Saturday, November 24, 2007

Rape, murder, arson...and rape


Sure, it's all very funny until somebody gets hurt.

Aww, shucks--this here's funnier'n hell no matter what you think about rape, murder, arson...and rape.

Because it's a classic scene from a Mel Brooks movie. Maybe in 50 or 100 years when Islam is as eradicated as polio someone will make a movie sending up Muslim slavery, murder and rape but there's been nothing amusing about it the previous 14 centuries and nothing amusing now.


Islam, Slavery and Rape

By Jamie Glazov

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

FP: Bill Warner, welcome back to Frontpage Magazine. This is the second part in our two-part series with you on the Center’s most recent book. In the first part we discussed Islam and its doctrine on the submission of women. In this second and final part we will discuss the matter of slavery. Welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Warner: It is a pleasure to work with Frontpage.

FP: So tell us in general where Islam stands on slavery.

Warner: Islam’s stand on slavery is based on its political principles of submission and duality. The principle of submission could not be clearer. By definition a slave is the most submissive of all people. You become a slave only when you have no more choices. A slave has completely submitted to a master.

The principle of duality is shown by the fact that Islam does not enslave Muslims, only kafirs (non-Muslims). Since only kafirs are enslaved, it assures that more of the world submits to Islam.

Islamic slavery is based on the Trilogy of the Koran, the Sira (Mohammed’s life) and the Hadith (the Traditions of Mohammed). All three texts say that slavery is permitted, ethical, desirable and a virtue. There is not one single negative word about slavery.

Slavery is seen as a process that brings kafirs to Islam. It is a virtue to free slaves, but Mohammed only freed slaves who submitted to Islam. If the kafir slave does not submit, then their children will. So given enough time, slaves convert to Islam. That is one of the reasons that Islam sees slavery as a positive.

Of course, there is another reason that Islam sees slavery as being so "good" and that is the money. Mohammed and the other jihadists made a fortune out of enslaving kafirs. Mohammed used the money for more jihad. So slavery financed the spread of Islam and jihad from the beginning.


FP: Can you talk a bit about Islam and sexual slavery?

Warner: All morality in Islam is patterned after the example of Mohammed. Everything that he did and said defines what is permitted or “good”. Mohammed repeatedly sanctioned forced sex (rape) with kafir females after they were captured. The Hadith clearly reports that he got first choice of the women. In one case, he repeatedly demanded one particular woman for himself and swapped two other kafir slave women for his choice. So if Mohammed was involved in the rape of kafirs, then rape is a virtue, not a sin or error.

When Mohammed destroyed the B. Qurayza tribe, all of the adult male Jews were beheaded, so that no husbands were left. Mohammed then took the children and gave them to Muslims to raise as Muslims and he sold off the Jewish women as slaves.

We know from another story that the women were divided into sex slaves and domestic slaves. In one scene, a jihadist is trying to obtain a high ransom for a woman and he is told that her breasts are flat and her mouth is cold, so her value was less. In short, she was only good for work around the house, not in the bedroom.


When Mohammed attacked the Jews at Khaybar, many moral precedents were set. Sexual slavery received an entire set of rules. Muslims were not to rape pregnant or menstruating women until they had delivered the child or finished their periods. At Khaybar, Mohammed’s god Allah, announced that even married women were fair game for rape.

Mohammed only killed some of the Jews at Khaybar. The male and female survivors were needed to work the land as dhimmis. (The original dhimmis were semi-slaves with no civil rights. Today, dhimmis are ignorant kafirs who apologize for Islam.) Since Islam needed the men to work, husbands were left alive. That was the reason that the Koran said that in this case, even with the husbands looking on, it was good to rape the women.


FP: This institution of Islamic sexual slavery isn’t just a reality of the past is it?

Warner: Everything that has been said up to now is not only history; it is Sunna (the example of the perfect pattern of action and morality found in Mohammed). So today we don't have a beautiful blonde Christian girl* on the block in Mecca, but we have continuous and ongoing rapes by Muslims in kafir cities. This goes on everywhere that Islam goes because it is Sunna.

This is a continuous 1400-year history of jihad. In every detailed history that comes from the original documents from history, rape is a constant. You have to look in the original documents, since our historians refuse to report it in so-called history books.

Rape is Sunna. Rape is not a sin. Rape is permitted and encouraged by Mohammed and the Koran. Islam is the only political system in the world that includes rules for rape and war. Rape is jihad. How good can it get? A Muslim gets to rape a kafir girl and get heaven credits. All jihad is a ticket to Paradise.

The most disgusting aspect of the Islamic rape of kafirs is not the rapes, but the kafir response. Kafirs become dhimmis by ignoring the rapes. I challenge you to find one, even one, mention of Islamic rape in the history books.

Islamic rape is more taboo than the N-word in the media. At least the N-word is acknowledged to exist. Even unicorns exist in media fantasy. But Islamic rape is forbidden to even exist as a fantasy.


One thing whites and blacks have in common is that their ancestors were enslaved by Islam, and both are too ignorant to know it. Blacks and whites have a secret shame buried under the denial of being slaves inside Islam.

But the rest of the media and intellectuals line up as dhimmis, too. One of the marks of a dhimmi under the fourth caliph, Umar, was that a dhimmi was forbidden to study the Koran. The chief mark of dhimmitude today is ignorance of the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith. The ignorance of kafir intellectuals about Islam is profound.

They don't know about how jihad killed the 120,000,000 Africans, the 60,000,000 Christians, the 80,000,000 Hindus or the 10,000,000 Buddhists. Our intellectuals do not know about the Tears of Jihad (detailed in all of our books). That is a lot of death and ignorance—270,000,000 dead. Our intellectuals don't know, don't care and don't bother. They deny.

University Islamic studies never mention the Islamic political doctrine. The media discusses Islam in terms of political correctness, and multiculturalism. History courses don’t teach about the civilizational annihilation due to jihad. Religious leaders placate imams in public gatherings and have no knowledge what the imam actually thinks of them. Political thinkers do not even know Islam as a political force

The problem with this ignorance is that our intellectuals are unable to help us. They do not understand that Islam is a civilization based upon the ideal of dualism. Islamic ethics and politics have one set of rules for Muslims and another for kafirs. Our civilization is based upon the ideal of unitary ethics, the Golden Rule. We do not have two sets of laws and ethics, like Islam. Our intellectuals cannot explain what dualism has meant in the past or what it will mean for our future—civilizational annihilation.


Report: Bomb That Killed 170 in Pakistan Was Strapped to a 1-Year-Old Child

Saudi defends verdict [200 lashes] against gang-rape victim

Iraqi school guard and wife beheaded as children watch

Reuters: Blasts in three Indian cities kill 10

And just from today at Atlas Shrugs

Now my red-blooded comrades--if this is not deserving of our sacrifice, nothing God has created is.

*In the past? Maybe not so much

Friday, November 23, 2007


Meet the women who won't have babies - because they're not eco friendly

Last updated at 22:05pm on 21st November 2007

Had Toni Vernelli gone ahead with her pregnancy ten years ago, she would know at first hand what it is like to cradle her own baby, to have a pair of innocent eyes gazing up at her with unconditional love, to feel a little hand slipping into hers - and a voice calling her Mummy.
But the very thought makes her shudder with horror.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Because when Toni terminated her pregnancy, she did so in the firm belief she was helping to save the planet.

Incredibly, so determined was she that the terrible "mistake" of pregnancy should never happen again, that she begged the doctor who performed the abortion to sterilise her at the same time.

He refused, but Toni - who works for an environmental charity - "relentlessly hunted down a doctor who would perform the irreversible surgery.

Finally, eight years ago, Toni got her way.

At the age of 27 this young woman at the height of her reproductive years was sterilised to "protect the planet".

Incredibly, instead of mourning the loss of a family that never was, her boyfriend (now husband) presented her with a congratulations card.
So selfless. /sarc

Wait--there's an upside. She's removed herself from the gene pool.

Steyn weighs in:
Not with a bang but a whimper [Mark Steyn]
By the way, regarding that English lady who sterilized herself to save the planet, I wouldn't mind betting that voluntary, environmentally responsible, civilizational self-extinction catches on big time as the logical end-point of western progressivism. Even a smart guy like Lord May, (one of Australia's most eminent scientists, former advisor to the British Government, etc), finds the fall in global fertility encouraging without appreciating that this trend is not evenly distributed, and that it's precisely those groups that profess to care most about the environment - Western Europeans, Canadians, Vermonters, San Franciscans - that are self-liquidating the fastest. If you've ever seen the trash in small Yemeni villages or even in Bedouin encampments, the environment doesn't seem to be a big priority. But they'll be the ones left to man the Greenpeace offices.

Home town Heroes

I have an elderly neighbor with type one diabetes that I check up on frequently as his wife is in a rehab facility for a nasty fall she took earlier this year. I looked in on him upon returning from my family's Thanksgiving celebration and instantly saw that his blood sugar was far too low. I tried to get him to drink some apple juice but he wouldn't respond to my cajoling. It was time to call 911.

In minutes the EMS were at his home and within an hour he was sorted out and OK.

Thanksgiving night. Local heroes. Sacrifice in the home town.


Monday, November 19, 2007

Blondes maik me stoopid

By Laura Clout | Nov 19, 2007 |

Blonde women really do make men lose their heads, according to scientists. Tests showed that men performed worse after they were shown pictures of fair-haired women, most likely because they believed they were dealing with someone less.../continued on Telegraph (U.K.)/
Performed worse at what, exactly?

I have personal experience. In my late 20's I was smitten upon walking into a venue I was scoping for a gig, and there, across the proverbial 'crowded room' stood a 5'11' blonde that could have easily stepped off the cover of Cosmo. And she was staring at moi.

And she was crazy.

I don't want to go too far past the land of PG13 so I'll just have to express this in a way that a lot of men will understand--crazy monkey sex is even better when the female partner is off her nut.

Then she dug in. For 2 1/2 years. Until she burned my brand new sectional with a dropped cigaret in a drunken stupor. I took her to the hospital at 0400 and called her mother to take over. I was done--the fork was stuck in me.

Then the calls started. 20, 30 a day. For about three months then they stopped.

Last I heard she married a pharmacist in Georgia. With her proclivity for pills and drink I wonder if either survived.

Name initials may influence grades: study

Fri Nov 16, 11:44 AM ET

NEW YORK (Reuters Life!) - Certain initials may look better than others as monograms but they can also have an impact on how well a person performs in a sport or at school, according to a new study.

Researchers who studied the impact of initials found that baseballs players whose first or last name starts with the letter K, which signifies a strikeout, tended to strike out more often than other players.

And students whose names start with the letters C or D, which denote mediocre marks in some grading systems, did not perform as well as other pupils with different initials.
That it! I'm changing my childrens' surname to Aaherne.
From The Sunday Times
November 18, 2007

UN unveils full danger of climate change

Jonathan Leake, Science Editor

SCIENTISTS leading global research into climate change have set out a stark vision of how the world will change if humanity fails to tackle surging greenhouse gas emissions.

A report issued yesterday by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) described how a warming world would threaten billions of people with thirst and malnutrition, endanger more than half of wildlife species with extinction and initiate a melting of the Greenland ice cap that could raise global sea levels by more than 22ft.

Such warnings have been heard before but never with so much scientific certainty. The IPCC’s report was based on 29,000 observations taken around the world and published in more than 500 peer-reviewed scientific papers.

Yesterday, Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general, who unveiled the report in Valencia, Spain, said: “All humanity must now assume responsibility for climate change.”
Natter, natter. Goes on to say the oceans are becoming too acidic.

The earth has a fever and now the oceans have heartburn.

I can fix all this, you know.

Aspirin and Alka Seltzer.

And boot the UN and its worthless science.


The following are ideas simply condensed from longer articles.

From Suzanne Fields in The Politics of Irrational Ideology
Monday, November 19, 2007

For many humans, however, the interplay of good and evil isn't as clear as it could be and is often clouded by an intellectual arrogance that keeps otherwise intelligent men and women from seeing what's right in front of their eyes. This was certainly true for the fellow travelers among us during the Stalin years. No matter how many men and women were tortured into false confessions behind the Iron Curtain, no matter how many men and women simply disappeared from life and history, Marxist apologists dismissed the brutality as an aberration, and besides, it was still preferable to bourgeois individualism. Similar irrational defenses are made on behalf of the Islamists in the Middle East who brutalize women, plot the obliteration of Israel and who deprive their own people of the freedoms of speech and movement.


In modern times, such blindness proliferates among so-called intellectuals who insist on blaming America first and George W. Bush foremost for everything that goes wrong in Afghanistan and Iraq. Hating the president is as old as the presidency itself, possibly excepting the first one. Blamemongering is particularly virulent today, often preventing rational discussion. "Bush hatred compels its progressive victims -- who pride themselves on their sophistication and sensitivity to nuance -- to reduce complicated events and multilayered issues to simple matters of good and evil," writes Peter Berkowitz, professor at George Mason University School of Law, in the Wall Street Journal. "Like all hatred in politics, Bush-hatred blinds to the other sides of the argument, and constrains the hater to see a monster instead of a political opponent."
And from Timothy Birdnow
Liberals are using the concept of Anthropogenic Global Warming to advance their favorite causes, and that the whole War of the Worlds AGW scare is a tool to that end. This piece in certainly buttresses that opinion.

The Left has traditionally hated Americans eating red meat and driving their cars, and now we are told that, in order to ``save the planet`` we should eschew both! This from the article:

In a little-noticed scientific paper in 2005, Paul Higgins, a scientist and policy fellow with the American Meteorological Society, calculated specific savings from adopting federal government recommendations for half an hour a day of exercise instead of driving.

The average person walking half an hour a day would lose about 13 pounds a year. And if everyone did that instead of driving the same distance, the nation would burn a total of 10.5 trillion calories, according to the scientist, formerly with the University of California at Berkeley. At the same time, that would cut carbon dioxide emissions by about the same amount New Mexico produces, he said.

"The real bang for the buck in reducing greenhouse gas emissions was from the avoided health expenses of a sedentary lifestyle,'' said Higgins.

But it's not just getting out of the car that's needed, said Dr. Robert Lawrence of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. A diet shift away from heavy meat consumption would also go far, he said, because it takes much more energy and land to produce meat than fruits, vegetables and grains.

Recent studies support that argument. Last year the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization reported that the meat sector of the global economy is responsible for 18 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. Much of that is indirect, including the fertilizer needed to grow massive amounts of feed for livestock, energy use in the whole growing process, methane released from fertilizer and animal manure, and transportation of the cattle and meat products.

So, America`s general lifestyle is to blame for Global Warming-not just our use of fossil fuels, but the way we eat and how we choose to live our lives. Changing our lifestyle seems to be a primary goal:

As for fighting obesity and global warming by walking and cycling, don't expect people to do it easily, said Kristie Ebi. She's a Virginia public health consultant and one of the lead authors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report.

Now, why did the IPCC need a public health consultant, and why was she one of the "leading authors" of the IPCC? Does it not seem obvious that transforming our way of life is the critical point of all this? Can any informed person continue to doubt that this issue is primarily a political power grab?

Sunday, November 18, 2007

Rowan Atkinson LIVE

Lessons on dating for young men

What the French, Germans and atheists may expect

Rowan Atkinson rocks.


I'm usually too busy trying to find the tidbits on the net that are interesting enough to wish to pass on. Every now and again I'll write about a personal experience. And mostly I'm too distracted to spend hours learning a new skill set that I won't probably use much--but today was to finally be the day.

On a very early post at RR I revealed that I had been a musician in my previous career and some folks asked a few questions. It's now my pleasure to introduce you to some of that work (after navigating IMovie HD and much reformatting.

As you will see, I'm not much of a photog--perhaps we should all be grateful that I don't attempt video. But the music--well, that's my arrangement for jazz orchestra, it's me singing and at the piano.

Let me know if you like and I'll post some more.

Performance art

Michael Israel in New York

Saturday, November 17, 2007

You don't say

Shattering Conventional Wisdom About Saddam's WMD's

By John Loftus | Friday, November 16, 2007

Finally, there are some definitive answers to the mystery of the missing WMD. Civilian volunteers, mostly retired intelligence officers belonging to the non-partisan, have been poring over the secret archives captured from Saddam Hussein. The inescapable conclusion is this: Saddam really did have WMD after all, but not in the way the Bush administration believed. A 9,000 word research paper with citations to each captured document has been posted online at, along with translations of the captured Iraqi documents, courtesy of Mr. Ryan Mauro and his friends.

This Iraqi document research has been supplemented with satellite photographs and dozens of interviews, among them David Gaubatz who risked radiation exposure to locate Saddam’s underwater WMD warehouses , and John Shaw, whose brilliant detective work solved the puzzle of where the WMD went. Both have contributed substantially to solving one of the most difficult mysteries of our decade.

The absolutists on either side of the WMD debate will be more than a bit chagrinned at these disclosures. The documents show a much more complex history than previously suspected. The "Bush lied, people died" chorus has insisted that Saddam had no WMD whatsoever after 1991 - and thus that WMD was no good reason for the war. The Neocon diehards insist that, as in Raiders of the Lost Ark, the treasure-trove is still out there somewhere, buried under the sand dunes of Iraq. Each side is more than a little bit wrong about Saddam's WMD, and each side is only a little bit right about what happened to it.

The gist of the new evidence is this: roughly one quarter of Saddam's WMD was destroyed under UN pressure during the early to mid 1990's. Saddam sold approximately another quarter of his weapons stockpile to his Arab neighbors during the mid to late 1990's. The Russians insisted on removing another quarter in the last few months before the war. The last remaining WMD, the contents of Saddam's nuclear weapons labs, were still inside Iraq on the day when the coalition forces arrived in 2003. His nuclear weapons equipment was hidden in enormous underwater warehouses beneath the Euphrates River. Saddam’s entire nuclear inventory was later stolen from these warehouses right out from under the Americans’ noses. The theft of the unguarded Iraqi nuclear stockpile is perhaps, the worst scandal of the war, suggesting a level of extreme incompetence and gross dereliction of duty that makes the Hurricane Katrina debacle look like a model of efficiency.

Without pointing fingers at the Americans, the Israeli government now believes that Saddam Hussein’s nuclear stockpiles have ended up in weapons dumps in Syria. Debkafile, a somewhat reliable private Israeli intelligence service, has recently published a report claiming that the Syrians were importing North Korean plutonium to be mixed with Saddam’s enriched uranium. Allegedly, the Syrians were close to completing a warhead factory next to Saddam’s WMD dump in Deir al Zour, Syria to produce hundreds, if not thousands, of super toxic “dirty bombs” that would pollute wherever they landed in Israel for the next several thousands of years. Debka alleged that it was this combination factory/WMD dump site which was the target of the recent Israeli air strike in Deir al Zour province..
Read the rest here.

Friday, November 16, 2007


There have now been over 10,000 Islamist terrorist attacks since September 11, 2001 according to web site Religion of

Most in the West have little understanding that this 'problem' has been ongoing--waxing and waning--for almost 1400 years.

The confusion stems from our understanding of morality. Even atheists in our Western cultures generally agree to certain norms of behavior and we expect that all other cultures share these norms. We expect these 'facts' at our own peril.

There are divine truths and wicked truths. The wicked truth referred to here is that many adherents of Islam do not recognize the basic humanity of those that don't practice their worldview--and that includes many Muslims as well as non-Muslims.

Slavery still exists primarily in Muslim regions. There was a time--until the West stood up to it--that Europeans and the nascent Americans were enslaved or ransomed. One of our greatest stood up and said, "No more."

Thursday, November 15, 2007


Usually I find no pleasure in watching addled and drooling persons go off the deep end.


This requires a little backstory. Over the last several months Bernie from Planck's Constant has followed the story of Judge Roy Pearson and the $54 million civil suit against a family run dry cleaners in Washington. When I came across a reference that Pearson had been removed from the bench I checked Bernie's blog to see if he had the story. He didn't but I figured he'd want to know the outcome so I emailed the link to him.

He didn't let me down and posted this.

Now living in the general environs of The District I was surprised that this little item was not more or less in my face--I had to dig a bit for it. So when I saw that Bernie had blogged the story I commented this:
I'm most surprised that this news seemed somewhat buried.
turn | Homepage | 11.14.07 - 5:50 pm |

That was the first comment on the thread.

Now the hilarity begins. Comment #2:
Buried? Are you joking? Are you saying that America has never carried out an unprovoked attack on any other sovereign nation? Do you know that people in Laos still die from unexploded land mines littered all over the country side?

And I'm sorry but hasn't the whole world now agreed that there was absolutely no evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq prior to the war?

That war cost Tony Blair his credibility and his job.

It is also common knowledge that the USA sold weapons to Saddam in the eighties to aid in his war against Iran as well as giving weapons and TRAINING the Taliban in their fight against the Russians.

Your president lied to you. He LIED so he could wage an unjust and, in the eyes of the United Nations, an illegal war over a country that was no threat to the USA whatsoever.

I cannot believe that, with the access we have to information these days, you people are still so blind to the truth.

I guess we only see what we want to see. If it makes you feel safe to believe that the USA can do no wrong then so be it and nothing, not even the cold hard facts will change your mind but if you really want to discover the truth I suggest you stop watching Fox 'news ' and open your eyes and minds to news from more impartial and reliable sources.

Believe me America looks very different from the point of view of the rest of the world.
Ruby | 11.14.07 - 8:58 pm | #
And it just keeps getting better.
Oh please! Some disgruntled has-been makes a shameless grab for fame with NO PROOF to back up his claims and I am supposed to feel stupid?

Ooh they lost it, they lost it! Yeah, and my dog ate my homework Miss.

Hans Blix, the weapons inspector was in Australia recently and on national radio he said that the inspection team found absolutely no proof of WMD's and they were searching round the clock.

And no he didn't make these statements on an obscure left-wing station but on a nation-wide youth music station funded by the Australian Govt (which you may recall blindly followed your country into that disaster zone) and which would thus have nothing to gain personally/politically from his statements.

As for the Spectator, isn't that owned by the guys who own the Daily Telegraph? Hardly the most impartial and credible newspaper in the England.

Surely you can do better than that.

Sorry mate, my position still stands and as for me picking the wrong side, last time I checked most Americans now oppose the war in Iraq.

And why do you have to insult me personally? Are you that frustrated by your lack of credibility that you have to try to humiliate me?
Ruby | 11.14.07 - 11:34 pm | #


I don't even know where to start. American restraint? Did America show restraint on Sept 11 1973 when it backed that coup in Chile that deposed the democratically elected leader Salvador Allende and instilled the truly terrifying and murderous tyrant Augusto Pinochet in his place?

What about the recent events in Venezuela when the US government gave money to the organisers of the coup who deposed and imprisoned the democratically elected leader Chavez only to have egg on their face when the people of Venezuela revolted, marched on the streets and demanded the return of their rightful leader.
Now that is true democracy.

And we could argue about this until the end of time but I really can't be bothered anymore. I don't wish America or Americans any harm, I simply wish that people would wake up and realise that there is no clear cut right and wrong here.

Powerful men become powerful by oppressing others and that is true no matter what country or religion they belong to.

And why do we owe our gratitude to America? You would think you were the only country involved in the wars you mentioned above. I am not saying that every single thing that America does is wrong but by the same token, not everything that America does is right either.

America didn't invent democracy, but it sure has tried to own it.
Ruby | 11.14.07 - 11:59 pm | #
And she checked back in the morning with high dudgeon to another commenter:
Erm. Damn, wasn't this post about some judge's drawers? How did Ruby (related to "red," as in "commie bitch") stretch that into a BDS screed?

Ruby, you have enough to worry about in the UK, what with your failing health care system, Islamotards, and your high taxation rates. Take care of your house before you presume to take care of ours. Bitch.
skh.pcola | 11.15.07 - 1:45 am | #

Bitch huh? And you expect the world to take you seriously.

By the way, I have never been to the UK and don't get me started on healthcare. Does that even exist in America?

Why do I make you so angry? Could it be that I am touching a raw nerve that shakes you up and makes you think that maybe, just maybe, I could be right?

In a perfect world we would all be liberal- as in free.
Ruby | 11.15.07 - 9:15 am | #
Well, heck, Ruby--everything should be free. All the butterflies and squirrels, birds and whales, all free.

How Far Gone #1

Each Thursday expect a post on the encroachment by various forces on our civilization and culture.

Santa ho,ho,ho gets heave-ho

November 11, 2007 12:15am

THERE'LL be no ho, ho, ho this Christmas. Aspiring Santas have been told not to use the term "ho" because it could be seen as derogatory to women.

Thirty trainees at a Santa course in Adelaide last month, held by recruitment company Westaff, were urged to replace the traditional festive greeting with "ha, ha, ha".

A Santa veteran of 11 years who attended the course told the Sunday Mail the trainer was very clear in spelling out no to "ho".

Two Santa hopefuls reportedly left the course after the trainer's edict.

The term "ho" is also American slang for a prostitute. "We were told it (ho) was a derogatory term for females and can upset people," said the Santa, who did not want to be identified publicly.

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

Stuart Pid

Stuart? Stuart Pid? Is Stu Pid in the auditorium?

November 14, 2007
Iran hands over Blueprints for Part of a Nuclear Device

Rick Moran
From our "How'd That Get In There?" Department...
Iran has finally handed over the proof that their nuclear enrichment activities were not entirely peaceful despite rigorous protests to the contrary that fooled no one except those disposed to be fooled in the first place:
Iran has met a key demand of the U.N. nuclear agency by delivering blueprints that show how to mold uranium metal into the shape of warheads, diplomats said Tuesday, in an apparent concession meant to stave off the threat of new U.N. sanctions.

But the diplomats said Tehran has failed to meet other requests made by the International Atomic Energy Agency in its attempts to end nearly two decades of nuclear secrecy on the part of the Islamic Republic.

The diplomats spoke to The Associated Press as IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei put the finishing touches on his latest report to the agency's 35-nation board of governors, for consideration during a meeting that begins on Nov. 22, Thanksgiving Day. The confidential report, expected to be distributed to agency members this Wednesday or Thursday, is likely to show substantial but not full compliance by Iran with its pledges to come clean on past activities — and confirm at the same time that Tehran continues to enrich uranium in defiance of the U.N. Security Council.
So we get 'slammi warheads for peace and self defense and the world is somehow safer?

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Mo, the car thief

Religion of Peace and HonestyTM "acts up"

Mohamed was arrested Monday afternoon on auto theft charges but complained of chest pains when he was being processed. He was taken to the Laurel hospital where he was under police guard before he attacked the trooper.
Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
The inmate who escaped from Laurel Regional Hospital after he took the gun of a state trooper and fired shots was captured.

The Maryland state trooper injured in the incident was being treated at Greater Laurel Regional Hospital for non life-threatening injuries. Her name wasn't released by Maryland State Police.
Crap! Girl with gun loses gun to perp!
Police performed an air and ground search around the hospital for hours Tuesday morning to locate 39-year-old Kamara Mohamed.
Authorities told WBAL TV 11 News that Mohamed was caught at about 9 a.m.
Perhaps this is why he went relatively unnoticed.
Police said Mohamed fled barefoot and in a white hospital gown.
An alert citizen noticed a Mohammedan-looking man in a somewhat white, flowing (hospital) gown.
A Taser was used to eventually subdue Mohamed. He was taken to a hospital for examination.
Oh my, oh my... What will CAIR say?


15 year old Lizzie Palmer produced this remarkable video

Four decades ago youngsters thought little of hurling epithets like the headline above at GIs returning from Viet Nam. The grownups more or less tolerated this behavior unless it grew to riot proportions.

Today (and temporarily, I pray) many of the late '60s persuasion actually hold power.

But today, new media allows for more expression by the 'grown-ups'--some of whom are mere teenagers.

Monday, November 12, 2007

Islamic Car

Malaysia firm's 'Muslim car' plan

By Robin Brant
BBC News, Kuala Lumpur
Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at PhotobucketThe Malaysian carmaker Proton has announced plans to develop an "Islamic car", designed for Muslim motorists.

Proton is planning on teaming up with manufacturers in Iran and Turkey to create the unique vehicle.

The car could boast special features like a compass pointing to Mecca and a dedicated space to keep a copy of the Koran and a headscarf.

Available options include:
Sun roof

Moon roof

Goat leather seats


AM radio


Motorized pop-up machine gun*


Reinforced front end


Semtex with ball bearings

Semtex with nuts and bolts

Cruise control (on steering wheel)

Detonator (on steering wheel)

Air conditioning

Flat-proof tyres

Passenger side ejection seat (for reluctant suicide bombers)*

Limited warranty

*only available with sun roof


Who knew? When we all thought that Rage BoyTM was two dimensional it turns out that there's sooo much more...
Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
Rage BoyTM as we have come to love him

Excerpted from The Daily Mail:
But who is the real person behind the cartoon and what does he believe in? I travelled to Kashmir in search of the poster-boy of fundamentalism.
Thank you, Patrick French. We'd have never known.
Conscious that I was the only foreigner in town, I linked up with a local reporter, Peerzada Arshad Hamid, who took me to what he called 'the Gaza Strip of Kashmir'.

We went to Malik Angan, a poor area that the security forces monitor closely, though they risk being shot at or stoned.
I almost remember how strong that shit was from the '70s. Oh, Hell yes--they know their smoke in that part of the world.
Arriving at a simple, traditional three-storey Kashmiri house, I was taken up steep wooden steps by the light of a gas lamp to the top of the building. There, standing in an empty room, dressed in a salwar kameez and zip-up cardigan, with crooked teeth and a quizzical look on his face, was Islamic Rage Boy.

Shakeel Ahmad Bhat is a 29-year-old failed militant. Over two days, sitting cross-legged at the home he shares with his mother and smiling shyly much of the time, Shakeel told me, through an interpreter, his life story and why he had come to wave his fists at the cameras.

His story was not what I had expected and showed the personal torment of life in a society that has gone wrong. Although it is hard to prove the authenticity of his story, given my knowledge of Kashmiri political history over the past 20 years, everything he told me sounded plausible: after all, what reason would he have to lie?
Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
A somewhat more subdued Rage BoyTM
Shakeel did not like school and he had difficulty learning to read and write. His teacher thrashed him with a stick but it did not improve his studies. Aged ten, he refused to go to class and stayed at home with his family.
Perhaps he didn't play well with others.
Shakeel was not a very good militant. When I asked him how many people he had killed, he looked embarrassed.

"I gave scares but I never killed anyone," he said. "I couldn't. I never hurled a grenade in a public place."

His greatest achievement was opening fire on the cavalcade of a visiting Indian government minister.
Shakeel's understanding of the world is limited by his inability to read or write. He likes going to demonstrations and has an ambition to start a political party.
Ooh. Sign me up.
I suggested to Shakeel that he must have been tempted by the prospect of a job and a wife – he was unlikely ever to get such a good opportunity again. He looked shy and covered his face with his hands.

"I want to marry a non-Muslim woman and convert her to Islam."

Why? I asked.

In a moment that might have come straight out of the Borat film, he answered in a soft, serious voice: "I have been told that if I can convince a non-Muslim woman to marry me – but not convert her by force – then there will be a place for me in heaven."

I suggested there might be some suitable candidates in Britain. "If the offer comes," Shakeel said, "I am ready to accept it."
Well ladies, the offer is on the table.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
Who could resist?

Thursday, November 8, 2007

Told ya

In the previous post I mentioned the ZPG movement and the left. Check this from the corner :
Thursday, November 08, 2007

People who don't need people [Mark Steyn]
"Humanity is the greatest challenge," says Colorado environmental activist John Feeney in "The Green Room" at BBC News. It's not enough to reduce emissions, we have to reduce the folks doing the emitting:

We must end world population growth, then reduce population size. That means lowering population numbers in industrialised as well as developing nations.
It's fascinating to observe how almost any old totalitarian racket becomes respectable once it's cloaked in enviro-hooey. For example, restrictions on freedom of movement were previously the mark of the Soviet Union et al. But in Britain, they're proposing limits on your right to take airline flights to other countries - and, as it's in the name of environmental responsibility, everyone thinks it's a grand idea. Mr Feeney's views are the logical reductio, which means in another six months or so European cabinet ministers and UN officials are bound to start taking them up. Nobel Peace Prize winner and notorious cat slayer Jimmy Carter will turn his shotgun on two-legged targets and start building Habitats for Inhumanity.

I'm with this guy:

George Osmond married his wife, Olive, on Dec. 1, 1944. She died in 2004. The couple had nine children, many of whom became singing stars; 55 grandchildren; and 48 great-grandchildren.
When does the mass euthanasia start?

Sooner or later



Not with a nation--although nations like Iran are involved.

Islamists (I like to call 'em 'slammis) have declared war on the West. I guess they figure once the West falls the rest of the world will sign up for prayer rug.
I wonder if the clerics of Islam have given any thought to the traffic problems of 6*109 human beings converging on Mecca for the Hajj boogie. But maybe they reckon that their world should be populated by a whole lot fewer people.
True believerTM socialists are waging war against capitalism and personal wealth. Their zero sum economic models are prevailing in the left wing among us. Somewhere north of 20% of US citizens are already subscribed and many are instructing our children.
That would be the children that enjoyed the privilege of actually being born rather than discarded as medical waste. Largely because 'forward thinking' people bought into another zero sum wrong-headed idea promulgated by Paul Ehrlich in his book The Population Bomb.
And the aforementioned groups--'slammis and soshies--groups that would not seem to be naturally inclined to get in bed together--are now firmly allied. Author David Horowitz covers this in detail in his book Unholy Alliance.

So Iran announced yesterday that 3000 centrifuges are now operational for the enrichment of uranium, a process that most ordinary folk have little understanding. The bangie kind is U235 which is about 3/4 of 1% of natural uranium. The rest is U238.

The enrichment process leaves a lot of U238 just lying around but it's not without some uses. It is, after all, a very dense metal and has been used by the US as armor piercing shells called sabots. I'd be surprised if some Western educated Iranian scientist didn't start applying that technology to build sabots for Iraqi insurgents.

Oops. Did I just reveal an unclassified but well-stifled secret about explosively formed penetrators and why they're so devastatingly effective?

Anyhow, Iran is getting busy with enriching U235 to wipe Israel off the map and lord it over its neighbors (who don't particularly like the feeling) while working on ballistic missile technology and other things like the B and C in NBC.
Iran Chemical, Bio Weapons Threat Is Real

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 8:09 PM
By: Steven J. Allen

An attack on Iran could trigger horrific retaliation against the U.S. and her allies in the Middle East with chemical and biological weapons including nerve gas, anthrax, and a germ similar to the devastating Ebola virus.

While the U.S. has not overtly threatened to bomb Iran’s burgeoning nuclear facilities, it has warned of using the “military option.” And Iran has countered if attacked it would retaliate.

Western intelligence experts doubt Iran has acquired a nuclear device and suggest she is several years from doing so.

But many agree that Iran has a program for chemical and biological weapons (CBWs) -- one more shrouded in secrecy than her nuclear program. Not only do analysts say the Islamic regime has stockpiles of CBWs, they also suggest that Iran also has the means to deliver the weapons to targets in Israel, Iraq and the United States.

“The threat of chemical and biological retaliatory attack by Iran is very real,” Dr. Dany Shoham, a chemical and biological weapons expert at the Begin Sadat Center for Strategic Studies in Israel, tells Newsmax. “Iran is prone to dare what Iraq did not, and has the needed operational capabilities.”

In response to a U.S. or Israeli attack, analysts maintain that Iran could strike U.S. forces in Iraq with artillery shells containing CBWs. Iran’s Shahab-3 missiles, with a range of up to 1,200 miles, could hit U.S. bases as far away as Oman, as well as Israeli targets in Haifa and Tel Aviv, experts say.

In addition to aerial bombardment, the Iranians could spray CBWs -- including anthrax -- from unmanned aerial vehicles, helicopters or boats. Iran could also employ suicide attackers to drive trucks filled with CBWs into target areas, experts add.

Military experts also fear that Iran’s retaliation might not be limited to the Middle East. CBWs – especially biological weapons, which take up little space – could even be smuggled into the U.S.

Every day Iran is a little closer to a bomb and a little more prepared to retaliate against what we know we're going to have to do anyway.

A French Reagan


Today's my birthday. I have all I could want but sometimes find gifts not expected.

One such gift was actually given to us all but delivered to the US Congress. It came in the form of a speech from the president of a country that has not been known for being very favorable to Americans of late.

The worm turns.

Speech by Mr. Nicolas Sarkozy, President of the French Republic before the Congress of the United States of America

Washington, November 7, 2007
Madam Speaker,
Mr. President,
Ladies and Gentlemen of the United States Congress,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

The state of our friendship and our alliance is strong.

Friendship, first and foremost, means being true to one’s friends. Since the United States first appeared on the world scene, the loyalty between the French and American people has never failed. And far from being weakened by the vicissitudes of History, it has never ceased growing stronger.

Friends may have differences; they may have disagreements; they may have disputes.

But in times of difficulty, in times of hardship, friends stand together, side by side; they support each other; and help one another.

In times of difficulty, in times of hardship, America and France have always stood side by side, supported one another, helped one another, fought for each other’s freedom.

The United States and France remain true to the memory of their common history, true to the blood spilled by their children in common battles. But they are not true merely to the memory of what they accomplished together in the past. They remain true, first and foremost, to the same ideal, the same principles, the same values that have always united them.

The deliberations of your Congress are conducted under the double gaze of Washington and Lafayette. Lafayette, whose 250th birthday we are celebrating this year and who was the first foreign dignitary, in 1824, to address a joint session of Congress. What was it that brought these two men—so far apart in age and background—together, if not their faith in common values, the heritage of the Enlightenment, the same love for freedom and justice? Upon first meeting Washington, Lafayette told him: “I have come here to learn, not to teach.” It was this new spirit and youth of the Old World seeking out the wisdom of the New World that opened a new era for all of humanity.

From the very beginning, the American dream meant putting into practice the dreams of the Old World.

From the very beginning, the American dream meant proving to all mankind that freedom, justice, human rights and democracy were no utopia but were rather the most realistic policy there is and the most likely to improve the fate of each and every person.

America did not tell the millions of men and women who came from every country in the world and who—with their hands, their intelligence and their heart—built the greatest nation in the world: “Come, and everything will be given to you.” She said: “Come, and the only limits to what you’ll be able to achieve will be your own courage and your own talent.” America embodies this extraordinary ability to grant each and every person a second chance.

Here, both the humblest and most illustrious citizens alike know that nothing is owed to them and that everything has to be earned. That’s what constitutes the moral value of America. America did not teach men the idea of freedom; she taught them how to practice it. And she fought for this freedom whenever she felt it to be threatened somewhere in the world. It was by watching America grow that men and women understood that freedom was possible.

What made America great was her ability to transform her own dream into hope for all mankind.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The men and women of my generation heard their grandparents talk about how in 1917, America saved France at a time when it had reached the final limits of its strength, which it had exhausted in the most absurd and bloodiest of wars.

The men and women of my generation heard their parents talk about how in 1944, America returned to free Europe from the horrifying tyranny that threatened to enslave it.

Fathers took their sons to see the vast cemeteries where, under thousands of white crosses so far from home, thousands of young American soldiers lay who had fallen not to defend their own freedom but the freedom of all others, not to defend their own families, their own homeland, but to defend humanity as a whole.

Fathers took their sons to the beaches where the young men of America had so heroically landed. They read them the admirable letters of farewell that those 20-year-old soldiers had written to their families before the battle to tell them: “We don’t consider ourselves heroes. We want this war to be over. But however much dread we may feel, you can count on us.” Before they landed, Eisenhower told them: “The eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you.”

And as they listened to their fathers, watched movies, read history books and the letters of soldiers who died on the beaches of Normandy and Provence, as they visited the cemeteries where the star-spangled banner flies, the children of my generation understood that these young Americans, 20 years old, were true heroes to whom they owed the fact that they were free people and not slaves. France will never forget the sacrifice of your children.

To those 20-year-old heroes who gave us everything, to the families of those who never returned, to the children who mourned fathers they barely got a chance to know, I want to express France’s eternal gratitude.

On behalf of my generation, which did not experience war but knows how much it owes to their courage and their sacrifice; on behalf of our children, who must never forget; to all the veterans who are here today and, notably the seven I had the honor to decorate yesterday evening, one of whom, Senator Inouye, belongs to your Congress, I want to express the deep, sincere gratitude of the French people. I want to tell you that whenever an American soldier falls somewhere in the world, I think of what the American army did for France. I think of them and I am sad, as one is sad to lose a member of one’s family.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The men and women of my generation remember the Marshall Plan that allowed their fathers to rebuild a devastated Europe. They remember the Cold War, during which America again stood as the bulwark of the Free World against the threat of new tyranny.

I remember the Berlin crisis and Kennedy who unhesitatingly risked engaging the United States in the most destructive of wars so that Europe could preserve the freedom for which the American people had already sacrificed so much. No one has the right to forget. Forgetting, for a person of my generation, would be tantamount to self-denial.

But my generation did not love America only because she had defended freedom. We also loved her because for us, she embodied what was most audacious about the human adventure; for us, she embodied the spirit of conquest. We loved America because for us, America was a new frontier that was continuously pushed back—a constantly renewed challenge to the inventiveness of the human spirit.

My generation shared all the American dreams. Our imaginations were fueled by the winning of the West and Hollywood. By Elvis Presley, Duke Ellington, Hemingway. By John Wayne, Charlton Heston, Marilyn Monroe, Rita Hayworth. And by Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins, fulfilling mankind’s oldest dream.

What was so extraordinary for us was that through her literature, her cinema and her music, America always seemed to emerge from adversity even greater and stronger; that instead of causing America to doubt herself, such ordeals only strengthened her belief in her values.

What makes America strong is the strength of this ideal that is shared by all Americans and by all those who love her because they love freedom.

America’s strength is not only a material strength, it is first and foremost a spiritual and moral strength. No one expressed this better than a black pastor who asked just one thing of America: that she be true to the ideal in whose name he—the grandson of a slave—felt so deeply American. His name was Martin Luther King. He made America a universal role model.

The world still remembers his words—words of love, dignity and justice. America heard those words and America changed. And the men and women who had doubted America because they no longer recognized her began loving her again.

Fundamentally, what are those who love America asking of her, if not to remain forever true to her founding values?

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Today as in the past, as we stand at the beginning of the 21st century, it is together that we must fight to defend and promote the values and ideals of freedom and democracy that men such as Washington and Lafayette invented together.

Together we must fight against terrorism. On September 11, 2001, all of France—petrified with horror—rallied to the side of the American people. The front-page headline of one of our major dailies read: “We are all American.” And on that day, when you were mourning for so many dead, never had America appeared to us as so great, so dignified, so strong. The terrorists had thought they would weaken you. They made you greater. The entire world felt admiration for the courage of the American people. And from day one, France decided to participate shoulder to shoulder with you in the war in Afghanistan. Let me tell you solemnly today: France will remain engaged in Afghanistan as long as it takes, because what’s at stake in that country is the future of our values and that of the Atlantic Alliance. For me, failure is not an option. Terrorism will not win because democracies are not weak, because we are not afraid of this barbarism. America can count on France.

Together we must fight against proliferation. Success in Libya and progress under way in North Korea shows that nuclear proliferation is not inevitable. Let me say it here before all of you: The prospect of an Iran armed with nuclear weapons is unacceptable. The Iranian people is a great people. It deserves better than the increased sanctions and growing isolation to which its leaders condemn it. Iran must be convinced to choose cooperation, dialogue and openness. No one must doubt our determination.

Together we must help the people of the Middle East find the path of peace and security. To the Israeli and Palestinian leaders I say this: Don’t hesitate! Risk peace! And do it now! The status quo hides even greater dangers: that of delivering Palestinian society as a whole to the extremists that contest Israel’s existence; that of playing into the hands of radical regimes that are exploiting the deadlock in the conflict to destabilize the region; that of fueling the propaganda of terrorists who want to set Islam against the West. France wants security for Israel and a State for the Palestinians.

Together we must help the Lebanese people affirm their independence, their sovereignty, their freedom, their democracy. What Lebanon needs today is a broad-based president elected according to the established schedule and in strict respect of the Constitution. France stands engaged alongside all the Lebanese. It will not accept attempts to subjugate the Lebanese people.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

America feels it has the vocation to inspire the world. Because she is the most powerful country in the world. Because, for more than two centuries, she has striven to uphold the ideals of democracy and freedom. But this stated responsibility comes with duties, the first of which is setting an example.

Those who love this nation which, more than any other, has demonstrated the virtues of free enterprise expect America to be the first to denounce the abuses and excesses of a financial capitalism that sets too great a store on speculation. They expect her to commit fully to the establishment of the necessary rules and safeguards. The America I love is the one that encourages entrepreneurs, not speculators.

Those who admire the nation that has built the world’s greatest economy and has never ceased trying to persuade the world of the advantages of free trade expect her to be the first to promote fair exchange rates. The yuan is already everyone’s problem. The dollar cannot remain solely the problem of others. If we’re not careful, monetary disarray could morph into economic war. We would all be its victims.

Those who love the country of wide open spaces, national parks and nature reserves expect America to stand alongside Europe in leading the fight against global warming that threatens the destruction of our planet. I know that each day, in their cities and states, the American people are more aware of the stakes and determined to act. This essential fight for the future of humanity must be all of America’s fight.

Those who have not forgotten that it was the United States that, at the end of the Second World War, raised hopes for a new world order are asking America to take the lead in the necessary reforms of the UN, the IMF, the World Bank and the G8. Our globalized world must be organized for the 21st century, not for the last century. The emerging countries we need for global equilibrium must be given their rightful place.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Allow me to express one last conviction: Trust Europe.

In this unstable, dangerous world, the United States of America needs a strong, determined Europe. With the simplified treaty I proposed to our partners, the European Union is about to emerge from 10 years of discussions on its institutions and 10 years of paralysis. Soon it will have a stable president and a more powerful High Representative for foreign and security policy, and it must now reactivate the construction of its military capacities.

The ambition I am proposing to our partners is based on a simple observation: There are more crises than there are capacities to face them. NATO cannot be everywhere. The EU must be able to act, as it did in the Balkans and in the Congo, and as it will tomorrow on the border of Sudan and Chad. For that the Europeans must step up their efforts.

My approach is purely pragmatic. Having learned from history, I want the Europeans, in the years to come, to have the means to shoulder a growing share of their defense. Who could blame the United States for ensuring its own security? No one. Who could blame me for wanting Europe to ensure more of its own security? No one. All of our Allies, beginning with the United States, with whom we most often share the same interests and the same adversaries, have a strategic interest in a Europe that can assert itself as a strong, credible security partner.

At the same time, I want to affirm my attachment to NATO. I say it here before this Congress: The more successful we are in the establishment of a European Defense, the more France will be resolved to resume its full role in NATO.

I would like France, a founding member of our Alliance and already one of its largest contributors, to assume its full role in the effort to renew NATO’s instruments and means of action and, in this context, to allow its relations with the Alliance to evolve.

This is no time for theological quarrels but for pragmatic responses to make our security tools more effective and operational in the face of crises. The EU and NATO must march hand in hand.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I want to be your friend, your ally and your partner. But a friend who stands on his own two feet. An independent ally. A free partner.

France must be stronger. I am determined to carry through with the reforms that my country has put off for all too long. I will not turn back, because France has turned back for all too long. My country has enormous assets. While respecting its unique identity, I want to put it into a position to win all the battles of globalization. I passionately love France. I am lucid about the work that remains to be accomplished.

It is this ambitious France that I have come to present to you today. A France that comes out to meet America to renew the pact of friendship and the alliance that Washington and Lafayette sealed in Yorktown.

Together let us be worthy of their example, let us be equal to their ambition, let us be true to their memories!

Long live the United States of America!

Vive la France!

Long live French-American friendship!
Great speech. We shall see. I have very little faith in the EU. I don't agree with further capitulations by Israel for those that would be called 'Palestinians'--a name cobbled in the 1960s for those Arabs that chose neither Jordan nor Israeli citizenship.

But in a world that relies on the US for so much while simultaneously despising us while simultaneously trying to emigrate from their cesspools to enjoy our opportunities [come up for breath] it is a gift to be recognized by an outstanding foreign leader.

Wednesday, November 7, 2007

A compass of dross

Who is Philip Pullman and why should we care?

h/t Red Sonya

A month from today a film will go into wide release entitled The Golden Compass. That's the name of the North American release of what was published as Northern Lights to the rest of the world. It stars heavyweight Nicole Kidman and is probably going to be a holiday blockbuster

Holiday blockbuster.
I don't profess any religion; I don't think it's possible that there is a God; I have the greatest difficulty in understanding what is meant by the words 'spiritual' or 'spirituality'"

"My books are about killing God"

-Philip Pullman
My kids and I attend cinema regularly. We've probably seen the trailor for this six or more times and always remarked that we'd put this on our list this season.

Not now. Not that I know what this is about.

Pullman despises C. S. Lewis and the Chronicles of Narnia so he sets out to use similar themes to discredit the notion of God. (What's that old saw about imitation being the sincerest form of flattery?

What's this--he was raised (after his father was killed in plane crash when Philip was seven) by his evil clergyman grandfather who presumably tormented the young Philip with moral instruction?

Millions of impressionable children will see this movie and read the following two books in the Dark Materials trilogy.

Please take this movie off your list for the holidays. The Holy Days.

Tuesday, November 6, 2007

Fixing what isn't broken

Stop "Making A Difference"
By Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, November 6, 2007

Among the many mindless mantras of our time, "making a difference" and "giving back" irritate me like chalk screeching across a blackboard.

I would be scared to death to "make a difference" in the way pilots fly airliners or brain surgeons operate. Any difference I might make could be fatal to many people.

Making a difference makes sense only if you are convinced that you have mastered the subject at hand to the point where any difference you might make would be for the better.

Very few people have mastered anything that well beyond their own limited circle of knowledge. Even fewer seem to think far enough ahead to consider that question. Yet hardly a day goes by without news of some uninformed busybodies on one crusade or another.

Even the simplest acts have ramifications that spread across society the way waves spread across a pond when you drop a stone in it.

Among those who make a difference by serving food to the homeless, how many have considered the history of societies which have made idleness easy for great numbers of people?

How many have studied the impact of drunken idlers on other people in their own society, including children who come across their needles in the park -- if they dare to go to the parks?

How many have even considered such questions relevant as they drop their stone in the pond without thinking about the waves that spread out to others?

Maybe some would still do what they do, even if they thought about it. But that doesn't mean that thinking is a waste of time.

"Giving back" is a similarly mindless mantra.

I have donated money, books and blood for people I have never seen and to whom I owe nothing. Nor is that unusual among Americans, who do more of this than anyone else.

But we are not "giving back" anything to those people because we never took anything from them in the first place.

If we are giving back to society at large, in exchange for all that society has made possible for us, then that is a very different ballgame.

Giving back in that sense means acknowledging an obligation to those who went before us and for the institutions and values that enable us to prosper today. But there is very little of this spirit of gratitude and loyalty in many of those who urge us to "give back." continued...

Age of Entitlement

At the bottom of the pile of rocks that forms this union are two conflicting mindsets--freedom to advance as far in this life as your abilities and aspirations may take you or freedom (?) from responsibility.
The Entitlement Society
By Bill Murchison
Tuesday, November 6, 2007

This has to be the Entitlement Age, because nobody I know of would call it the Age of Common Sense.

You take these two, I suppose you call them, ideals -- entitlement to blessings and benefits on the one hand and shrewd appraisal of the way life works, and you find, I think, they match poorly, if at all.

Take the driver's license flap -- the one that arose when Hillary Clinton couldn't or wouldn't come out and say what she thought about New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's proposal for the issuance of driver's licenses to illegal aliens. From the media Mrs. Clinton took a drubbing. She wouldn't say yes and she wouldn't say no; or anyway she wouldn't say either with any conviction, calling into question her credentials for taking charge of the world's still, despite reverses, No. 1 nation.

Put the lady's electoral prospects to the side. A matter worth more extensive chewing is the inability, wherever it exists, to shut off the driver's license argument on account of the sheer unacceptability of such a notion -- i.e., bestowing an entitlement of citizenship on non-citizens.

Let us see why this might be so. We could venture that in general you don't acquire privileges in consequence of being somewhere you aren't supposed to be. If anything, you acquire liabilities. Your job is to rectify the situation rather than reshape it to your own tastes.

Plenty of good arguments exist for rectifying and redrafting immigration policies that presently help no one -- those who come illegally, those in whose midst they take root. Is a grant of driver's licenses to violators of the law -- which is what illegal immigrants are -- an instrument of rectification? Or is it, far likelier, a white flag of abject surrender? Surrender to what? To the notion that racial politics disobliges America from making everyone in America play by the rules established for all.

Common sense tries to interject a couple of points: First, that when illegal immigrants start to receive the entitlements of citizenship, such as the legal right to drive a motor vehicle, it won't be long before they demand, or someone does it for them, new and enhanced benefits. Second, that when you start to break down the urgent distinctions between citizenship and non-citizenship, you debase and trivialize the former. Third, that it's just plain bad policy to break rules when you don't have to. continued...

Monday, November 5, 2007

The Chile solution

Embracing the third rail

I wonder just how much of the resistance to intelligent and open debate on the SS entitlement system might originate not in the political arena but rather is the massive bureaucracy itself.
Life is not a defined benefit
By Star Parker
Monday, November 5, 2007

The U.S Comptroller General and head of the GAO, Government Accountability Office, has described the entitlements crisis facing this country as a "tsunami" that approaches while we continue to party on the beach.

What GAO head David Walker is talking about are the massive upcoming obligations under Social Security and Medicare that we have no funds to meet. Tens of trillions of dollars of supposed commitments, promises made to us by our government, that today we have no clue how we'll pay.

In those rare moments when our political "leaders" screw up sufficient courage to acknowledge this dark and ominous fiscal cloud hanging over us, the discussion is invariably technical. Proposed tax increases, cap increases, retirement age increases, benefit cuts, indexing -- all geared to "save the system."

But who has considered that, despite all the discussion about unfunded liabilities, what we really have on our hands is, at root and core, a moral crisis?

No one explains this better than my friend Jose Pinera.

And no one has better credentials to talk about this problem.

Twenty seven years ago, in November 1980, Chile, Dr. Pinera's home country, approved Social Security reform in which a tax-based, pay-as-you go government retirement system -- essentially identical to what we have here -- was replaced with an ownership based system of individually owned retirement accounts. Yes, in principle the kind of reform that President Bush proposed.

As the then youthful Minister of Labor and Social Security of Chile, Pinera was the godfather, mastermind, architect, navigator, and quarterback of the reform.

Key in execution was to allow every Chilean worker the dignity of choice.

They could choose to stay in the existing system, continue to pay payroll taxes, and qualify for government benefits at retirement, or they could get out and use those same funds to open and invest in their own personal retirement account.

Within months, 90 percent of the Chilean workforce opted out of the government system and into their own personal ownership regime.

The result has been more than just an enormously successful transformation of a failed government retirement system. Chile's social security privatization -- if I may use the word that politicians, even the conservative ones, choke on these days -- has been a driving piston in Chile's economic engine, now the most powerful in Latin America.

The average real (adjusted for inflation) annual return of Chile's personal retirement accounts over the last 26 years has been over ten percent (the historical real annual return on stocks in the U.S. is 7 percent).
Read the rest here.

Sunday, November 4, 2007

The Compact

Twelve months from today, November 4th, 2007; 366 days from today we'll go to the polls and quite literally decide the fate of America. It will be our doing in the 50 state elections that shall determine our leadership.

Up to that day, on the 4th day of each month, I will select a pertinent quotation of Thomas Paine and expand upon it for our times.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

The Crisis

These are the times that try men's souls: The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value.

– Thomas Paine 23 December 1776
I'm guessing that's a little over dramatic. After all, it was meant to inspire the fence-sitters of the day to take an active role in a revolution that never saw more than 4000 men fighting on the side of independence.

Perhaps this next is more pertinent to our understanding of what is now at stake.
It is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It operates by a contrary effect - that of taking rights away. "Rights are inherently in all the inhabitants; but charters, by annulling those rights, in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few. They consequently are instruments of injustice.”

The fact therefore must be that the individuals themselves, each in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a compact with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist.
"individuals...entered into a compact with each other..."

This bears repeating.

"individuals...entered into a compact with each other..."

No. It needs to be hollered-


You and I have a compact. A sober and solemn agreement regarding what we acknowledge to be our natural rights and the compact means that I have to defend your rights as if they were mine.

Because they are.

And now we must think of unnatural rights.

We shouldn't have to, but given the current state of affairs we must.

How about state-run universal health care?

How about allowing unbridled immigration by those that don't care about our compact?

How about granting power to liars and thieves for the benefit of few?

Something needs to be reviewed and revisited. By each and every thinking American. Our pact. Our compact. Our responsibility.

This is a turnpost.

Saturday, November 3, 2007


Various sources are espousing that al Qaeda is in its death throws--that they are giving up the ghost,

Believe it?

I don't.

Ideologies are harder to exterminate than snakes in a swamp--they bite when they have the opportunity and slither away in the tall weeds when they can't. BUT THEY DON'T LAY DOWN AND DIE--THEY HAVE TO BE KILLED. More Americans (and Americans in positions of power) are embracing socialist themes and tactics after the fall of the CCCP than when it threatened the world with its juggernaut of populist ideology.

The Saudis began exporting their Wahabi madrassa program about 30 years ago. Given the young age of marriage and reproduction we now have two generations of indoctrinated, dedicated fighters waiting for their chance to 'do right by allah'.

Here is some important text.

This is a bit long and complex. Pretty little heads may opt to skip it. Pretty little heads may ignore it. Pretty little heads may someday roll.

To the writers and readers of these words this is not propaganda. It is a religeously inspired mission statement.
November 03, 2007

The Al Qaeda Reader: A Review

By Gary H. Johnson, Jr.

A review of The Al Qaeda Reader
Raymond Ibrahim, Editor/translator.
$15.95, 282 pp.

Recently, Raymond Ibrahim edited and translated into English a decade's worth of public releases by al Qaeda's leadership. Published by Broadway Books, with partial proceeds donated to the Committee to Protect Journalists, Ibrahim's The Al Qaeda Reader is not only a timely fountainhead for the United States citizenry's understanding of our Jihadi enemies, it is also a necessary release for all Muslims living under secular governments to grapple with in the coming years.

The text focuses on the prepared statements of both Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, the leading authority figures of the Al Qaeda forces, which coordinated and carried out the devastating attacks of 9/11/2001. Since Muhammad's definition of war is "deceit", and al Qaeda has declared war against America, we can only assume that these al Qaeda releases hold a two-fold purpose: to provide sound, doctrinal justification for terrorism; and to gather popular support for their cause.

Raymond Ibrahim tackles these angles admirably well by splitting the releases into the broader sections: Theology and Propaganda. This revealing text brings forth the Doctrines of Loyalty and Enmity, Jahaliyya, Taqiyya, in jihadi context for the Western witness. It also sheds light on the source blood of the modern Islamist mentality in terms of ibn Taymiyya as well as the pivotal battle of Taif eight years after Muhammad's celebrated Hegira to Medina.

Part 1, Theology, begins with a thesis entitled, "Moderate Islam is a Prostration to the West". What is obvious from this essay is that Osama bin Laden feels betrayed by the Muslim Intellectuals (particularly of Saudi Arabia) who would seek to stamp out extremism by helping President Bush in his "Crusade" against Islam. Bush's actual statement was made on September 16th, 2001: "This Crusade, this war on terror, is going to take a while." Regardless of President Bush's intent, the slip was made, and Osama bin Laden berates these "Moderate Muslims" for not including into their dialogue, with the Western Crusaders, three central elements of the Islamic Faith: the doctrine of Loyalty and Enmity; the necessity of jihad; and the bounds of Sharia.

Osama bin Laden chides the moderates for seeking the UN's concept of equality, freedom, and justice, which differ from the Islamic Notions, of the same, in the sunna tradition. This train of thought rolls like a juggernaut into its culmination on page 43 when Osama places down the cornerstone of Al Qaeda, the Koranic ayat (sign/verse) 60:4, in which Allah via his Messenger, Muhammad, summarizes the Muslim-Infidel relation as plainly exampled by Abraham, when he states
"We disown you and that which you worship besides Allah. We renounce you. Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us--till you believe in Allah alone."
Bin Laden lays the brick with ease, stating,
"Battle, animosity, and hatred - directed from the Muslim to the infidel - is the foundation of our religion. And we consider this a justice and kindness to them." [emphasis added]
Osama is vexed by the pesky Moderates, since they don't uphold Islam while dealing with the West. After all, he notes that,
"Muslims are obligated to raid the lands of the infidels, occupy them, and exchange their systems of governance for an Islamic system, barring any practice that contradicts the sharia..."
It is as if bin Laden is saying, if only these moderates had simply invited the West to submit to Islam; but, instead, by cooperating with the West, they have become apostates, denying the ultimate truth of Islam its rightful place above the Infidel, who has only three options when confronted with the Islamic faith: conversion to Islam, paying the Jizya tax, or death.

Part 1 continues with a Treatise by Ayman al-Zawahiri entitled "Loyalty and Enmity", in which he expounds upon Osama bin Laden's efforts. The controversial topic of Taqiyya is broached in which it is permissible for Muslims to associate with infidels to dissemble rather than befriend. Taqiyya basically states that if forced to deal with infidels, lie and smile, remain secure in faith, knowing you are not helping the enemy. Loyalty comes first, for all Muslims must heed ibn Taymiyya when he states,
"...he is obligated to befriend a believer - even if he is oppressive and violent toward you, while he must be hostile to the infidel - even if he is liberal and kind to you."
Al-Zawahiri confirms that all Muslims are ordered to wage jihad against infidels, apostates, and hypocrites by the consensus of the ulema (jurists of accepted hadith).

It is in this vein that ibn Taymiyyah's power is demonstrated in the line of Islamic jurists, for repulsing an invading force is second only to faith in Allah as a duty to Islam. Ibn Kathir then shows his value by verifying that unquestioning obedience to the will of the ulema is the right path of submission to Allah, while doubt and refusal to adhere is caused by fear.

But by far the most striking feature of this lengthy treatise comes when he notes those leaders that Al Qaeda has targeted, "that clique of rulers who, while domineering over the lands of Islam, oppose sharia." Al-Zawahiri proceeds to enumerate the Arabian Peninsula, Gulf Emirates, Egypt, and Jordan as the secular clique of governments that aid the Crusader armies against the Mujahidin.

He goes on to state that anyone who joins the UN is not a true Muslim, calling them Henchmen of the Crusaders. He takes aim at the cowards who oppose sharia out of fear that the Crusaders will hurt them. And al-Zawahiri then pounds on the Northern Alliance Muslims who are aiding the American cause in Afghanistan. This juristic wrangling is the establishment of a purge to come. One can only wonder what type of purge is in store for these apostates should Al Qaeda win or become desperate. And if you doubt the purge to come, consider that the Tawhid (Oneness) of God, demands Submission to Allah and Fear of Allah, alone; yet, in this treatise's conclusion, al-Zawahiri states,
Al-Zawahiri confirms that all Muslims are ordered to wage jihad against infidels, apostates, and hypocrites by the consensus of the ulema (jurists of accepted hadith).

It is in this vein that ibn Taymiyyah's power is demonstrated in the line of Islamic jurists, for repulsing an invading force is second only to faith in Allah as a duty to Islam. Ibn Kathir then shows his value by verifying that unquestioning obedience to the will of the ulema is the right path of submission to Allah, while doubt and refusal to adhere is caused by fear.

But by far the most striking feature of this lengthy treatise comes when he notes those leaders that Al Qaeda has targeted, "that clique of rulers who, while domineering over the lands of Islam, oppose sharia." Al-Zawahiri proceeds to enumerate the Arabian Peninsula, Gulf Emirates, Egypt, and Jordan as the secular clique of governments that aid the Crusader armies against the Mujahidin.

He goes on to state that anyone who joins the UN is not a true Muslim, calling them Henchmen of the Crusaders. He takes aim at the cowards who oppose sharia out of fear that the Crusaders will hurt them. And al-Zawahiri then pounds on the Northern Alliance Muslims who are aiding the American cause in Afghanistan. This juristic wrangling is the establishment of a purge to come. One can only wonder what type of purge is in store for these apostates should Al Qaeda win or become desperate. And if you doubt the purge to come, consider that the Tawhid (Oneness) of God, demands Submission to Allah and Fear of Allah, alone; yet, in this treatise's conclusion, al-Zawahiri states,
"We warn our umma against falling to defeatism and ignoring the dangers that oppressively lie atop our chests. Behold! the Crusader-Jewish military machine... It gears its aggression against us through a network of submissive rulers."
What happens to apostates again?

Part 1 culminates with two shorter treatises by Ayman al-Zawahiri, the first of which is entitled "Sharia and Democracy" and is simply an extract from his 1991 release, Bitter Harvest: The Muslim Brotherhood in Sixty Years. The importance of this section is in the simplicity with which democracy is labeled as the defining difference between Muslims and infidels, namely, Muslims submit to God, while infidels submit to men. Al-Zawahiri takes the consensus view of seven different jurists of the ulema, the source of Sharia Law, to explain why democratic government, created by the whims of men and nations is "a motley set of contrived rules".

Not only that, democracy is a primitive form of religion in comparison to faithful submission to Allah's Sharia. As proof for this rationale, Zawahiri examines Seven Islamic Jurist opinions, including those of the sheik of Islam, Ibn Taymiyya, and the father of radical Islam, Sayyid Qutb, all of which consider the rules of men to be a jahiliyya initiative, which is an attempt to bring mankind back to the time of man's law, before the Divine Koran was delivered, before the time of Muhammad, when true Sovereignty was ordained to Allah, by Allah himself.

This section is a revealing legalist perspective on why democracy is idolatry, the earmark of infidelity, and punishable by death. But, the most startling outburst in this treatise comes as a response to the "equality" to be had under democratic institutions, raging that there isn't anything more blasphemous than a society that does not limit apostasy (with death), abolishes jihad against infidelity, abolishes the protection tax and second-class dhimmi status of infidels, and (to top it off) abolishes man's dominion over women. But in order to understand the impact of these ruminations on the Islamic community, one must trace back to Sayyid Qutb, who provides the just definition of democracy as a religion. Without this linchpin, the argument just sounds like raving lunacy and an attack on reason.

The Second of the minor treatises, "Jihad, Martyrdom, and the Killing of Innocents" is actually al-Zawahiri's master stroke of blending ulema doctrines in order to justify his chief weapon of deception in his war on America: the suicide bomber. For thirty odd pages, he examines suicide and "proves" that the intent of the suicide determines whether it is a sin or an act of martyrdom. But by far the most striking element in this treatise is the examination of accidental killing of innocents or fellow Muslims, which culminates in Ibn Tamiyya's statement,
"Based on the consensus of the ulema, those Muslims who are accidentally killed are martyrs; and the obligatory jihad should never be abandoned because it creates martyrs."
This is the logic that America needs to understand. America must come to grips with the fact that the jihad is obligatory to the Islamic faithful. Thus, with a sweep of historic citations, Ayman al-Zawahiri, utilizes the sheik of Islam, Ibn Taymiyyah, whom all Muslims adhere or respect, to define defensive jihad as second only to faith in Islam, and at the same time justifies suicide bombing in the measure of antiquity... via ijma, or parallels, to Muhammad's battle of Ta'if.

Part 2, Propaganda, is a hodgepodge of shorter releases, aimed at specific groups, and documented in order to seek popular support for methods and aims as well as provide the righteous sword of reciprocity for all to see. Strangely, in "Why are We Fighting You", Osama bin Laden begins listing reasons for Al Qaeda's war with the West, and ironically claims that the clique of secular Islamic governments give true Muslims "...a taste of humiliation, placing us in a large prison of fear and submission."

In "Your Fate is in Your Hands Alone," Osama bin Laden tells the touching story of tragedy in the 1982 occupation of Lebanon by Israel, with American support, which filled his heart with nebulous ideas concerning occupation and repelling the oppressor regimes of Islam, and lo! a freedom fighter was born. But it is not until bin Laden offers a truce to America that we see plain the intentions of al Qaeda for the long run, when he states,
This is the logic that America needs to understand. America must come to grips with the fact that the jihad is obligatory to the Islamic faithful. Thus, with a sweep of historic citations, Ayman al-Zawahiri, utilizes the sheik of Islam, Ibn Taymiyyah, whom all Muslims adhere or respect, to define defensive jihad as second only to faith in Islam, and at the same time justifies suicide bombing in the measure of antiquity... via ijma, or parallels, to Muhammad's battle of Ta'if.

Part 2, Propaganda, is a hodgepodge of shorter releases, aimed at specific groups, and documented in order to seek popular support for methods and aims as well as provide the righteous sword of reciprocity for all to see. Strangely, in "Why are We Fighting You", Osama bin Laden begins listing reasons for Al Qaeda's war with the West, and ironically claims that the clique of secular Islamic governments give true Muslims "...a taste of humiliation, placing us in a large prison of fear and submission."

In "Your Fate is in Your Hands Alone," Osama bin Laden tells the touching story of tragedy in the 1982 occupation of Lebanon by Israel, with American support, which filled his heart with nebulous ideas concerning occupation and repelling the oppressor regimes of Islam, and lo! a freedom fighter was born. But it is not until bin Laden offers a truce to America that we see plain the intentions of al Qaeda for the long run, when he states,
"You have occupied our lands, transgressed against our manhood and dignity, spilled our blood, plundered our wealth, destroyed our homes, dislocated us, and played with our security -- and we will give you the same treatment."
Words like these seem to give weight to President Bush's notion that if we tuck tail and run in Iraq (a process called redeployment in some circles), the terrorists will follow us home, especially when you take into account a previous promise of bin Laden:
"...this has not been because of a failure to break through your security measures. The operations are under preparation and you will see them in your own homes once they are readied."
Bin Laden hints at possible future targets in his "To the Muslims of Iraq", when he defines the countries most in need of liberation: Jordan, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen. But as far as recent news is concerned, the five releases under the theme heading, "The Youth of Islam" basically state that men over 25 are busy building families, and those under 15 are still dependent on parents, while those Muslims between 15 and 25 are strongly urged to join ranks with Al Qaeda. This call virtually demands that "profiling" be implemented in all transit areas on men between 15 and 25, especially since the 2007 July Pew Report of Islam in America notes that "26 percent of Muslims [in America] age 18 to 29 believe that suicide bombing can be justified" (Newsweek Special Report, July 30, p. 31). To attempt to view the issue in any other way is suicide by denial.

The purpose of revolutionary propaganda is to gather popular support, to justify the righteousness of the cause, to generate outrage and fervor in its proponents, and to demonstrate why victory is inevitable for the righteous few. Part 2 of Ibrahim's text, Propaganda, demonstrates these purposes well; however, it is the Soviet paradigm of victory which is the least convincing. The key element in this battle according to both Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri is Patience. The element is woven through every treatise and release. It is the belief that like Soviet Russia while fighting with Afghanistan, America will, through its "War on Terror" grow politically fractured, will eventually go bankrupt and will split apart, by the grace of Allah.

It would be hubris to say that America can't go the way of the dodo. Yet, while the opinions in this country are divided almost 50-50 on every issue, it is this freedom to have a polarity of opinion that differentiates America from both the communism of Stalin and Khrushchev and the rigid, puritanical Islam of al Qaeda. And, in the end, the resilience of capitalism's inequalities compared with the desperate equality of communism promises only the inevitability of exhaustion for al Qaeda, hence its call for Muslim youth to dedicate their lives to Jihad.

In full, Raymond Ibrahim's text The Al Qaeda Reader provides the world of English-speakers many lessons that we may choose to learn or dismiss. Chief among these lessons is that in Islam there is no separation between Mosque and State. For years, since the fall of the Twin Towers, moderate Muslims have claimed their religion had been hijacked by fundamentalists, literalists, radicals, and extremists; and, now the West has been apprised of the twisted view of two of these hijackers.

Is this message of hate the literalist perspective of Islam laid bare for the world to see? And if it is, what does it teach the World of English-speakers about the Koran's content, intent, and merit? The fact is, all Muslims believe the Koran to be the literal, uncorrupted word of Allah, written in the celestial language of Arabic. Moving past the arrogance necessary to declare to the world that any language is that of God, what does this text teach us about the original words of the Islamic God? Has the God of Islam, Allah, demanded His followers to wage jihad on all infidels in a quest to force the entire planet to convert, pay alms, or die? And if the Koran is the literal, uncorrupted, Word and Warning of Allah; then, why would we, infidels, ever consider "Peaceful" a religion which promises our demise as sovereign states in one form or another, following obligatory genocidal purges, inquisitions, enslavements, indoctrination, trials of apostasy, and the death of the very idea of American Freedom, and the death of every value held as heroic in the West? For the West's concepts of equality, justice and freedom do not hold parallel with the Koran's or Sharia's view of the same.

In full, Raymond Ibrahim's release The Al Qaeda Reader is a necessary addition to the scholarship of jihad. The text begs the question: does the doctrine proclaimed by al Qaeda's leadership, now widely known among the world's Muslims, guarantee a state of perpetual war against the whole of humanity? And if so, what is the process of eradication of these elements from the Ulema consensus in order to defuse this ticking bomb of world-wide genocide?
This is a turnpost.