Thursday, December 31, 2009

Is the UK Finished?

. . . will it become an Islamic land?

or are there enough stalwart Brits with the gonads to keep England for the English, Wales for the Welsh, Scotland for the Scots, and Ulster for the Ulstermen?

Click on Is the United Kingdom (UK) Sliding into Islamization Without a Whimper?

Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Can We Trust Obama to Defend and Protect?

Asleep at the switch--once again. Obama diddling on the golf course, enjoying the privileges of his exalted postion gained honestly or not, once again, while the jihad makes inroads. The "failure" of the Nigerian intent on killing Americans should not fool us. His handlers have learned a bunch.

The point of this post, however, is not the failure of the mechanism that Obama has set up (or failed to do so efficiently), but of the man whom the voters (or whoever dishonestly slid him into office) made president.

This man Obama does not recognize who the enemy is (it is Islam on its centuries-old fight against the non-Islamic world) , refuses to do so. Why is that?

Maybe he wants to be "President of the World" instead of only the United States? Maybe because he has a soft spot for --or never left--the Islamic ideology? Who know? who cares?

Fact is, this president is unfit for office. No matter how much he poses and preens and speaks with studied diction.

Does he know how to respond? Or is he unsure and confused?

Obama has appointed people unfit for office to safeguard our nation. Our nation, not his.

The failure is his. The buck stops with his (the president's) office, as Harry Truman so wisely said.

Should We Use Airline Profiling?

The Case for Airline Profiling

We have this "sacred" revulsion to profiling airline passengers before boarding. Not "racial" profiling--not all "Asians" nor "Africans" nor "Middle-Eastern-appearing" passengers, but depending on immediately prior flights, point of origin, layovers, etc.

Continue reading at

Monday, December 28, 2009

Abdul Farouk Abdulmutallab, or The 'Yeah, Whatever' School of Counterterrorism

from internet haganah:

December 28, 2009


I'd like to be able to say with confidence that if this had happened in the USA, if Abdul's dad had walked into his local FBI office and told an agent that his kid was radicalized and was last known to be Yemen and had cut off all contact with the family, that this case would have been handled differently. In reality it probably depends on the particular office, and whether the analyst the matter was referred to understands that Yemen truly is the Waziristan of Arabia. In any event, whatever can be uncovered about Abdul after he tried to bring down NW Flight 253 could likely have been uncovered prior to his boarding the flight. If the current rules don't allow such an investigation to occur, they need to change. And to the extent current leadership in the various agencies discourage the pursuit of such leads, those people need to leave - preferably on a commercial airline flight.

My preliminary bibliography is here...Posted on 28 December 2009 @ 15:29 GMT

@• Abdul Farouk Abdulmutallab, or The 'Yeah, Whatever' School of Counterterrorism


Did Anwar Awlaki--the imam of the "Palestinian" Arab killer-psychiatrist of Fort Hood--bite the dust?
at internet haganah's Is that a dead Anwar Awlaki I spy under the tree? Main

Sunday, December 20, 2009

America's Anti-Jihad Strategy: Building More Islamic "democracies" - Will it Work?

First, we look at the immediate--the local--situation in Afganistan, as portrayed in The Captain's Journal:

Advocating disengagement from Afghanistan is tantamount to suggesting that one front against the enemy would be better than two, and that one nation involved in the struggle would be better than two (assuming that Pakistan would keep up the fight in our total absence, an assumption for which I see no basis). It’s tantamount to suggesting that it’s better to give the Taliban and al Qaeda safe haven in Afghanistan as Pakistan presses them from their side, or that it’s better to give them safe haven in Pakistan while we press them from our side. Both suggestions are preposterous.

That there is an indigenous insurgency (the so-called ten dollar Taliban) that bootstraps to the real religiously motivated fighters is irrelevant. We had to fight our way through this group in Iraq too, and it is the nature of these insurgencies. Complaining about it is acceptable – but using it as an excuse to abandon the campaign is not. That every contact isn’t with Arabic or Chechen or Uzbek jihadists is irrelevant. That doesn’t mean that Afghanistan is not a central front in the transnational insurgency called Islamic Jihad. The Taliban are important inasmuch as they gave and would continue to give safe haven to globalists.

For this reason the campaign in Afghanistan must be successful. Pakistan will take their cue from us and follow our lead.

What about the bigger picture? How do we intend to defeat the jihad that is being forced on us? How are we trying to accomplish that in Afghanistan? Why are we there at all?

Immediately, it comes to mind that Osama bin Laden's training camps were there prior to our cleaning them out post-9-11.

They can be there once again, if we are not there to stop the jihadists. Pakistan is not a reliable ally.

What, however, is our goal for Afghanistan? Build up and secure another Islamic "democracy," as was thought to have been secured for Iraq?

What was the U.S. policy for combatting the jihad of the Islamics, financed by the Saudis?

Forward Strategy for Failure

It was not Obama who devised the current strategy for stopping the jihadist drive to defeat the United States.

It was the American strategy employed shortly after the attacks of 9-11.

The Objective Standard article "America's Self-Crippled Foreign Policy" goes to the core of this crippling foreign policy:

From examining the intentions and actions of our military in the field, it becomes obvious that what animated Bush’s policy was the notion of bringing elections and social services to Iraq and Afghanistan—not protecting American lives. And while Obama wants to be seen as the anti-Bush, his approach is animated by a similar goal. In his high-profile speech in Cairo last summer, he promised to fund and create “centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia.” What’s common here is the moral idea behind these policies—the idea that America must serve the meek and needy of the earth. We argue in the book[*] that this conventional outlook on morality has shaped American foreign policy, and that the effect has been inimical to our liberty and security.

The article then zeroes in on the cause of America's failure to defeat the jihad:

The “forward strategy of freedom”—Bush’s misleading name for his crusade to bring elections to the Middle East—lived up to the name we give it in the book: the forward strategy of failure. It served only to empower our enemies—the Islamists—by granting them legitimacy and political control, for example, in Iraq and the Palestinian territories. Near the end of Bush’s time in office, some of his supporters began trying to salvage his reputation by claiming that the “surge” of U.S. troops in Iraq has worked a miracle. But a look at the facts refutes that idea. In chapter 6[*] we explore what actually happened. Washington’s policy was to throw around wads of cash so that insurgents who were murdering Americans would switch sides—for as long as the money flows.

Further, many Islamists used Iraq as a training ground and have taken their battle-tested expertise to other fronts, including Afghanistan. Suicide bombings were once unheard of in Afghanistan; now they’re commonplace. There were thirty such attacks in the first five years of the Afghanistan war. In the first six months of last year, there were more than twelve hundred. The Afghan-Pakistan border is now a hotbed of jihadist training camps. Many terrorist plots, like the plot to blow up airliners crossing the Atlantic, trace back to that part of the world. The Islamist threat not only endured but grew worse under Bush—who watched as the most active sponsor of Islamist terrorism, Iran, chased nuclear weapons. This is what passes for “success”?

[*]Winning the Unwinnable War: America’s Self-Crippled Response to Islamic Totalitarianism (Lexington Books)

More at

Thursday, December 17, 2009

Dying for the Enemy - Afghanistan, A True Story

. . . the team of Navy SEALs was on difficult terrain in an area rife with Islamist fighters. The four men set off after their quarry. But sometime around noon that day, the men were boxed into an impossible situation. Three Afghan men, along with about one hundred goats, happened upon the team’s position. What should the SEALs do?


. . . the men of SEAL Team 10 knew one more thing. They knew that doing the right thing for their mission—and their own lives—could very well mean spending the rest of their days behind bars at Leavenworth. The men were subject to military rules of engagement that placed a mandate on all warriors to avoid civilian casualties at all costs. They were expected to bend over backward to protect Afghans, even if that meant forfeiting an opportunity to kill Islamist fighters and their commanders, and even if that meant imperiling their own lives.

The SEALs were in a bind. Should they do what Washington and the military establishment deemed moral—release the herders and assume a higher risk of death—or protect themselves and carry out their mission—but suffer for it back home? The men—Lt. Michael Murphy; Sonar Technician 2nd Class Matthew Axelson; Gunner’s Mate 2nd Class Danny Dietz; and Hospital Corpsman 2nd Class Marcus Luttrell—took a vote.

They let the herders go.

Later that afternoon, a contingent of about 100–140 Taliban fighters swarmed upon the team. The four Americans were hugely outnumbered. The battle was fierce. Dietz fought on after taking five bullets, but succumbed to a sixth, in the head. Murphy and Axelson were killed not long after. When the air support that the SEALs had called for finally arrived, all sixteen members of the rescuing team were killed by the Islamists. Luttrell was the lone survivor, and only just.2

The scene of carnage on that mountainside in Afghanistan captures something essential about American policy. What made the deadly ambush all the more tragic is that in reaching their decision, those brave SEALs complied with the policies handed down to them from higher-ups in the military and endorsed by the nation’s commander-in-chief [Bush, at the time]. Their decision to place the moral injunction to selflessness ahead of their mission and their very lives encapsulates the defining theme of Washington’s policy response to 9/11.

More at

Sunday, December 13, 2009

Muslim Fellow-Travellers, Sympathizers, and One of Them is a Crypto-Muslim

Are these two guilty of treason?

By allowing enemy combatants the protection of U.S. courts, this pair is committing treason against the United States.

Never mind that one of them was elected president, he is hiding his Muslim antecedents, and if nothing else is partial to the enemies of the United States.

What does he deserve?

And how about his attorney general?

Thursday, December 10, 2009

Twisted Ideologies? (Quoting Obama)

Commenting on the five "American" students arrested in Pakistan, Obama--first at a loss for words (no teleprompter)--stammered and hemmed-and-hawed before coming out with that these "twisted ideologies" are available on the Internet.

Twisted Ideologies? Now come on, haven't you read your koran lately Mr. president? Jihad is plainly called for, not "twisted" from some "peace-loving ideology."

. . . and ooh---uh--aah--'bout that "peace prize," see how we that momentous occassion is being celebrated at Gates of Vienna

Monday, December 7, 2009

Because We Have Cripppled Ourselves, We Are Fighting an Unwinnable War

From "America's Self-Crippled Foreign Policy"
An Interview with Yaron Brook (YB), Elan Journo (EJ), and Alex Epstein (AE)
By Craig Biddle (CB)

CB: The Wall Street Journal recently reported that General McChrystal’s strategy in Afghanistan “puts a premium on safeguarding the Afghan population rather than hunting down militants.” What do you make of that strategy?

EJ: This same strategy was at the heart of Bush’s policy—and it meant that U.S. forces were never allowed to fight all out to defeat the Taliban. The Taliban and its jihadist allies scattered, then regrouped, and now are fighting to control Afghanistan and also Pakistan. U.S. casualties in the first eight months of 2009 are already higher than all of 2008, and more than double the toll during the first three years of the campaign. A key point we make in Winning the Unwinnable War is that this “compassionate” policy is self-destructive of American lives and security. It’s central to what has made the war seem unwinnable. Now we’re seeing that policy being implemented to the nth degree, and many more Americans—on the battlefield, and perhaps at home—will pay the price for it.

YB: In a chapter on “Just War Theory,” Alex and I discuss the moral ideas informing the policy you’re seeing unfold in Afghanistan. Those ideas—primarily the embrace of selflessness as a moral ideal—are why America today is unwilling to wage real war to defeat its enemies. Americans used to fight to win; think of General Sherman during the U.S. Civil War or Patton or MacArthur in World War II. But our policy in Afghanistan—seeking to win the love of Afghanis, rather than defeating the Islamists—can only serve to further embolden our enemies.

CB: With President Obama planning to pull most of our troops out of Iraq by next August and to increase the number of U.S. troops stationed in Afghanistan, politicians and pundits are mired in a debate as to whether or not this is the right course of action: Should we or should we not be pulling troops out of Iraq and deploying them to Afghanistan? How would you answer this question?

YB: Just as Bush did on several occasions, Obama warns us not to expect “victory” in Afghanistan. And top U.S. military officials tell us the Taliban are winning. It is immoral to send any troops to fight in any war that our leaders believe to be—and through their policies have made—unwinnable. More broadly, it is outrageous that the mighty United States should find itself with two unresolved conflicts like these. In a sense we’re in an impossible fix, because neither option you mentioned is particularly good, nor is it clear which option is the least bad. This is precisely the kind of situation that our foreign policy should never get us into.

As for Iraq, what purpose do American troops serve there today? In what way does their presence make Americans safer or help in winning this war? Leaving the Middle East today would be horrible—it would embolden our enemies and make it more difficult to deal with future threats. But staying only places our troops in harm’s way, with no real benefit to U.S. security.

EJ: The options you bring up in the original question, Craig, are emblematic of the dominant approach to foreign policy. This is the ad hoc, crisis-management approach of dealing with each flash point or crisis in isolation, and throwing some policy at it to see what “works.” And “works” here means something like “makes the crisis momentarily less urgent.” The view we convey in the book is that America can achieve victory, but only if it adopts a principled, integrated approach [*]. We can crush Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and Islamists in Afghanistan-Pakistan. We can deal with Iraq. We can deal with sundry hostile nations in the region. To do that, though, requires a larger project that begins with defining and defeating our primary enemy—the Islamist regime in Tehran, which inspires and leads the Islamist movement. Our goal should be to defeat that movement and its followers, so that the Islamist goal of imposing sharia rule comes to be widely acknowledged as a lost cause. Read the whole thing
*Also see There is nothing more un-realistic than trying to create a plan without knowing where we are going—or assuming that no plan is possible since reality is "really" always in flux and more in the last paragraph of Winning is not an Option; It is the Only Way to Defeat an Enemy Determined to Defeat You

Fighting "An Unwinnable War"

. . . the “strictly correct military decision would still be to kill them [the Afghan goat herders] without further discussion, because we could not know their intentions.” Working behind enemy lines, the team was sent there “by our senior commanders. We have a right to do everything we can to save our own lives. The military decision is obvious. To turn them loose would be wrong.”

But the men of SEAL Team 10 knew one more thing. They knew that doing the right thing for their mission—and their own lives—could very well mean spending the rest of their days behind bars at Leavenworth. The men were subject to military rules of engagement that placed a mandate on all warriors to avoid civilian casualties at all costs. They were expected to bend over backward to protect Afghans, even if that meant forfeiting an opportunity to kill Islamist fighters and their commanders, and even if that meant imperiling their own lives.

--Brief excerpt from the article "An Unwinnable War?" by Elan Journo in The Objective Standard

From the introduction to Winning the Unwinnable War: America’s Self-Crippled Response to Islamic Totalitarianism. The book is being published by Lexington Books and is scheduled for release this November

Craig Biddle writes: I recently interviewed Dr. Brook, Mr. Journo, and Mr. Epstein of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. Mr. Journo is the editor of a new book, Winning the Unwinnable War: America’s Self-Crippled Response to Islamic Totalitarianism (Lexington Books, 2009. 250 pp. $27.95 [paperback]), which contains essays by all three men. The book is scheduled for release this November and can be preordered through the Ayn Rand Bookstore ( This interview was conducted orally and retains the character of an informal discussion. —Craig Biddle

Read the whole article at

FOR MORE on SEAL Team 10 and Marcus Luttrell, see

Answer to "Compassion in Combat"


Sunday, December 6, 2009

Winning is not an Option; It is the Only Way to Defeat an Enemy Determined to Defeat You

To win in war, you must break the enemy's will to fight. This is not the goal of the war against Islam, that we are fighting today.

Yes, "Against Islam," not against militant Islam nor Islamic fundamentalism nor Islamists (as differentiated from Islamics), because it is the ideology of Islam that is being tried to be imposed on us by Moslems--and the name of that ideology is Islam.

I do not care what the present president of the United States thinks of "victory," it is either that or "defeat."

Which shall it be?

Excerpts from 'No Substitute for Victory': Replies to Criticisms
Posted by John David Lewis
in The Objective Standard:

Regarding my article "No Substitute for Victory": The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism in The Objective Standard, readers have brought up several questions that I'd like to answer. Among them are two of great importance: (1) Isn't the enemy stateless, i.e., without the kind of centralized political state that controlled Japan? and (2) Can religion and state be separated in Islam, which is a social-political-legal system as much as it is a religion?


. . . we do need to demonstrate the will to remove an Islamic government that we deem a threat, without apologizing every time a civilian is hurt. This demonstration would sweep across borders and be seen by every government in the world. It would show that while Islam might be stateless, we recognize that Islamic dictatorships are not, and that to side with such a state is to become a target of the most powerful military in the world.

Islam itself is stateless; it respects no borders. It was designed precisely to unite all those who submit to Allah, regardless of where they live and what tribe they belong to. We have to adopt the same attitude, only with freedom and individual rights as our uniting ideals. By defining the enemy as Islamic Totalitarianism—government imposition of Islamic Law— we exempt no such state from our reach and yet enable every state to avoid the title and our wrath.


Islam . . . . is an all-encompassing way of life. But it is not true that unserious Muslims cannot live under non-Muslim laws; the majority in western countries do—they compromise Islamic law to obey the laws of civilized society.

Identifying the enemy as Islamic Totalitarianism would enable us to end attempts to import Islamic Law into our own country, and it would empower our allies to end such attempts in their own countries. It would enable individual Muslims to comply with our demands, and it would expose those who refuse. It would also demonstrate the failure of Islam as a political movement, and thus challenge the premise, in the minds of many, that the Islamic Totalitarians are some kind of misguided idealists, right in principle but going too far.

As to the issue of realism: There can be no realistic discussion of a proper "strategy" (a means to attain policy ends) without a proper statement of the end that the strategy is intended to achieve. There is nothing more un-realistic than trying to create a plan without knowing where we are going—or assuming that no plan is possible since reality is "really" always in flux. The realism that we need is the recognition that those supporting Political Islam—rule by Islamic Law—are the real enemy. I'll gladly listen to anyone who has a different strategy for eliminating Islam as a political power and ending the threat it poses to us—but I've not yet heard anyone offer such a strategy.

John David Lewis

Wednesday, December 2, 2009

Obama and Afghanistan

Obama skims over some Afghan realities

FACT CHECK[S]: from the Associated Press article:
The problem with Afghan forces is not just their lack of numbers. And it's not an unwillingness to fight. The problem too often is their effectiveness, once trained for combat. Too many get into the fight but don't remain or don't perform.

Obama's confidence skirts years of mostly empty-handed American efforts to get others, including allies in NATO, to deepen their commitment to combat in Afghanistan.

It's true the Pakistani army this year has launched offensives against extremist elements in the areas cited by Obama. What he did not mention, however, is that the groups being targeted by the Pakistanis are those that threaten the Pakistani government--not those, also based in Pakistan, that are focused on attacking U.S. and Afghan forces on the other side of the porous border.

Click to read the whole thing. Worth your time.


Depending on the Afghans

The Main Question: Can Afghanistan and the Afghans be compared to Iraq and the Iraqis? Will the Afghans be able to be trained to field and army and a quasi-dependable police force? Iraq's are still being shored up by U.S. troops.

Iraq was once a coherent whole, able to feild an army and a police force.

Afghanistan appears to be incoherent as far as its population and more difficult than Iraq as far as its tribal structure is concerned.

The U.S. Generals

There are Generals and then there are Generals. It took Lincoln a while--dithering about with General after General, until he found those who could get the job done. (Include Sherman in the last-mentioned category, but not McClellan.)

I am not casting aspersions at any present General or Generals. But as the old saw goes, "The proof's in the pudding." So, with the rest of us, I'll just sit back* to wait and see. Not that I want to see the proposed policies in Afghanistan fail. After all, I am in the same Lifeboat as the rest of us and the captain--ah well--the Captain of that leaking vessel, does he know what he's doing?

For another view on Obama and Afghanistan, see Assessing the Afghan Surge - Dr. Kimberly Kagan's interview with the Council on Foreign Relations
To read the full Council on Foreign relations opinions article, visit

As an aside, the Obama speech at West point was more about himself than about the men who would be risking their lives in war. See how many "I"s he was able to insert in this speech at:
*not comfortably, because U.S. Marines, soldiers, and sailors are getting killed and maimed. But then so were men getting killed in the Civil War, until General Sherman found a way to end it by waging Total War, which is the only way to achieve victory.

Saturday, November 28, 2009

The anti-American President of the United States of America

Not only is he un-American, he is actively anti-American. He knows nothing of American history nor of American values.

Why should he? He was born God-knows-where, probably Kenya in Africa, perhaps the issue of a couple not married according to the prerequisites of U.S. law, as the male had wives in Kenya as was customary for a Moslem.

American history and American values are taught in the primary schools of the United States. Barack Hussain Obama never attended these. He went to Moslem schools in Indonesia*, and he was a good little moslem from the testimony of people who knew him them**.

What he learned after that were Communist-Marxist values. A Communist in Hawaii*** and Alinsky**** imprinted him with his Marxist values.

Then came the express train of education--Affirmative action of a "colored boy" from Occidental college to Columbia University and through Harvard Law. Greased by Moslem Arabs and Leftist hands.

Obama's claim to being American is tenuous to say the least.

He is un-American, anti-American.



at American Jingoist

WHAT AN EMPTY HEADED PERSON HE MUST BE…. Bad press, including major mockery of the plan by comedian Jon Stewart, led to President Obama abandoning his proposal to require veterans carry private health insurance to cover the estimated $540 million annual cost to the federal government of treatment for injuries to military personnel received during their tours on active duty. The President admitted that he was puzzled by the magnitude of the opposition to his proposal.

If he thinks he will ever get another vote from an Active Duty, Reserve, National Guard service member or veteran of a military service he ought to think it over.. If you or a family member is or has served their country please pass this to them.

Please pass this to everyone.I’m guessing that other than the 20-25 percent hardcore liberals in the US will agree that this is just another example why this is the worst president in American history. Remind everyone over and over how this man thinks, while he bows to the Saudi Arabian king.

Barack Hussein Obama is, essentially, a foreigner. He may (or not) be born in the United States, but the values shared by the American people, the values that made this country great and prosperous, are as foreign to him as his Arabian, Kenyan, Indonesian roots are to us. He has nothing vested in this country. All his life here, he was closely associated with its enemies. He will destroy it with no regrets. The very fact that seven years after the devastating attack visited on the United States by Arabs, the Americans . . . place[d] an Arab into the White house demonstrates the depth of the crisis we are in.

from Sheik Yer'Mami

America’s Muslim POTUS Praises Islam

"I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction." quote from page 261 of "The Audacity of Hope" by America’s first (and hopefully last) Muslim POTUS Barrack Hussain Obama.

J। Grant Swank, Jr., who writes from a Christian perspective, saw him coming:

I believe Obama is a Muslim.

Why do I think so?

First, he’s lived twenty years with a cultic preacher who has proclaimed hate against America। Yes, hate against America.

Jeremiah Wright has contexted that hatred against whites, but when you get right down to his rants, they are hatred against America, disrespect for America, slamming America for being responsible for 9 / 11 and so forth।

A Muslim hates America, has no regard for its Constitution, its history and is an anarchist at heart। Wright’s sermons border on if not endorse outright anarchism as blackism.

Second, Obama is a liberal to the nth degree, the left of the left in Congress। That would fit a Muslim who is for death bottom line: death to unborn babies, death to biblical definition of family and marriage, death to Judeo-Christian backdrop, death to freedom of religious expression, death to biblical morality.

Muslims live to die। They embrace death as the final glory offering to Allah.
****Frank Marshall Davis, spied on U.S. military installations in Hawaii for the Soviet Union, edited a communist newspaper, authored pornographic novels, and wrote poetry in praise of Joseph Stalin
****Saul Alinsky.

Thursday, November 26, 2009

Thanksgiving 2009

The year's at the spring;
The day's at the morn;
Morning's at seven;
The hill-side's dew-pearled;
The lark's on the wing;
The snail's on the thorn:
God's in his heaven
...All's right with the world!
--Robert Browning

Happy Thanksgiving to All!

But at night, brother Howlet, far over the woods,
Toll the world to thy chantry;
Sing to the bats’ sleek sisterhoods
Full complines with gallantry:
Then, owls and bats, cowls and tw*ts,
Monks and nuns, in a cloister’s moods,
Adjourn to the oak-stump pantry!
--Robert Browning, Pippa's Song

Pippa Passes was a dramatic piece, as much play as poetry, by Robert Browning published in 1841 as the first volume of his Bells and Pomegranates series.
Browning ends his poem with th[e foregoing] verse . . .

Brothers in Ebullience? (Eller)
Is not Pippa's song precisely the thanksgiving to which Kierkegaard exhorts? The truth of the matter is that Robert Browning, the Ebullient Englishman, was more aware of suffering, sorrow and sin--the dark side of life--than most critics give him credit for. However, he remained ebullient, for he was a man of faith. And the truth of the matter is that Søren Kierkegaard, the Despondent Dane whom many know only as the siren of somber shades, was much more ebullient than most critics give him credit for. He too was a man of faith. Miles apart? Browning and Kierkegaard stand arm in arm--or, rather, they march upward toward the light singing a hymn of thanksgiving, the Dane's basso profundo blending with the Englishman's lyric tenor. And the little soprano between them, whose hands they hold and whose song they sing, is: Pippa. - 9k - Cached - Similar pages -

FOR MORE ABOUT Søren Kierkegaard, see

First of all which goes into his life, his relationship with Hegelian thought, etc.




The context of the lines of Browning's poem cited, and a synopsis of the play in which they occur, see

More about Robert Browning's Pippa Passes, see

A Robert Browning Biography see

The first part of the play Pippa Passes: Part I: Morning; scroll way down to "The year's at the spring; The day's at the morn,"etc.

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Are We Heading for a Crash? Here's Someone Who Thinks We Are

Fjordman, love him or hate him, when he speaks, you listen, because . . . well . . . he may be right . . . and that can scare the bejeezus out of you.

Moe, over at Moe's Jihad News, turned me on to this, from Fjordman, at Gates of Vienna. You can read it there, at Moe's, or here. Wherever you read it, I think it's important enough to spread far and wide:

Its Title: The Coming Crash

[quoting Gates of Vienna]

The noted blogger Fjordman is filing this report via Gates of Vienna. For a complete Fjordman blogography, see The Fjordman Files. There is also a multi-index listing here.

[quoting Fjordman]

I am preparing a text which I will publish at The Brussels Journal in the not-too-distant future, but I will begin the discussion here first. When I read the various comments at Lawrence Auster’s* place and Dennis Mangan’s blog**, Takuan Seiyo’s recent piece ***at TBJ and the latest post by El Inglés****at Gates of Vienna, I get the feeling that tensions are building up and that something big is going to happen within the coming generation, probably within the next five to ten years. Since I have been writing about geology lately I will use an analogy from plate tectonics: The tectonic plates of the Western world are now about to make a big move.

Tensions have been building slowly beneath the surface for many years and sooner or later these forces will be released in the form of a series of devastating earthquakes, followed by some secondary political and economic tsunamis. Some of the structures that currently appear to be rock solid will collapse like a house of cards during this period and the political landscape will change considerably. What appears unthinkable today will appear natural or inevitable twenty years from now. This is the discontinuity that El Inglés talks about. I would rank Britain as the Western European country most likely to first get a civil war caused by mass immigration and Multiculturalism. Denmark follows as number two and possibly Holland as number three. Both Belgium and Sweden are pretty bad, but too repressive to be first in line. Germany is too weighed down by her history to be first. This leaves France as a potential dark horse. I admit I don’t understand how the French think. On the surface, France looks screwed. On the other hand, France is historically speaking a revolutionary nation, for better or worse. Maybe there is some mini-Charles Martel in hiding somewhere. If so, he better show up soon.

I think we need to be realistic and realize that the current political-ideological order is completely broken and beyond repair. Instead of wasting time and energy on attempting to fix what cannot be fixed we need to prepare as best as we can for the coming crash and hopefully regroup to create something new and stronger afterward. There will be a pan-Western and perhaps international economic and social collapse in the not-too-distant future. I fear that this is too late to avoid by now. The people who support the ruling paradigm are too powerful and the paradigm contains so many flaws that it cannot be fixed. It needs to crash. We should focus on surviving this crash and on developing a new paradigm to replace the failed one.
- - - - - - - - -
We need to learn from our enemies, both internal and external. The one thing I reluctantly admire about Marxists and Leftists of all stripes is above all their ability to organize and focus on long-term goals. Unfortunately, their goals are usually destructive, but we can and must learn from their organizational skills so that we can beat them at their own game. They must be squashed, otherwise we cannot deal rationally and adequately with our external enemies.

We must get rid of Feminism, which is destructive and merely an extension of Marxism, anyway. We must prepare as best as we can for a collapse of the US dollar and perhaps the Euro. We must document what is being done to us by treasonous elites for future references, for instance by making a video dedicated to anti-white verbal and physical violence around the world. We must take steps to ensure our physical safety and regain pride in our heritage.

We need to get rid of the EU, ridicule the UN and starve it for funds. I’m not sure whether we need NATO, either, although I’m willing to debate that part. The American defense umbrella may no longer be sustainable when the US economy fails. Besides, it is laughable to think that the US military would “protect” native Europeans from Muslims. It is the official policy of both major US parties to support — no accelerate — the continued destruction of Europe, just like it is their policy to continue the destruction of their own country. Just because the EU is awful, which it is, doesn’t necessarily mean that the USA is good. The American political elites are champions of dangerous and dysfunctional ideologies at home and abroad. The current US President Obama has publicly pledged himself to combat opposition to Islam rather than Islam itself, which means that it is official US policy to spread Islamic law. Uncle Sam is Uncle Sharia, as we have recently seen demonstrated. If the Soviet Union was the Evil Empire then the USA is the Diversity Empire, committed to spreading Multiculturalism and genetic Communism around the world, especially to white majority countries.

US General Wesley Clark during the bombing against Serbia in 1999 said more or less explicitly that the war was undertaken to impose “diversity.” I don’t hate Americans is general but their elites are just as hostile as the EU elites, and they have bigger guns. When I see how Nidal Hasan was treated by the US military I don’t think I want these people involved in my affairs. They would probably say that native Euros are Nazis who oppress the poor Muslims. Then they would bomb us and say it is for our own good, just like they did to the Serbs. The United States will not survive this century. It will be split into several countries according to ethnic, racial and perhaps even ideological lines. There is no such thing as a universal nation. People want to live with their own kind. The only ones who are not allowed to do so are whites, and they are starting to get tired of this double standard. People of European origins are among the least ethnocentric people on the planet and are currently being penalized heavily for this. Self-preservation is a natural instinct for all living things down to plants and bacteria. It’s about time that whites reclaim the same right without apology. I am increasingly convinced that the developments we are witnessing are deliberate.

The lies we are being served are virtually identical in every Western country. I’ve had some discussions about this with my friend Ohmyrus who thinks this is about a structural failure in our political system. I don’t necessarily disagree with that, but I also believe there is a planned long-term goal of breaking down all white majority nations to create a new global oligarchy. Anti-white ideologies are now taught in every Western university and were arguably elevated to national ideology in the USA with the election of Obama. I suspect this is because whites have historically had an unusually high emphasis on self-rule, rule by consent and power sharing, not to mention the fact that we ask too many questions. This is annoying to those who desire an authoritarian system with themselves on top. We need to be broken, culturally and demographically. This is why the elites desire mass immigration. The leading “Multicultural theorist” in my country, Professor Thomas Hylland Eriksen of the University of Oslo, said frankly that the most important thing to do now is “deconstructing the majority so thoroughly that it can never be called the majority again.” He is essentially calling for dismantling his own people and he knows that he can do so with total impunity.

Also, I suspect that the main reason why many others hate us is that European civilization has been so incomparably much more influential and accomplished than any other civilization on this planet that our existence makes them feel inferior. The only way they can stop feeling inferior is by eradicating us. A terribly politically incorrect thing to say, but that’s my view.

NOTE: Fjordman previously approached this subject with his "how to face the coming crash in Aug 30, 2009, where he wrote:

if i have the time i should write a brief essay called "how to survive the coming crash." the crash is unavoidable by now. instead of wasting time and energy on trying to figure out how to "fix the system," which isn't doable and ...

There, he gives advice on what we individually can do to survive that crash. You can read it at


*The present crisis
by Lawrence Auster


An aggressively anti-American, pro-terrorist Muslim U.S. Army officer committed mass murder on an Army base, and the political and media establishment are saying that the mass murder is bigoted America's fault, because the man's Army colleagues "harassed" him as a Muslim and made him lose his mind. In reality, far from being harassed, he was allowed complete freedom to make his numerous blood-curdling and treasonous statements, since everyone in today's diversity-cowed Army was afraid to make a formal complaint about him.
Evil is on the march, the evil of left-liberalism, and we seem to be powerless against it.
But we are not powerless, if we stand with truth and the right. Yes, at the moment the leftist evil is mounting to a peak, enabled and facilitated by the Western populations that have so far accepted its premises and so are unable or unwilling to oppose it. . . .
Read it all at

Dennis Mangan


It is indeed my view that the U.S., as a political entity formed by and for white Americans, is just about irretrievable. The country has slipped from our grasp, and the huge demographic changes of the past 45 years - since the passage of the National Suicide Pact and the surge of illegal immigration from Mexico - look permanent. Demography is destiny. Most of these immigrants and their children have a vested interest in government preferences; conservatives have been trying to abolish affirmative action for decades now, unsuccessfully. Unless the populace suddenly embraces the political outlook of Milton Friedman, most of then will continue to clamor for government goodies, for race-based jobs and lawsuits, for family reunification, for amnesty.
More at

***From Meccania to Atlantis - Part 13: Harpo, Gekko, Barko, Sarko

Takuan Seiyo


A nation that works for a living can weather perhaps even such great storms. But the jobs of the American lower class have been outsourced to imported Mexicans. The jobs of the American middle class have been exported to China and India. The jobs of the American upper-middle class have been taken from the white males who held them by merit, and given to resentful identity groups that hold them by the fiat of the government’s preferred skin colors and favored genitalia. And the jobs of the American upper class have been reprogrammed from leadership and service, to ripping off the less clever via lawyering, banksterism, and padding one’s golden CEO parachute, and then expiation via funding and leading socialist NGOs.

****On the Failure of Law Enforcement
by El Inglés


I will argue in this essay that there are a number of mechanisms and tendencies in place in European countries that make it difficult, if not impossible, for them to control or restrain the burgeoning criminality of their Muslim populations under extant political paradigms. Readers of certain of my other essays will be familiar with the type of argument I advance here, though I apply it in this essay to new subject matter.It should be understood that this text is essentially a piece of analysis, an attempt to rigorously frame and discuss one large and important piece of the problem we face thanks to Islam. Though it does not attempt to formulate a response, it is written in the hope that those keen to defend their countries and peoples from the depredations of Muslim colonization will find it useful in clarifying their own thinking.

Continue reading this at


Via Moe's Jihad News' America's confusion . . . "here's how you end up with Obama," comes . . .

Whitewashing Reality [Bill Bennett] at NRO

There is a rot that spreads outside of Washington into the larger culture. It begins with a confusion of terms, and by not calling things by their proper names, it begins with a disassembling of the moral categories. We don’t hear about terrorism or radical Islam so we are surprised to find it in our midst, and when we do, we don’t even recognize it. We have Army generals who elevate diversity over life, we have a president who speaks not of radical Islam or terrorism — though life is what we are fighting for and radical Islam and terrorism is what we are fighting against.
— William J. Bennett is host of Morning in America.
Read it all at . . .

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Harry Reid's Message to America

. . . and this is also the message of the Democrat Senators--and of the Pelosi-run Congress

well, let's send the same message back to our senators that are about to do what Harry Reid is showing what is in store for us.

Look for the senators that are running for re-election--and see that they are tossed out on their elitist rumps.

Ditto for the Congress men and women. They give us the finger, they get what they did to us.

. . . and what's the antidote to this screwing of America?

Well, here's a bright suggestion:

Note: Please read Victor Davis Hanson's article with care: it points out the collusion between Wall Street, Bankers, and Government. Wall Street and the Banks apparently practice the Oldest Profession.

Sunday, November 15, 2009

Revolutionary Situation in the United States

by Zack Lieberberg

October 24, 2008

According to V. I. Lenin, immediately before a revolution, a country goes through a revolutionary situation, which is defined as follows: Those on top are unable, and those on the bottom are unwilling, to maintain the current order of things.

Have we reached a revolutionary situation in these United States of America? Let’s take a look at some of our problems.

Take, for example, illegal immigration. According to some estimates, illegal immigrants today constitute 7 to 9 per cent of the population. It is the biggest invasion in history. It’s 10 times more than the entire Chinese military! Both opponents and advocates of illegal immigration know that this is causing our country enormous harm. Can we get rid of them? Of course, we can. We simply need the government to deport every single one of them, every time he or she is detected. Deport them when they come to the Department of Motor Vehicles to obtain a driver license. Deport them when they try to enroll their children in a school. Deport them when they come to an emergency room — after performing the necessary procedure, obviously, for we are not inhumane; but, because we are not suckers either, we should charge their country of origin for the services provided. And if a baby is born on US soil to an illegal immigrant, treat that baby as an illegal immigrant: deport it, along with its illegal immigrant parent. Anything else amounts to an amnesty. And since everything the government does regarding illegal immigration amounts to an amnesty, we can conclude that the government is unable to solve this problem.

Are we willing to cleanse this country of the illegals? Not really. First, we feel bad for them and their, oh, so cute babies. Second, most of them, like your cleaning lady, for example, are decent, hard-working people who charge you less than an American would, because they don’t pay taxes, and neither do you when you hire them. Therefore, this is not going to happen.

Or, take our war on drugs. Why doesn’t it work? Why is it dragging on and on, year after year, decade after decade, draining our resources without achieving anything at all? Because when the cops lead away the kid who’s been pushing drugs on a street corner, the kid who pushes drugs on the corner a block away seizes the opportunity and expands his business. And when the feds intercept a multi-million-dollar shipment of heroin, the dent they cause to the overall traffic of drugs is less than the one that the federal taxes leave on any legitimate business. Obviously, the government is unable to solve the drug problem.

Are we willing to win this war? We are, but only in theory. In theory, we could leave drug dealers alone and take away drug users. Without the drug users, those who would poison us all would go out of business. But are we willing to do it? Are we willing to send our own kids to jail, even for a few weeks, for experimenting with pot or even coke? Of course, not; we are not suicidal. And that’s exactly why the drug war will never solve the problem of drug use in this country. But it will handsomely feed a huge and unnecessary federal bureaucracy created specifically for the purpose of conducting that endless, meaningless war and, therefore, not interested to actually win it.

Can we win the war on terror?

Let me share an anecdote with you before I expand on that exciting question. Recently, I was at JFK airport seeing off a friend who was leaving for Japan. In a long line to the security station, there was a group of Japanese kids, apparently returning home from a trip to New York. If I had to guess their age, I would say 10 or 11. Each kid was wearing a Yankee baseball hat — no doubts a souvenir from the trip. Each kid was holding his or her passport open for the security officer. None of them seemed to speak English. As they one by one reached the officer, he would lift the hat off the head of the kid to compare the cute, smiling face to its likeness in the passport.

There were passengers of several other flights in that line. One of them was for Riyadh. When I saw the dark-skinned man accompanied by four creatures that resembled four bowling pins draped in dark fabric, I thought that was their destination. I was curious how the security officer would handle them. To my great disappointment, no international incident unfolded before my eyes. The officer, who had just diligently scrutinized the passports and faces of Japanese children, simply waved the Arabs through.

So, let me ask you again: Can our government win the war on terror?

Of course, we can. And we can do it without wasting the lives of our soldiers and hundreds of billions of our dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan. All we have to do to achieve that victory is kick Islam out of the United States. Once the term Muslim American becomes no more than an oxymoron, we will be able to sell our no longer needed airport security equipment to Eurabia and bail out our ailing banks without using a penny of taxpayers’ money. I know it, you know it, Osama bin Laden knows it, and even George Bush, who seems to know nothing at all, knows it as well; even if this knowledge didn’t stop him from announcing to us on September 12, 2001, that Islam was not an enemy. His government is most definitely unable to win this war.

But are we willing to uproot the Muslim community in the US? Sadly, we are not. Islam is a religion, and, whether you think it is a religion of peace or something entirely different, there is freedom of religion in this country, guaranteed by our Constitution. On the other hand, religion — every religion — is an ideology. An ideology can justify our way of life, as Judaism and Christianity do, be neutral towards it as is Buddhism, or openly and explicitly oppose it, as communism, fascism, and Islam. Why should we allow the enemy ideology to blossom on our soil? Because we are afraid we are not going to be able to draw the line, and once Islam is no longer a danger, the forces unleashed in order to contain it will turn against us: the Jews, the homosexuals, the blacks — everyone who has a historically well founded fear of persecution.

Nobody knows the answer.

If you thought the crisis we are currently going through was limited to the crumbling financial institutions, you were wrong. The sad state of our economy is only one side of it. This crisis has been in the making for decades; it involves every aspect of our lives.

The international prestige of the United States is at its lowest in, at least, a century.

The American political machine with its ongoing political debate between the two parties about the better future of this country has deteriorated into an unabashed race for power.

Liberals, abusing their ever growing influence, succeed in taking away our liberties — for example, the liberty to openly and publicly celebrate Christmas or to speak the truth when the thought police finds it politically incorrect.

The very same government that sends our soldiers to foreign lands to fight for obscure goals tries them for murder when they perform their duty and defend their lives and the lives of their comrades.

We could overcome this crisis, but we need a leader wise and strong enough to lead us out of it. George Bush does not qualify for the job. And neither does John McCain, who has failed to even acknowledge that the country is in the throes of a total crisis.

What’s going to happen?

A century ago, the obvious inability of the Russian monarchy to provide desperately needed leadership brought forth a young, charismatic leader who promised change, took the country from the tsar’s weak hands, and destroyed it as thoroughly as was possible. His name was Vladimir Lenin. His minions killed more Russian citizens than did the two world wars combined. His successors enslaved Eastern Europe for half a century. His followers turned China, North Korea, and Cuba into giant concentration camps. His legacy lives on in Putin’s Kremlin.

In the 1930’s, when Germany found itself leaderless and falling apart, a young, charismatic leader came forth, promised change, and took the country from the weak hands of an elderly chancellor. His name was Adolf Hitler. Supported by the enthusiasm of his compatriots, he led Germany through a brief renaissance to complete destruction, along with most of Europe, killing about 70 million people in the process. His legacy lives on in various neo-Nazi organizations across the world.

Today, the United States is in a strikingly similar situation. At the time when a strong leader is most desperately needed, the ruling elite finds itself unable to provide one. A young, charismatic leader comes forth and promises change. His name is Barack Hussein Obama. And I believe he is going to deliver on his promise of change, even though the most basic arithmetic tells us that it cannot be fulfilled. Why?

Because Barack Hussein Obama is, essentially, a foreigner. He may (or not) be born in the United States, but the values shared by the American people, the values that made this country great and prosperous, are as foreign to him as his Arabian, Kenyan, Indonesian roots are to us. He has nothing vested in this country. All his life here, he was closely associated with its enemies. He will destroy it with no regrets. The very fact that seven years after the devastating attack visited on the United States by Arabs, the Americans are going to place an Arab into the White house demonstrates the depth of the crisis we are in.

According to the polls, Obama is going to win the election. I would be surprised if he didn’t. In the 20 years since Ronald Reagan’s departure from the White House, the Republican party has done absolutely nothing to earn our votes. Even while a Republican president was in the Oval Office and the Republicans had the majority (earned more by the Clintons’ failures than their own accomplishments) in both the Congress and the Senate, they failed to accomplish anything of value. Yes, I remember the Bush tax cut; but, you know what’s going to happen to it in the very near future.

What can we do? Vote for Ralph Nader? Yeah, that will help. Start burning mosques? The FBI will be upon you faster than you can say the shahada.

What is needed today — and needed desperately — is a new political party that will be not be afraid to appear politically incorrect, that will be pragmatic, that will lead us out of the trap laid for us by our enemies, foreign and, mostly, domestic.

Any party organizers willing to volunteer?

October 24, 2008

The article above is presented as a public service.
It may be reproduced without charge — with attribution.

To read my other articles or to make a donation,
please visit

To be added to or removed from my mailing list,
please contact me at
© 2002—2008 Yashiko Sagamori. All rights reserved.

The Best Explanation About What's Going On in Afghanistan

From Moe's Jihad News:

Why we will lose in Afghanistan
[by Moe]

Let me rephrase that: there is nothing to be gained in Afghanistan. We can't lose by letting them stew in their own juices.

What we are hardly ever told about the country is that it has been for 300 years the scene of a bitter civil war, says Christopher Booker
. . .

Continue Reading at . . .

Thursday, November 12, 2009

There's No Guarantee . . .

. . . that a Moslem serving in our armed forces will not kill his fellows

There's No Guarantee . . . that "peaceful" (moderate) Moslems will not turn to jihad

There's No Guarantee . . . that our government will prosecute these jihadists as "terrorists" (not as temporarily or permanently insane or as suffering from "pre-or-post-traumatic stress syndrome")

There's No Guarantee . . . that Moslem organizations such as CAIR will not make an outcry against "backlash"

There's No Guarantee . . . that encouraged by government inaction more Moslems will not go on jihad

There's No Guarantee . . . that the police will not bend over backwards to defend Moslems who are attacking non-Moslems

There's No Guarantee . . . that the government will not be more intent on defending Moslems that are fearing imaginary "backlash" than non-Moslems attacked by Moslems

There's No Guarantee . . . that our armed forces, if ordered, will turn against the citizenry

There's No Guarantee . . . that veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan will support the government's position and not the citizens'

There's No Guarantee . . . that emboldened, the jihadists will not demand that we in the US obey Islamic law (sharia) as is being pushed in Canada and the UK

There's No Guarantee . . . that our government will try to put a stop to them

There's No Guarantee . . . that more and more of our institutions and government agencies will not be controlled by Moslems or their fellow-travelling Leftists

There's No Guarantee . . . that emboldened, Moslems will not replace the Constitution piecemeal with Moslem law (sharia)

There's No Guarantee . . . that we will not put a stop to that and to them


There's No Guarantee. . .

. . . that just because you occupy the office of the president of the United States (lower case intentional), you are not an utter a$$-clown who refuses to honor the flag and the country for which many--too many--have died so that you (a$$-clown) can stand there giving, as Pam Geller so succinctly called it, a disrespectful, to those who have given life and limb, crotch salute:



ATLAS SHRUGS: "Salute, pledge, something! Anything! Pretend to be a proud American, creep."
--Pamela Geller

Who is this guy?
--Pam Geller

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Face It, America!


It is time for America and the Obama administration to open their eyes and face up to the significance of the successful Fort Hood Islamist suicide attack. Here's an interesting analysis of the current situation by Robert Spencer:

"Major Nidal Malik Hasan, a U.S. Army psychiatrist, murdered twelve people and wounded twenty-one inside Fort Hood in Texas yesterday, while, according to eyewitnesses, “shouting something in Arabic while he was shooting.” Investigators are scratching their heads and expressing puzzlement about why he did it.

According to NPR, “the motive behind the shootings was not immediately clear, officials said.”

The Washington Post agreed: “The motive remains unclear, although some sources reported the suspect is opposed to U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq and upset about an imminent deployment.”

The Huffington Post spun faster, asserting that “there is no concrete reporting as to whether Nidal Malik Hasan was in fact a Muslim or an Arab.”

Yet there was, and what’s more, Major Hasan’s motive was perfectly clear — but it was one that the forces of political correctness and the Islamic advocacy groups in the United States have been working for years to obscure. So it is that now that another major jihad terror attack has taken place on American soil, authorities and the mainstream media are at a loss to explain why it happened – and the abundant evidence that it was a jihad attack is ignored."-more

Why did the Piece of Human Excrement kill his fellow Soldiers?

Because he was an Moslem, Stupid! (not YOU, if you're reading this and knew OR GUESSED even before his name was announced (or a soon as it was) that he was on jihad--and committed a terrorist act

“Jihad Denial Syndrome” Exposed

from ACT for America

The facts are emerging. The warning signs were there. Story after story is breaking new information. Even some in the “establishment media,” such as ABC News, have produced news segments revealing the evidence that Nidal Hasan was a radical Islamist.

The FBI had seen warning signs. So had the CIA and the Joint Terrorism Task Force. Numerous fellow officers had witnessed Hasan make statements, even during presentations he gave, that should have set off alarm bells.

Some of the latest news to come out is that Hasan had been in communication with an al Qaeda imam — and authorities knew it and dismissed Hasan’s contacts with the conclusion that he was doing “research” for a thesis!

The tapestry of jihad being pieced together has prompted Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman to call for hearings to investigate who knew what, when, and why action was not taken.

How is it possible that so many warning signs and red flags were ignored, rationalized, or dismissed?

There are at least two reasons.

The first is that too many in leadership in our country, whether in government, the military, or counterterrorism, do not want to connect the dots between the jihadist ideology, so clearly permeating the holy books of Islam, and the act of jihad.

ACT! has been exposing this failure ever since its founding. Dr. Walid Phares, during his presentation at the American Congress for Truth webcast conference “Radical Islam’s Threat to America” (held this past Saturday), stated astonishingly that eight years after 9/11 there is still widespread denial in our government about who the enemy is and why the enemy acts as he does.

This may help explain why, on the day of the Ft. Hood massacre, the FBI released a statement declaring “this was not a terrorist act.” How could they “rush to judgment” with such a faulty claim so quickly?

Answer: “Jihad Denial Syndrome.”

The second reason is linked to the first, which we discussed in our email alert yesterday — a culture of political correctness.

College campuses, Hollywood and television, and much of the “establishment media” are principal drivers of this culture of political correctness. In this worldview, there is a denial of fact and evidence that literally boggles the mind.

Our jihadist enemies throughout the world don’t hide the jihadist ideology — they celebrate it. It’s there for all the world to see — if it wants to. Too many of our leaders don’t want to.

Another enforcer of this political correctness is organizations like CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations. For years CAIR has bullied, browbeat, intimidated and smeared anyone who dares to speak the truth about radical Islam. (See our petition calling for a government investigation of CAIR.)

Last Thursday night, CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad denounced the violence — and then emphasized that this had nothing to do with Islam.

So did other representatives of other Islamist organizations.

In other words, they didn’t denounce the Islamist, jihadist ideology that led to the violence. Indeed, they in effect denied such an ideology existed. Awad was crystal clear when he stated, falsely, that no religion or ideology could justify such an atrocity.

And in doing so these Islamist enforcers of political correctness fired a warning shot across the bow of the media, the military and the government. They were making it clear that politically correct “Jihad Denial Syndrome” must be adhered to.

Eleven days ago ACT! for America launched a national national petition calling for a government investigation of CAIR, due to the mounting revelations of CAIR misdeeds and ties to terrorist organizations.

This petition is even more important now, in the aftermath of Ft. Hood. Why? Because America can no longer afford to be held hostage to a politically correct “Jihad Denial Syndrome” by a terrorist-tainted organization like CAIR.

This is why we continue to urge you, if you haven’t already done so, to sign our petition calling for a government investigation of CAIR.

Senator Lieberman is doing the right thing by convening hearings to investigate the Ft. Hood terrorist act.

We can’t change the culture of political correctness overnight, or the “Jihad Denial Syndrome” that political correctness has helped spawn.

But we are not powerless. There are actions we can take.

Join us today in signing the petition calling for a government investigation of CAIR.

One talk show host said this morning that political correctness can be annoying, even silly, but at Ft. Hood it was deadly.

Saturday, November 7, 2009

Is he is or is he ain't a Moslem? (Barack Hussein that is)

At there is a definite answer to that puzzling question:

J. Grant Swank, Jr.

with a reference to


Photo thanks to

We're Going to Have to Choose . . .

Today we have two choices in viewing Islam. We can see it as based upon its doctrine and history or we can choose to see it on the basis of multiculturalism-all cultures are equally valid. But Islam denies that all cultures are equally valid. Islam insists that it is superior all other cultures. All cultures are not equally valid and all other cultures must submit. It is the will of Allah, and it is Sunna (the way of Mohammed). What is odd is that tolerant multiculturalists defend the Islamic monoculture so much.

--Bill Warner, Choices. Choices

Choices, Choices

[by Bill Warner]

November 5, 2009

Ever hear this argument:

Ancient religious texts like the Koran contain outdated ethical concepts. The Old Testament has brutal laws and violent passages. As a result Christians and Jews don't follow them. Muslims are the same as Christians and Jews; they pick what works and reject what doesn't work. Why should Islam be considered any worse than other religion or cult?

The short answer is that Islam is not similar to anything else, including religions such as
Christianity. As far as the Koran having any outdated ethical concepts, that is impossible. According to Islamic doctrine, the Koran is perfect, eternal and universal. It does not contain the slightest error since contains the exact words of Allah. Hence, it can never be outdated.

Also, the Koran is a derivative book. Every idea in the Koran, with two exceptions, can be traced to earlier works. The two novel ideas in the Koran are that Mohammed is the last prophet of god and that violent force, jihad, can be used to harm those who don't agree with Mohammed. Violence against kafirs is systemic in all of Islam's texts and forms a central theme.

Yes, the Old Testament has violence, but there is no real parallel to the Koran and Islam. Look at the numbers. The violence in the Old Testament is limited to a few verses. The violence in the Koran against the kafir (unbeliever) takes up 61% of the text. Every mention of the kafir is brutal, condemning, pejorative, hateful and threatening. The Hadith, the Traditions of Mohammed, has 20% of its text devoted to jihad. The Sira, Mohammed's life, has 70% of the text about Mohammed as prophet devoted to jihad.

These numbers show that the analogy between the violence in the texts of the Jews and Christians is vastly overdrawn.

The next suggested parallel between Islam and Christians is that both pick and choose from their texts. Every Muslim believes that the Koran is perfect down to the last letter. It does not have a single error. This makes it very difficult to ignore.

But a Muslim does have a way to make choices that a Christian, Jew, Buddhist or Hindu cannot. Islam has dualistic ethics. Muslims are all brothers and to be treated as such. But there is no Golden Rule and a Muslim may choose to treat the kafir badly or well, depending upon the situation and needs. That is the nature of dualistic ethics.

Dualism also allows the choice of the Meccan Koran or the Medinan Koran. When Mohammed was in Mecca, he was weak and attempted to get along with the Meccans. This gives us the verses of tolerance. Later, in Medina Mohammed had power and the Koran became cruel and vicious towards any person who denied Mohammed. So every Muslim has the choice of tolerance and coexistence from the Meccan verses, or any of the physical violence or hatred found in the Medinan Koran.

There is another choice that a person who claims to be a Muslim can make. They may choose to be a kafir by ignoring an Islamic doctrinal point. It is very odd, but people assume that every action by one who calls them a Muslim is pure Islam. But the Koran condemns Muslims who make choices to imitate kafirs. This condemnation extends to those who choose to apply the Golden Rule to kafirs.

So there are three kinds of Muslim, depending on their choices: Meccan Muslim, Medinan Muslim and kafir Muslim.

There is a great danger in trying to understand Islam through Christianity or any other Western idea or concept. The underlying assumption is that Islam is similar or has parallels to kafir culture. This means that Islam does not need to be studied, because it is "like" some kafir concept or institution such as freedom and Christianity. This idea is false and has no supporting facts to prove it. Islam is sui generis, unique, and without parallel.

Islam stands entirely on its own with a separate logic, reasoning and ethical system. Islam must be studied on its own. In the end this means understanding the themes of the Koran and the life of Mohammed found in the Sira and the Hadith.

Why is Islam worse than any other religion or cult? Simple, it is not a religion, but a complete civilization that has a political doctrine of annihilating and subjugating all kafir civilizations. This doctrine had been put into action for the last 1400 years and has caused the deaths of 270 million kafirs.

Islam has annihilated entire civilizations. Take Afghanistan as an example. Before, Islam invaded the civilization of Gandharva, it had been peaceful for four centuries and was wealthy. Buddhism flourished and great art was produced. Then came Islamic jihad and Ghandarva was destroyed down to the last work of art and the last Buddhist. Today we have the armpit of the world-Afghanistan, an Islamic nation based upon Sharia law and Islamic politics. Buddhism and Gandharvan culture have been totally destroyed.

The political theory of Islam and its results correlate 100%. Of course, there are some harmful and creepy cults, but, measured by results, they are not in the same league as political Islam. Islam is the ultimate civilizational predator and should receive most of the attention.

Today we have two choices in viewing Islam. We can see it as based upon its doctrine and history or we can choose to see it on the basis of multiculturalism-all cultures are equally valid. But Islam denies that all cultures are equally valid. Islam insists that it is superior all other cultures. All cultures are not equally valid and all other cultures must submit. It is the will of Allah, and it is Sunna (the way of Mohammed). What is odd is that tolerant multiculturalists defend the Islamic monoculture so much.

This means that we also have two other choices. Will kafirs ignore the threat of total destruction or go on pretending that Islam is similar to other cultures? Will we foolishly apply the Golden Rule to a civilization based on dualism and hope to create an Islam that respects kafirs and treats them well? But Allah hates kafirs and it is Sunna to immigrate, deceive and make the kafirs submit little by little.

Choices: will we choose life or death for kafir civilization?

Bill Warner, CSPI


copyright (c) CBSX, LLC

Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.

Friday, November 6, 2009


Ingrate--not grateful for the new life offered to his parents in the U.S. from the "Palestinian" cesspools--his medical education paid for by American taxpayers, this "instant jihadist" repaid the U.S. Army and the country where he happened to be born in with mass murder.

Wearing his Moslem-Arab garb, this "officer" in the United States Army doesn't look like any American.

Click on Just before his jihad

"He was a 'good' American," his cousin claims. this "Palestinian" Arab Moslem born here in the US of "Palestinian Arab parents, who were let into the country and still are being brought in. Can we trust them and their offspring to turn into "good" Americans?

Any of them can revert to "instant jihad," where a Moslem turns to the koran to find out how to behave.

"Fort Hood jihad shooter handed out Korans the morning of his attack"

Will the "Establishment Media" Report the Truth?

The massacre at Ft. Hood yesterday has stunned and grieved America.

Everywhere people are asking questions. How could this happen on a secure military installation? What drove him to do it? Our heavy hearts go out to the families who have suffered this shocking loss.

What is not shocking is the spin the "establishment media" is trying to put on this horrific massacre. For instance, Fox News this morning interviewed a "criminal profiler" who asserted definitively that this attack had nothing to do with religion, that the man was "troubled." (In fairness to Fox News, they are at least raising the questions about jihadism as a motive.)

Others are suggesting he had some kind of post-traumatic stress syndrome — an insult to all our brave soldiers who have actually served in combat (Hasan hasn’t).

CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations) immediately jumped into the fray last night, arguing that no religion or ideology could justify this, in spite of the hundreds of passages in Islam’s holy books calling for jihad against non-Muslims. (As our readers know, ACT! for America recently launched a petition calling for a government investigation of CAIR.)

What is largely being ignored is that Hasan was a devout Muslim. An internet post in his name earlier this year compared suicide bombers to soldiers who throw themselves on a grenade to save their comrades. A former colleague, Col. Terry Lee, recalls Hasan arguing "Muslims have the right to rise up against the U.S. military." Hasan passed out Korans the morning of the attack and "donated his furniture to anyone who would take it" (see story below). This certainly appears to be the actions of someone preparing for martyrdom.

The story below also notes that he once listed his nationality as "Palestinian" rather than America. Perhaps Hasan had emotional problems. But there appears to be an abundance of evidence that he was ideologically predisposed to do what he did yesterday. Survivors of the attack said Hasan shouted "Allahu Akbar*" before opening fire. The tragedy at Ft. Hood yesterday deeply grieves us and we mourn with those who are mourning. But the tragedy will only be deepened if a politically correct narrative is once again foisted on the American people.

After the succession of Islamist terror plots were recently foiled, many in the media and law enforcement said they could not find any "connection" between the plots — overlooking the obvious jihadist connection. When a Detroit imam was shot to death last week, law enforcement and many in the media went to great lengths to downplay any connection to militant Islam. And now we see the same pattern taking shape today, in the aftermath of this terrible tragedy.

Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch:

Major Nidal Malik Hasan, a U.S. Army psychiatrist, murdered twelve people and wounded twenty-one inside Fort Hood in Texas yesterday, while, according to eyewitnesses, "shouting something in Arabic while he was shooting."


Neighbors described Hasan as a quiet man who began wearing "Arabic clothing" in recent weeks. Edward Windsor, a neighbor, never suspected Hasan was in the Army. Hasan's rank surprised Windsor who would never have imagined an officer with a rank of major would have lived in an apartment that rents for $350 and houses soldiers ranked as private first class....


Nidal Malik Hasan was born in Virginia but didn't think of himself as an American: on a form he filled out at the Muslim Community Center in Silver Spring, Maryland, he gave his nationality not as "American" but as "Palestinian." A mosque official found that curious, saying: "I don't know why he listed Palestinian. He was not born in Palestine."


He is a graduate of Virginia Tech and has a doctorate in psychiatry from the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. While there, NPR reports, Hasan was "put on probation early in his postgraduate work" and was "disciplined for proselytizing about his Muslim faith with patients and colleagues."


So he identified himself as Palestinian and was a devout Muslim - so what? These things, of course, have no significance if one assumes that Islam is a Religion of Peace and that when a devout Muslim reads the Koran's many injunctions to wage war against unbelievers, he knows that they have no force or applicability for today's world. Unfortunately, all too many Muslims around the world demonstrate in both their words and their deeds that they take such injunctions quite seriously. And Nidal Hasan gave some indications that he may have been among them.

--Robert Spencer, Jihad Watch

More Jihad Watch on the Ft. Hood shooter:

Fort Hood shooter regularly described war on terror as "war on Islam"
Muslim vets group: No reports of harassment of Muslim soldiers. None.
Playing the victim card: Florida mosque requests extra police protection, even though it wasn't threatened
Al-Qaeda last week called for attacks on "any crusaders whenever you find one of them, like at the airports of the crusader Western countries that participate in the wars against Islam, or their living compounds, trains etc."
* When you hear someone shout "allahu akbar!" shoot the bastard!
click on it