- NewsReal Blog - http://www.newsrealblog.com -

Top 10 Islamo-Fascist Apologists

Islamic totalitarianism is a serious threat to life and liberty, globally. In some places the battlefront is obvious — you can tell by the gunfire, bomb craters and bodies — elsewhere it is ideological. Nonetheless ideas have consequences, slower than bullets, but often far more destructive.

You will excuse my bluntness I hope, when I say that America is still recovering from the ideological butt-kicking that we took from the communists. Walk into any college or cocktail party and say “from each according to his abilities and to each according to his needs“. See how many objections you get. We had better wise up.

The ideological battle against Islamo-fascism is a critical front in the fight for freedom in our time. Right here in America, there is a considerable fifth column — believers, paid agents and dupes — conducting an energetic propaganda campaign on behalf of the Islamo-fascists. Let’s consider some of the star hitters in the lineup and what they bring to the fight.


Intro

Mohammedanism is referred to as a religion. “Religion” in the mind of most people denotes a private spiritual discipline, a morality shared with a surrounding community, and in the biblical cultures, a personal relation with God. And Islam certainly does include a religion among its doctrines.

However Islam (an arabic word meaning submission) is more than only a religion. As understood and practiced in Arabia, Iran, parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan and many other places, it is a total system of life, governing the details of domestic life, government, jurisprudence the lot — from the nation’s policies to the courts of law to what’s for lunch. And make no mistake, as practiced full out by the orthodox, it is a totalitarian, and grossly oppressive ideology.

It is an ideology that calls for the submission and obedience of the entire human race. Which places the orthodox under an obligation to, how shall I say … make the necessary arrangements. And those arrangements involve not only proselytization, but armed conflict, big money and power politics.

Needless to say, whether or not a purely religious, private, unaggressive Islam does or even can exist is one of the great debates of our time. And we will not consider that question here. Our focus is on efforts to spread the faith and enlarge its political influence.

And to be clear, when I refer to Islam, I am not referring to the private beliefs of private individuals, but to the official doctrines (plural) — as implemented by governments and courts of law — and as taught and preserved by major Islamic schools, prestigious mosques and influential authorities.

As it happens, with its two-tier system of justice (believers/unbelievers), its two tier notion of individual rights (male/female), and its plethora of restrictions on what one can eat, drink, buy, sell, read, say or even think — not to mention the stubborn poverty of the societies under its sway — this outlook is not what you would call irresistibly attractive to the outside observer. So spreading the word is hard work.

It is hard work that requires a good deal of outside support. It needs battallions of politicos, culturati, intellectuals, infidel preachers and even school-teachers to deny what the eye reveals to the mind. Prejudice is not prejudice. Apartheid is not apartheid. Censorship is not censorship. Brutality is not brutality. Sexual oppression is not sexual oppression. Submission is freedom, and freedom is submission. Pay no attention to that tyrant behind the curtain.

It is to that army of advance agents and cover-up artists, dupes, salary men, collaborators, true believers and plain cheats to which this post is dedicated.


#10: Dupes and Useful Idiots Category – Gen. George W. Casey Jr.

Gen. Casey earned his place here by his offensive and inane remarks following the murders at Ft. Hood, where U.S. Army Major (Major!) Nidal Malik Hasan shot and killed 12 fellow soldiers (one of whom was pregnant), one civilian and wounded 30 other individuals.

Immediately after the murders Casey said to the press:

… I’m concerned that this increased speculation could cause a backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers. And I’ve asked our Army leaders to be on the lookout for that …

Um … this came from an American general? This is far worse than mere politically correct babble. This is a gross insult to our people in uniform. Even if he had good reason to suspect that such a thing was possible, which he did not, it is something you keep in the family. You don’t announce it to the world. One would imagine that an American general would have some concern about the reputation of our warriors.

He handed the Islamo-facists a free propaganda goodie: The Americans are prejudiced, nasty, dangerous people who need to be tamed and restrained. The Mohammedans are victims.

And there’s more. Later he said on MSNBC’s Meet the Press:

… Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse

Worse than the death of innocent American soldiers. Now there’s a value judgement for you.

It is difficult to imagine what mental process would lead an ostensibly sane adult to say something like that. And it may well be that there was no conscious thought process at all, but simply a reflexive response to cameras and microphones.

In the context of Islamo-fascist propaganda, “diversity” is a code word for tolerating the intolerable and excusing the immoral. Suffice it to say that America does not require the sort of diversity of views and loyalties introduced by Major Hassan.

Before leaving this subject we need to give honorable mention for useful idiocy to United States Secretary of the Navy Gordon R. England for his part in dismissing Stephen Coughlin, contractor on the Joint Staff, J-2 (Intelligence) for the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon — an expert on Islamic doctrines of war.

Coughlin had very sensibly dedicated himself to making sure that our warriors thoroughly understood the philosophy and military doctrine of their enemies — as was done with the Axis powers during WWII and the USSR during the cold war, and as any good text on war will insist you must do. He was dismissed from his post in a byzantine back-office campaign of smears, lies, moral cowardice and gross dereliction.

Couglin’s thesis To Our Great Detriment: Ignoring What Extremists Say About Jihad should be required reading for all of our military decision makers, as the affair of Gen. Casey richly attests.

#9: Shared Prize, Cover-Up Category – The Pauls

The Pauls contribute directly to the Islamo-fascist propaganda campaign by promoting the idea that jihaddist attacks on America and American interests are  merely a defensive reaction to American aggression. It is right out of the Islamo-fascist playbook. And what is worse, they contribute the prestige of their right-wing credentials to spreading this idiocy.

If they actually believe what they are saying, in which case they are also due useful idiot credits, it is a remarkable intellectual accomplishment.

One need only be a casual observer of the news to know that there is not a continent in the world that does not have jihaddist agents operating and jihaddist sentiments boiling. From the tri-border region of South America to the Xinjiang region of China, from Dearbornistan Michigan to Nigeria, from London to Thailand and dozens of spots between. American aggression?

I’m sure that the Buddhist banana farmers of Thailand, who the jihaddists are murdering by the dozen, would be considerably surprised to learn that American aggression is at the root of their problems.

Of the Pauls’ mindless utterances there are too many to select from. So I will offer a couple of quotes from a piece of genius insight published on AntiWar.com by Ron Paul in 2005 called Ending Suicide Terrorism.

Religious beliefs are less important than supposed. For instance, the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a Marxist secular group, are the world’s leader in suicide terrorism . The largest Islamic fundamentalist countries have not been responsible for any suicide terrorist attack. None have come from Iran or the Sudan. Until the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Iraq never had a suicide terrorist attack in all of its history. Between 1995 and 2004, the al-Qaeda years, two-thirds of all attacks came from countries where the U.S. had troops stationed. Iraq’s suicide missions today are carried out by Iraqi Sunnis and Saudis. Recall, 15 of the 19 participants in the 9/11 attacks were Saudis.

Notice the focus on suicide bombers. Our problem, he implies is “suicide terrorism.” The Tamil Tigers employ suicide assassins, and Hamas employs suicide assassins, therefore they are the same sort of thing and have the same meaning to the US. Brilliant!

The clincher is this: the strongest motivation, according to Pape [some author he had read and agreed with], is not religion but rather a desire “to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory the terrorists view as their homeland.

In the pellucid and sunlit regions of Mr. Paul’s very open cranium, expelling foreigners is the common denominator that counts. A power hungry warlord’s struggle for local dominance, an ordinary patriotic defense of political and territorial integrity and a religiously motivated passion to rid Mohammedan territory of the defiling presense of filthy unbelievers are all exactly the same thing.

Not that such things cannot overlap and intermingle, they undoubtedly do. But a habit of preying on rabbits does not make bobcats, wolves and eagles the same animal. We are talking basic logical competence here. But here comes the paydirt:

The best news is that if stopping suicide terrorism is a goal we seek, a solution is available to us. Cease the occupation of foreign lands, and the suicide missions will cease. …

Ah! Thank you Professor Paul.

This is precisely what we hear from Hamas, Hezbolla, al Quaeda, Ach-Ma-Dinner-Jacket, and the rest of the jihaddi crew. Back off and back down and we will leave you alone.

Of course it’s not true, for two reasons.

First is the curious Islamo-fascist notion of defense, according to which the propagation of alien points of view is an attack on Islam, and according to which any territory ever held by Mohammedans must be returned to their control. By those rules an attack on Spain is a defensive action. In fact, an attack on nearly anybody with a free press or a few night clubs is defensive, rather than offensive.

Second is the fact that until the world is under Sharia dominance — whether everybody believes or not — the jihaddist’s job is not done.

And just by the way, “stopping suicide terrorism” is not in fact our goal. Our goal is the preservation of liberty, stopping the assassins is only part of what’s required.

And by that standard, the Pauls are part of the cover-up.

#8: Feminisogynist Category – Naomi Wolf

Coals to Newcastle, I know. Perverse rationalizations coming from Naomi Wolf on the subject of Islamo-fascism and its brutal subjugation of women have already been throroughly demolished herehere and elsewhere.

But she earns a place on this list in part for feminist fame and in part for the publication of a remarkable piece called “Behind the veil lives a thriving Muslim sexuality.” Together they make her almost emblematic of a whole crowd of alleged thinkers of the left who, while making their livings on the claim of representing the interests of women, are nonetheless weirdly unmoved by the very real and bloody suffering of millions of women living under the sway of sharia.

Her essay, in short, is a rationalization that the anonymizing shroud-like coverings forced on Mohammedan women are really not so bad — on the grounds that certain parts of life remain comparatively normal, and the women involved are not constantly suffering. This, mind you, from someone who’s fame is based on the claim that fashion and cosmetics are terrible things. Is it just me, or does placing those two things together lead your mind in a disturbing sinister direction?

I can’t resist calling attention to the strangely creepy phrase in her title “thriving Muslim sexuality.” Um, what is Muslim sexuality exactly? Is it different in some meaningful way from say, Eskimo sexuality? Perhaps Ms. Wolf simply seeks to reassure us that the Islamic nations have not been smitten by an epidemic of sexual incapacity. I’m sure the daily more outnumbered Christian population of Lebanon will be greatly comforted by the news.

Be that as it may, her malformed conceptions and fuzzy thinking are characteristic of the femisogynist cover-up. She opens by telling the world that:

Ideological battles are often waged with women’s bodies as their emblems, and Western Islamophobia is no exception.

A tiny grain of truth, drowned in mind-freezing verbal anaesthetics — producing blur.

It is certainly true that we often do personify our ideals as women and express them in images of women. From Helen, Athena and Aphrodite to Columbia and Lady Liberty in the NY harbor. But it is not simply women’s bodies, but rather women in their entirety. I refer the reader to Camille Paglia for a more literate and rational treatment of that subject. But don’t leave that sentence without noticing that she simply asserts and assumes “Western Islamophobia” as a given. She makes it clear whose water she is carrying, and it’s not ours.

Before we move on, it seems to have escaped Ms. Wolf’s razor sharp mind that the image of the veiled, submissive, anonymous woman itself represents a cultural ideal. The anonymous, faceless, apersonal She represents the supression of individual identity and personal autonomy which is central to the Islamo-fascist value system. And that is what is troubling people all over the western world — whether or not they can clearly articulate that even to themselves.

The West interprets veiling as repression of women and suppression of their sexuality. But when I travelled in Muslim countries and was invited to join a discussion in women-only settings within Muslim homes, I learned that Muslim attitudes toward women’s appearance and sexuality are not rooted in repression, but in a strong sense of public versus private, of what is due to God and what is due to one’s husband. It is not that Islam suppresses sexuality, but that it embodies a strongly developed sense of its appropriate channelling – toward marriage, the bonds that sustain family life, and the attachment that secures a home.

Apparently Ms. Wolf missed the Islamophobic memo that’s been going around. We are not worried that the ladies of the Muslim communities are insufficiently randy. Neither is it “repression” or “suppression of sexuality” that we are primarily worried about. It’s the part where they throw acid in your face for taking off the veil that has us concerned.

No doubt in the world of the oh-so-cosmopolitan Ms. Wolf and many of her collegues, antique freudian notions about suppression of sexuality still constitute a great bogey. (Does anybody reading here even remember that stuff?) The rest of us are more concerned about veiling and female anonymity as a symbol, indeed a manifestation of suppression of the individual … period. Of slavery, brutality and unreasoning authoritarianism. We also have some concerns about such practices as female genital mutilation and the ironing of young girls’ breasts. All of which, one might say, are also represented by the anonymity of the veil.

The ideal of man as nobody — of the human as a nameless, faceless, shapeless lump in the crowd. Obedient and meaningless.

Ms. Wolf seems to have enjoyed her first taste of the lash veil.

I experienced it myself. I put on a shalwar kameez and a headscarf in Morocco for a trip to the bazaar. Yes, some of the warmth I encountered was probably from the novelty of seeing a Westerner so clothed; but, as I moved about the market – the curve of my breasts covered, the shape of my legs obscured, my long hair not flying about me – I felt a novel sense of calm and serenity. I felt, yes, in certain ways, free.

Free to do what? Shop? Free from what? Free perhaps, from the burden of an individual identity. Free from that awful western work, of visibly being somebody in particular, separate from the anonymous crowd.

She finishes by telling the reader that:

… it’s worth thinking in a more nuanced way about what female freedom really means.

Well, arbeit macht frei comrade, I think not. We do not need to think in a more nuanced way, but to think simply, clearly and honestly.

#7: Shared Honors, Intellectual Category – Armstrong, Esposito & Cole

Karen Armstrong, John Esposito and Juan Cole (in no particular order) deserve honor and attention here as purveyors of ideas – bad ideas. It was simply too difficult to choose between them.

All three of these characters write books, lecture, publish opinion pieces in the mainstream media, are fashionable and worst of all, are influential in both academic and government circles. Between them they retail at least most, if not all of the common varieties of intellectual stool softener that comprise the main themes of Islamo-fascist apologetics.

These are writers, so there is far too much material to cover here. I have seen informed commentators spend a couple of thousand words tearing apart single paragraphs written by these mental prodigies, so dense are their errors and fantasies. So we will just touch lightly on a couple of their confections.

Karen Armstrong, appears to specialize in sugar coating Mohammed and the faith he founded, and blurring the lines of distinction between Judaism, Christianity and Islam. She’s also an expert in creative historical writing, that is to say, fiction presented as history. Armstrong is the author of, among other things, “Muhammad: A Prophet for Our Time” — which is probably a clue about her outlook.

Immediately after the London bombing of 7/7 (what is with those guys and numbers?) she wrote:

Like the Bible, the Qur’an has its share of aggressive texts, but like all the great religions, its main thrust is towards kindliness and compassion. Islamic law outlaws war against any country in which Muslims are allowed to practice their religion freely, and forbids the use of fire, the destruction of buildings and the killing of innocent civilians in a military campaign. So although Muslims, like Christians or Jews, have all too often failed to live up to their ideals, it is not because of the religion per se.

We rarely, if ever, called the IRA bombings “Catholic” terrorism because we knew enough to realise that this was not essentially a religious campaign. Indeed, like the Irish republican movement, many fundamentalist movements worldwide are simply new forms of nationalism in a highly unorthodox religious guise. This is obviously the case with Zionist fundamentalism in Israel and the fervently patriotic Christian right in the US.

I’m not going to spend a thousand words on that, but you see my point. Where would you even start? But we should pick out the main jihaddist propaganda items.

You’ve got your obligatory Tu Quoque, everybody’s doin’ it. In fact everybody isn’t doin’ it, but hey, no worries. Next you have the business about the prohibition against killing “innocents”. In point of fact, the jihaddis get very very cute about how they define the word innocent. As it happens, 3 year old Jewish Israelis are not, by their clever calculations, innocent, and neither are you. Did you know that? And of course we hear that the Bible has its aggressive texts too. The facts? Well yes the Bible has “aggressive texts” (gotta love that vagueness). But the prescriptive ones are rare, and centuries in disfavor with the clergy. The rest are historical accounts, clearly not intended as present day instruction, at least not in any military sense. The Koran, by contrast, has loads of “aggressive texts“, many of which are prescriptive in the present and future tense. They are instructions, and are taken very seriously by a large part of the clergy. And that is to say nothing of the Sira and the Hadiths.

I can’t leave her altogether without mentioning her fabrication of “Zionist fundamentalism“. What is that? She doesn’t say. But it sounds like “Islamic fundamentalism”, and I suppose the right sound is enough for Karen. And of course, the slap against “the fervently patriotic Christian right in the US,” bogey of bogeys in the leftist mind. Although curiously, I haven’t heard of mad Evangelicals bombing pizza parlors. Did you know that the Evangelical churches were merely a “new form[s] of nationalism in a highly unorthodox religious guise“? I thought they were pretty ordinary Christian believers. Pah! Facts don’t get in Karen’s way. She’s a busy girl with a job to do.

John Esposito is a different sort of fish. He is a big deal in the academic world and an influence in government circles. Former President of the Middle East Studies Association (MESA), editor-in-chief of the Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern Islamic World, previous Muslim affairs consultant to the Department of State, founding director of the Saudi-financed Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown, and author of a couple of dozen books.

As to the benignity of his influence, Martin Kramer, a fellow at the Olin Institute at Harvard wrote:

Esposito, more than any other academic, contributed to American complacency prior to 9/11.

Let’s take a quick dip.

One of his recent publications, written with Dalia Mogahed (who we will visit later) “Who Speaks For Islam?: What a Billion Muslims Really Think” is a curious, and clever piece of propaganda. The core conception of the book, is that the west will understand the Mohammedan outlook by investigating opinion polls, rather than established core doctrine. It is very much in the modern intellectual style of looking at disconnected, isolated facts, rather than seeking underlying principle or concept.

Now, if you are trying to solve the problem of how to protect Western freedoms from sharia takeover, you really have to understand the underlying concepts that motivate and guide the actions of sharia’s promoters. And you have to help Westerners understand what those principles are. If on the other hand you are simply trying to show that ordinary people are, well, ordinary people — a soothing and reassuring message — then you take opinion polls.

Unfortunately, it seems that even in that questionable endeavor, they cooked the books. It seems that the authors assert that 7% of those surveyed hold “radical” views, whereas by their own statistics the number is more like 14%. And in fact, those same statistics show that roughly 36% of those polled believe that the 9/11 attacks were in some way justified — although that is not, in Esposito’s opinion, enough to qualify those people as holders of “radical” views. (I imagine Mr. Esposito holds the bar high for “radical” views.)

Over and above that, his book appears to be dedicated to doing battle with a straw man:

The religion of Islam and the mainstream Muslim majority have been conflated with the beliefs and actions of an extremist minority. — from Who Speaks for Islam: Introduction

He seeks to differentiate, “the religion of Islam and the mainstream Muslim majority” lumped together as a single thing, from “the beliefs and actions of an extremist minority“. But wait! How did “the religion of Islam” and the “the mainstream Muslim majority” become the same thing? Are the religion of Catholicism and the mainstream Catholic majority the same thing? I think not. And I think the Pope himself would agree. I can guarantee you that the Jewish religion itself and the mainstream Jewish majority are entirely separate matters. Just walk into any schul and ask. And in fairness, the devout of any faith will always tell you that the faith is beyond time, place and circumstance, and stands above and beyond the common crowd of today’s moment in time.

If there is any conflation going on here, it is on Mr. Esposito’s part. Suffice it to say that Islamic doctrine is neither determined nor elucidated by majority vote, and the Bin Laden’s of the world do not do focus groups.

But it is an interesting bit of conflation. And it serves several simultaneous destructive puposes. First, of course, is to lull the Western reader into a comfortable sense that since the majority of Mohammedans do not have horns, tails or fangs, nor do they breathe fire, (as if that were in question) that the core doctrines of Islam must be consistently benign. Next is to lend support to that mind-freezing item of propaganda, that criticism of Islamic doctrine is an insult to the Mohammedan believer (as the two are treated as one and the same). And finally, and most insidiously, to flatter the Muslim reader into a comfortable sense that since popular statistics are not altogether eye-poppingly horrifying, that there is no cultural self-criticism incumbent on him. His folks are just like everybody else. Thus making it all the more difficult for those thinkers of the Islamic cultures who genuinely seek to repair and improve on their spiritual and moral teachings.

Clearly his material has been playing well among the elites in Riyadh.

Juan Cole is also, I regret to say, an academic. He too has written quite a few books and has been president of MESA. And he too is sought out by the media for expert opinion. That he hasn’t achieved quite the same degree of influence as Esposito is probably a good thing, as he appears to be more fervently and openly pro-jihad.

Former US ambassador and perennial angry old crank John Bolton is so upset about the possibility that Iran’s Bushehr nuclear reactor will soon go live that he says Israel has a window of only 8 days to attack it and destroy it. (After a reactor is already working, bombing it would turn it into a dirty bomb and harm large numbers of civilians, which even Bolton isn’t yet in favor of).

But Bolton’s former boss, George W. Bush, endorsed the Russian reactor deal with Iran in 2007 … — from Juan Cole’s blog

Actually arguing in favor of Iran’s nuclear reactor project is, I would say, pretty strong stuff.

Rather than investigating Cole’s peculiar positions, which can be easily discovered from the links at the top of the page (and which I find distinctly unpleasant to dwell on) I will simply show you a quote from one of his rants, which addresses the language of this posting.

The lazy conflation of Muslim fundamentalist movements with fascism cannot account for their increasing willingness to participate in elections and serve in parliamentary government. Hizbullah, for example, ran in the 2005 elections and had 12 members elected to parliament. Altogether, the Shiite parties of Hizbullah and Amal, who have a parliamentary alliance, have 29 members in the Lebanese parliament of 128 seats. Hizbullah and Amal both joined the national unity government, receiving cabinet posts. This is not the behavior of a fascist movement tout court.

Conflation again is it? To conflate is to fuse, and confuse two dissimilar things into one, such that their identifying, essential differences are lost. It is, in logic an error. Which is why I object to Esposito’s jamming together of the Mohammedan doctrine and the Mohammedan population. But we see in this quote, the notion of conflation used to disintegrate, to destroy a useful and informative equation, to introduce a false distinction between things that share essential characteristics. It is a form of intellectual attack, an attack on the mind. (And this guy is a teacher.)

Rather than addressing Cole’s assertion directly, I will simply quote from DiscoverTheNetworks, according to which:

… “Islamo-fascism” is both a valid term and a legitimate topic for intellectual discussion. In the post-9/11 era, the West has been forced to confront the undeniably widespread existence of a radical Islamic movement that seeks to expand its dominion over all the nations, and ultimately to establish on a worldwide scale a caliphate governed by strict adherence to Islamic law. The means by which this brand of Islam aims to achieve its expansionist goals is jihad, or holy war, a longstanding Muslim tradition rooted in violence and the subjugation or murder of nonbelievers.

The term “Islamo-fascism” made its first entry into the English language in September 1990, when the Scottish historian Malise Ruthven, writing in Britain’s Independent newspaper, described how traditional Arab dictatorships used religious appeals in order to maintain their iron grip on political power.

More recently, Christopher Hitchens has pointed out numerous parallels between Islamo-fascism and the brand of fascism that was introduced to the world by the likes of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis:

“Both movements are based on a cult of murderous violence that exalts death and destruction and despises the life of the mind. …  Both are hostile to modernity (except when it comes to the pursuit of weapons), and both are bitterly nostalgic for past empires and lost glories. Both are obsessed with real and imagined “humiliations” and thirsty for revenge. Both are chronically infected with the toxin of anti-Jewish paranoia … Both are inclined to leader worship and to the exclusive stress on the power of one great book. Both have a strong commitment to sexual repression — especially to the repression of any sexual ‘deviance’— and to its counterparts, the subordination of the female and contempt for the feminine. Both despise art and literature as symptoms of degeneracy and decadence; both burn books and destroy museums and treasures.”

Not what I would casually dismiss as “lazy conflation“.

That all three of these characters are influential in government and the media is bad enough. There they have to contend with adults, however well or ill informed. But they are academics and the authors of books used in schools. They instruct the young.

Do you have kids?

#6: English Language Category: Reuters

And now we turn for a little (dark) comic relief to Reuters. I award this honor in recognition of the news organization’s creative use of the English language to mask and obscure the nature of the events on which they report.

We will view a more or less random sampling of Reuters reports on one of the less recognized aspects of Islamo-fascist imperialism, the war on Thailand.

If you don’t already know, southern Thailand has been under continual assault for years. And if you didn’t already know, you might well wonder why not, as the casualties are mounting into the thousands. Most of those casualties are civilians and most of those civilian casualties are Buddhists. The wire services carry the news, and various military and non-governmental organizations have been watching as well. It would seem that retailers of news are not interested in the narrative. Hmmm…

Southern Thailand borders on predominantly Muslim Malaysia. And while the percentage of Muslims among the total Thai population is somewhere down around 5%, most of that population is in the provinces that border Malaysia, where they constitute in some provinces 30% – 80% of the census. What an odd coincidence.

I’m sure that the Buddhist denizens of Thailand’s rural south would be shocked to discover that their troubles are due to Zionist occupation and American aggression.

To Reuters’ credit, they have been carrying the news. But in keeping with their mission as defenders of the faith, they have been careful to avoid the attribution of anything like an ideological motivation for the mayhem, with rather droll results. Consider this random selection of Reuters headlines.

Well, it certainly seems that nobody can get any rest in Thailand’s restive south. Perhaps because of those gunfights. Or perhaps the conflict and gunfights are due to the fact that nobody can get any damn rest. Maybe it’s the fault of those suspected insurgents. Let’s see what Reuters can tell us if we look deeper into the text.

Three people, among them a policeman, were killed in Thailand’s troubled southern region Saturday in attacks blamed on Muslim separatists, police said.

A man and his wife were shot dead while riding a motorcycle to work in a rubber plantation in Yala, one of the three predominantly ethnic Malay Muslim provinces with a deep history of rebellion to the rule of faraway Bangkok.

In a separate attack in neighbouring Pattani province, a policeman was fatally shot by unknown gunmen while travelling to work. He later died in hospital, police told reporters.

More than 4,000 people have been killed in the last six years in the rubber-rich region … which was a Muslim sultanate until annexed in 1909 by Buddhist Thailand, which many locals say has long treated them like second-class citizens.

The shadowy rebels are assumed to be separatists and often target Buddhists and Muslims associated with the Thai state, like police, soldiers, government officials and school teachers.

Now before we go any further, what do we know about defensive warfare according to the Mohammedan doctrine of war? Let’s not always see the same hands … That’s right, any territory that has been held by Muslims and lost must be returned to Islamic rule. That is a defensive action. And we are continually assured that Islam only condones defensive warfare.

That must be what Reuters means by separatists and shadowy rebels, yes? They must assume that we already know the doctrine. Certainly they don’t tell us anything else about what those shadowy rebels might be rebelling about.

But let’s continue:

Here: Suspected Muslim insurgents shot dead two people and wounded five others in three separate attacks in the space of one day in Thailand’s restive south, police said on Monday.

Here: Four Thai soldiers and a teacher were killed by suspected militants in Thailand’s restive Muslim south where nearly 900 people have been killed in 21 months of violence, police said on Tuesday.

Here: Suspected Muslim insurgents blew up a gas tank near a school in southern Thailand on Saturday, killing three Buddhist villagers and wounding two including a local leader, police said. The blast appeared intended for a senior official of Bajao district in Narathiwat, one of Thailand’s three southernmost provinces plagued by insurgent violence as ethnic Malay Muslims fight for autonomy from Thailand’s Buddhist majority.

Here: Suspected Muslim insurgents killed a rubber tapper and a roadside bomb wounded nine soldiers in Thailand’s restive deep south, police said on Monday.

Here: Suspected Islamic insurgents shot dead six Buddhist villagers in Thailand’s restive south Thursday, police said, the latest attack in the troubled region bordering Malaysia.

Here: More than five years after a Muslim insurgency erupted in southern Thailand, the conflict remains shrouded in mystery,

Well it’s no mystery to me. Nobody can get any rest in Southern Thailand. Those people must be damned cranky. Or at least, that is what we can conclude from Reuters’ coverage.

Just for the heck of it, let’s compare all that with the words of an expert, Pakistani writer and activist Syed Abul A’la Maududi — (Towards Understanding the Qur’an, vol. III, p. 202). He states that unbelievers:

have, however, absolutely no right to seize the reins of power in any part of God’s earth nor to direct the collective affairs of human beings according to their own misconceived doctrines. For if they are given such an opportunity, corruption and mischief will ensue. In such a situation the believers would be under an obligation to do their utmost to dislodge them from political power and to make them live in subservience to the Islamic way of life.

Whadda’ya think? Maududi or Reuters?

#5: Jihadist Tool Category: Dalia Mogahed

Dalia Mogahed is a member of Obama’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. She has influence. She has the president’s ear. Yet the closer one looks, the more it appears that there is simply no there there. She appears to be a void wrapped in a vacuum; an empty vessel with a reflexive attraction toward things Mohammedan. She is a consummate Islamo-fascist tool.

To appreciate Ms. Mogahed properly, one needs to give some consideration to her background and history, to the extent that the information has been made publicly available. She is a naturalized citizen who came to the US at the age of four from Egypt. Her undergraduate studies were in chemical engineering and she holds a master’s degree in business administration. Her first job after school was as a marketing products researcher for Procter & Gamble, makers of excellent soft soap — and an indication that she didn’t cut it as a chemical engineer. She later found a job at Gallup, and eventually became a pollster with the corporate job title “Senior Analyst and Executive Director, Gallup Center for Muslim Studies.”

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics
— Mark Twain

We have to note here that this is very 20th century — the age of statistics. Not to assert that statistics are meaningless, but one must admit that they are limited in what they can reveal. For example, there is a very high statistical correlation between tooth decay and having a nose on your face. We moderns collect stats for everything. Partly out of habit, we are a culture of trade and marketing — and god bless the sales people of this world that keep the money moving. And partly because collecting statistics is easier than doing scientific or even cultural analysis. We count the hairs on our faces as a way of understanding our souls.

As to the potential value of her work we need to remember, as the politically minded know, that the mere wording of poll questions can radically alter the apparent meaning of poll results. Polling to understand real human thought processes is a tricky matter — and to my way of thinking, quite shallow by itself. Over and above that, we have to be very cautious in considering opinion polls taken among captive and oppressed populations in countries where saying the wrong words can bring the police to your door, or worse — but I very much doubt that those matters worry the cheerful Ms. Mogahed.

(BTW: If you, gentle reader, happen to be a fan of statistics and statistical analysis, you will probably be interested to read this piece of statistical textual analysis of the Mohammedan canon.)

I have not yet been able to discover any evidence of fluency in any language other than English, or even extended residence overseas as an adult. Ms. Mogahed seems simply to be a rather bland American of Egyptian extraction — with no special expertise or insight into matters Mohammedan, or even any particular cultural or political literacy. Nonie Darwish, herself an American from Egypt, but an expert in Islamic culture and ethics, and a passionate pro-freedom reformer, does not express a deep bond of sisterhood with Ms. Mogahed.

… I do not think that Ms. Mogahed’s views are in any way supportive of a reformation in Islam or of its concept of jihad. To the contrary, she denies the existence of any problem with Islamic ideology and she acts in total harmony with the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood. Her excuses are the same old excuses we Egyptians learned day in and day out …

And in this context we must remember again that Ms. Mogahed is a marketer and a pollster.

How might this play out in Dalia’s views on say, the rights of women in Islamic cultures?

… we found that the majority of women around the world associate gender justice, or justice for women, with sharia compliance whereas only a small fraction associated oppression of women with compliance with the sharia.

Actually no, “the majority of women around the world” have never heard of sharia and wouldn’t like it very much if they did. What you found, Dalia dear, is that in countries where you can be killed for heresy, and where women can be arrested, jailed, gang raped and even murdered for mere disobedience, that, when asked unusual questions by a suspicious stranger, women said something conventional — something that sounds like they “associate gender justice, or justice for women, with sharia“. That is not what I would call a surprising, or revealing finding.

As much as I enjoy mocking Ms. Mogahed, this is dark corrupt stuff. It takes a genuine mental and moral emptiness to go among the terrorized oppressed, invite them to denigrate their masters, and then cheerfully advertise their unwillingness as proof that they are doing well.

I’m sure that the elites of Riyadh and Tehran are well pleased with this sort of performance, not to mention the preachers of Qom and Al-Azar.

There’s plenty more where that came from – even worse in fact. It’s easy to find. But I think you get the point.

So what is this young woman doing around the US administration? Very evidently she is part of Mr. Obama’s efforts to market himself to the Muslim nations.

I would say that it is my role to convey the facts about what Muslims think and feel. I see my role as offering the voices of the silenced majority of Muslims in America and around the world to the council so that our deliberations are informed by their ideas and wisdom. I believe that I was chosen because the administration cares about what Muslims think and wants to listen.

We should note that the voices of Muslims are anything but silenced in the USA, whereas they stand to be killed for saying the wrong word in the Islamic nations. This is a toss up. I suppose that she could be that brainwashed or ignorant, but it is just as likely that she is, how shall I say … coloring her words for effect — the wrong effect.

More importantly, she thinks that her mission is to find out what Muslims want from America, not to help find ways to communicate what America wants from them.

Worst of all, this intellectual and moral cipher has actual weight and influence in the Obama administration. She said in an interview with Der Spiegel:

Dalia Mogahed: I am part of the Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships, not a direct adviser. Our role is to provide ideas, mostly in the form of memos and reports. But yes, I played a role in making recommendations to the speechwriters.

SPIEGEL: What did you suggest?

Mogahed: I suggested three main themes. One is to continue building on the theme of mutual respect. My recommendation was to recognize that Islam has made and makes a positive contribution to civilization. The second major theme was that of cooperation and the idea of equal partnership. A third theme that I referred to was empathy …

Empathy indeed. Towards whom?

#4: Mole Agent Category: Grover Norquist

What passed through my mind, as I reviewed matters pertaining to Grover Norquist’s strange career, was the bizarre mental conflict which must be inspired by dealing with reasonable, repectable, appealing, well spoken, well adjusted people who have been brought up under a utterly alien moral code. They may be morally ambitious, seeking to be the best they can be. As you are. They may have large hearts, full of concern for their community. As you do. Their attitudes toward tradition and morality may be the same as yours. But their tradition and morality may uphold values that are irrational, inhumane, even evil. What to do? What to think?

Most of us are taught to believe that religion is a good thing, that family matters, that one must respect tradition, that the laws of heaven supercede those of men — and you know what, you wouldn’t get a single word of argument from Osama bin Laden himself. But the law of nature’s god, or rather perhaps of God’s nature, are such that if you don’t look deeper than that, you lose, and you lose big-time.

Even the script writers on Star Trek were smart enough to figure out that the charming, attractive, cultivated aliens may hold values that are utterly and irreconcilably opposed to our own. We would want to think that our politicos are more insightful than California sci-fi writers but, Inshallah, such things are not destined to be.

It is, embarrassingly, relevant to mention here that Mr. Norquist’s wife is “Palestinian” — relevant insofar as it is extremely unlikely that Golden Boy Grover has not had to give some thought to the similarities and differences between Mohammedan values on the one hand, and biblical and specifically American values on the other. And one doubts very strongly that Mrs. Norquist is a Nonie Darwish/Hirsi Ali/Wafa Sultan style dissident from the Islamic approach to life and politics.

It is just a plain tough-nuts aspect of reality, that it is not good enough for people to have values and a strong conservative relation to those values — even a willingness to fight for them. Unfortunately we are all on the hook for having the right values. My estimate is that Mr. Norquist has for years been introducing people to American movers and shakers who have all the right relationships to all the wrong values — to our great detriment.

I simply must quote David Horowitz in this context, where he characterizes Norquist as:

… an individual who loves this country and would be the last person to wish it harm, and the first one would expect to defend it. I have known Grover Norquist for almost twenty years as a political ally. Long before I myself was cognizant of the Communist threat — indeed when I was part of one of those Fifth Column networks — Grover Norquist was mobilizing his countrymen to combat it. In the early 1980s, Grover was in the forefront of conservative efforts to get the Reagan Administration to support the liberation struggles of anti-Communists in Central America, Africa and Afghanistan

But Horowitz is largely known for his intellectual honesty and moral fortitude in publicly rejecting his own errors. Norquist, on the other hand:

On the basis of the evidence assembled here, it seems beyond dispute that Grover Norquist has formed alliances with prominent Islamic radicals who have ties to the Saudis and to Libya and to Palestine Islamic Jihad, and who are now under indictment by U.S. authorities. Equally troubling is that the arrests of these individuals and their exposure as agents of terrorism have not resulted in noticeable second thoughts on Grover’s part or any meaningful effort to dissociate himself from his unsavory friends.

He concludes by saying:

… there comes a point where loyalty to friends or to parties comes into conflict with loyalty to fundamental principles and ultimately to one’s country. Grover’s activities have reached that point. E.M. Forster, a weak-spirited liberal, once said that if he had to choose between betraying his country and his friends, he “hoped [he] would have the guts” to betray his country.

I won’t list out the complete revolting details of Norquist’s career. They can be found easily from the link at the top of the page and also here and here.

Suffice it to say that Norquist greatly promoted the American political career of Abdurahman Alamoudi, arrested for his dealings with Libya and sentenced to 23 years in the slammer. Alamoudi in turn, was also instrumental in introducing a network of jihaddist chaplains into the American military, including one James Yee, personally hired by Alamoudi and later arrested on espionage charges. Norquist was also a great promoter and supporter of Sami Al-Arian, arrested on a rainbow of criminal charges including conspiracy to murder. As a result of a hung jury, Al-Arian is at present merely under house arrest awaiting a decision (on contempt of court) in regard to his pending deportation. Beyond those accomplishments, Norquist smuggled a variety of Islamo-fascist operators into the Bush White House. And of course, he brings his sharia-friendly friends into conservative political gatherings, such as those for the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC).

In Norquist we have an anti-communist, small government, family friendly, low tax advocate — values he shares with Mohammedan supremacists — turned an importer for the rest of the Islamic package, sharia rule, Islamic supremacy and jihad. Perfect.

The plain fact is that Grover Norquist has been the most unrecognized, well placed and possibly the most effective Islamo-fascist mole in American popular politics in the last 10 years, and possibly ever. He has succeeded in penetrating not merely the porous and suceptible leftist Democratic party, but in smuggling jihaddist operatives into the, allegedly more hard headed Republican party. And he continues to this day, flogging jihaddist propaganda from within the bastions of American patriotism. And that with, so far, unimpeached credentials.

He puts the wacky Pauls in the shade.

Just to bring things up to date, his latest contribution to our nation’s well being and our resistance to the forces of sharia dominance, is to come out in favor of the Ground Zero Victory Commemoration Mosque.

Like everybody who either has or pretends to have a Little Bo Peep view of the murder encompassing spectrum of Mohammedan ideology, he frames it as a religious freedom issue. He told the LA Times:

As it relates to religious buildings in the vicinity of ground zero, it’s either all or nothing — churches, synagogues and mosques should be treated the same

Now before we take another step I have to ask, what is it with westerners who get involved with Mohammedans? It is as though they forget that a hefty portion of humanity believes in either Hinduism or Buddhism. And I have to underscore the absolutely-normal-for-Mohammedans and deeply offensive formulation of “churches, synagogues and mosques.” What happened to Hindu and Buddhist temples? What are they, chopped liver? I will also note in this context, that we don’t really hear a lot of NY Buddhists, Sikhs or Hindus agitating to have a temple at Ground Zero. Why is that do you think? But I digress.

He is also putting about the notion to conservatives, albeit through the odd channel of Time magazine, that the mosque issue is a loser for conservatives, even though some 60-70% of the country, democrats and republicans together, are offended and opposed to the idea.

The Republican Party is on track to win a major victory in November based on the issue that Democrats are spending the country blind, … There isn’t a single voter in the country that was planning on voting for the Ds, who says, ‘Oh, mosque issue, now I will vote for the Rs’

Is it D’s and R’s Mr. N? Some of us are more concerned about America, and the principles of freedom and equality before the law that America stands for — and which your sharia boosting buddies are deadly set against.

I fervently hope that American conservatives catch on. As they like to say down on Wall St., past performance is no guarantee of future returns.

It doesn’t take a crystal ball to figure out that the returns on Mr. Norquists current efforts are apt to be very very bad for America.

#3: Collaborator Category: The New York Times

When we consider the matter of the New York Times, we leave behind us the ink-stained trivialities of mere journalism and enter into the exciting world of intelligence services on behalf of America’s enemies. We reach beyond apologetics into the realm of operations.

Let us briefly revisit a couple of the glorious services they have rendered to the cause of the caliphate.

In 2006 the Times gleefully announced to the breathless appreciation of terrorists and jihaddists around the world that:

Under a secret Bush administration program initiated weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, counterterrorism officials have gained access to financial records from a vast international database and examined banking transactions involving thousands of Americans and others in the United States …

The program is limited, government officials say, to tracing transactions of people suspected of having ties to Al Qaeda by reviewing records from the nerve center of the global banking industry, a Belgian cooperative that routes about $6 trillion daily between banks, brokerages, stock exchanges and other institutions. The records mostly involve wire transfers and other methods of moving money overseas and into and out of the United States. …

… The program, however, is a significant departure from typical practice in how the government acquires Americans’ financial records. Treasury officials did not seek individual court-approved warrants or subpoenas to examine specific transactions, instead relying on broad administrative subpoenas for millions of records from the cooperative, known as Swift. …

Thus was the Swift surveillance program revealed to the world. And the helpful Times did not limit itself to generalities:

… Swift is a crucial gatekeeper, providing electronic instructions on how to transfer money among 7,800 financial institutions worldwide. The cooperative is owned by more than 2,200 organizations, and virtually every major commercial bank, as well as brokerage houses, fund managers and stock exchanges, uses its services. Swift routes more than 11 million transactions each day, most of them across borders. …

… The cooperative’s message traffic allows investigators, for example, to track money from the Saudi bank account of a suspected terrorist to a mosque in New York. …

… The data does not allow the government to track routine financial activity, like A.T.M. withdrawals, confined to this country, or to see bank balances, Treasury officials said. And the information is not provided in real time — Swift generally turns it over several weeks later. …

… Among the successes was the capture of a Qaeda operative, Riduan Isamuddin, better known as Hambali, believed to be the mastermind of the 2002 bombing of a Bali resort, several officials said. The Swift data identified a previously unknown figure in Southeast Asia who had financial dealings with a person suspected of being a member of Al Qaeda; that link helped locate Hambali in Thailand in 2003, they said. …

… The data also helped identify a Brooklyn man who was convicted on terrorism-related charges last year, the officials said. The man, Uzair Paracha, who worked at a New York import business, aided a Qaeda operative in Pakistan by agreeing to launder $200,000 through a Karachi bank, …

Now that”s nice specific actionable intelligence.

Contemporaneously, and continuously for years, the NYT has been a leader in the campaign to expose and shut down anti-jihaddist secret interrogation centers — the black sites affair. As you might imagine, their coverage has been extensive and detailed:

And needless to say, they haven’t restricted themselves to dry facts. Even their language has been consistently lurid:

… Why does the Bush administration keep forcing policies on the United States military that endanger Americans wearing the nation’s uniform – policies that the military does not want, that do not work and that violate standards upheld by the civilized world for decades?

When the Bush administration rewrote the rules for dealing with prisoners after 9/11, needlessly scrapping the Geneva Conventions and American law, …

Torture was a tool in the campaign to exploit 9/11 so that fearful Americans would support a war that had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. …

… From the secret sites in Afghanistan, Thailand and Eastern Europe where C.I.A. teams held Qaeda terrorists, questions for the lawyers at C.I.A. headquarters arrived daily. Nervous interrogators wanted to know: Are we breaking the laws against torture? …

And we mustn’t depart from our appreciation of the Times without at least a word of respect for that famous intelligence leak of 2005 “Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts” — the affair of the warrantless wiretaps.

Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.

Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible “dirty numbers” linked to Al Qaeda, the officials said. The agency, they said, still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications. …

And as we all recall, the Times, which had very nearly been hauled into court on criminal charges over this matter, suceeded by this deft stroke and the subsequent coverage, in forcing then president Bush to abandon the program — placing yet another obstacle in the way of the hated American spies. A true victory for the faithful forces of the caliphate.

But this is not to say that the Times has been remiss in the matter of arguing the case for their friends … and our enemies. Just to finish up by giving the newspaper due credit for spreading the Islamo-fascist message, I will just cherry-pick a few quotes from a randomly chosen article, the first to come up in Google for the terms “Israel Hamas” on NYTimes.com:

Israel’s deadly commando raid on a flotilla seeking to break the three-year Israeli embargo on Gaza has once again pushed the Islamist Palestinian movement Hamas into the forefront of Middle East politics. …

As the government of Israel comes under sustained international criticism over the killings of civilians in international waters, the ramifications may prove more wide-reaching, …

Israel insists the blockade is necessary to stop arms flowing to Hamas, but Palestinians and international human rights organizations condemn them as collective punishment of Gaza’s 1.5 million Palestinians. …

… Mr. Farrell and Prof. Milton-Edwards argue that although Hamas is chiefly notorious in the West for its shootings, suicide bombings and rocket attacks on Israel, the key to its political success is that it has also spent decades … creating an extensive social welfare network of orphanages, summer camps, mosques, medical facilities and charities. …

Hamas also has a reputation for honesty and integrity

Israel’s 40-year occupation of the Palestinian Territories and the continued expansion of Jewish settlements.

As its stock continues to plummet, and its credibility among reasonable Americans continues to evaporate, the NY Times continues to soldier on, committed above all else to the progressive/communist/progressive/liberal agenda, and the cause of America’s enemies.

Worst of all, the Times remains the paper of record for much of America’s elite. Its quality reporting, what remains of it, serves only as a lure, to lend the prestige of truth to its toxic propaganda.

#2: Runner Up: Michael Bloomberg

Michael Bloomberg can do as he damn well pleases with respect to the Ground Zero Victory Commemoration Mosque, and he knows it. And he shows it by his brassy and unbending defiance of the majority of NYC’s voting public. His pretences of ideological purity and obedience to abstract principle — in this case to freedom of religion and more specifically to property rights — are one of the most outrageous insults that the intelligence of the NYC public has ever been subjected to.

How deep is Bloomberg’s dedication to the principle of property rights? This summer he fined retail businesses which left their street doors open to tempt hot passers by to come in and shop. If my memory serves, some nonsense to do with ecology took precedence over business owners’ property rights. I think that’s a clue.

Bloomberg’s prattle about rights is intended largely as a rhetorical device to confuse and inhibit patriots who actually care about American principles. I strongly doubt that he actually understands or cares much about the concept. Although I think he finds that the posture suits his self image. At bottom, he believes that it’s his city and he’ll do as he likes with it.

And while we’re on the subject of things that Bloomberg doesn’t know or care about, what do you think he knows about Islam or jihad? What do you think he actually knows about the enemy or his doctine?

Just to keep this in perspective, Islam (meaning submission, the opposite of self-governance) considered as a whole, is a tangled hodge-podge of beliefs and doctrines ranging from the benign to the bloodthirsty. And its implementation in practice around the world is also a hodge-podge ranging from the homey to the downright horrifying. Worse yet, ALL of the major schools of Islamic thought, as taught in prestigious schools and preached in prestigious mosques, and ALL of the traditional authorities endorse, in one fashion or another, Islam’s more bloody doctrines.

There is no equivalent in Mohammedan society of a Quaker sect, or a group with an expugated, non-violent version of the Koran. And still worse, from an outsider’s point of view, there is no outward clue to differentiate between those Muslims that are committed to mayhem, and those that are not.

It is simple common sense that when confronted with a chaotic collection of stuff that has hidden deadly elements, you treat it like just that — a chaotic collection of stuff that has hidden deadly elements. The Mohammedan nations of the world themselves haven’t gotten this problem sorted out in any official and definitive way, and we sure as hell can’t do it for them. The best we can do is to try to learn from the defectors, and from scholars whose work actually makes sense in terms of observable reality — and exercise extreme caution. No way does Bloomberg have a single clue.

The denizens of NYC, by a margin of 60-40 have very reasonably, and hospitably said to the people who want the mosque, let’s avoid even the appearance of triumphalism, why don’t you build your mosque a little bit apart, in modest deference to the site of sins committed in your name. We’re willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, that your Islam is a benign Islam, and is the real Islam. Just for clarity’s sake, so there’s no confusion, let’s move it away a little bit from the bad guys’ Islam — to wit, the still empty crater where the Towers used to be, and thousands were murdered.

A kinder answer you couldn’t ask for. And a far kinder answer than I would make. But it’s not good enough for mental mightyman Mike. Brainiac Bloomberg is going to resolve the millenium old battle over what is the true Islam, and resolve the equally old battle between Mohammedans and whoever the local neighbors happen to be, and do it all with his piercing insight into the true meaning of the constitution … just like that.

In fact, the idiot’s actions make the jihaddis’ argument for them. His action says, just as the jihaddis advertise, that they are an irresistable force, that they must inevitably win, and that the world will ultimately bow to the will and law of Islam.

Mentor Mike’s sacharine verbal mush on the subject provides an amusing contrast with the words of the Muslim Brotherhood. Says mental mammoth Mike:

“The World Trade Center Site will forever hold a special place in our City, in our hearts. But we would be untrue to the best part of ourselves — and who we are as New Yorkers and Americans — if we said ‘no’ to a mosque in Lower Manhattan.

Let us not forget that Muslims were among those murdered on 9/11 and that our Muslim neighbors grieved with us as New Yorkers and as Americans. We would betray our values — and play into our enemies’ hands — if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else. In fact, to cave to popular sentiment would be to hand a victory to the terrorists

… as if jihaddists around the world would be smitten with admiration for our liberal principles and feel themselves shamed.

Says the Muslim Brotherhood:

The process of settlement is a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their own hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who chose to slack.

Um … who did our genius mayor say is playing into whose hands? For the jihaddi it’s all about the win. For Bloomberg and his liberal pals it’s all about what they see in the mirror. Who do you figure has better odds?

Bloomberg’s primary contribution to the jihaddists propaganda campaign is of course his action itself. But in terms of what he says, it is the notion that there is some higher principle involved, some duty incumbent on us, that takes priority over America’s proper self interest. There is not.

As I have said elsewhere (here and here) , experts in this field have argued, convincingly, that if the mosque goes up at Ground Zero, jihaddists around the world will claim it as a victory. And in fact several have argued just as convincingly that that is precisely Imam Rauf’s true goal. Simply put, that would be strongly against America’s interest. And that is all we need to take into account.

If moving the mosque causes some grumbling and dissatisfaction for a few people, that is of no account to anybody but themselves and their personal friends. And frankly, for the people involved in the mosque project to put their own preference ahead of America’s interest in that way, places them beyond consideration.

His second largest contribution is precisely to “play into the hands“, as he puts it, of the Muslim Brotherhood and their Alinsky-like playbook for America’s self destruction. Wherever the agents of sharia supremacy have found a way to use our own laws against our interests, it is incumbent on our officials to bend their every effort, to wrack their brains to find a way to foil those attacks.

To use our principles of freedom of religion and property rights against us in order to establish a jihaddist propaganda monument, is a signal victory for the Muslim Brotherhood approach to overthrowing America.

And brain-dead Bloomberg is walking us right into it.

#1: Grand Prize: Barack Hussein Obama

Barak Hussein Obama, Islamo-fascist Apologist-in-Chief.

Of course, in this connection the word apologist has a double meaning. He walks the great stage of the world making self-demeaning gestures and speeches on America’s behalf. And at the same time he makes every possible effort to plead the case for the failed Mohammedan cultures, flatter their baseless conceits, and promote their imperialist causes. He has no right to either.


I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.


I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.
— Obama in Cairo, June 04, 2009

Indeed.

Most of us expect that our presidents will be the first to rush to our defense, the first to deny and refute hostile ideologies, the first to assert our uniqueness among nations and to uphold the clear superiority of our way of thinking and our way of life – indeed of our nation. We expect our presidents to uphold the good name of America, of the western civilization from which we spring, and of the free world that stands with us. We expect our presidents to favor our friends and allies, and to deal coolly with our competitors and enemies. We expect that our presidents, by way of protecting our own freedom, honor freedom wherever it exists and stand for individual freedom and individual rights wherever in the world people stuggle for them.

There are Americans who, for a variety of reasons, feel obliged to give lip service to the notion that Obama is in some complicated, roundabout, obscure fashion striving toward those objectives. But I very strongly doubt that, after watching Obama in office for nearly two years, there are many left who privately believe it, even among his supporters.

He is clearly not for us. But who, or what is he for?

… I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and the fall of dusk … I have known Islam on three continents …

Has he indeed? Then we would naturally expect him to actually know something about the subject. We might expect him to have some familiarity with the stagnant poverty, the brutality and oppression of Mohammedan society; familiarity with the stifling atmosphere of intellectual conformity and passivity, the censorship and fear of the morality police. Perhaps he has no interest in us Americans, but at a minimum we might expect him to show some decent concern for the people among whom he lived his childhood.

But he shows no more interest in the well being of say, the average dissident Iranian than any leftist shows for an illiterate child living on welfare in impoverished, decrepit Detroit, i.e. none.

I suspect (he’ll never say) that he doesn’t actually know much about Islam as an ideology or political system. I expect that most of what he knows consists of childhood recollections, of memorizing meaningless Arabic recitations from the Koran in a distant Indonesian madrassa. Perhaps all he remembers is the meaningless Arabic. (Did you know that Islamic education consists of memorizing the Koran, without learning old Arabic?)

With Muslim-outreach this, Alliance-of-Civilizations that, America-is-a-Muslim-country the other, we know that Obama inclines toward the Islamic. But is he more of a leftist, or more of a caliphatist?

My take is that Obama is primarily a leftist. I suspect he has concocted a unique personal blend of communism, third world revanchism, new-left gobbledygook and Mohammedanism in the private confines of his unknowable mind. And my guess is that he, much like the idiot communists of the Iranian revolution against the Shah, imagines that he can ride the Mohammedan tiger, without getting bitten. You will remember that the communists made common cause with the Mohammedan orthodox in Khomeini’s revolution — figuring that they were using the Mohammedans — only to be the first to get killed when the Shah fell. (On a side note, it is terrifically ironic that in supporting a nuclear Iran he is completing the work Carter began by destroying the Shah.)

I think, one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. — Obama on WBEZ Radio, Chicago

I’m betting that for Obama, the Mohammedan cultures are one of the elements of “the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change“, due to their extraordinary community organizing power — and I actually am not kidding when I use that phrase — their oil wealth, large population and their hostility and envy toward the western powers.

All that said, Obama (PBUH) is in an absolutely unique position as the president of the United States. His every gesture and words are scrutinized and magnified 10,000-fold. His slightest gesture is gigantic, being the gesture of a nation. His slightest word is pregnant with import. Thus his least concessions to the Islamo-facist cause have enormous significance, not only in America and the capitals of the Mohammedan nations, but also in Europe, Moscow, New Delhi and Beijing — not to mention the hill camps, hideouts and meeting halls of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Hamas, Hezbolla, the Muslim Brotherhood, MILF, Jemaah Islamiyah, Hizb ut Tahrir and a host of others.

So what is he doing to advance the credibility of his bismillah buddies? Pretty much everything I can imagine, and then some.


Let’s begin with the most obvious thing which he is not saying … or doing anything about for that matter.

There are wars, hot shooting wars, low level skirmishing wars, back alley gang wars and creepy gotcha! assassin wars all over the globe, in which Mohammedans are the aggressors. Israel, Kashmir, Sudan, Nigeria, Thailand, Indonesia, France, Sweden, Chechnya, Lebanon and more. And do I need to mention downtown New York !?!? Yet nowhere in Obama’s (PBUH) words or actions can one detect even the faintest trace of accusation or resistance to aggression.

Nor is there the faintest hint that there might be anything in Mohammedan ideology itself, that might have anything to do with the fact that all of these wars are conducted by people who are solidly convinced, and loudly advertise the fact, that they are acting in strict accordance with the dictates of Islam — to wit, that Islam is the common denominator, and there just might be an issue there.

Now, coming from an ordinary dumb kaffir, someone who had never heard the poetic “call of the azaan at the break of dawn and the fall of dusk“, one might be more dismissive. And surely the Mohammedan observer might be more dismissive, and read less meaning into it. But coming from someone who claims to be initiated, indeed related, this is, in the flowery language of Joe Biden, a big effing deal. It’s a get-out-of-jail-free card. The Mohammedan supremacists must be thinking, “he knows and he’s letting us slide!

Let’s consider Turkey for a moment. Turkey was one of his first stops and one of his first overseas speeches immediately after his election and well before Cairo. In Turkey he pronounced:

… The United States strongly supports Turkey’s bid to become a member of the European Union. …

… History is often tragic, but unresolved, … I know there’s strong views in this chamber about the terrible events of 1915. … the best way forward for the Turkish and Armenian people is a process that works through the past in a way that is honest, open and constructive …

… a just and lasting settlement that reunifies Cyprus into a bizonal and bicommunal federation …

… we share the goal of a lasting peace between Israel and its neighbors. Let me be clear: The United States strongly supports the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine …

… Both Israelis and Palestinians, both must live up to the commitments they have made. Both must overcome longstanding passions …

… The United States and Turkey can help the Palestinians and Israelis make this journey. Like the United States, Turkey has been a friend and partner in Israel’s quest for security. And like the United States, you seek a future of opportunity and statehood for the Palestinians. …

… I have made it clear to the people and leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran that the United States seeks engagement based on mutual interest and mutual respect. We want Iran to play its rightful role in the community of nations. Iran is a great civilization. …

… Iraq, Turkey, and the United States face a common threat from terrorism. That includes the al Qaeda terrorists who have sought to drive Iraqis apart and destroy their country. That includes the PKK …

… I know that the trust that binds the United States and Turkey has been strained, and I know that strain is shared in many places where the Muslim faith is practiced. So let me say this as clearly as I can: The United States is not, and will never be, at war with Islam. …

… I also want to be clear that America’s relationship with the Muslim community, the Muslim world, cannot, and will not, just be based upon opposition to terrorism. We seek broader engagement based on mutual interest and mutual respect. We will listen carefully, … We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world …

Obama — Ankara, April 6, 2009

Let’s see:

And which way has Turkey moved since Obama (PBUH) spoke these glowing golden words of blamelessness and moral equivalence? Well first, Turkey has proceeded cheerfully along the path to sharia takeover, and second, it has become involved in the assault on Israel … on the side of Hamas of course — which is something rather new for the Turks.

Now, he’s been speechifying on these subjects, and employing similar rhetoric around the world. Is it just me, or has there been, in general, globally speaking, no diminution of Muslim aggression? Could one say, in light of Iran’s incipient nuclear attack capacity, and a noticable spike in terrorist attacks on the American mainland, that Mohammedan aggression is on the rise?


As he announced in Turkey, he regards the regime in Tehran as a normal government with a legitimate claim to sovereignty.

I would be unforgivably remiss, if I did not mention Obama’s (PBUH) heartless refusal to lend the slightest moral support to the people of Iran when they last attempted to throw off the government of the mullahs.

His refusal was doubly evil. In addition to abandoning ordinary people struggling for freedom, or at least for some relief from gross tyranny, it was effectively the same as giving his explicit, specific endorsement to the mullahs and their regime. It was an announcement to the world that Islamic theocracy is AOK with the USA.

Of course this had a poliitical dimension, telling our enemies not to fear us and our friends not to trust us. But over and above that it had a moral dimension as well. It was to give moral sanction to evil.

A more blatant example of making the case for those that promote the goal of Islamic theocracy as a global ideal can hardly be imagined.


How about what he has been doing here at home?

It’s a tough call, but I would say that, among his domestic shenanigans, the single most important contribution that Obama (PBUH) has made to the jihad and jihaddist propaganda, is his banning of descriptive vocabulary in all government discussions of jihad or the resistance to the jihad. He wishes to remove all references to anything Islamic, from discussions of what our enemies understand, describe and successfully promote as definitively Islamic.

Now just to be done with that idea as briefly as possible, the governing elites of the world have decided that if they pretend, in front of Western news cameras and international gatherings, that the jihaddists have nothing to do with Islam, that potential jihad supporters and recruits will lose interest in the jihaddists and their cause. It’s entirely possible that politicos outside the Mohammedan cultures actually believe that. And the governing classes of the Mohammedan cultures have decided to at least act as though they believe it too — and who knows, maybe some of them might.

However, it is in the nature of the beast that the jihaddists, and their potential supporters and recruits do not believe in or respect the west, the western media, the western world view, the governing elites of the west, or the governing elites of their own nations. They do respect a LARGE and prestigious population of preachers who are absolutely dead, stoned to the bone convinced, that jihad is a duty incumbent on the believer — not an option, not a suggestion, not a good political choice, but a moral duty. And those preachers are not being clearly, definitively and convincingly refuted by the authorities at the main centers of Islamic study. Nor are they, in countries where free speech is unheard of, and an Un-Islamic word sends you straight to jail, being arrested.

The absolutely, puppies and sunshine, best thing that one can say about that idea is that it is completely disconnected wishful thinking. And the reality is quite dark. Many, if not most of the Mohammedan participants to this charade know it to be a lie. But as a consequence of their cultural background, they are accustomed to entertaining contradictory ideas, and are not troubled by the duplicity.

The effect of this maneuver is to deflect attention from reality, and thus scatter and diffuse, indeed defuse the energy and focus of resistance. A signal service on behalf of the forces of sharia.


We should not neglect to consider at least one other great contribution that Obama (PBUH) has made toward pleading the case for the Islamo-fascists. That is to lend the prestige of his office to a collection of supremacist organizations and individuals, at home and abroad, through his policy of engagement.

We will all recall how well America did by our policy of engagement with Soviet Russia, which got a long succession of American corporations burned — and how well we are profiting from our policy of engagement with China, which looks to displace the dollar with the yuan as the world’s central currency. What delights have we to look forward to from this new “engagement“, which promises to import sharia deep into our society?

In terms of the outside world, Obama (PBUH) is involving America in international associations of a distinctly Islamo-fascist-friendly flavor. One example is the Alliance of Civilizations which Obama (PBUH) joined on our behalf this year.

Here is a sample of AoC’s attitudes toward freedom from the mouth of U.N. High Representative for the Alliance of Civilizations (and mighty Poo-Bah) Jorge Sampaio:

There is a balance to be found between freedom of expression and respect for religion and for religious feelings and principles.

Oh brother! Tell me I don’t need to explain that. Here’s the AoC on Israel:

the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, [began] a chain of events that continues to be one of the most tortuous in relations between Western and Muslim societies. Israel’s continuing occupation of Palestinian and other Arab territories … are primary causes of resentment and anger in the Muslim world toward Western nations. This occupation has been perceived in the Muslim world as a form of colonialism and has led many to believe, rightly or wrongly, that Israel is in collusion with “the West”.

Yeah. That’s a club we need to belong to. And by joining it Obama (PBUH) gives them, and their pronouncements, his blessing.

On the domestic side Obama (PBUH) is involving the government and its agencies in relations with a variety of individuals and organizations of a decidedly Islamo-fascist bent. One notable example is Ingrid Mattson of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), which is in turn a friendly affiliate of the the Muslim Brotherhood.

Another is the Leadership Group on U.S.-Muslim Engagement, a virtual rogues gallery of leftists, Islamo-fascists and fellow travelers including the brilliant Dalia Mogahed, who we met earlier, and what would you know, Daisy Khan and Imam Rauf of the NYC 9/11 Victory Commemoration Mosque.

Their mission statement, as you might expect, is about as clear as mud, consisting entirely of government nicey-nice. But among their goals they list:

… bringing together educational leaders from the U.S. and Muslim-majority countries to identify top priorities for cross-societal education …

How likely is it, do you think, that “cross-societal education” means promoting the ideals of personal liberty, equality before the law and independence of thought among young Mohammedans? … ? … ? … ? … Me neither.

What we are likely to see, is a continuous and widespread whitewashing of the deficiencies and dangers of Mohammedan culture, ideology and law, with a thick slippery layer of sweet meaningless folk culture and kumbayah — but with a distinctly anti-western pro-Islamic slant.

And that in turn will cripple our ability to fight.

DIMITTIS PULLOS SUB CUSTODIA VULPIS

In the election of Obama we have certainly set the fox to guard the henhouse. He stands in the tradition of Woodrow Wilson, FDR and that malign intellectual pigmy Jimmy Carter — who bequeathed to us the monstrosity of modern Iran — as an enemy of all that is best in America, and all that has contributed to our success, our well being and our power in the world. And he might, in the extraordinary degree of his foreign sympathies, surpass them all.

The damage Obama is doing to our defense against Islamo-fascism may be less apparent than the damage that he is doing to the economy, as it doesn’t show up in your weekly paycheck or expenses. But you can bet your bottom dollar — which you may be reaching soon — that the damage is every bit as deep and just as deadly. Either could bring the end of the American age.

Id like to end this on a joke but I simply can’t. It’s too grim.

We are at a cross roads, and we have already started down the wrong path.


Certainly it is possible for America to prevail, despite opposition, indeed enmity from the top. America is the birthplace of the revolution for individual rights and individual freedom. It is deeply woven into the fabric of our culture. And we are not done yet.

But it will not be possible if we are overconfident, if we imagine the victory is guaranteed.

Obama represents not only Islamic totalitarianism — against which the world has struggled for more than a millenium — but also the more modern but just as deadly communist totalitarianism. And this had better remind us that America has still not recovered fully from the encounter with communism. We struggle with the aftereffects to this day, in our schools, our laws, in our entire political life.

While we may claim to have won the geopolitical and military battle with the communists, we cannot claim a clear win in the ideological battle against communism within America’s borders. And we had better take this as a warning about the costs and difficulty of ideological battle.

We must understand what we are up against. We must be sure of our own minds. So don’t take it from me. Look into it yourself and satisfy your own requirements for certainty.

Believe your eyes and heed your conscience. Act.

Be Sociable, Share!