'cookieChoices = {};'

The Right of the People to be Secure in their Persons, Houses, Papers, and Effects,
Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures,
Shall Not Be Violated


Saturday, September 05, 2009

Roger Simon Asks, "Is Obama’s “Czar System” grounds for impeachment?"

I think it is. The reality is, Congress doesn't seem to care that Obama (the Executive Branch) are outright stealing power away from the Legislative Branch.

Every new Czar appointment is a bitch-slap in the face of the Congress and the Senate. And, they don't seem to have the dignity to care. Much less, the commitment to defend our Constitution.

I was completely opposed to impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton. Sure, he had oral sex with an intern next to, probably even in, the Oval Office – and, yes, of course, he lied about it under oath. But for me that didn’t rise to the level of impeachment. Reason: the percentage of men who have lied about sex, many of them under oath, is astronomical. I am certain that accounts in part for the ubiquity of no fault divorce. If lying about sex were an actionable offense, our courts would be in terminal gridlock. Moreover, although some differ, Clinton’s pathetic behavior didn’t really have much to do with the life of our country or affairs of state. It was basically a private matter. In fact, Clinton governed rather well as a centrist president.

Barack Obama’s Czar System – which has recently come under scrutiny for some repellent, even paranoid, statements by his “Green Czar” Van Jones, a onetime “9-11 truther” who calls Republicans “assholes” on television – is an entirely different matter. This is directly an affair of state and seemingly an end run around the Separation of Powers.

According to an article recently published at Examiner.com by Patrick McMahon, there are now thirty-one of these czars, covering areas from terrorism to domestic violence. Congress has not vetted a single one of them, as far as I know. Indeed, with only a couple of exceptions (Dennis Ross, etc.), we know who few of them are. Are others as extreme as Mr. Jones? Who knows?

(Pastorius comment: We do know the answer to that question, Mr. Simon. The answer is an emphatic yes.)

All we know is that they are there and that Obama (or someone) approved them. We don’t know exactly what their authority is and what they are supposed to do ultimately. They are a completely new part of our Executive Branch, invented by the President and/or his advisors. Was this what the Framers intended when they created the three branches of our government with all the checks and balances?

Unlike Mr. Jones, I am no lawyer, and obviously not a Constitutional one, but it strikes me there is a problem here. And it could be very embarrassing to Mr. Obama. No doubt this is why, as Byron York points out, the mainstream media has been so reluctant to cover this story, only the WaPo and CBS chiming in at this point, although they were late to the party and relatively perfunctory.

The former Newspaper of Record has yet to log in. Had Bush appointed thirty-one czars outside the normal Congressional approval system the MSM would have been all over it like the proverbial wet suit, declaring a coup d’etat in the making. But, as of now, the MSM has imposed omerta. It is Labor Day weekend. We shall see what happens next week.

Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 5 Comments

Wow, Pamela Is Doing a Great Job Covering the Rifqa Bary Case

Thank God for Pamela and Robert Spencer.

Rifqa bary

The coverage of Rifqa Bary's hearing in the decrepit mainstream media is appalling and dishonest, yet again but I could not help but laugh when I got a gander at today's column from one of our favorite low lives on the lower end of the media food chain: Michael "Lapdog" Kruse. His last column was low, but he managed to outdo even himself. He hits bottom and keeps on digging.

You remember my last Kruse fisk here. In that infinitely forgettable piece, he is calling for theKruse_Michael_wp_10347a arrest of the Christian Samaritans who took in a young girl running for her life. He would have been the better person and turned away a desperate child in fear of her life. Get it??

I am not going to fisk all the dreck he wrote, but a couple of things stand out. His tawdry lies about Rifqa and his denigration of her defenders is disgusting.

No abuse found, says attorney for Muslim family of runaway Christian teen Michael Kruse, St. Petersburg Times

[Rifqa Bary] was in court Thursday, wearing a brown sweater, a white dress and dark red nail polish. She said nothing, but did blow an occasional kiss to people she knew in the courtroom when she wasn't reading her Bible.

Kruse is a liar. I was sitting in the first row. I never took my eyes off her. She never blew a kiss to anyone. Depraved. And what about the "darkred nail polish"? I didn't see any "dark red nail polish", I can't say either way, but what is this perv looking at and looking for? Kruse is depicting this sweet, innocent little girl as some kind of .... trollop. Zsa Zsa Gabor. Kruse is evil and his hatred of Rifqa is the hatred of the good for being the good.

Thursday, the state Department of Children Families asked that Bary no longer be allowed to visit with Blake and Beverly Lorenz. The judge agreed, although he let her continue to visit with the Lorenzes' three children, who are in their 20s, and whom Bary considers "dear friends and spiritual advisers," according to John Stemberger, her attorney.

Note the contempt for anything "spiritual". Kruse is an empty vassal.

In court, Krista Bartholomew, Bary's guardian ad litem, said this case was "not a holy war," but that's what this has become over the last month.


Jamal Jivanjee, the Ohio pastor, compared Rifqa Bary to Anne Frank, the Jewish girl who was killed by Nazis in World War II and whose diary became what many consider one of the most important books of the 20th century.

Jamal Jivanjee, a righteous and brave soul. Kruse is not fit to lick his boots.

Robert Spencer, who writes on a blog called Jihad Watch, told reporters Islam was here to take over America.

Uh, a blogger? Spencer has written nine books, including two bestsellers, and briefed the FBI, JTTF, DHS, Central Command and intelligence community on Islamic jihad.

Pam [sic] Geller of the Atlas Shrugs blog dismissed the results of the Franklin County investigation by saying things were "corrupt in Ohio."

Rifqa went to school with bruises on her arms and legs. She told at least 20 adults of threats and fears (one cop admitted to that). Yet Sgt. Jerry Cupp of the missing-persons unit of the Columbus police special-victims bureau, ignored all that and disputed Rifqa's charge against Mohamed Bary. That's not corruption? There is a history of intimidation. Islam has a history of honor killings. Her father belongs to a radical mosque. And LE is saying there is no threat? If they are not corrupt, they are incomprehensibly stupid.

"Forget your political correctness!" she said.

If Phil Keating is not politically correct, then what is he? A misogynist? A convert?

Muslim businessman Mohammad Lutfi of Orlando yelled that Trento, Spencer and Geller were "conservative, right-wing militants" and "crusaders."

Check out "Muslim businessman". He was a CAIR plant, a vicious, lying agitator who tried to turn the hearing into a circus. But Spencer is a "blogger". Get it?

That was Kruse's take on the hearing today -- from the wonderful world of Disney.

UPDATE: At the first hearing the perv-ish Kruse wrote this:

In the courtroom, the girl with the twig-thin legs wore heavy rouge and spent most of the time reading her Bible, while her mother sat across the way in a blue and purple gown and head scarf wiping tears from her face

One. Sick. Puppy.

UPDATE: Kruse is on my video here. Spencer has him on record:

And now, a word from the cinematic classic Masked and Anonymous:

Editor: So, are you still a journalist or a novelist?
Tom Friend: Same thing out here....
Editor: Make something out of it. And if you can't do that, sir, then make it up!

Yesterday the journalist/novelist Michael Kruse of the St. Petersburg Times, who is very good at making things up, said this about me:

Robert Spencer, who writes on a blog called Jihad Watch, told reporters Islam was here to take over America.

In response, I pointed this out here:

Kruse didn't think it necessary to note that when I said that "Islam wasn't here to worship and get along but rather to become the dominant religion in America," I was referring to a statement of Omar Ahmad, cofounder and longtime board chairman of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, of which Mohammad Lutfi called himself an "honor member" (video coming soon). I attributed this statement to Ahmad. But by phrasing his report this way, as I am sure Kruse was aware, he made me sound like a nut, whereas if he had noted that it was a quote from the cofounder of CAIR, indicating that there are Muslims in America who say this sort of thing, his story would have taken on a substantially different cast.


You will see in this video that I refer to the statement by Omar Ahmad about Islam becoming dominant in the United States and the Koran being the only law in this country, mention Omar Ahmad by name and identify who he is, and all the while standing to my immediate left is none other than...MichaelKruse of the St. Petersburg Times. He is the one in the blue shirt with Seventies-style hair and a beard, taking notes with a blue pen.

So here it is on video: Michael Kruse was right there, he heard me attribute the statement properly, and then he made the decision to strip out the attribution and characterize the statement as if it were an out-of-the-blue assertion from a paranoid blogger.

Also click over to Pamela's site to see these important videos.

I admire Pamela for her relentless pursuit of the truth in this case, and especially for her ability to keep calm, clear, and concise when she is beseiged from every direction by people attacking her.

That is an ability I do not have.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 3 Comments

David Horowitz on the Real President Obama

One would hope that the unveiling of Van Jones, Ozero's "Green Jobs" Reichsfuhrer, would be sufficient to demonstrate the true, monstrous nature of the Precedent. Van Jones is just one in a long line of disreputable, sleazy, fascistic operators that Ozero has surrounded himself with over the years. While the Progressive Kool-aid drinkers are impervious to reason on this score, the American people seem to be finally waking up to the socialist noose that is being stealthily dropped around their necks.

David Horowitz, in an interview with Glenn Beck, argues that Ozero is a Marxist who lied his way into the White House.

Part II, Ozero clearly hates America, American ideals and the American people and is acting accordingly:

"They are seeking to overthrow the American system and create a socialist future."

Crossposted at The Dougout
Bookmark and Share
posted by Grant Jones at permanent link# 8 Comments

Christian evangelists target Dearborn's large Islamic population

From the Detroit Free Press:

Standing amid a crowd of Muslims at June’s 2009 Arab International Festival in Dearborn, the Rev. George Saieg declared: “I’ve been commanded as a Christian to reach out to these people.”

The California man is part of an ongoing effort by at least eight Christian groups across the United States to spread the gospel in Dearborn — a city known for its sizeable Islamic population. The groups have visited Arab festivals, schools and mosques to talk about Christ. They’ve handed out thousands of pamphlets, books and DVDs. Others have held debates.

But the push has caused tensions at times, resulting in lawsuits, accusations of assault and a fierce debate about how Islam can coexist with Christianity in the West. Some of the activity, local residents said, has provoked and insulted instead of engaging people in a civil debate about religion. 

“They know nothing about Dearborn,” Mayor John O’Reilly Jr. said of one Christian group that drew criticism for its actions at the festival. “We have such a wonderful interfaith community.… Dearborn is a community of faith, but it’s a community of every faith.”

Pushing of Christianity causing tensions

The Christian missionaries came to Dearborn this summer from across the United States to win over souls for Jesus.

The evangelists handed out literature, held religious debates and met with residents in a city they sought out because of its large numbers of Muslims. It's part of an increasing effort by some Christians, mostly evangelicals, to convert the Muslims of metro Detroit -- in schools, at festivals and on street corners.

To Eric Haven, executive pastor at Woodside Bible Church in Troy, the growth of Islam in the United States gives churches a chance to convert closer to home.

"For years, Christians have sent missionaries around the world to proclaim the gospel of Christ," Haven said. "In this day and age, the world is coming to America. ... So, it's a great opportunity."

The efforts have stepped up in recent years as more Christians have become aware of the Islamic presence in Dearborn, where about one-third of the city's 98,000 residents are of Arab descent, many of them Muslim and some Christian.

Read the whole thing.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 2 Comments

History's lessons

It is a given, that civilized society wants to live in peace. But the disagreements begin, when discussing how to obtain it.

I am a firm believer in facts and logic. Of course, not all facts are scientifically proven, so that is where logical thinking comes in. Logical thinking must include the study of history. In my post, War is a necessary evil, I spoke of how war has been in existence, since God put man on earth.

And speaking of God, this is the definition of religion, that I prescribe to:

    * Belief in something sacred (for example, gods or other supernatural beings).
    * A distinction between sacred and profane objects.
    * Ritual acts focused on sacred objects.
    * A moral code believed to have a sacred or supernatural basis.
    * Characteristically religious feelings (awe, sense of mystery, sense of guilt,
       adoration), which tend to be aroused in the presence of sacred objects and 
       during the practice of ritual.
    * Prayer and other forms of communication with the supernatural.
    * A world view, or a general picture of the world as a whole and the place of
       the individual therein. This picture contains some specification of an over-all
       purpose or point of the world and an indication of how the individual fits into
    * A more or less total organization of one’s life based on the world view.
    * A social group bound together by the above.

It describes religious systems but not non-religious systems. It encompasses the features common in belief systems generally acknowledged as religions without focusing on specific characteristics unique to just a few.

Within all religions of the world, there are "cults" or "sects". Throughout history, the label "cult" has been slapped on any religious movement that fell outside the mainstream, including nearly all of the Protestant sects that developed in the 1500s.

For many modern Americas, the word "cult" evokes images of black-clad figures gathered around an outdoor fire muttering satanic incantations or vacant-eyed teenagers with plastic smiles selling flowers on a street corner.

In most cases, experts say neither image applies. Most modern cult groups appear to be fairly normal on the surface. Indeed, only a very fine line separates cults from "socially acceptable" religious organizations.

Generally, cults or sects are simply a group of followers, with their own beliefs. And as such, do not necessarily pose a threat.

Some, including myself in the past have labeled Islam a cult. I now realize this is an error. By the true definition above, it is a religion. But, not all religions are peaceful. And despite the proclamations by many who follow Islam, it has a long history of violence. And this behavior is is still evident all over the world.

Just like Christians, Muslims have their "holy book", the Quran. The Qur’an is believed to be the direct Word of God and must be obeyed without question. The basic teaching of Islam is embodied in the Quran, believed to have been given to Muhammad by God through the angel Gabriel. After Muhammad's death, his followers sought to regulate their lives by his divinely inspired works; if the Quran did not cover a specific situation, they turned to the hadith (tradition, remembered actions, and sayings of the Prophet). Together, the Quran and the hadith form the sunna (custom or usage), a comprehensive guide to the spiritual, ethical, and social life of Muslims.

One concept within the Quran is Jihad. Muslims themselves disagree on what jihad is supposed to mean. Many modernists in the West deny that it has anything to do with violence. The Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington-based group, asserts that jihad "does not mean 'holy war.'" Instead, jihad is "a central and broad Islamic concept that includes the struggle to improve the quality of life in society, struggle in the battlefield for self-defense . . . or fighting against tyranny or oppression." CAIR even denies that Islam includes any concept of a "holy war."

In the Qur'an, however, and even in later Muslim usage, the term jihad is usually followed by the expression fi sabil Illah, which means "in the path of God." The description of violence against the enemies of the Muslim community as jihad fi sabil Illah gave a sacred meaning to what was otherwise just tribal warfare.

The Hadith is a collection of reports of sayings and actions of Muhammad, and it follows the Qur'an as the most important source of Islamic law. In Hadith collections, jihad almost always refers to armed action. As an example, there are nearly 200 references to jihad in the most standard collection of hadith, Sahih al-Bukhari, and all assume that jihad means warfare. It is not surprising, then, that the majority of classical theologians, jurists, and traditionalists understand jihad in a military sense.

Contrary to popular perception, jihad is not about forced conversions. It certainly may have filled that role very early on, when Islam was first expanding, but that hasn't been the case for a very long time. It is instead a political goal: bringing as much of the world under the control of Islam as is possible. This then allows for the fulfillment of two other goals: promoting Islam among non-Muslims and establishing a just political and social order (only possible under Islam).

Which brings us to Sharia law. Islamic sharia or religious law derives from the Quran, the hadith, and from a large body of interpretive commentary that developed in the early Islamic period. Marriage and divorce are the most significant aspects of sharia, but criminal law is the most controversial. In sharia, there are categories of offenses: those that are prescribed a specific punishment in the Quran, known as hadd punishments, those that fall under a judge's discretion, and those resolved through a tit-for-tat measure (ie., blood money paid to the family of a murder victim). There are five hadd crimes: unlawful sexual intercourse (sex outside of marriage and adultery), false accusation of unlawful sexual intercourse, wine drinking (sometimes extended to include all alcohol drinking), theft, and highway robbery. Punishments for hadd offenses; flogging, stoning, amputation, exile, or execution. Honor killings, murders committed in retaliation for bringing dishonor on one's family, are a worldwide problem. While precise statistics are scarce, the UN estimates thousands of women are killed annually in the name of family honor. Other practices that are woven into the sharia are female genital mutilation, adolescent marriages, polygamy, and gender-biased inheritance rules.  Those that seek to eliminate or at least modify these controversial practices cite the religious tenet of tajdid. The concept is one of renewal, where Islamic society must be reformed constantly to keep it in its purest form. "With the passage of time and changing circumstances since traditional classical jurisprudence was founded, people's problems have changed and conversely, there must be new thought to address these changes and events," says Dr. Abdul Fatah Idris, head of the comparative jurisprudence department at Al-Azhar University in Cairo. Though many scholars share this line of thought, there are those who consider the purest form of Islam to be the one practiced in the seventh century.

Sharia vs. Secularism

In a 2007 University of Maryland poll, more than 60 percent of the populations in Egypt, Morocco, Pakistan, and Indonesia responded that democracy was a good way to govern their respective countries, while at the same time, an average of 71 percent agreed with requiring "strict application of [sharia] law in every Islamic country." Whether democracy and Islam can coexist is a topic of heated debate. Some Islamists argue democracy is a purely Western concept imposed on Muslim countries. Others feel Islam necessitates a democratic system and that democracy has a basis in the Quran since "mutual consultation" among the people is commended (42:38 Quran).

Government under God. In those Muslim countries where Islam is the official religion listed in the constitution, sharia is declared to be a source, or the source, of the laws. Examples include Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Yemen, and the United Arab Emirates, where the governments derive their legitimacy from Islam. In Pakistan, Egypt, Iran, and Iraq, among others, it is also forbidden to enact legislation that is antithetical to Islam. Saudi Arabia employs one of the strictest interpretations of sharia. Women are not allowed to drive, are under the guardianship of male relatives at all times, and must be completely covered in public. Elsewhere, governments are much more lenient, as in the United Arab Emirates, where alcohol is tolerated. Non-Muslims are not expected to obey sharia and in most countries, they are the jurisdiction of special committees and adjunct courts under the control of the government.

Sharia law is the instrument by which Political Islam seeks to control the Muslim world. Whilst the Sharia may have been inspired by the Holy Quran, it has developed and evolved through time and through the efforts of men. The Sharia should be open to analysis, research and criticism like any other system of law, practice and belief. Its divine inspiration should no more shield it from criticism than Christianity should have been spared criticism for burning heretics or massacring unbelievers. The more pernicious interpretations of the Sharia today fall far short of the minimum standards of justice widely demanded by the international community and by Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

The Sharia should be opposed for its imposition of theocracy over democracy, its abuse of human rights, its institutionalized discrimination, its denial of human dignity and individual autonomy, its punishment of alternative lifestyle choices, and for the severity of its punishments.

Why did I decide to right this post?

A Dangerous Delusion

We go to war to defend our interests, not to encourage democracy.
By Andrew C. McCarthy

Right after 9/11, Pres. George W. Bush made a succinct demand of the Taliban: Hand over Osama bin Laden and his cohorts or face horrific consequences. The demand, the president emphasized, was non-negotiable. The Taliban refused, insisting that the U.S. produce evidence against al-Qaeda. Because Islamists — not just terrorists but all Islamists — believe the United States is the enemy of Islam, the Taliban also floated the possibility of rendering bin Laden to a third country. No deal, Bush replied. As promised, the consequences were swift and severe. Yet, two weeks into the first bombing raids, the president offered the Taliban a “second chance.” Mullah Omar declined to take it. The invasion proceeded and the rest is history.

It’s now a long, confused history. The distance we’ve traveled from the clarity of the first days is manifest in the Right’s ongoing intramural skirmish over the eminent George Will’s latest column.

Will has called for a steep reduction of our 60,000-strong military force (out of a total of about 100,000 coalition troops) in Afghanistan. That country, he argues, is an incorrigible mess where we’re engaged more in social work than in combat. Instead, Will would have our forces retreat to offshore bases from which, “using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent special forces units,” American efforts could be concentrated on Afghanistan’s “porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters.” This suggestion comes just as other conservatives are backing a Pentagon proposal to add about 40,000 troops. They seek a counterinsurgency surge for Afghanistan, similar to the one they claim worked so well in Iraq three years ago.

There’s no question that the surge in Iraq resulted in the rout of al-Qaeda. For that reason, it has to be counted as a net success. It would have been a strategic disaster to retreat while al-Qaeda was present and fortifying itself.

But then there was the rest of the surge rationale: the claim that we needed to secure the Iraqi population so a stable government, one that would be a reliable ally against terror, could emerge. The same argument now is being made about Afghanistan. Have you taken a look at Iraq lately? We went there to topple Saddam; we stayed to build an Islamic “democracy,” and the result is an Iranian satellite. The new Iraq is a sharia state that wants us gone, has denied us basing rights for future military operations, has pressured a weak American president into releasing Iran-backed terrorists, has rolled out the red carpet for Hezbollah, allows Iranian spies to operate freely (causing the recent ouster of the intelligence minister, who was an American ally), tolerates the persecution of religious minorities, and whose soon-to-take-power ruling coalition vows “not to establish relations with the Zionist entity” — a vow that would simply continue longstanding Iraqi policy, as Diana West points out. If that’s success, what does failure look like?

Democracy-project naysayers (I’ve long been one) reluctantly supported the surge in Iraq because our nation could not allow al-Qaeda a victory there. By contrast, as Rich Lowry mentions in passing at The Corner, “al-Qaeda is not in Afghanistan.” Rich’s observation came in the course of chiding Will’s advocacy of “counterterrorist strikes from a distance.” But if al-Qaeda is not in Afghanistan, why do we still need 60,000 troops there, let alone 40,000 more? We don’t invade other hostile countries where al-Qaeda is actually present (see, e.g., Iran, Kenya, Yemen, Somalia), and the likelihood of al-Qaeda’s return is not enough to keep us in other countries where we’re not wanted (e.g., Iraq). That is, we’re already banking on our capacity to conduct counterterrorist strikes from a distance.


Notwithstanding al-Qaeda’s departure, the idea now seems to be that we should substantially escalate our military involvement in Afghanistan to replicate the experiment that supposedly worked so well in Iraq. It’s the age of Obama, so our commanders are talking not about combat but about a stimulus package to fight the “culture of poverty.” As military officials described it to the New York Times, “the overriding goal of American and NATO forces would not be so much to kill Taliban insurgents as to make ordinary Afghans feel secure, and thus isolate the insurgents. That means using force less and focusing on economic development and good governance.” This is consistent with the delusional belief that terrorism is caused by poverty, corruption, resentment, Guantanamo Bay, enhanced interrogation tactics, Israel — in short, anything other than an ideology rooted in Islamic scripture.

What Will is being faithless about is the democratic vision. Democracy enthusiasts have always conflated the war and the dream, but the two are and will always be separate. The American people overwhelmingly supported, and still support, a vigorous war — not an experiment, but a war — against the enemies who threaten us: Islamist terrorists and the regimes that abet them. Americans do not support, have no patience for, and would never go to war over the thankless enterprise of transforming the Islamic world.

Mind you, I’m no dove. I daresay I’m as much or more of a hawk than the nation-building side of the house. I’ve bit my tongue for a long time, and it kills me to write this, because I’ve never bought the nonsense about how you can support the troops but not support the mission. And if someone can convince me we need 40,000 or 400,000 or 4 million more troops in Afghanistan to destroy enemies who would otherwise attack the United States, count me in. But I think Rich, Pete, and others I admire — Bill Kristol, Fred Kagan, and Jen Rubin, for example — go too far in their condemnation of Will. Americans have a right to wonder what on earth we’re doing. The war against Islamist terror is global and, even in the region where we are fighting, has always involved more than Iraq and Afghanistan. There are hostile regimes (particularly in Iran) that we have left in place, unscathed, and growing stronger. For all the brave “you’re with us or you’re against us” talk after 9/11, we never walked that walk. Americans would have supported such a war, which was — and is — patently in the national interest. There is no political will for it now because, without first defeating the enemy, we tried to reprise the Marshall Plan in a place where it won’t work.


There has been a fascinating point of alignment since 9/11 between the anti-war Left and the democracy hawks. Both sides have failed to identify the enemy: Islamists. The hard Left resists because it doesn’t see Islamism as an enemy at all. The Islamists, like the Left, regard the United States as the problem in the world.

The fact is, and history shows, you have no choice, it's all or nothing. The two examples I can point out are Japan and Germany.  Did we go into these countries and try to enclose there current ideologies with "democracy"? No. We knew that the militaristic ideology in Japan and Nazi ideology in Germany, were totally incompatible with democracy. To me, the term democracy is a blanket term for a humane government who treats it's citizens with respect and dignity. A government that does not rule it's people with an iron hand. Oppression breeds contempt. And contempt leads to extremism.

Islam by it's very nature is an oppressive religion. Not to say that there are not oppressive Christian religions, because there are. But, unlike Islam, they do not force compliance or threaten violence for leaving. They are not a system of government and most of us believe wholeheartedly in the separation of church and state. Christianity has a dark history. But unlike Islam, it has evolved over time.

If there are Muslims in the world who do not subscribe to the rules, they are few and far between. For the most part, they are not living a pure Islamic life. We have many examples of "good muslims" in the world, who have come into the spotlight due to honor killings. Many of them in western countries. These people on the surface appeared "normal". They were and still are, in the eyes of Islam. There are many people within CAIR, the Muslim Brotherhood and other groups, who appear on the surface to be westernized. But as many of us here know, this is a "western facade". A mask to hide their true feelings and missions. We also know that they have a goal in mind, to turn the United States into an Islamic government. They are using their own version of Jihad. Granted it is not violent, but it is dangerous. And in many ways, they are more dangerous than the violent extremists. They have been able to fool people into thinking they are "westernized", they are "peaceful", they are "normal". They use words that they know are lies, to soothe people's fears. And it is working. They are gradually breaking down western nations and infiltrating their governments. Hoping and wishing that they are somehow "different", doesn't make them so.

If our world is to find the peace we so crave, we have no choice. Either Islam needs to be knocked down, sent cowering into the corner and forced to change or it needs to be totally banned.

Yes, I want to see "democracy" spread. I want to see peace. But just like in Japan and Germany, it means being very violent, to get there. Islam will not go down without a fight.

History is a great teacher. Japan and Germany or only two examples of what works. This new experiment is a failure.

Multiculturalism can be a positive value in society, but not when it results in harm to vulnerable members of society. If the government has any duty to protect cultural practices, it has a prior and much higher obligation to protect the rights, life, and safety of each individual citizen — even if that means contradicting traditional cultural practices.


Bookmark and Share
posted by Christine at permanent link# 3 Comments

'American Qu'ran' shows 9/11 as Lesson to Infidels

Bookmark and Share
posted by kevin at permanent link# 5 Comments

On NBC's Today Show

What I just heard on NBC's Today Show!

Something very like this from CNBC's John Harwood:
"Parents who object to the President speaking to schoolchildren aren't able to raise their children very effectively."
For God's sake. This is what the majority of Americans accept as news and words from an expert.

1. The mainstream media will not say anything negative about BHO's power grab and appointees. See Epa's post below.

2. Having concerns about "The One" means that you are an unfit parent.

Get the picture?

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by Always On Watch at permanent link# 11 Comments


The Van Jones (non) feeding frenzy

By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
09/04/09 11:30 AM EDT

From a Nexis search a few moments ago:

Total words about the Van Jones controversy in the New York Times: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy in the Washington Post: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy on NBC Nightly News: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy on ABC World News: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy on CBS Evening News: 0.

If you were to receive all your news from any one of these outlets, or even all of them together, and you heard about some sort of controversy involving President Obama's Special Adviser for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, your response would be, "Huh?" If you heard that that adviser, Van Jones, had apologized for a number of remarks and positions in the recent past, your response would be, "What?" And if you were in the Obama White House monitoring the Jones situation, you would be hoping that the news organizations listed above continue to hold the line -- otherwise, Jones, who is quite well thought of in Obama circles, would be history.

Bookmark and Share
posted by Epaminondas at permanent link# 6 Comments

An Old Flame Never Dies

After Alan Dershowitz and the JPost, Family Security Matters have finally caught up with us as well.* Under the misleading header "Exclusive: Germany Avoids Criticizing Radical Islam and Radical Muslims" Sami Alrabaa posts a synopsis of this blog*:
The German media and some German public figures are soft, too soft, on radical Islam and avoid critics and critique of this violent “religion.” The audio-visual media invite only uncritical talking heads. The print media publish only articles by apologists of Islam. Here are some examples:

The recent confession of the four Muslim terrorists, also called the “Suaerland** Group,” who were planning to kill as many Americans in Germany as they could, was hailed by the judge, state prosecutor, and the media. The devastating terrorist attack prepared by these men was foiled from a tip by the CIA, which the German media depict as not abiding by the law and acting against human rights.

The German media and some German politicians hailed the confession and deliberately ignored the ideological/religious sources of their attack, namely the Koran and Hadith, which incite Muslims to kill non-Muslims.

In an interview with Al Arabiya TV (August 16th), Daniel Cohn-Bendit***, a leading politician of the Green Party in the European Parliament, presented radical Muslims as “part of a socio-political religious movement across the world, like the RAF, the German terrorist group we had in the 1970s.”


Contributions of critics of radical Islam are rejected by German media. For example, The German daily Sueddeutsche Zeitung**** published on July 10, 2009, an article by Alaa Al-Aswani in which he twists facts and argues that the West is ill-informed and biased toward Islam. “Westerners are misinformed about Islam, therefore they hate Islam and hate Muslims,” Al-Aswani says.

I sent a critique on this Islamist writer’s piece, but the Sueddeutsche Zeitung refused to publish it. You can check out an English version of this critique here.

Many programs about Islam have been broadcast on WDR5***** radio and posted on the Internet. None of them, however, mention issues of violence and discrimination against women and non-Muslims, which fill the Koran and Hadith and are practiced by many Muslim families. The WDR5 depicts Islam as a tolerant and peaceful religion, like all the others.

On the other hand, other radio programs are excoriated for criticizing Islam. On June 18, 2009, WDR5 broadcast a whole hour feature attacking the Polish Radio Maria.

Almost every month, I tour all of those mosques run by Arab imams, all over Germany whose language I understand. In every one of these mosques, the imam preaches hatred and violence against non-Muslims. Germany and the Germans are depicted as “decadent and steered by the devil.” At the end, the imam demands loudly the introduction of Sharia, “It is the law of Allah, and the best on earth.” Muslim women are urged to wear the hijab (headscarf). They are also urged to follow the advice/orders of their men as the Koran and Hadith prescribe.

However, the most atrocious parts of imams’ preaches is their incitement to hatred and violence against the Jews and Christians. All of this is ignored and tolerated by German authorities as part of free speech and religious freedom. Israel is depicted as the “aggressor” and the Palestinians as the victims.***** Critique of Islam is presented as “Islamophobia.”*******

All this being said, when someone criticizes Islam and radical Muslims, they are taken to task and branded as racists and labeled as “fascist right-wingers.”********


With regard to democracy and human rights, the West goes selectively, and the mainstream media, especially in Germany, assert that day in and day out.

While Angela Merkel demands publicly imposing economic sanctions on Iran for its nuclear program, she supports German companies that entertain trade of highly technical equipment with the Iranian regime.*********


It seems that the German government and other European governments are prepared to deal with the devil if he serves their economic interests. They pay lip-service to democracy and human rights in countries like Saudi Arabia, Libya, and Egypt, if they ever do so. Germany, Britain, France, and Italy are competing to pamper states Libya, Iran, and Saudi Arabia which support terror across the globe.


FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Dr. Sami Alrabaa, an ex-Muslim, is a professor of Sociology and an Arab-Muslim culture specialist. He has taught at Kuwait University, King Saud University, and Michigan State University. He also writes for the Jerusalem Post.
We are relieved that somebody else spreads our word now that the German media and German public figures are soft, too soft, on radical Islam and avoid critics and critique of this violent “religion.” Thanks specifically for the quotes in "religion", Dr. Alraaba, thanks for covering terra incognita Germany at all. Just one additional remark: It has escaped you, as it escapes almost all non-Germans, who venture to comment on German affairs, that the reason why Germans are prepared to deal with the devil is not so much their economic interests, but very much an affair of the heart.


Just for the record: It's "Sauerland".

Daniel "On several occasions certain kids would open my fly and start to stroke me. I reacted differently according to circumstances, but their desire posed a problem for me. I asked them: 'Why don't you play together? Why have you chosen me, and not the other kids?' But if they insisted, I caressed them still" Cohn-Bendit.
We thematized the Green agenda to legalize sex with children here.

Here are our mentionings of the Süddeutsche Zeitung.

We thematized the WDR channel here.

See our search label "Germanistan".

See our serach label "Poor Pals".

I recommend Rent-A-Nazi in this specific context.

We thematized the Irano-German relationships here.

Cross-posted at Roncesvalles.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by The_Editrix at permanent link# 0 Comments


From Reliapundit, the Astutetenest of all Bloggers:















Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 8 Comments


From Reliapundit, the Astutest of all Bloggers:


Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 2 Comments

Weekend Funny: Jibjab's What We Call The News

Bookmark and Share
posted by Always On Watch at permanent link# 0 Comments

Friday, September 04, 2009

J J Cale & Leon Russell
Going Down

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by midnight rider at permanent link# 0 Comments

Is This Man Crazy?

I have never been a big fan of Glenn Beck. And, I would still not classify myself as a big fan of Beck. In fact, I never watch TV news, so I never see his program. I only know of him from traveling around the country. In many markets, he's the only halfway decent program on the air, so I have listened to him when I was in places like South Carolina and Texas.

I have always thought Beck was a poor man's Rush Limbaugh. And, I have always thought Beck was a bit unhinged. His, seemingly, drug-induced rant about the poor treatment he got in the hospital (which seems to have been cleansed from YouTube or I would provide you with the link) was testimony to the fact that the man has, at times, a tenuous hold on reality. 

However, I think he is right on the money in this clip. 

The part that I think is particularly erudite is the part where he says that Van Jones is suddenly (according to the MSM) "mainstream now ... He's the perfect young, go-gettin' entrepreneur to kick off job creation into high-gear. If that's true, GREAT! I'm all for new kinds of jobs. America MUST reinvent herself. But, if that's not true, what is? All he wants to do is create Green Jobs, right? Wrong! "

The point in my specifically quoting Beck is a bit broad, and requires explanation. 

While I have always thought he was unhinged, and a "poor man's Rush Limbaugh", I have also always been impressed by Glenn Beck's attempt to see from both sides of the aisle. I remember clearly listening to him criticize the Bush Administration on multiple fronts, including it's collusion with a Corporatocracy. That is not a "Right" issue. That is a "Left" issue. 

However, it happens to be true. And, I commend Beck for having brought it up in the time leading up to the 2008 election.

So here, what I believe we are seeing is Beck attempting to be fair to Van Jones:

" ... He's the perfect young, go-gettin' entrepreneur to kick off job creation into high-gear. If that' true, GREAT!"

Yeah, I agree with Glenn Beck, that would be great. But, this isn't the truth about Van Jones. 

I am opposed to the Vlaams Belang and the BNP. I often have people come and argue with me on these points. "The BNP has changed. The VB has changed. They no longer believe what they once believed."

My answer to such people is always of the same nature. Here it is:

"If it is true they have changed, then such a change would be a Paradigm Shift in their thinking. People who go through Paradigm Shifts are Transformed usually because they have had some sort of cataclysmic mental experience. It is almost always the case that you can not get these people to shut up about their Conversion. So, I ask, if Nick Griffin/Filip DeWinter have undergone such a Paradigm Shift/Transformation/Conversion, then where is their testimony?"

I think that is a perfectly reasonable question to ask. And, that is essentially the question Glenn Beck is posing here. In my judgement, Beck is absolutely right to demand an answer to this question: If Van Jones has been changed into a Capitalist, then what was the process of his conversion. This question is especially relevant considering the quoted passage in this Glenn Beck video is from March of this year. 

Has Van Jones gone from being a fomenter of Revolution to a raging Capitalist in just six months? If so, how?

Obama’s “green jobs” official Van Jones has issued a statement about the claim that he’s a 9/11 Truther, promoted relentlessly today by Fox News

Charles Johnson is betraying himself to be about as unhinged as Glenn Beck in a drug-induced haze.

One has to wonder what is in Johnson's hookah, considering the fact that he seems incapable of making basic distinctions anymore.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 28 Comments

September 17 Is Constitution Day

This Constitution Day 2009 marks the 222nd anniversary of the United States Constitution.

Mark Alexander of the Patriot Post is writing two essays about our heritage of freedom through the Constitution.

Here are the final three paragraphs from the first essay:
The Rule of Law (Part 1)

More recently, Justice Antonin Scalia said of the "living constitution": "[There's] the argument of flexibility and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that; the Constitution is not a living organism; it is a legal document. It says something and doesn't say other things."

Justice Clarence Thomas follows, "[T]here are really only two ways to interpret the Constitution -- try to discern as best we can what the framers intended or make it up. No matter how ingenious, imaginative or artfully put, unless interpretive methodologies are tied to the original intent of the framers, they have no basis in the Constitution. ... To be sure, even the most conscientious effort to adhere to the original intent of the framers of our Constitution is flawed, as all methodologies and human institutions are; but at least originalism has the advantage of being legitimate and, I might add, impartial."

On the political consequences of a "living constitution," Justice Scalia concludes plainly, "If you think aficionados of a living Constitution want to bring you flexibility, think again. ... As long as judges tinker with the Constitution to 'do what the people want,' instead of what the document actually commands, politicians who pick and confirm new federal judges will naturally want only those who agree with them politically."
Read the whole thing.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by Always On Watch at permanent link# 0 Comments

Maybe It Is Still America, After All

Remember the following video?

Well, the officer may be in hot water.

From World Net Daily:
No Joker! Officer probed for saying America 'no more'
Public demands firing, school officials decline to confirm he's 'on staff and on duty'

A school security officer in Virginia who told a protester opposing President Obama's health-care plan that America is "no more" remains employed but is now under investigation because of his statements, according to his school district.

"I have to say, I've seen the video. We do not condone what the officer did say," Paul Regnier, the coordinator of communications and community relations for Fairfax County Public Schools told WND today.


The video, which had surpassed 450,000 views, also attracted more than 6,000 comments, including one that clearly implied racial overtones to the officer's opposition to the poster.

"If it had been a Sarah Palin rally and the cop had been white, he would be on his way to federal prison for civil rights violation," said a YouTube forum participant.

Regnier told WND the district would not comment on personnel issues. He did confirm the congressman's event had been under a rental arrangement on school property and the officer was there as part of a school assignment.

But he also confirmed that whatever sign rules the school normally would impose would not have been in effect since the facility had been rented for the congressman's meeting.

"We are looking into this and will take appropriate action," he assured WND.

But he said that because of the personnel issues involved, no information would be released.

Asked to confirm that Cheeks still is on staff and on duty, Regnier declined.

"He is still an employee," he said....
Read the entire article HERE.

The wheels of the human resources department in the Fairfax County Public Schools move slowly — and in secret until the decision comes down.

Time will tell the tale on Security Officer Wesley Cheeks, Jr.

Labels: , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by Always On Watch at permanent link# 5 Comments

Ecclesiastes (The Preacher) 3:

1. To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

2. A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;

3 .A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;

4. A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;

5. A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing.

6. A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;

7. A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;

8. A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

"The Bible tells us there is a time for all things and there is a time to preach and a time to pray but the time for me to preach has passed away, and there is a time to fight, and that time has come now. Now is the time to fight! Call for recruits! Sound the drums!"

John Peter Gabriel Muhlenberg

(nod & a wink to Christian Soldier)


Bookmark and Share
posted by midnight rider at permanent link# 4 Comments

Older Posts Newer Posts