A banquet for thought

Which is a pun of sorts, in a twisted sort of way. That so few words should provide more than food for thought, but a groaning table of thought, so concisely. Here is another quote from Francis W. Porretto:

"Few feelings are as terrifying as that of standing alone against a crowd. The crowd's roar of displeasure strikes past the reasoning centers and directly into the most primitive nodes of our brains. It can frighten the strongest man into abandoning his post. Most of us aren't equipped with enough courage to withstand that roar.

Yet mustering the courage to stand fast against evil is demanded of us. We are not obligated to thwart every villainy under the Sun, but we are required, in the words of Albert Camus, "not to join forces with the plagues." If it's within our powers to interrupt a causal chain that will lead to an evil result, we must do so. If we are given the opportunity to decry such a chain whose formation is in progress, we must do so. Sometimes we will be defeated. Sometimes there will be consequences for having stood in opposition. But to abrogate one's moral responsibility to state one's convictions and then stand fast on them is to betray any imaginable conception of one's moral worth."

I have "tilted against windmills" for much of my life. The results often have not been pretty, or pleasant to me. It has made it somewhat easier to live with myself, however. Once or twice it has even made the world - the part nearest to me, at least - a slightly better place to live.

Read the rest of his excellent post at: http://www.eternityroad.info/index.php/weblog/single/frans_sunday_ruminations_the_deadly_chain/#

Where do you stand?

Those few of you out there who drop in from time to time to see what's new here on this blog are well aware of my feelings concerning Islam and muslims. I have relatives, some back in Connecticut, who are some of the finest, most compassionate people I know. Unfortunately, being of the Democratic persuasion, they are also subject to all the misconceptions that liberal flesh is heir to, including the mistaken belief that there is a difference between "moderate Islam" and "radical Islam". They have allowed themselves to be blinded to the fact - apparent to anyone who has read the Quran, Hadith, and Sura - that orthodox, true Islam demands a world Caliphate, and the death, submission and/or enslavement of all non-believers. Any muslim who does not accept that and live by it is an apostate, and the Quran demands their death. (photo of mosque in Dearborn, MI)

If a member of the Church of Latter Day Saints drinks coffee, smokes, and otherwise fails to follow the direction of their Prophet, he is called a "Jack-Mormon" (by us gentiles, anyway). Any person who claims to follow Islam and does not support willingly, wholeheartedly, world domination by Islam is a "jack-muslim", an apostate, and not a follower of their Prophet (Mo), not a follower of Islam.

Francis Porretto is a blogger at a site he named "Eternity Road" (http://www.eternityroad.info/index.php). He is an incredibly brilliant man, whose intellect so far exceeds mine (although that is faint praise), that I sometimes have trouble following his thoughts (especially when they run to economics.) I have just finished reading a post on his site that explains what we face in the form of Islam and muslims that is so clear and compelling I will include it here in its entirety. Yes, I realize I have made some of the same points in posts of my own on this blog, but not with the same clarity and completeness, not in as compelling a fashion. I will be using bold type to emphasize a few points that seem especially pertinent or significant to me, but they will be the ones I marked, not those emphasized by Mr. Porretto. Here it is:

An Overfilled Heart: Usages And Abusages

By Francis W. Porretto

We interrupt this sententious, pseudo-scholastic series of overgeneralizations about why rich folk shouldn't marry poor to bring you a rant of the old style, including a few words of explanation about...a word.

The moments when I want to retreat entirely from the world, perhaps, as Garet Garrett did at the last, having reinstalled myself, my library, and my AR-15 in an unoccupied cave (albeit within range of a WiFi hotspot), have been growing more frequent. They correlate with periods of overwhelming dissonance, at which the sense of things has become too elusive even for a Certified Galactic Intellect to discern. For my greatest intellectual need is answers: penetration into the "whys" of a phenomenon. I'm not content simply to admire a rainbow, or a waterfall; I need to know whence they come, and the luminance and the megadyne-centimeters per second available from them. Laugh if you like; others have done so, and I remain as I am.

But just as every cause has more than one effect, every effect has more than one cause. Comprehension is not possible if not all the causes of a particular effect -- at least, all the non-trivial ones, but how does one distinguish them from the others? -- are available for inspection. In matters of politics and political maneuvering, that seems ever more often the case.

We pause here for a few dirty words from an Esteemed Co-Conspirator.

***

They who go into politics are generally persons of weak conscience. Two centuries of the demotic incentive -- the need to please 50%-plus-one to gain or retain power -- have produced a sub-race of Mankind almost completely free of moral qualms. All that matters to them in any situation that requires a decision is the utterly pragmatic determination of the currently relevant constituency: just who those 50%-plus-one are to be "this time."

Yes, yes, there remain a few exceptions. The most thoroughly burbanked species will occasionally sprout a sport or two. We'll get to them in due course.

In consequence, at this moment we face the following tableau:

• A bevy of reliable reports has Barack Hussein Obama dithering and wringing his hands over whether to authorize the Abbottabad strike that reaped the life of Osama bin Laden, the most notorious terrorist mastermind since Lawrence of Arabia;
• The strike occurs at last, though some doubt remains over whether Obama himself made the go-decision;
• SEAL Team Six achieves a pure success: no friendly casualties except for a helicopter;
• Obama, in his habitual front-running manner, grabs the lion's share of the credit in his announcement of the event;
• Pakistani officialdom is unanimous in condemning the American strike;
• Subsequent official bowing and scraping toward Pakistan and the Islamic world nauseates every American with, in Ann Barnhardt's memorable phrase, "both balls and brains;"
• Obama's "we don't spike the ball" homily puts a Jupiter-size cherry atop the heap of vomitus;
• Yet moderately trustworthy polls suggest that Obama would defeat any of his current Republican challengers in November 2012.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF I, the proprietor and standard-setter of Eternity Road, did immediately thereafter invite Mark Alger, for whose expressive powers my admiration knows no bounds, to grace this normally profanity-free site with one of his most unrestrained rants.

Because sometimes, in some circumstances, even a Certified Galactic Intellect is reduced to screaming "What the fuck is going on here?" (For the sake of brevity, this reaction shall henceforth be referred to as the "WTF macro.")

***

Of course, personages of greater note than I have recently unleashed a barrage of "f-bombs," though their motivations remain uncertain. Others have deplored the vulgarity, and have proclaimed The Donald to have demonstrated his unsuitability for public office thereby.

I hold no brief for Trump's political ambitions. I, too, consider him unsuited for high office, albeit for other reasons. However, the rhetorical violence he unleashed in Las Vegas strikes me as completely appropriate to the recent conduct of our political elite and the bizarre, almost schizophrenic reactions of our populace. Particularly in the sphere of foreign policy and international relations, the Obama Administration and its enablers have been acting as if, to a man, they're unable to determine America's interests or to express them in a clear and stable fashion.

It seems to take Mark Steyn, or a figure on his plane of penetration and detachment, to capture the full sweep of the contradictions and the irrationality thereof.

The belated dispatch of Osama testifies to what the United States does well — elite warriors, superbly trained, equipped to a level of technological sophistication no other nation can match. Everything else surrounding the event (including White House news management so club-footed one starts to wonder darkly whether its incompetence is somehow intentional) embodies what the United States does badly. Pakistan, our "ally," hides and protects not only Osama but also Mullah Omar and Zawahiri, and does so secure in the knowledge that it will pay no price for its treachery — indeed, confident that its duplicitous military will continue to be funded by U.S. taxpayers....

But the strong horse/weak horse routine is a matter of perception as much as anything else. On Sept. 12, 2001, Gen. Musharraf was in a meeting "when my military secretary told me that the U.S. secretary of state, Gen. Colin Powell, was on the phone. I said I would call back later." The milquetoasts of the State Department were in no mood for Musharraf's I'm-washing-my-hair routine, and, when he'd been dragged to the phone, he was informed that the Bush administration would bomb Pakistan "back to the Stone Age" if they didn't get everything they wanted. Musharraf concluded that America meant it....

If it took America a decade to avenge the dead of 9/11, it took Britain 13 years to avenge their defeat in Sudan in 1884. But, after Kitchener slaughtered the jihadists of the day at the Battle of Omdurman in 1897, he made a point of digging up their leader the Mahdi, chopping off his head and keeping it as a souvenir. The Sudanese got the message. The British had nary a peep out of the joint until they gave it independence six decades later — and, indeed, the locals fought for King and (distant imperial) country as brave British troops during World War II. Even more amazingly, generations of English schoolchildren were taught about the Mahdi's skull winding up as Lord Kitchener's novelty paperweight as an inspiring tale of national greatness....

A decade on, our troops are running around Afghanistan "winning hearts and minds" and getting gunned down by the very policemen and soldiers they've spent years training. Back on the home front, every small-town airport has at least a dozen crack TSA operatives sniffing round the panties of grade-schoolers. Meanwhile, at the U.N., at the EU, at the Organization of the Islamic Conference, in the "Facebook revolutions" of "the Arab spring," the Islamization of the world proceeds: Millions of Muslims support bin Laden's goal — the submission of the Western world to Islam — but, unlike him, understand that flying planes into buildings is entirely unnecessary to achieving it.

The above handful of paragraphs alone entitle Steyn to the throne of punditry, the title of Most Perceptive Analyst of Geopolitical Reality currently writing in the English language. Yet this man, whom no less a giant of the intellect than Thomas Sowell called "the gold standard in American commentary," is a Canadian, a subject of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

Yet even Steyn, a genius of opinion-editorial if ever there was one, welshes on the critical point:

Millions of Muslims support bin Laden's goal — the submission of the Western world to Islam...

Wrong, wrong, WRONG! This implies that there are Muslims who don't support bin Laden's goal...but anyone who calls himself a Muslim thereby accepts the two most basic precepts of Islam:

• The Qur'an is the immutable, uneditable, and unquestionable Word of God;
• Muhammad, to whom the revelation of the Qur'an was entrusted, is the Perfect Man, to be emulated in all things as far as possible.

Therefore, all Muslims, without exception, accept as doctrine that it is Allah's dictate, and the duty of all Muslims as far as they can contribute to it, to subjugate the entire world to Islam, by any means necessary including fire and sword. Read Suras 2 through 9 and come to some other conclusion. [Emphasis mine. RT]

Allow me to be maximally, obnoxiously direct about it:

• We are at war with Islam, not with "terrorism," and not by our will but by Islam's explicit decrees.
• The war was declared by Muhammad and the followers thereof, not by us of the West.
• The war has been ongoing since Muhammad's earliest jihads against those of his Arabian neighbors who declined to accept his authority.
• By the explicit dictates of the Qur'an, it is total war: there are no noncombatants, and no prisoners will be taken. The maxim is "convert, be enslaved, or be killed." [Emphasis mine. RT]
• To be a Muslim, therefore, is to be a front-line soldier in the war of Dar al-Islam against Dar al-Harb.
• Therefore, your Muslim neighbors, no matter how superficially peaceable, are your enemies, just as any Nazi was at an earlier time in history. The mosque down the block is an enemy beachhead on American soil. [Emphasis mine. RT]

If you can argue against that on the basis of Islam's core scriptures, feel free to do so. I'd rather be wrong about this...but I'm not.

***

It has been clear since 732 Anno Domini that the Western world, once better described as Christendom, is at war with Islam. Clear, that is, to anyone with adequate knowledge of the dictates of Islam whose intellect isn't fettered to an irrational desire to appear "tolerant" and "inclusive."

From that follows an ugly conclusion, one that most Americans have struggled to evade:

Any non-Muslim conceded to possess adequate intelligence and knowledge of the dictates of Islam, who strives to persuade you that we are not at war with Islam, is de facto acting in service to the jihad, and must be regarded as one of the enemy.

Denunciations of the assertion that Barack Hussein Obama is a Muslim have been widespread. Suffice it to say that we'd rather not believe that 53% of American voters did such a stupid thing. And perhaps, in the sense of having disclaimed the Shahada and accepted Christian baptism, Obama is at least formally not a Muslim. However, his behavior since his inauguration to the presidency speaks otherwise. At the very least, in any clash between Muslim and non-Muslim interests or sensibilities, he prefers to take their side against ours. He's even said so, publicly.

What, then, can one say about Obama's "We don't spike the ball" emissions?
What can one say about his relentless kowtowing to Muslim potentates and Muslim sensibilities?
What can one say about his repeated assertions that Pakistan, one of the most venomously pro-jihad states in the world today, has cooperated with us in the "war on terror?"
What can one say about his Administration's facilitation of immigration from Islamic states?
What can one say about Americans' overall tenor of passivity before all this evidence of quislingry, from him, his henchmen, and his handlers?
Other than to invoke the "WTF macro," that is?

You can't refute the conclusion without refuting the reasoning or falsifying the evidence from which it proceeds. You can close your eyes and stop your ears; that is all.

What do you choose to do?

***

In light of what's followed, the clarity and resolve exemplified by this passage from the cited Steyn column:

On Sept. 12, 2001, Gen. Musharraf was in a meeting "when my military secretary told me that the U.S. secretary of state, Gen. Colin Powell, was on the phone. I said I would call back later." The milquetoasts of the State Department were in no mood for Musharraf's I'm-washing-my-hair routine, and, when he'd been dragged to the phone, he was informed that the Bush administration would bomb Pakistan "back to the Stone Age" if they didn't get everything they wanted.

...appears to have been a blip, a momentary aberration in our politicians' natural inclination to placate even those peoples who hate us by doctrinal decree, and conciliate even those states that make enmity toward the United States a core tenet of policy. There was another blip, a few years earlier: the Achille Lauro hijacking and the murder of Leon Klinghoffer, during Ronald Reagan's second term as president. What followed then?

Oliver North conceived of an operation to get the terrorists back. Contrary to Egyptian president Mubarak's assurances that the terrorists had already left Egypt, North found out the terrorists were still there. Indeed, working with Israeli intelligence, North determined the precise EgyptAir 737 that would carry the terrorists out of Egypt, even down to the flight number. He wanted to intercept the flight, modeling the operation on the extraordinary World War II interception of Yamamoto, mastermind of Pearl Harbor.

President Reagan was briefed on the daring plan – along with copious warnings from timorous State Department officials that the Europeans might have their feelings bruised, America would look like a cowboy, and it would only strengthen the hard-liners in Egypt. Asked if the operation should proceed, Reagan said: "Good God! They've murdered an American here. Let's get on with it."

Adm. Frank Kelso, the officer in charge of America's Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean, ordered his men to carry out the mission. In no time flat, Tomcat fighters had taken off from the U.S. aircraft carrier Saratoga. After refueling in midair and guided by Hawkeyes, the Tomcats caught up with the EgyptAir flight. The fighters stealthily trailed their target for a while in total darkness, their lights off, even in the cockpit. Then the Tomcats swooped in on the EgyptAir flight, surrounded the plane, and forced it to land at a NATO base on Sicily controlled by the United States.

Ronald Reagan wasn't perfect, despite the hagiography. But it takes a low sort of morality to disdain his clarity, and the surge of resolve displayed by President Bush toward Pakistani strongman Pervez Musharraf, in favor of the principle-and-courage-free posturings that have followed.

***

Ugly language can be abused -- and abusive. However, as I've written before, there are times when nothing else will suffice. If we're not at such a point today, we're awfully damned close to one.

But at the ultimate cusp, the "WTF macro" will not suffice. Present trends in mealy-mouthed, insincere international diplomacy continuing, we'll soon reach a nexus at which the options will be two: to surrender to Islam, root and branch; or to "cowboy the fuckup!" and acknowledge the true dimensions of this war. At that point, no amount of profanity, however employed, will adequately describe the horrors before us. More, the longer we take to get to that nexus, the worse the sequel will be, no matter which course we choose to follow.

Where do you stand, Gentle Reader?

http://www.eternityroad.info/index.php

Revisiting the plight of women according to Islam

Daniel Greenfield (Sultan Knish at http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/) posts another article concerning the sexual assault on Lara Logan in Egypt, and why it was completely unsurprising that it happened. It amazes me that so many liberal women, female Democrats, and feminists can remain silent about the role of a woman in Islam, the Sharia, and muslim culture. This article explains in some detail the status of women in Islamic culture. Again, we are not talking about "radical Islam" (which doesn't exist), we are talking about orthodox, mainstream Islam and Sharia.

Sunday, May 01, 2011

Muslim Rape Culture and Lara Logan

When Lara Logan traveled to Egypt to cover the Tahrir Square protests, she was unaware that she was going to be working in a country where sexual harassment rates of women and especially foreign women are so high as to be universal. In a politically correct profession, such truths are politically incorrect. And even now all of the coverage studiously avoids mentioning one dangerous word. Islam.

Muslim rape culture did not begin in Tahrir Square and it won't end there. Not when it actually began in the year 624 when Mohammed came up with an ingenious means of rewarding his followers. In addition to the trophies of war, he made it legal for them to capture and rape married women. Previously that would have been considered adultery. Now it was an incentive to become one of Islam's Holy Warriors. It doesn't take much to imagine how ugly and awful the camp of Mohammed's followers was for a woman. That's why the Burka was invented.

Muslim apologists insist that the Burka has something to do with female modesty. But the Koran spells out clearly the reason for it. "Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies that they may thus be distinguished and not molested." The Hijab was invented for similar reasons in 1970's Lebanon to mark out Shiite women so they wouldn't be molested by Muslim terrorists. The purpose of the Burka was closer to a cattle brand, separating women married to Muslim husbands, from slave women who were captured in war. The former were the property of their husbands and untouchable, the latter were fair game for everyone. To a Muslim, the Burka is a sign that says, 'only my husband may rape me' and the lack of a Burka means, 'everyone can rape me.'

When Australia's Grand Mufti Sheikh Hilaly justified a notorious series of gang rapes by comparing women to uncovered meat left out in the presence of a cat, he laid out the basis of Muslim rape culture. Women are always the guilty party, because they are women. If they refuse to defeminize themselves by putting on a Burka and becoming just another dark ghost haunting the streets of Cairo or Sydney with their lack of selfhood, then they are automatically guilty of their own rape.

In the West rape is a crime because it an assault on a human being. In Islam, it is only a crime because it is a sex act that takes place outside of marriage. In many Islamic countries, 'Zina' meaning adultery or immoral sexual conduct in general, is a charge that can be levied against both the rapist and his victim. Even in a case where Mohammed ordered the execution of a rapist, he first 'forgave' his victim for her part in it. To the extent that Islam criminalizes rape, it is as a property crime or a disruption of public order. And it imposes a high standard of proof that is unlikely to be met.


In Islam, women are objects, not subjects. Physically their entire bodies are considered 'Awrah', an Arabic word meaning 'nakedness', 'fault' or 'defect', terms that amply sum up the Islamic view of women. Even their voices are considered 'Awrah' meaning that even a fully covered up woman speaking is an immoral thing. A woman exists within Islam as an immoral object. And that gives Muslim men implicit permission to assault her, while holding her very nature accountable for tempting them to commit the act.

Islam does not consider rape to be a crime against a woman. It is a crime against their fathers and husbands. There is no crime involved in a husband raping his own wife. That is a ruling Muslim scholars continue to preach today. And the UK's Islam Channel was shut down for broadcasting that view. Under Islamic law, a husband is fully entitled to beat his wife if she refuses to service him until she finally consents. The woman has no control over her body. Only the men she belongs to do.

In a tribal society, rape is a crime against property and honor. To a father, his daughter's virginity is a valuable item that increases her market value. Marrying her off is way to build a relationship between two families. To a husband, his wife's chastity maintains the value of his property and insures that the offspring is his. To assault a woman is to commit a crime against the communal property of a family. But a woman herself has no rights over her body that any man is bound to respect. As Lara Logan discovered in Tahrir Square.

An unaccompanied woman is ownerless. A foreign woman is outside the protection of the tribal system which uses family vendettas to settle disputes. It's no wonder that the already stratospheric sexual harassment rates in Cairo climb to a universal value where foreign women are concerned.

The Burka placed responsibility on women to defeminize themselves and mark themselves as property. Centuries of Islamic jurisprudence put the burden of responsibility for any assault on a woman as the object that tempts men to sin. The circular reasoning of Islam says that if a man assaults a woman, it is because she tempted him. That femininity is inherently an object of temptation. The Burka and the Hijab began as a way of defeminizing women for their protection, but then became an indictment of women. Women were no longer being defeminized to protect them, but to protect men from them.

Why else do women have to be defeminized, their faces masked and their voices silenced, if there isn't some terrible mysterious force about femininity that causes men to act out? That is exactly what the first president of Iran claimed, when he said that, "Scientific research had shown that women's hair emitted rays that drove men insane." More recently an Iranian cleric explained that women who do not dress modestly corrupt men and cause earthquakes. The flight routes of Iranian planes had to be diverted from a stadium where women played soccer for fear that their hair rays might affect passengers in the planes above.

Behind this hair ray nonsense lurks an uglier notion, that women are unnatural creatures and that men are not responsible for their conduct around women. If a man rapes a woman, maybe her hair rays made him do it. If they can cause earthquakes, why not. Western legal culture says that men have more control over a situation with a woman. Islamic jurisprudence creates reasons why women do to exonerate their rapists.

How do you sell the notion of equal rights to people who view women as dangerous objects that have to be kept under lock and key?

Under Islam a woman can't say 'no' except passively by defeminizing herself. By remaining in Purdah at home or taking a mobile purdah along by covering up her entire body and face in a Burka, never meeting a man's eye or speaking to him. And even if she follows all those rules and is still assaulted, then maybe those hair rays can punch through stifling black cloth after all. There's no way for a woman to be innocent, except by never being born. As an object, she is always guilty of luring men on. The levels of guilt may vary. If the levels are low enough, then she may be 'forgiven' for causing immorality and her rapist may face punishment. And her family may still kill her anyway to bury the shame that she represents for them along with her body.

Like all social rules, they don't apply equally. The daughter of a wealthy and westernized urban family will enjoy an immunity from them, that the daughter of a poor family in a village will not. The wealthy daughter will attend the London School of Economics, use Twitter and serve as an example that her country and Islam are really very liberated. The poor daughter will be a second wife to some bored fat merchant and be considered lucky if he doesn't beat her to death when she loses her looks.

Meanwhile the young men will roam the streets bored and frustrated. They will steal anything not nailed down, join protests and sexually harass women. When Western reporters poured into Cairo to report on a pro-democracy movement, they surrounded themselves with what they thought were pro-democracy protesters. What they were actually doing was walking into one of the largest overcrowded cities in the world, where gangs of protesters had smashed the police, and created an open state of anarchy. Muslim rape culture did the rest.

As far as her attackers were concerned, Lara Logan had no rights they were bound to respect. She wasn't the wife or daughter of anyone they knew. She wasn't even a Muslim. They had no bond of kinship with her. Which meant that just like the uncovered in Mohammed's camp, she didn't belong to anyone. And that meant she was fair game.

In Muslim rape culture, a woman cannot actively decline a man. She can only passively demonstrate that she is off limits by defeminizing herself. Lara Logan hadn't done that. But even if she had, it wouldn't have done much good. Previous gang assaults on women in Cairo a few years back had targeted even those covered from head to toe. To add fuel to the fire, came the chants of, "Yahood, Yahood." "Jew, Jew". Mohammed's ruling had made it legal to capture and rape Jewish women. The association may not have been directly made, but indirectly it was there. Lara Logan had been marked as a member of an enemy tribe.

The reasoning is awkward, but Islamic jurisprudence is the product of such awkwardness. It derives from the will of Mohammed whose only consistent principle was to do whatever he wanted. As a prophet he frequently made and broke his own laws, and then made new ones. Four witnesses are required for an act of sexual immorality, because at one point three witnesses accused Mohammed's own wife of such an act. Prior to that Mohammed had taken action based only on a single witness.

Mohammed modified the law to allow him to marry his son's wife and to shift the turns of his own wives. After Mohammed had received another urgent 'revelation' allowing him to do as he sexually pleased, his wife Aisha said, "O Allah's Apostle I do not see but that your Lord hurries in pleasing you." There you find the whole of Islamic jurisprudence. It was a code that existed only to please Mohammed's sexual impulses.

If Allah existed only to enable women to sexually service Mohammed-- what agency can women have in Islam?

Muslim rape culture springs from that same code. A code that exists to please and flatter the Muslim male and demean the female as an inferior specimen, whose body is filth, whose form is corruption and who can only be good to the extent that she becomes a non-person. Remaining quiet and out of sight. It begins with the inferiority of women, and ends with a paradise filled with eternal virgins who can never say no. What do women get, some ask. But it doesn't matter. It was never intended for them.

And, let us not forget - the feeling of many muslim men is that "women are for making babies, boys are for pleasure." When they don't have access to a beardless boy for pleasure (normally the province of the wealthy muslim), they will go home and beat their wives before raping them. Although they would much rather beat and rape a boy. http://crombouke.blogspot.com/2010/01/islamic-child-sexual-abuse-muslim.html

For anyone reading here who thinks there is no truth to this, that it is merely "racism"/bigotry against muslims, please do a little research. I don't ask you to take my word for these facts, as you can easily discover their truth if you spend a few minutes on the Internet and reading the Quran and Hadith. Two places to start with that will give you actual quotes from the Quran, Hadith, and Sura are listed here:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/islam-101.html and http://crombouke.blogspot.com/2010/01/everything-you-need-to-know-about-islam.html

The Raid on Bin Laden

Something that is terribly significant, but has been passed over by the MSM (main stream media) and Fox as well, is that it seems that the raid was accomplished not because of Obama but in spite of him. The information appears to indicate that, each time Obama agreed with Leon Panetta and Robert Gates, Valerie Jarrett got him to change his mind. Now, we all know that this President - who prefers to vote "Present" rather than for or against an issue - has difficulty making decisions. He much prefers taking vacations rather than governing America, eighteen holes on the golf course over being Commander-in-Chief (he was reportedly dragged off the golf course to attend the viewing of the raid.)

The story indicates that Panetta, who along with Gates had apparently arranged the training and preparation for this raid starting some months ago, gave approval and a go-ahead in spite of Obama's inability to decide, to go after Bin Laden before he could be warned and moved to a new, unknown location. It also seems that Valerie Jarrett tried to countermand the order for the raid. Fortunately for all involved, Panetta, Gates, and Clinton ignored her. She seems to think she is the power behind the throne, and may in fact make most of Obama's decision for him, but CIA, Sec Def, and Sec State overruled her. Here is the article detailing what is believed to have happened:

http://socyberty.com/issues/white-house-insider-obama-hesitated-panetta-issued-order-to-kill-osama-bin-laden/

Look at the photo above: does that look like a President pleased by the fact that we have removed Bin Laden from the burden of his life? Does that look like a President who ordered the raid and is taking full credit for it? Is his apparent anger directed at those who chose to act while he dithered? Or does it look like a man upset by this attack upon his muslim brothers? Notice how diminished he looks, hunched down in his chair rather than sitting upright and looking forceful and decisive, as he would have if he had in fact approved and ordered the mission. So this story of his inability to decide to stage the raid is quite believable to me, at least.

Interestingly enough, this look as if this may have been Hilary's first sight of an actual assault by a military team. Although she has since claimed she was touching her nose due to allergies (what a crock), it is apparent that she is displaying a look of concern and possibly amazement about what is taking place. Given that she supposedly approved the raid, she seems a bit surprised by what she is viewing.

This development says a lot about how our government is being run right now. If it doesn't scare you, you simply aren't paying attention. Please share this with anyone you think may benefit from knowing what may really have taken place, rather than continuing to believe the fairy tale given to us by the President, the White House, and the media.

What about Osama and Obama?

I have been reluctant to get into the middle of the whole Bin Laden thing. There are so many aspects to his death, so many angles to it that it tires me to think of trying to post on all that is relevant about the raid, the killing, the disposal of the body, and the response of the world - including the muslim world - to his death.

First, allow me to state categorically that the man deserved to die. There was no reason to feel the need to try such an individual. First, he is not a citizen of our country, and has no right to benefit from the protections we afford our own citizens in court or elsewhere. He was an enemy combatant, and while his acts could certainly be considered "criminal", terrorist acts against non-combatant men, women, and children do not qualify as crime but as terrorism. Yes, there is a distinction.

Secondly, he freely admitted to being responsible for all of those deaths. He reveled in his responsibility for the deaths of 9/11, the embassy killings, the USS Cole, and many others. There is no question whatsoever of his guilt, so he deserves the maximum penalty, especially considering the special circumstances surrounding 9/11 which would qualify him for the death penalty if we were so foolish as to have tried him in civilian court.

Nonetheless, I am not all that excited by his death; satisfied that he finally paid the full price for his actions, but not ignorant enough to believe that Al-Qaeda has been diminished by his death. Al-Zawahiri, I believe, was the real mastermind, with Bin Laden being the "face" of Al-Qaeda, the PR man. So, don't expect an end to Al-Qaeda's predations, their violence.

Today, I read an article on JWR (the Jewish World Review, excellent web site), about those who believe it might not have been Bin Laden that was killed being equivalent to the "Birthers" who believe Obama is actually ineligible to be President. In the article, it goes on to say that the CIA has ID him beyond the shadow of a doubt, due to DNA that was compared to that taken from his large family. Here is my comment on that notion:

"I don't especially care if this was Obama or not, as Al-Zawahiri was most likely the real mastermind of 9/11 and other atrocities, but the article makes plain that there is reason for doubt, _because_ of the DNA "evidence". The government (CIA?) stated it was easy to ID the DNA, as the Bin Laden family is so large that there were plenty of samples to test against.

If the family is so large, then the corpse they dumped into the ocean could just as easily be another family member rather than OBL himself. Without prior DNA material known to have come from OBL himself, all that has been determined is a definite family relationship, and possibly (if we aren't being lied to) a determination that the material is not identical to any of the family samples they already possess.

With such a large family, the likelihood of a male family member of similar age and appearance is almost guaranteed. As an example, I've seen photos of a distant cousin of my father's who looks almost identical to my father, who has been dead for 38 years. Based on looks alone, I would have been fooled, as he looks exactly as I would expect my father to look if he had lived this long. The resemblance is incredible.

The CIA's identification is therefore disingenuous, suspect for claiming so strongly to be un-refutable. You don't have to be a conspiracy buff to come to that rather obvious conclusion."

Now, considering what joy and celebration attended the dismembering and mutilation that was performed upon the bodies of the civilian contractors killed by the muslims of Fallujah in Iraq, why would even our muslim-loving President feel it necessary to dispose of the body at sea? Even if we accept the fact that B. Hussein Obama does not care about the citizens of this country, what would best serve us and this nation, you would think that he would want to make certain that there would be no question in the minds of the voters, at least.

Given that he went so far as to publish an obviously manipulated image of what he claims to be his birth certificate, you would think he would want to forestall problems with the identification of the body as being Osama Bin Laden. Instead, he states that he wanted to comply with muslim requirements for the burial of a follower of Islam, a religion we all know he loves dearly. That may indeed be true, but it doesn't necessarily follow that it is the only reason the body was buried at sea. The only thing it does prove is that Obama was more concerned with pleasing the muslims of the world than with reassuring the people of America - even those who voted for him and still support him - that we have indeed removed this filth from the face of the earth.

Do you get it, folks? Has it become real for you yet? Obama cares less for you than the muslims of the world. He has less respect for, or need to consider with compassion, the families of the 9/11 dead than the millions of muslims around the world who danced in the streets when the Twin Towers came down. Doesn't that tell you a little something about this man? Can you understand that perhaps he is even more dangerous to America than Bin Laden was?

Fresh Air for Justice

FIJA - the Fully Informed Jurors Association, which I have posted on before - has just produced a new brochure that ears inspection. You can see it at FIJA.org. Here is a part of it:

Bringing Justice Back to

the Courtroom

When you are called for jury duty, you will be one of

the few people in the courtroom who wants justice,

rather than to win or to score career points. For you

to defend against corrupt politicians and their corrupt

laws, you must get on the jury. During the jury

selection, prosecutors and judges often work together

to remove honest, thinking people from juries.

When you're questioned during jury selection, just

say you don't keep track of political issues. Show an

impartial attitude. Don't let the judge and prosecutor

stack the jury by removing all the thinking, honest

people!

Instructions and oaths are designed to bully jurors

and protect political power. Although it all sounds

very official, instructions and oaths are not legally

binding, or there would be no need for independent,

thinking jurors like you.

Bringing Conscience Back

to the Courtroom

Judges will lie to you. Your conscience is your best guide

to justice—and to right or wrong. When you are a juror,

the judge will tell you to ignore your own conscience

and obey what the judge says. That is just plain silly—

nobody gives up their own sense of right and wrong just

because some stranger in a costume says so.

Although the judge may sit behind a big desk or

wear a black robe, nothing gives any stranger—

or anyone—the right to tell you to ignore your

conscience! A judge may try to get you to follow

some corrupt laws passed by corrupt politicians who

appointed that judge.

You need to be as skeptical about what you hear

from the judge and other lawyers as you are skeptical

about anyone trying to sell a used car. Use your

conscience. Think for yourself.

Are we blind?

A friend of mine asked the other day, "Why is it that nobody can see this danger?" He was referring to the fact that Islam - true Islam, as written in the Quran, Hadith, and Sura - is a cult of death. Specifically, he was talking about the threats made against Ann Barnhardt's life by muslims who feel it is appropriate to kill anyone who has "insulted" their religion. We have seen them actually do this to people in Europe, such as Theo Van Gogh after he produced a movie called Submission about women living under the dictates of Islam and Sharia.

Here in America, a large percentage of our populace has been infected by the "multiculturalism" bug. As in Europe, we have been led to accept that we in America are no different than any other culture, that all cultures are equally important and valuable. Hence, anyone speaking out against a culture is deemed to be bigoted, a racist.

The problem is that, due to "progressive" thinking, it is only Islam that is held up as valuable. Muslims can speak against Judaism and Jews, actually talk of wanting to kill all Jews and destroy Israel, and no one gets upset. The yuppies, the liberals of Palo Alto, the "intelligentsia" of Hollywood, the soccer moms, the entrepreneurs of Silicon Valley, the stockbrokers of New York City, the teachers in Wisconsin all turn a deaf ear to what the muslims have to say about other cultures and religions. Only speak out against Islam, burn pages of a Quran, and you will hear a spew of such vitriol that you would imagine the speaker, the burner, is the re-incarnation of Adolf Hitler. And that any violence that the muslims engage in is therefore the fault of the speaker or paper burner.

Christians can be portrayed as ignorant, Bible-thumping, gun-toting rednecks and no one blinks an eye. It is accepted as, well, gospel. The same sub-set of America that will beat you down for disrespecting Islam will often agree, not seeing the incredible hypocrisy they are displaying.

I am an atheist, so I don't have a dog in the fight as far as religion goes. I don't care if kids pray in school, as long as the teacher isn't leading the children in a prayer to exalt B. Hussein Obama. I don't care if there is a National Day of Prayer. As a matter of fact, I am for people being able to pray anywhere and any time the wish to, as long as it is done quietly and doesn't disrupt the lives or activities of others,especially those who do not want to join in, like myself. That includes trying to get educated in a classroom, of course, where prayer should probably be silent and unobtrusive.

I detest this notion that anything to do with prayer in a public setting is said to be a violation of the First Amendment. That was written to prevent the establishment of a state religion, as some people suffered under in Europe, before coming to the Colonies looking for religious freedom. And, could someone please explain to me how it is permissible for the Ten Commandments to be displayed on the Supreme Court building, but for the Supreme Court to say no one else can do that on a state or local government building?

If Islam were actually a religion, rather than the ravings of an ignorant Arab pedophile, created to legitimize his aberrant behavior and his wish to dominate and enslave others, I would be supportive of it. But how on earth can you support a "religion" that says women are merely vessels for the deposition of semen, or to produce babies? That demands the genital mutilation of female infants? That says it is acceptable for a muslim male to rub his genitals against a six-year old girl in order to ejaculate? And can penetrate her in full intercourse when she turns nine? That says beardless young boys are OK to use for sex, because they really aren't "male" at that age? Yet also demands that homosexual men be killed?

How do you support a "religion" that wants to force everyone in the world to either join Islam or die?

The fools in America who can't see that this death cult, this sexually aberrant doctrine, is evil are indeed blind. They cannot, in fact, see the danger. Their attempts to appease the followers of this death cult, to protect its "right" to try to force the world to accept a universal Caliphate, are worse than pitiful. They are self-destructive. Their inability to see that it must be stopped is suicidal. Their willingness to force the rest of us to go along with their acceptance of this death cult is both a deadly insult to us and an incredible danger to our way of life, to America herself.