; Rape and other sexual perversions; Retail murder; Robbery; Enslavement and mutilation of others; Its special mistreatment of Blacks and women; The destruction of cultures; And, all those other forms of terrorism which are necessarily an inseparable part of the Islamic prime principle and mandatory duty of jihad.

Also and clearly demonstrated is the pre-conquest technique used by Muslims to mislead others in thinking that there is some essential difference between “militant Muslims” and all others of that “faith”. There is no difference at all! All believing Muslims must comply with every commandment of Allah (As given by Mohammed). They are and must either be actively engaged in military jihad or support it by contributions or attempt to subvert others by the misinformation noted in this paragraph. [If you have already, in whole or in part, accepted or surrendered to this subversion-by-misinformation, that Islam is only “just another monotheist religion”, then this book will disabuse you of that position and, perhaps, make you ashamed if you have taught or transmitted that error to others---Especially children or students or those otherwise subject to your authority.]

A SPECIAL REQUEST TO YOU

Whether or not you agree with the author of this book or with me as to this subject, I am asking you, out of a sense of fairness and intellectual honesty, to forward this essay to anyone who has a duty (Please see the lists of such persons below) or interest as relates to the subject material of this work.

WHO SHOULD READ THIS BOOK?

I have, below, attempted a rational division of those who should read, digest and understand this book. For the most part, those persons or role-holders listed have an absolute duty to do so and would be fully unworthy of their positions if they failed to do so.

ELECTED PUBLIC OFFICIALS: The presidents and prime ministers of all democracies; Vice-Presidents or equivalent persons; All members of the congresses or parliaments of democratic nations; And, those persons who advise such officials as to international affairs, terrorism, immigration and domestic law enforcement and security.

APPOINTED CIVIL OFFICIALS: Those members of national “cabinets” or department heads who have special responsibilities for diplomacy, national security, immigration, and internal law enforcement; Their deputies; And, their advisers.

Ambassadors to such nations as have an Muslim majority or large minority or those nations bordering on such or to such nations as France and The Netherlands which have had and still have very serious problems with their Muslim minorities.

Judges, who may have jurisdiction over relevant cases, should also read it as a primary and relevant text---Which is allowable in our and most law systems.

MILITARY OFFICIALS: Every officer with the rank of Navy Captain or Colonel or higher; Advisers to the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the USA or equivalent organizations in other nations; Teachers at “war colleges” or “staff colleges”; And, teachers of history, strategy and like subjects at all military schools such as West Point or Sandhurst.

RELIGIOUS LEADERS: All Christian ministers-of-religion including, but not limited to, the Pope, Patriarchs, Bishops, Pastors, Evangelists, lay-ministers and the advisers for all of these persons; All teachers of the Christian religion, whose students range from very young children to the most advanced theology scholars; And, publishers, editors and authors of religious magazines, newspapers and journals and their broadcast equivalents.

I would add those leaders of the Jewish and Hindu religions---But, they are much more aware of the evils of Islam than, I hope, we ever will be. The leaders of other religious groups should also read this book.

GENERAL MEDIA PERSONS: The publishers and editors of all general circulation and appropriate specialized newspapers, magazines and their radio and TV equivalents; All reporters whose “beat” is concerned with international affairs, national defense, internal security, immigration, terrorism, religion and related subjects; And, the “talking heads” who appear on TV and their radio equivalents, as well as their writers and advisers.

OTHER TEACHERS: Any teacher or professor whose duties or “hobby horse” involves teaching, from primary school through the most advanced , post-graduate, university programs in any of the areas listed as duties for appointed civil officials above have a moral and intellectual duty to read, understand and use the materials contained in this book---Even if you disagree with such or present opposing views.

BLACKS: Those who have a very special interest in and hatred of slavery should be aware of the approved place of enslavement in Islam and its ongoing use in many such places as the Sudan---As documented in this book.

WOMEN: If you are female and would like being valued at no more than one-half of any male and also valued only as a sexual object, you may ignore this book and hope for the world wide success of Islam. Otherwise, read, ponder and act.

OTHER PERSONS: You---If you wish to be a truly educated citizen.

OBTAINING THIS BOOK ***

If your local book seller can not or will not provide you with this work, you might try your local Orthodox Church, if any, or contact Regina Orthodox Press via the Internet (You might wish to order their excellent catalog) or by telephone:
In the USA (Only) 1-800-636-2470
International Calls Access USA & 1-978-463-0730

A NOTE OF THANKS!

If you have read this far, I admire your honesty and offer you my thanks.

The Second Fall Of Spain

2005-06-22T13:22:00.000-05:00

On 30 April 711 Islamic forces invaded Visigothic Spain, a land whose leadership had fallen into the worst combination of greed, immorality, sexual perversion and licence, all aggravted by a great lack of self-disipline. It did not take the Moors, and the Arabs who followed them, to conquer most of the Iberian peninsula as there was no moral strength left in that land.

The Moors and Arabs were expelled from Iberia only after its basic residents learned disipline through the moral teachings of the Catholic Church and the rigors of many battlefields.

Today's Spainards have, for the large part, fallen into the same state as their Visigothic forerunners. They have caught the "European disease" of secular humanism, which denies that there is any "right VS. wrong" in human behavior. Spain is likely to approve "homosexual marriage" and to allow such perverts to adopt innocent children. The culture of self-satisfaction has all but overcome what was a self-and-collectively disiplined nation, with a sound basis in community, morality and family. Too many Spaniards have, like too many in other nations, lost the ability to know the difference between liberty and self-distructive licence.

The followers of Mohammed, whos simple "faith" (As based on genocide, aggressive war, retail murder, robbery, rape and other forms of terrorism) does allow for much more disipline than does "secular humanism". In France Muslims burnt down a court house in which one of their rapists was convicted of that horrid crime and otherwise have no regard for what remains of French culture, civilization and law. In England they have declared that they are not bound by British law; But, only by their own Sharia.

In Spain "they" have again built mosques where, if what has occured in all other Western nations, Saudi trained "clerics" will be preaching armed jihad against all non-Muslims and will be raising money and other support for Islamic terrorism throughout the world. Spain has already tasted its own "9/11"; But, seems to be under the illusion that most Muslims disapprove of such actions.

In Spain "they" have requested (Demanded?) the return of buildings once mosques but now churches. For the time being the Spanish have refused to do so.

Muslims in Spain, as well as the USA and other places, have discovered that invasion can be begun by infiltration and subversion as well as by more overt means.

If Spain again falls to the followers of that pseudo-prophet Mohammed, it will be because the Spainards have been self-defeated by self-corruption AND that they have failed to learn from history and are condemned to repeat it.

If we, in the USA, fall to the same conbination of secular humanism and Islam it will be for the same reasons.

(As always, check the archives for the May, 2005 posting "The True Face Of Islam"!)

1492---A Very Good Year

2005-06-12T16:13:00.000-05:00

"In 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue ......" is the begining of a poem, the only lines known by most. That was a very good thing as it led, fairly directly, to the destruction of the Aztec "culture", a death cult based on the flaying alive (An Aztec priest was not really dressed if not wearing such a fresh skin) of many thousands of victims and the cutting out, while the victims were alive, of the hearts of many thousands or tens-of-thousands more. It should be noted that the Spanish had the enthusiastic cooperation of the Aztec's neighbors, who were the souce of those victims. Even though the Spanish violated the standards set by the Christ in further dealings with the Native Americans, the net gain of removal of the Aztec murder culture and the eventual benifits of Western science and arts allowed a net gain in the transaction.

However, for Spain the real meaning of the year 1492 was the expulsion of the last of the Mohammedan invaders from that land. I think the Spanish realized that such an act was necessary to preserve Western civilization and culture (Based on the Christian religion at that time) from "islamic" physical attacks and subversion. It is possible or probable that the Spanish did not think in those terms at that time. Perhaps, they thought that one more region striving for automity would be too much a strain on nation building (It still is). Perhaps, they had other concepts which we no longer are able or willing to understand.

In any case, 1492 really denotes the first general victory of resistance to the "muslim" conquests based on the Koran's teachings of: Aggressive war to spead that ideology; Genocide;
Robbery; Retail murder; Rape of female captives; And, all of the horrors which, to this day in such places as the Sudan, are the true fruits of "islam".

Even today, orthodox "muslim" teaching is that Spain, Greece, Sicily and other lands ever ruled by "muslims" must return to that rule.

Perhaps, the modern Spaniard has forgotten that and the lessons of history. Even today, the small "muslim" minority which (For reasons which excape me) have been allowed to settle in Spain are beginning to make "requests" (ie Demands) to have old Mosques (Many now Christian church buildings) returned to them. The present Spanish government is dominatied by aggressive secular humanists who are attempting to destroy Christianity out of arrogant ignorance that to do so is to leave that nation (And, Europe) more open to "islamic" conquest. The French are beginning to learn about that conquest-by-subversion in Paris and other cities where the "muslim" population cares not for French law or Western civilization.

The Spanish of that time, as opposed to the blind ones of today, realized that "Muslims" are loyal only to "Islam" and can not be expected to show or hold any loyality to a nation.

I think that the same holds true to "Muslims" in the USA.

I wonder if we in the USA are capable of learning from the history of "islamic" subversion and conquest. Perhaps, we need a "1492".

(AS ALWAYS---I REFER YOU TO "THE TRUE FACE OF ISLAM", WHICH IS THE FIRST, GENERAL, ENTRY IN THIS BLOG.)

Jesus Christ & Swords

2005-06-05T15:19:00.000-05:00

Some Christian pacifists would have you believe that Jesus the Christ was of their limp wristed

nature and against all violence. They forget His whipping the money changers out of the Temple. They rely on his “turning the other cheek” instructions, a quote taken well out of historical and social context. At his time (As was the case through out history and, in many places, still is) a blow to the face was a “deadly” insult, which many cultures required or now still require either instant and abject apology or a blood price in return. Jesus was correct in maintaining that an insult was not cause to kill or injure another person.

Some of those irrational persons also rely on Jesus' instructions, just before he was taken into custody, to “put up your sword” as some sort of pacifistic guideline. That is not the case as Jesus was protecting his followers whose one sword would only provoke the armed mob which came to take him prisoner. It is also the case that Jesus' arrest, torture, death and resurrection was necessary for the salvation of all humanity.

I do not recall any statement of the Christ requiring his followers to accept death or great bodily injury for his cause.

In fact, Jesus' general instructions to his followers, before sending them out on a mission, are contained in Luke, Chapter-22, Verses 35 through 38, TO WIT:

“And He said to them, “WHEN I SENT YOU WITH NO PURSE OR BAG OR
SANDALS, DID YOU LACK ANYTHING?” They said “nothing”. “BUT NOW,
HE WHO HAS A PURSE TAKE IT AND LIKEWISE A BAG, AND LET HIM
WHO HAS NO SWORD SELL HIS CLOAK AND BUY ONE. FOR I TELL
YOU THAT THIS SCRIPTURE MUST BE FUFILLED IN ME “AND HE
WAS RECKONED WITH TRANSGRESSORE”; FOR WHAT IS WRITTEN
ABOUAT ME HAS ITS FULFILLMENT.” And, they said, here are two
swords.” And He said unto them, “THEY ARE SUFFICIENT.””

[The quote from Luke's Gospel is from the Peshitta New Testament, a new Aramaic-to-English
translation; Aramaic being the common language of the Holy Land in Jesus' time.]

What then, was the meaning and value of swords in Christ's time? They were, in fact, the ultimate in personal weapons. They required much more of that then semi-precious metal steel than did daggers, or maces or spear heads or axes. They required very, very, much more skill in construction than those other weapons of that time. They were the AK-47s or AR-15s of that time. If you are one of those persons who prefer a Bible using modern terminology, just substitute “AK-47(s) for the term “sword(s)” in the above verses.

The Christ knew that there were bandits and other hateful people who might attempt to injure or kill his followers and He did not fail to advise them to be prepared to protect themselves. Perhaps, we should now take his advise as there are people who would and do injure or kill the followers of Jesus.

And Now, Secular Humanism

2005-06-02T19:27:00.000-05:00

For now, I have written enough about Islam. Now for some views about secular humanism. First, we will deal with the Courts as agents of the religion of secular humanism.

WE HAVE A STATE RELIGION

Forget that nonsense that there is a wall of separation between church and state in the USA. We have an official, growing and ever more powerful state religion. That religion is the Law---As made by judges, especially those in our Federal Courts. You think not? Please examine the present and probable future state of the law under our judges as if it were a religion. You will see the religion-of-the-law exposed in the facts.
Our law has a “holy book”, called the Constitution. Our judges claim that they cling to the teachings of that document; But, vary from it as much as did the Catholic and Protestant fanatics of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation varied from the teachings of Jesus Christ when they burned and murdered each other. The “priests” or “mullahs” of that religion are, of course, judges. The “High Priests” are the Supreme Court Justices. Their “dogma” is set in their judgments. Our judges take the clear and simple teachings of the Constitution and subject them to “mystical interpretation” in an effort to make us think that black-is-white, up-is-down and truth-is-lies. They claim to uphold the Constitution's protection of individuals, but allow children, at the point-of-birth, to have their brains sucked out of their little skulls to facilitate abortions---Even when there is no threat to the life of their mothers. They attack the war powers of the President at a time when our nation is in great danger from a new type of war by the attack of terrorists. Those judges claim to only interpret our American Constitution in light of the democratically passed laws of the People's elected representative, but use the legal decisions of foreign nations in their making of laws. They ignore the provision in our Constitution for its amendment and declare that new “rights” exist without the consent of the People. They repeatedly inflict their own social and political judgments and show great disdain for democratically approved laws. They suppress the joined freedom-of-speech and free expression of religion by denying the People to present their religion by such expressions as posting or exhibiting the Ten Commandment or other like symbols on public land. [This last technique is one common to power hungry priest- hoods, which is to do every thing possible to suppress and destroy other religions.].

The Congress of the United States may reverse or nullify any decision of the
Supreme Court of the United States or of the lesser Courts of Appeal by a two-
thirds vote of the member present and voting in either House OR by a simple
majority of the members present and voting in both the Senate and House of
Representatives. The vote of each member of the Congress in such matters is to
be separately recorded and immediately made public. Such matters are to have
priority over all other business of the Congress.

Another Point-Of-View: Jihad

2005-06-02T19:21:00.001-05:00

Pan Onufry Zagloba, who wrote The True Face Of Islam is not the only person who has such a view of Islam and Jihad. Please see the following, "fair use", item.

The Ugly History of Jihad

By Daniel Pipes
FrontPageMagazine.com | May 31, 2005In his just-released, absorbing, and excellent book, Understanding Jihad (University of California Press), David Cook of Rice University dismisses the low-grade debate that has raged since 9/11 over the nature of jihad – whether it is a form of offensive warfare or (more pleasantly) a type of moral self-improvement.Cook dismisses as “pathetic and laughable” John Esposito’s contention that jihad refers to “the effort to lead a good life.” Throughout history and at present, Cook definitively establishes, the term primarily means “warfare with spiritual significance.”His achievement lies in tracing the evolution of jihad from Muhammad to Osama, following how the concept has changed through fourteen centuries. This summary does not do justice to Cook’s extensive research, prolific examples, and thoughtful analysis, but even a thumbnail sketch suggests jihad’s evolution.

The Koran invites Muslims to give their lives in exchange for assurances of paradise.
The Hadith (accounts of Muhammad’s actions and personal statements) elaborate on the Koran, providing specific injunctions about treaties, pay, booty, prisoners, tactics, and much else. Muslim jurisprudents then wove these precepts into a body of law.

Muhammad’s conquests: During his years in power, the prophet engaged in an average of nine military campaigns a year, or one every 5-6 weeks; thus did jihad help define Islam from its very dawn. Conquering and humiliating non-Muslims was a main feature of the prophet’s jihad.

The Arab conquests and after: During the first several centuries of Islam, “the interpretation of jihad was unabashedly aggressive and expansive.” After the conquests subsided, non-Muslims hardly threatened and Sufi notions of jihad as self-improvement developed in complement to the martial meaning.

The Crusades, the centuries-long European effort to control the Holy Land, gave jihad a new urgency and prompted what Cook calls the “classical” theory of jihad. Finding themselves on the defensive led to a hardening of Muslim attitudes.

The Mongol invasions of the thirteenth century subjugated much of the Muslim world, a catastrophe only partially mitigated by the Mongols’ nominal conversion to Islam. Some thinkers, Ibn Taymiya (d. 1328) in particular, came to distinguish between true and false Muslims; and to give jihad new prominence by judging the validity of a person’s faith according to his willingness to wage jihad.

Nineteenth century “purification jihads” took place in several regions against fellow Muslims. The most radical and consequential of these was the Wahhabis' jihad in Arabia. Drawing on Ibn Taymiya, they condemned most non-Wahhabi Muslims as infidels (kafirs) and waged jihad against them.

European imperialism inspired jihadi resistance efforts, notably in India, the Caucasus, Somalia, Sudan, Algeria, and Morocco, but all in the end failed. This disaster meant new thinking was needed.

Islamist new thinking began in Egypt and India in the 1920s but jihad acquired its contemporary quality of radical offensive warfare only with the Egyptian thinker Sayyid Qutb (d. 1966). Qutb developed Ibn Taymiya’s distinction between true and false Muslims to deem non-Islamists to be non-Muslims and then declare jihad on them. The group that assassinated Anwar El-Sadat in 1981 then added the idea of jihad as the path to world domination.

The anti-Soviet war in Afghanistan led to the final step (so far) in this evolution. In Afghanistan, for the first time, jihadis assembled from around the world to fight on behalf of Islam. Abdullah Azzam, a Palestinian, became the theorist of global jihad in the 1980s, giving it an unheard-of central role, judging each Muslim exclusively by his contribution to jihad, and making jihad the salvation of Muslims and Islam. Out of this quickly came suicide terrorism and bin Laden.

Cook’s erudite and timely study has many implications, including these:

The current understanding of jihad is more extreme than at any prior time in Islamic history.
This extremism suggests that the Muslim world is going through a phase, one that must be endured and overcome, comparable to analogously horrid periods in Germany, Russia, and China.
Jihad having evolved steadily until now, doubtless will continue to do so in the future.
The excessive form of jihad currently practiced by al-Qaeda and others could, Cook semi-predicts, lead to its “decisive rejection” by a majority of Muslims. Jihad then could turn into a non-violent concept.

The great challenge for moderate Muslims (and their non-Muslim allies) is to make that rejection come about, and with due haste.

Welcome To My Blog

2005-05-30T16:16:00.000-05:00

INTRODUCTION TO THIS BLOG
"CRUSADER KNIGHTS OF THE TWO SWORDS"

This blog will focus on the dangers facing the Churches-of-God and its daughter, civilization. Those dangers are: Mohammedism (Which some call "Islam"); And, Secular Humanism. Both are miitantly attempting to destroy the basis of our civilization and culture, that which had made the West so great, so much a force in the advancement of humanity and so much to increase the distance between beast and true man. Links, documents and other sources to document the nature of these threats and what might be done to defeat or destroy them.

Other subjects may be brought to your attention as to protecting and preserving the basic nature of the real United States of America.

The True Face Of "Islam"

2005-05-30T14:40:00.000-05:00

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

This paper is intended to present some points-of-view, as to “islam”; Viewpoints which have been ignored or kept out of the public's eye---Especially by the “politically correct” conflict avoiders who control what “truths” are made known to the readers of newspapers, text books and magazines, as well as the speeches and acts of oil-driven politicians and diplomats as well as pathologically pacifist religious leaders---All of whom wish to condemn us to repeat history by ignoring the bitter lessons of the past.

Although “islam” will be the core of this paper, Christianity, crusades, crusaders, true civilization and like subjects will also be noted.

SOME OTHER READINGS

For those who wish to “cross check” the contents and positions of this paper, I suggest the study of at least three of the following works, given in no special order of preference.

Norval, Morgan; The Fifteen Century War: Islam's Violent Heritage; McKenna Publishing Group; Indian Wells, California; ISBN 0-9713659-5-4; 2002;
Catholic Answers; Endless Jihad; The Truth About Islam And Violence; Available from Catholic Answers; 2020 Gillespie Way, El Cajon, California;
Islam And The Church: Fourteen Centuries Of Jihad; Available, without cost, at <http://byzantines.net/epiphany/islam.htm.>;
Bat Ye'or; Islam And Dhimmitude; ISBN 0838639437;
Bethke, Jean; Just War Against Terror; Eishtain, Basic Books; 2003;
Bat Ye'or; “Jihad and Human Rights Today: And Active Ideology Incompatible With Universal Standards Of Freedom And Equality”, National Review; 11-11-02
Spencer, Robert; Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens American and

the West; Regnery Publishing, Inc.; Washington, D.C.; 2003; This work is of special interest as it notes not only the history of “islamic” violence; But, specially lists the many places where such organized, anti-Christian and anti-Civilization violence is still or very recently been in place, such as: Algeria; Ambon; Chechnya; Egypt; Kashmir; Mindanao; And, The Sudan; And,
Ali, Daniel & Spencer, Robert; Inside Islam: A Guide for Catholics; Ascension Press, West Chester (Pennsylvania), 2003; (Although written for Catholics, any Christian or other civilized reader can benefit from the calm, honest and logical presentation of this book).

WHY “ “ MARKS & CERTAIN USE OF LOWER CASE LETTERS

Within this text I have used quotation marks and lower case letters to denote such words as “islam” and “muslim” to stress the point that “islam” means surrender to the will of God (Allah)---But only as “muslims” choose to interpret it, which includes the premise that Allah commands that “islam” either converts the whole world or subjugates all peoples to it. I refuse to allow the enemies of Christianity and all true civilizations to have even that advantage-of-terminology.

DO I HATE “MUSLIMS”?

Certainly not! I am too old and tired to hate. As a Christian, I am commanded to love. Also, I have found that hate dulls the mind and, in terms of any conflict, gives enemies an advantage.

The command to love does not require me to lie about enemies or to minimize their danger to myself or others. Most importantly, it does not require me to allow enemies to hurt me or my family or my neighbors or my nation or my civilization. I will “turn the cheek” as to insults or even such gross insults as a slap to the face. I will not allow any enemies to severely injure me or mine!

“ISLAM” AS A CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION

“Islam” is not really a religion. It is an older, larger and much more dangerous criminal organization than the Mafia or Cosa Nostra or any of the Columbian or Mexican drug cartels or the Jamaican “posses” or any of the Chinese Triads or any like associations, past or present.

What evidence do we have to support that position? There is a stated plan, in the Koran and the Hadith (The sayings of Mohamed) commanding or supporting the use of force in the taking of others' property, the sexual use (Rape) of female captives, the theft of entire nations and destruction of cultures---And, the murder of anyone who opposes “islam” or leaves “islam” or , by extension, “insults” the Koran or Mohamed. That pattern of criminal behaviors is well documented in the 1400-plus history of “islam”.

The critic may state that “muslims” have rites and religious practices. My response is that the Mafia and Triads also have those and that does not make them less criminal.

[As a related issue, property does represent human life. That is, property represents that part of any person's life expended in earning any property. The use of force or other unlawful means to deprive someone of what is lawfully theirs means that a part of their life has been taken from them. In effect: “Every theft is a little murder”.]

Such thefts and other criminal assaults, as noted above in the history of “islam” and anywhere more generally, may be resisted with such force (Including deadly force) as is necessary to prevent such crimes or even to recover unlawfully seized property. (Please see The Catholic Encyclopedia at <http://newadvent.org/caten/13691a.htm> .)

The crimes of kidnapping and hostage taking are condemned by the Church, which crimes are common in Jihad and other forms of “islamic” violence---Even to this day in such places as The Sudan. As kidnapped persons or hostages have a high probability of being murdered or tortured or maimed or raped, such crimes may be morally resisted by such (Even deadly) force needed to stop such crimes.

From a civil and criminal law point-of-view, in the United States of America, “islam” meets all of the standards for prosecution, as a “criminal organization”, under the RICO statutes. Any “muslim” who commits any criminal action, in the name of “islam”, can be considered to be continuing a 1400-plus year pattern of criminal conspiracy and activity and punished accordingly, in addition to any penalties imposed for the underlying crimes.

Any citizen or resident of the USA wronged by such actions can and should sue and ask for triple damages. Such actions could also be brought against anyone (e.g. Immans who preach in favor of jihad and the mosques to which they belong or at which they spew out their incitement to criminal activities; Certain “islamic” governments which allow such actions and support them).

READ THE KORAN!

On July 4, 2002, Mr. Mohamed Hassan Hadayet, an Egyptian national and loyal follower of Mohamed and the Koran left his apartment and went to the Los Angeles airport were he used two handguns to murder two innocent bystanders. An El Al Airlines security guard killed Mr. Hadayet before he could use his four additional magazines of ammunition to murder others.

At that time and thereafter, the investigating officials declared themselves “clueless” as to why Mr. Hadayet committed those murders. This, even though that “islamic” criminal left, posted on his apartment's door, a note which read: “Read the Koran”! (Where such officials really “clueless” or were they: Ignorant of what is in the Koran; Or, driven by “political correctness”; Or, directed by oil motivated politicians?)

Today's educated person should read the Koran and carefully note (After filtering out the “smokescreen” of God-praising statements) that the Koran is a clear work of hate literature, a plan for world conquest and an instruction book on providing a religious cover for theft, rape and murder.

In nations where such literature in not protected by “free speech laws”, the Koran could be banned (As are certain Nazi writings in Germany).

Mr. Hadayet provided a very clear example of the effects of the Koran on individual “muslims”, who are not a part of any organized terrorist group and why the Koran is, by itself, dangerous to civilization and humanity.

THE UNCHANGEABLE KORAN

It strongly appears that “muslims” consider the Koran the absolute and unchangeable word of God and consider any criticism of it, in whole or in part, as an “attack against islam” and an offense worthy of the death penalty.

Please see the CONCLUSIONS section of this paper for further comments on this issue.

MOHAMED & HIS SUCCESSORS AS WAR CRIMINALS

THE NUREMBERG STANDARDS: At the end of World War II a considerable number of Nazis were brought to trial at Nuremberg and other places and charged with various “war crimes”, of which the following are paraphrased examples:

They conspired, by a common plan, to seize unlimited power and to commit
further crimes;
They broke international treaties and waged aggressive war resulting in a world war;
They initiated a horrible blood bath and ordered or permitted mass murder, tortures, slave labor and economic exploitation; And,
They committed crimes against humanity by persecuting political opponents, racial and religious minorities and made themselves responsible for the murder and destruction of whole groups of populations (Underlining mine).

CONSPIRACY: The plan for world domination, conquest, etc. , as set down by Mohamed for all “muslims” and for all time, is contained within the Koran and the Hadith (The collected sayings of Mohamed) for anyone to read. This is roughly equivalent to Hitler's Mein Kampf and the other writings and speeches of that monster as the plan for Nazi conquest of the world.

The plan for unlimited political power is noted, below, in the NO SEPERATION...” section of this paper; But, is clearly that only a “muslim” government and ruler, loyal to the teachings of Mohamed, are valid. The plans for other crimes deal with the forced taking of property, women and the subjection or murder of all who do not hold to that position are also contained in the noted “islamic” works and further “islamic” interpretations of them.

WAGING AGGRESSIVE WAR: Ever since Mohammed's forces left Arabia (Where they fought a civil war) such armies began and continued to this day aggressive war after aggressive war against both Christian and other nations in the Middle East, Europe, Africa and Asia. Some naval intrusions went as far as Ireland. These wars continue today in such places as the Sudan where the “islamic” forces of the North wage Jihad against the Christians and others in the South of that land---With attendant murder, rape and pillage, the common sign of such “islamic” wars of aggression. Of late, such “islamic” campaigns have been against the Peoples of the Philippines, the Christian minorities in all “islamic” countries and in the United States.

[It is not necessary to have any central “muslim” government waging war (i.e. Jihad) against others as the Koran sets the demands for such actions, for every “believer”, and justifies any means for them. We may, therefore, reasonable predict that, as long as any person (Such as the above-noted Mr. Hadayet) believes that the commands of the Koran are binding for all time, Jihad (As individual or collective acts of aggression and violence) may occur at any time and any place.]

The enslavement, by “islamic” forces, began with “islam's” initial departure from Arabia and has continued, to this day, in all “islamic” campaigns against others. Much of this enslavement has and is that resulting in the sexual abuse of captives or in making “child soldiers” out of very young, male, captives. The “muslim” turks imposed a tax of boys, from non-”muslim” communities, to serve as troops (Janissaries).

CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: No “political opposition” is allowed in truly “islamic”nations was or is allowed as such is not in agreement with the Koran. (Please see “NO SEPERATION ...” below.) Christians and Jews were allowed to physically survive and maintain a severely edited form of their cultures if, and only if, they put themselves in a state of dhimmitude or submission to the local “islamic” ruler. Pagans were given the one time choice of convert or die. Under both conditions, “islam” destroyed whole cultures or, cancer like, converted them to something else.

WAR CRIMINAL STATUS: If Mohamed had been alive in 1945 and in the custody of the four Western powers, he would have qualified for trial as a war criminal. The same potential and status applies to all “muslim” rulers and leaders who followed the Koran in attacking other lands and peoples.

“TRUCE” vs. “HUDNA”

At this place it is proper to discuss the western concept of “truce” vs. the Arabic concept of "Hudna”; Both referring to the temporary stopping of overt, physical conflict.

Within the Western “truce” the has always been the implication that such will lead to a long term peace, often based on negotiations and an expectation that the spirit of “truce” will me more important than the letter of a truce agreement. In Western tradition, any truce violations will be considered in proportion to their seriousness, with a reluctance to totally cancel the “truce” for minor reasons.

Within (At least, Arab) “islam”, the term “hudna” implies only a period for regeneration of powers so that the stalled conflict may be again pursued with renewed vigor. Any, no matter how slight, violation of “hudna” is considered sufficient to allow resumption of hostilities at the convenience of the aggressor'. Mohamed himself, in his feud with the Quraysh clan set the pattern of this use of “hudna” as a tactical ploy. (See, “Hudna With Hammas”, in Honest Reporting.)

NO SEPERATION BETWEEN CHURCH & STATE IN “ISLAM”

It is important to here note that, in the ideal “islamic” state, there is no separation between religious and civil authority. In such a state the law is only “islamic” law, the ruler is appointed by Allah, there is no room for public debate or democracy or the rights of religious minorities and no room for any other “perversions” as the political or social equality of women.

Within the “islamic” mind, the only proper ruler must be a declared “muslim”. The most psychotic, sociopathic, sadistic, unjust, greedy and murderous ruler (Does that remind you of someone?) must be a declared “muslim”and is to be preferred to any “non-muslim” ruler, no matter how just, reasonable, fair, generous and merciful that “unbeliever” may be.

“ISLAM” AND SLAVERY

The Koran views slavery as a “permanent fact of human existence” and “explicitly guarantees Moslems the right to own slaves” (See “Islam's Wretched Record On Slavery”; Front Page Magazine; 11-10-02; By Mr. Serge Trifkovich), In that article Mr. Trifkovich gives further evidence of he horrors of slavery in general, but especially as to the length of such slavery by “muslims”, the working-to-death or castration of most such slaves. (Unlike the USA or Brazil or other places where the descendants of slaves are form a great part of the populations, the lack of such descendants in Arab nations, along with the record of Arab enslavement of Blacks, support the fact that such slaves were not allowed to breed, it being “more economical” to enslave work ready adults.)

A RELIGION OF PEACE? NINE QUESTIONS

There are those, both “muslim” and others, who maintain that “islam” is a religion of peace (And of justice). Such persons should be made to clearly, on a “yes or no” basis, respond to the following questions, before a video camera, with the knowledge that their responses (And name, home address and work address) will be broadcast to the “muslim” and other publics.

Are you a believing “muslim”
Do you believe that the Koran contains only the words of Allah (God)?
Do you believe that Mohamed was the last true prophet of Allah (God)?
Do you believe that the Hadith contains the saying of that Mohamed and are true and valid instructions to his followers?
Do you condemn those parts of the Koran and Hadith which allow or command the killing of any person who elects to no longer be a “muslim” OR those which allow or command the killing of any person who “insults” Mohamed or the Koran?
Do you condemn those parts of those works which allow or command the waging of aggressive military or physical jihad (War) against those who do not follow the teachings of Mohamed?
Do you condemn those parts of those works which allow the enslavement of others or the sexual use of female captives?
Do you condemn those parts of the Koran and the Hadith which deny equal legal, political, taxation and social rights to those who are not “muslims” and all women?
Do you condemn those parts of the Koran and the Hadith which insult other religious beliefs?

Any person who cannot respond, under the conditions noted above, with a “clear and convincing YES” to questions five through nine above must, therefore, deny that “islam” is a “religion of peace” and, for that matter, a “religion of justice”.

CRUSADES & CRUSADERS

WHO IS A CRUSADER? A crusader is any person who defends, by physical force if necessary, the Christian Churches (And, their daughter, true civilization) from evil assaults which are in violation of essential individual and collective rights to life, limb, bodily safety and such property as is earned by physical or mental labor---As well as such less tangible rights as “freedom of religion”. “freedom (Not license) of speech”, “freedom of such political choices as do not detract from basic human rights”, etc,. Crusaders are permitted to use such force as is necessary to do so and to punish such violators where the usual civil authorities cannot or will not do so.

WHAT ARE CRUSADES: In the area of the civilization vs. “islam” the early crusades were efforts to regain lands and peoples unlawfully taken by “islamic” aggressive wars and criminal activities. For reasons noted below, those first crusades were not successful.

Later crusades were successful in: The retaking of Spain and Portugal from the Moors; The liberation of Greece; The freeing of most of the Balkans and Hungary; The French turning back of a Moorish invasion (When the French still recognized the danger of such intrusions and had the courage to resist them); The resistance to “islamic” invasions in Italy and Sicily; The destruction of major “islamic” naval force in the Mediterranean at the battle of Lepento; And, the turning back of Turkish-”islamic” invasions by Poles, Lithuanians and Germans in Eastern Europe and at the gates of Vienna.

In much more recent times, the “Crusade In Europe” defended civilization (Jewish, Christian and other) from the horrors of Nazi rule in an extended conflict (Where Arab religious leaders took the part of the Nazi forces).

CRUSADERS ERRORS: There is little doubt that some medieval crusaders lost sight of the noble basis for their vocation and let greed, land-hunger and other like faults diminish them and their place in the world and in history. However, in our Christian and Western-Civilization (Present and with 20/20 hindsight) we can look back on such errors, know them to be wrong or shameful and apologize for our errors.

In Iraq, we did not wait long to begin the punishment of the few there who violated the purity of our crusade by abusing prisoners.

“Muslims” do not, for the most part, make any apologies for the excesses of persons on jihad. Some, in fact, celebrate the killing of innocent men, women and children (Note the dancing in the streets of “muslim” cities upon those horrid little people hearing the news of the 9-11 mass murders).

IN SHORT: The word “crusade” is not a dirty word; And, crusaders are “the good guys”!

SELF DEFENSE AGAINST “ISLAM”

SOME VERY POOR GOSPEL EXAMPLES: Some pacifists, often Christian, use Christ's command to Saint Peter (?) to “put up his sword” and, to all his followers, to “turn the other cheek upon receiving a slap to the face”, to justify their positions of

non-resistance to evil, general pacifism and trying to “talk out problems” with “muslims”, Nazis and others who have a commitment to evil, aggressive war and other like violations of human rights. They also claim that the relevant command is: “Thou shall not

kill”. Those are all very incorrect and misleading examples.

First, Christ's commandment to Peter was case-specific as, according to Christian belief, Christ's arrest, persecution, crucifixion, death and resurrection were all necessary for the salvation of humanity. These were no more general instructions to His followers than the, from the cross, instructions to Saint John and Mary.

Secondly, the “blow to the face” noted by Christ was, in his time and more recently, a “deadly insult” which was normally expected to result in a very physical response. (From the point of view of history, it has not been so many years in Western lands, including the USA, when such a blow would have resulted in the concerned “gentlemen” facing each other, at ten paces, with pistols in their hands.) Even today, such a gross insult will, in many places, result in a violent, even homicidal, response. However, Christ recognized that an insult is not enough to warrant violence. Christ did not command his followers to allow themselves to be murdered or raped or forcibly converted to some other religion. In fact, if you wish to read Christ's last general commands or “marching orders” to his followers, who were about to go forth into a hostile world, read: Luke 22; Verses 35 through 38. In those final, general, orders, Christ commands that his followers obtains swords (The ultimate weapon of self-defense, the AK-47, of that time) even if they have to sell their clothes to do so.

Lastly, I have had it from two Rabbis and from Christian scholars, that the commandment should be translated as: “Thou shall not murder”. Killing, incidental to self-defense and the defense of other humans, of civilization and of the Faith, is not forbidden. Hate is forbidden.

SELF-DEFENSE PROPER: In fact, we have a right and duty to protect ourselves and others (Family, friends, neighbors, our fellow citizens, any innocent stranger, etc.) from criminal aggression of an individual or national or international (e,g, From jihadists) nature. [As a side issue, we have the natural right to have the means (Weapons) to do so when civil authorities fail to provide clear, present and immediate prevention of such aggression.]

THE SOLDIER'S ROLE: Those pathological pacifists who throw Bible verses about, in defense of their positions on resisting evil, should remember who it was that Christ praised as having “...greater faith than anyone in Israel”. That person was a Centurion, a man-of-war used to both commanding and being commanded and, most certainly, no stranger to killing in the line of duty. They should also remember St. John The Baptist's advise to soldiers, not being to quit their profession but to not extort from others.

SPECIFICALLY AS TO “ISLAM”: That pseudo-religion, “islam” has clearly demonstrated its aggressive use of force, for the last 1400-plus years to commit the various crimes noted above.

Therefore, we are lawfully and morally allowed and required to use such force as is necessary to both protect ourselves and those we are duty-bound to protect and are allowed, by the same standards, to use such force as is necessary to regain what was lost to such illicit action.

Such protection may include the use of “preemptive strikes” to prevent such attacks when there is reasonable expectation that such actions would be of a preventative nature. That is, it is not necessary to allow someone threatening you with a drawn sword at your neck before cutting that aggressor down.

Since all “believing muslims” (i.e. Those who will not deny the evil parts of the Koran) may be expected, at some time or another in any place in the world, to become involved in jihad attacks against innocent persons, it is reasonable to take such measures as are morally allowable to prevent such attacks.

PIRATES, BANDITS AND JIHADISTS: International law has, for some hundreds of years, allowed any party to kill, without any great “due process of law”, any pirate or bandit caught in the act and under arms. I see no reason not to apply the same principle to “islamic” jihadists and all other terrorists---Especially those found with weapons of mass destruction (Nuclear, biological and nerve-gases) or after some sort of public announcement in any given area, armed with crew-served weapons, high-explosives, ground-to-air missiles, rocket propelled grenades and the like.

Most certainly, I see no justification to extend, to such terrorists, any rights under the “Geneva Convention” or any like “rules of war”!

CONCLUSIONS

PAST, PRESENT AND PROBABLE FUTURE: Unless certain and unexpected changes are made among the great majority of “muslims” (Please see below), I see no end to the 1400-plus year cycle of jihad, hudna and resurgent jihad rising out of any “islamic” community, at any time and at any place in the world. This is most likely where “muslims” form a large part of the population (e.g. The Sudan).

JIHAD BY INFLITRATION: It appears that we are in a period when overt military jihad is again active. But, this is less of a danger to Western Civilization than the infiltration of Western nations by ever larger “muslim” populations who (Unlike the immigrants who settled the USA and those, in other nations such as France which became integrated with the laws, mores and customs of their adopting nations) consider themselves above the laws of such host nations and have shown little, if any, willingness to integrate. ( Even the Jews, with their separateness of religion, have become “good Americans” or “good Frenchmen”.) For the most part, “muslims” will not and, if faithful to the Koran, can not do so. In the United Kingdom, “muslims” are now demanding that their laws take precedent over the Common Law. In France (Where they form a very strong minority of at least 5,000,000), they do not join in in becoming French and so consider themselves apart from and above the law that they have done such acts of resistance as burning down a court house in which one of their community was found guilty of a very serious, assaultive, crime and sentenced to prison.

In the USA it appears that “muslims” (Perhaps due to Arab control of major oil resources) have inflicted an unhealthy influence on the national government.

What is to be done? I suggest the Spanish-1492 solution of expelling all “muslims” who cannot or will not fully and very publicly commit themselves to the supremacy of the laws of their host nations and who will not likewise deny the evil parts of the Koran and Hadith. Such as cannot or will not do so have obtained citizenship by fraud and have no rights to such membership in the community of any civilized land.

THE ONLY ROUTE TO PEACE: There is really only one route to peace between the followers of Mohamed and the rest of the world. That is for each and every “muslim” and every community of such persons to: Publicly, strongly and permanently denounce, reject and deny those parts of the Koran and Hadith which allow, recommend or command aggressive war, the sexual or other enslavement of others, the limiting of rights (Political, economic and social) to non-”muslims” and all women, the murder of anyone who voluntarily leaves “islam” or criticizes Mohamed or the Koran and the forced taking, in the name of “islam” of the property (Physical, cultural and intellectual) of others; And, renouncing all claims on lands once under “islamic” rule, but since retaken by other peoples.[Of course and under present conditions, any person who did so would be liable for “execution” and any community which did so would likely be exterminated.]

RESPONCES TO TERRORISTS: All terrorist individuals and groups should be crushed in the most effective, calm, and efficient manner possible (Without falling into the error of hatefulness) for the common good of all humanity.

The age of compromise ended with the failure of Chamberlain to find “peace with honor” in his dealings with Hitler and his Nazi terrorists and the negotiations with Imperial Japan up to December 7, 1941.

Unless “muslims” take the route to peace noted above, I see little in the future but the ongoing cycle of jihad, hudna and more jihad along with an ongoing and, possibly always ongoing, need to crush such outbreaks.