The Real Story on Merkel And Macron's Call For A New EU Army

 

By now, many Americans are aware of France’s Socialist President Emanuel Macron’s acid comments to U.S. President Donald Trump about how a new EU Army was needed for protection from, “China, Russia and even the United States of America.”

This was particularly insulting since Macron made his remarks on an occasion when President Trump was in France to commemorate the end of WWI and to honor the American soldiers who fell in places like Belleau Wood and the Argonne Forest and literally saved France from defeat at the hands of the German Army. Without the heroic efforts of those American soldiers,that  last German offensive in 1918 would almost certainly have broken through the exhausted French troops, many of whom had mutinied against their own officers just months ago.

Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel was quick to second Macron's remarks at a speech the very next day to the European Parliament, saying, "we have to work on the vision of one day creating a real European army.”

 

This is quite interesting. Germany's Bundeswehr is an under equipped, under manned and under financed joke, and Germany refuses to even meet their NATO commitments financially. As for France, most of their army is stationed within France itself, trying to maintain a semblance of order in France's cities, and France's economy is in a dismal recession. To do what Macron and Merkel are planning would cost billions that neither country would likely be able to afford, especially if, as Merkel said, they plan on staying part of NATO.

So what's behind this call for a new EU Army is actually easy to see if we look at the similarities between Merkel and Macron.

Both are by nature, totalitarians. Macron is a lifelong socialist and EU functionary who was part of the Hollande regime. Angela Merkel was a member of East Germany's notorious secret police, the STASI. And it's certainly easy to see these tendencies at work at when you look at how the EU and their individual countries are being run.

 

Both are seeing their grip on power severely threatened. Macron's popularity has plummeted severely, now that the French have begun to realize how badly they were conned and lied to in the last election.  The French are increasingly pessimistic about their future.  And Angela Merkel,while still  Bundeskanzlerin of Germany has seen her own Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party reject her, along with their historic coalition partners, the Bavarian-based Christian Social Union (CSU). Both parties are now at record lows in approval ratings, and Merkel will probably not even finish her term unless something drastic happens.  

While Macron's mishandling of France's economy contributed to his unpopularity, both he and Angela Merkel are deeply unpopular because of the problems caused by Merkel's decision to open the EU's borders to Muslim migrants and Macron's eager acquiescence to that policy for France. For all the efforts of most of the press in these countries, the sexual assaults, violence, vandalism and crime that have occurred are no secret any more to the average German or French citizen.

Both leaders are also childless by choice. People with that mindset  tend to have a very different view of the future than those who have children.

So, let's put the pieces together, shall we? 

 The original bright idea Merkel and and other EU leaders had was to solve a growing problem: their native populations were simply not having children and rapidly graying. This tends to happen in socialist countries, and it was particularly true in Germany. And that meant fewer taxpayers to keep the socialist welfare state these countries had created solvent and running. Merkel hit on the idea of importing thousands of Muslim migrants to Germany, most of them young men of military age. She stupidly thought they would assimilate, adopt German culture and become taxpayers to keep Germany's social welfare system afloat.

What actually happened in both France,Germany and other countries stupid enough to try this is that the vast  majority of these young Muslim men didn't assimilate at all. After all, their own religion and culture was the best, wasn't it? Why imitate the kuffars? Nor did they particularly want to work, not when living on the dole gave them a lifestyle far better than they had back home, with free housing, medical care, and a generous cash stipend. And for amusement, there was crime, gang rapes, rioting, gay bashing, attacking Jews and simply behaving overall like the conquerors Mohammed and the Qur'an told them they were.  

Merkel and Macron's new idea is simply a variation on their former one. If they can't get these migrants off the dole and working, why not conscript them! Which is exactly how the new EU army is going to be created. While they probably wouldn't be too much use against the Russians, the new EU army could be used to threaten or even to attack EU nations like Hungary, Italy, Austria, Poland, and the Czech Republic who aren't abiding by the EU's diktats and bring them to heel. And of course, to discipline any dissidents in their own countries who need to be taught a lesson about co-operating with the New Order. It could also be used to deal with those uppity Jews in Israel who won't do as they're told by the EU. And of course, it would get a lot of these migrants off the dole. Given their inherent nature, making them into horde-like shock troops shouldn't be too hard, should it?

If it works the way they see it working, the entire populist movement in the EU nations can be crushed. And it's a great way for leaders like Merkel and Macron to stay in power, nicht wahr? 

Of course, in reality this would backfire in a hideous way. Armed and trained Muslim migrants aren't going to obey the orders of their infidel masters for very long.  They will simply use the opportunity they have been given to take over whatever they can manage to conquer and turn it into Dar Islam, which of course they will rule under shariah.

You would think Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron would be smart enough to see how badly their last experiment with Muslim Migrants turned out and avoid this sort of thing. But remember, they were dumb enough to do it  in the first place, and to insist on  bringing more migrants in,  even when it became obvious what a huge mistake it was. 

And the U.S.? Since most of the nations of Western Europe now regard America as  dangerous, would we get involved? It depends. 

I've seen others write about what a great  thing a new EU army would be, because we could simply take our troops out of Europe and forget about it. They forget that France has nuclear weapons and even some ICBMs and that Germany's Kiel shipyards are fully capable of building nuclear capable submarines. Would it really be such a great idea to let the Muslims get their hands on them?  So yes we probably would pull at least France out of the fire again, unless we simply decided to bomb the French nuclear facilities and Germany shipyards and have done with it.

  Also, in spite of what Angela Merkel had to say, as soon as they have their new EU army in place, NATO will largely be history. But that isn't going to apply to Eastern Europe, Italy, and quite possibly the UK if someone like Boris Johnson, David Davis or Dominic Raab takes over from Theresa May, which is very likely. And yes, if they're attacked, we might see US forces involved. 

Let's hope Merkel and Macron's idea of an EU army turns out to be just trial balloon with a hole in it. 

These leaders consider America a greater threat to them than an aggressive Islamist Iran, to the point where they appease the Ayatollahs at every turn and put their hopes in a bogus 'deal' Iran never even signed.
 
Based on that, I wouldn't count on a new EU Army being on our side in the event things hit the fan.










Rob Miller writes for Joshuapundit. His articles have appeared in The Jerusalem Post, The Washington Examiner, American Thinker, The Los Angeles Times, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The San Francisco Chronicle, Real Clear Politics, The Times Of Israel, Breitbart.Com, Yediot and other publications.
Follow him on Twitter here and on Facebook here.
And connect with him on Linked In

Paris: The Louvre Targeted By A Muslim Terrorist

 

The Louvre in Paris is one of the most famous art museums in the world, the home of priceless works of art and culture. It's an historic landmark as well as a huge sanctuary that dates back to the 12th century for some of the finest creative efforts of mankind.It's impossible to see everything in a single day. Nearly 35,000 exhibits from prehistory to the 21st century are exhibited over nearly two acres. And today the Louvre was targeted by a Muslim terrorist.

Incroyable. This is what it has come to.

29-year-old Abdallah EH (full name not released yet) is an Egyptian, who arrived in France on a flight from Dubai on January 26 and reportedly applied for refugee status. He came to the Louvre with a backpack that contained paint bombs, according to the Paris Chief of Police. When security guards asked him to open his backpack, his pulled out a machete, started yelling the old war cry ' Allahu Akbar!' and  attacked one guard who sustained a head wound. He then was shot several times by the other guards, critically wounding him. There's a report that he had an accomplice, who fled and is still being sought by the police.

The terrified museum patrons who had come for a day of enjoying the marvels the Louvre has to offer were put in lock down for several hours and then evacuated.

The paint bombs pretty much tell us the story. Abdallah and his partner intended to vandalize and slash as many of the priceless and irreplaceable works of art as they could and kill as many infidels as possible in the process. Islam, as some of you may know, forbids any artwork depicting the human form and has a dim view of artwork in general.What better way to tell the kuffars (nonbelievers) that France belongs to Islam now then to attack the Louvre?

US President Donald Trump tweeted following the attack in the French capital: 'A new radical Islamic terrorist has just attacked in Louvre Museum in Paris. Tourists were locked down. France on edge again. GET SMART U.S.'

Indeed.

In a few months the French are going to decide their destiny in elections. They are going to decide whether they want to be a declining part of Dar Islam or the free France their forefathers fought to preserve. I think they are going to choose the latter, but we'll see. In any event, I'm sure Marine Le Pen and the Front National received another boost in the polls today.

(Video) Kid Rock To Cheering Crowd: "F*ck Colin Kaepernick!"

Kid Rock, before playing 'Born Free' to a sell out crowd at Boston's Fenway Park...and telling the crowd exactly how he feels about Muslim, BlackLivesMatter promoting radical quarterback Colin Kaepernick and his friends refusing to honor our country's national anthem to wild cheers of approval.

The NFL has a serious problem on its hands. It appears a fair amount of the American people are sick and tired of these spoiled, ungrateful athletes dishonoring the America that has given them everything.

Right now, the hashtag #f*ckcolinkaepernick is trending.

Freedom of speech? Fine. But when you open that door, you take what comes with it. Or be a man and act on your principles by leaving this racist, oppressive country you hate so much, you and those whom agree with you.

Muslim Judge In Brooklyn Swears In Using Qu'ran - And Why It's A Problem

Judge Carolyn Walker-Diallo, who was elected as a judge in Brooklyn's 7th Municipal District was sworn in today. She insisted on swearing her oath of office on the Qu'ran.

She's certainly not the first Muslim office holder in America to do so. Congressman Keith Ellison (D-MN) did it in 2006. She's not even the first Muslim judge. In 2013, Sheila Abdus-Salaam became the first black woman and first Muslim ever to sit on the Court of Appeals, New York's highest judicial body.

And Ms. Walker-Diallo is obviously a very devout Muslim.

So why is this problematic?

Swearing on the Qu'ran, the Bible or any religious text isn't a requirement to serve. The applicable law says only that someone elected to office must “swear or affirm” an oath, and it need not have any religious connotation at all. So Walker-Diallo was making a statement, one that bears thinking about.

Islam is unique in that it is a political ideology hidden inside a religion. And it mandates two codes of conduct,one towards Muslims and another towards everyone else. This is spelled out many places in the Qu'ran, for instance here: "Muslims are harsh against the unbelievers, merciful to one another." - 48:25.

It likewise demonizes non-Muslims:

Qu'ran 4:101 - The unbelievers are your inveterate foe.
 Qu'ran 9: 73 - Prophet! Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites. Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey's end.
Qu'ran 33:60 - Allah has cursed the unbelievers and proposed for them a blazing hell.
Qu'ran 98:51 - The unbelievers among the People of the Book and the pagans shall burn forever in the fire of hell. They are the vilest of all creatures.
Qu'ran 9:123 - O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard against evil.
Qu'ran 8:12 - I will cast fear into the hearts of the unbelievers. Therefore behead them and cut off all their fingertips.
Qu'ran 5:15 - O you who believe! Do not take Jews and Christians as friends and protectors. Whoever turns to them as friends and protectors is one of them.


There's a lot more of this sort of thing throughout the Qu'ran, to the point where demonizing non-believers and exhortations of violence against them could even be called a main theme of the book. The Hadiths, containing the deeds and sayings of Mohammed according to his followers have even more of this type of material.

And these scriptures are the basis for sharia, a code that almost 60% of US Muslims say they would prefer to live under here in America according to the latest Pew poll. Sharia mandates death for homosexuals, inequality for women, and allows wife beating and clitorectomies according to the interpretation by all four Muslim fiqhs. It makes non-Muslims into dhimmis ('protected people') with no rights except to pay exorbitant taxes for the privilege of being allowed to live among Muslims as second class citizens. Dhimmis do not even have the right to testify in a court of law. Their entire existence is subject to the whim of their Muslim conquerors.

More importantly, sharia is not some dusty scriptural antique. Sharia and laws based on Sharia are being practiced in a large part of the world today.

But wait, there's more. The Qu'ran allows taqiyyah, which allows Muslims to lie to infidels to advance Islam.

Given these realities, is a Muslim judge - or any Muslim public official - whom swears an oath on a book that is diametrically opposed to our laws and the Constitution to be taken seriously? Could a judge who swears on the Qu'ran be expected to rule fairly in a case involving a Muslim defendant and say, a Jewish plaintiff? Or in one involving a custody case between a Muslim man and an infidel woman? Could a congressman who swears an oath on a Qu'ran be expected to adhere to that oath in the event of a conflict or disagreement with an Islamic nation? Or when it comes to voting on security policies designed to protect America from terrorist attacks emanating from Muslim nations? Which comes first, the Muslim umma or their oath of office?

In the case of Judge Walker-Diallo I would much have preferred an oath or affirmation without any religious book in preference to the Qu'ran. She was certainly within her rights to use a Qu'ran and at this point I have to give her the benefit of the doubt. There is and should be no test of faith in America to hold office. But as I've noted, Islam is unique among religions. Simply speaking, Islam does not play well with others.

And thus, this sort of thing bears very very careful watching.

Why The West Is Doomed...

 

Unless we make a major corrections and entirely change direction, what happened in Paris is just the beginning of the end, and the West is headed for horrendous consequences and perhaps even defeat.

It's been just a few days since the atrocity in Paris, and the response to it has been similar to other jihadist attacks. They range from the usual suspects actually excusing the brutality and talking about how it has nothing to do with Islam ala' Mrs. Clinton  to misdirected remarks for 'action' that resemble nothing so much as the old carny game of whack-a-mole, this time with ISIS as the target d'jour.





Walk with me awhile and let's examine the real problems we face, along with what's really involved in solving them.  I guarantee you won't be bored. I haven't seen much real analysis anywhere on how to actually win this conflict for obvious reasons,because they involve dealing with some uncomfortable realities. Here's a small spoiler preview...ISIS is neither the main problem nor even the main target.

From the first, we were lied to. According to President George W. Bush post 9/11, we were fighting a war on 'terrorism'. To President Obama and Mrs. Clinton, we're at war with 'extremism.' They all have their own reasons for misdirecting the American people, most of which have nothing to do with either the good of the United States or making any real progress in actually winning the conflict against the faux target they've created.

We're in a war, all right. And ISIS is just one of the players.It's high time we realized that rather than an ISIS problem, we have a major problem with Islam..in particular, with Islamic fascism and its adherents.And even worse, we have problems that could very well doom civilization and freedom as we know it if we continue along the present course.

The idea that we're fighting 'terrorism' or 'extremism' is especially ludicrous and using the terms are   a gross insult to our collective intelligence. 'Extremism' is a vague, dubious and deliberately subjective term designed to cloak reality in fog, and  'terrorism,' after all, is a common tactic of war, designed for one purpose and one purpose only - to erode an enemy's desire and ability to make war.

In the Middle Ages, a common tactic of waging war was to try to destroy the wealth of an enemy and its ability to support warfare by sacking towns and farmlands. Another example more familiar to Americans was General William T. Sherman's March To The Sea through the most productive part of the Confederacy, leaving a swath of destruction and desolation in their path. They burned Atlanta and other cities and towns  to the ground, destroyed not only military targets but civilian property and infrastructure, and lived off the land by 'foraging,' which essentially meant stealing whatever they found and leaving the civilians with a bare minimum to survive on if they were fortunate.The idea was to end the war by degrading the South's ability and will to fight, and it was very successful in that regard.

 

We are not only fighting armies, but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war, as well as their organized armies. I know that this recent movement of mine through Georgia has had a wonderful effect in this respect. Thousands who had been deceived by their lying papers into the belief that we were being whipped all the time, realized the truth, and have no appetite for a repetition of the same experience. - General Sherman in a report to Union Chief Of Staff  General Henry Halleck, December, 1864.

Similar tactics were used in both world wars by both sides for similar reasons.

French President Hollande was entirely correct that the attack on Paris was an act of war, but it was not 'terrorism' or mindless carnage to no purpose. After all, France has been committing acts of war against ISIS by flying 200 air support missions against both combatants and civilians in ISIS territory since September of 2014.

The tactical idea involved also made sense - to remind the West that their cities and their civilians are also vulnerable and can be reached by ISIS.

Every master of strategic thinking whether its Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, General MacArthur or Napoleon has shared certain basic principles in common. They've all agreed that in order to successfully wage and win a war, you must have clear goals, know whom your enemy is and secure your base. To that, I'd add utilizing effective leadership and motivated forces.

Not only is the West not doing any of these things, it's doing its best to do the exact opposite. To really get perspective on that, let's look at how ISIS and other jihadist entities, both Sunni and Shi'ite are waging their war against us as opposed to  how we're doing whatever it is we've  been doing for the past decade and a half or so.

They have secured their bases, and there's little or no fifth column within. Anyone they even suspect of betrayal or less than full commitment to victory is immediately and ruthlessly dealt with. Both their enemies and their goals are clearly defined and marked out with formal declarations of war after the Islamic tradition, which both Osama bin-Laden and ISIS adhered to. On the Shi'ite side, Iran makes no secret of their hostility to us. They want death to America and President Obama is helping them get the tools for the job.

ISIS leaders and their fighters are dedicated, brave and more than prepared to fight and die for Allah and the Caliphate. The Paris attacks were carried out by young fighters willing to give their lives to accomplish their mission. So were their successful attacks on Iraqi forces who on paper outnumbered them and were far better equipped, courtesy of the American taxpayer.

In contrast, our leaders resort to the most tortuous euphemisms to avoid actually mentioning our real enemy or even establishing more than the most vague and general goals. Unlike al-Qaeda in it's heyday, The Muslim Brotherhood, The Taliban, Hizb' al-Tahrir and ISIS, there's no declaration of war by us and no defining of whom or what we're fighting at all.

Not only have they not secured our base, but our current leadership has actually enabled the breaching of those bases, encouraging mass migration from questionable Muslim countries where Islamism and jihadist thought are quite popular.

As a result of that migration and in particular America's tolerance and even appeasement of  Saudi and Emirate funded Muslim Brotherhood  front groups like CAIR, The North American Islamic Trust, The Muslim Public Affairs Counsel, The Islamic Society Of North America and others, a fifth column in America is rampant. Not only are young Muslims radicalized in mosques and madrassahs here by radical imams, but jihadist web sites and platforms like al-Jazeerah, or Jihad TV as I call it are readily accessible.

As opposed to the militaries of our opponents in this war, our severely scaled back forces have seen much of their best combat leaders and experienced combat troops forced into retirement or out of the service to make way for a military that  appears to be far more concerned with transgender rights, 'diversity' and placing women in combat roles regardless of whether they meet physical requirements to do so than concentrating on defeating our enemies.  Retention is at an all time low. And as for faith, even mentioning G-d is likely to get you reprimanded or even bounced out of the service - unless of course, you're talking aggressively about Islam's ultimate victory  over the Infidels and putting 'Soldier of Allah' on your official business card like Major Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood murderer did.

Finally, our lack of decisive leadership speaks for itself. We have no strategy and no clear goals  and we haven't for years. President Obama isn't even following the old rule of  'at the very least, do no harm.'  His destabilizing the Middle East and paving the way for Iranian nuclear weapons is a nightmare his successors in office as well as the American people will have to face and it will not be pretty.

Again - and I can't emphasize this enough - we are in a war with Islamic fascism, and it's supporter are far from being as much of a minority as certain people would lead you to believe. And yes, is does have everything to do with Islam. There is nothing Boko Haram, Hamas,  Hezbollah, ISIS, the Taliban, Hizb' al Tarir, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Iranian regime or any of the other so-called 'extremists' are doing that is not sanctioned by the Qu'ran. Nothing.

That, by the way is very different from being in a war with Muslims. Many of them are decent and peaceful people. But Islam itself is not going to be reformed. It is a violent religion that brutalizes women and non-believers and was designed for world conquest. As Mohammed told his followers before he died in 632 CE, they are commanded to fight the infidels until they died, became Muslims or paid massive protection money or other tribute for their lives to Muslims and "felt themselves subdued."

In response to that command,The Faithful have killed and enslaved more people in the name of their religion than all other faiths combined, and perhaps even more than secular leftists like Stalin, Mao and Hitler. The Indian genocide alone might amount to as much as 15-20 million dead, as well as millions whom were enslaved. Islam isn't going to change, at least not yet and possibly never. So we need to take steps to protect ourselves and minimize the problem. Part of that is realizing that the weaker we get and the more we appease Islamic fascism, the more Muslims are going to go along for the ride and side with the triumphant Umma against the Infidel kuf'rs. Again, just look at Europe.

So how do we win? First, of course, we need strong leadership actually prepared to win. We have very little leadership in power in the West (which I'll use as a generic term for the non-Muslim world) right now. Based on the link I shared in paragraph two of this article, it's obvious that there's not a Democrat now running even vaguely qualified to be commander-in-chief, and the single one who was, Jim Webb got disgusted by the foul smell surrounding him coming from his party and ended his campaign. And neither our current president or our vice president are qualified either, as they've proven many times. We have no FDR, no Winston Churchill around today that is in power.

But assuming that resolves itself sometime in the near future, here's some quotes from something I wrote on the same topic way back in 2008, which I recommend you read in full for context. Regrettably, little has changed since then:

The second point in which I disagree with Professor Dershowitz is on the need for new rules in dealing with this menace.The old ones work quite well, although an intelligent and otherwise reasonable liberal like Professor Dershowitz shies away from them.

The US has dealt in the past with fanatical enemies as well as potential fifth columnists on its soil with great success. The way we did it was not by using half measures.

When World War II began, President Roosevelt took stern measures to secure the nation at home.For starters, he arrested and/or deported anyone with ties to our enemies who might have even remotely resembled a security risk. He gave the FBI carte blanche to wiretap,listen to phone calls and intercept suspect mail and transatlantic cables at will to protect the country. I myself once had had tea with an elderly woman who proudly showed me a medal she received after she steamed the stamp off of a letter and found a microfilm dot underneath that destroyed a dangerous espionage ring and sent six Nazi spies to the gallows.And perhaps most importantly, unlike the present administration, he engaged his fellow Americans in the task of security with a widespread publicity campaign warning against `loose lips that sink ships.' Using posters,speeches, the radio and the newspapers, the Roosevelt administration let the American people know that there was a significant security threat that could endanger the war effort and their freedom,and that their vigilance and help was needed.

On the battlefield itself, particularly in the Pacific,our military dealt with suicidal enemies not only by destroying them en masse but by taking the war to the Japanese home islands with a vengeance.There's no question in my mind that if the Japanese had not surrendered after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the US would likely have destroyed a substantial portion of the Japanese nation. As it was, that defeat of an honor/shame culture similar to the one we face today swept away the poisonous militaristic fascism in Japan and paved the way for a new beginning, just as it did in Germany.

As for legislating dangerous ideologies, our courts have been down this road before when faced with the communist conspiracy here in America in the 1940's and 1950's. Those laws exist,  are quite plain and provide a firm and above all constitutional foundation when it comes dealing with most to the problems we have in the US with some practitioners of Islam and the people overseas who export jihad into America. And a few perfectly constitutional tweaks would cover the rest.

I go on to site several applicable laws from  the US code of justice that apply to those attempting to subvert or overthrow the US or its Constitution or to engage in a conspiracy to do so. Nowadays, they would also combine with RICO and anti-Terrorism statutes, provided we actually had a president and a justice department willing to prosecute in the future.

 Those Muslims who advocates sharia law, the Islamization of America, or jihad against Americans who happen to be Jews or Christians obviously fit this definition. Likewise, anyone who gives material support to such causes does too. And let's not be coy about it - any Muslim advocating sharia law in America is advocating the overthrow of the first and fourteenth amendments as well as the statutes mandating equal protection, since sharia mandates inferior status for women and non-Muslims, and as such is in clear violation of our laws.

This also applies to the sort of texts the Saudis are pushing in the madrassahs they control financially and to those fiery Friday sermons preaching death to the Jews.

And by the way, that is NOT constitutionally protected speech.....and the Supreme court has always agreed, utilizing the test of a `clear and present danger'.

A re-visitation and tweaking of laws like the Smith Act of 1940 and the Internal Security Act of 1950 would provide further ammunition, as would a law banning foreign funding of political lobbying groups and religious entities. That would dry up funds for the Muslim Brotherhood fronts here and their building of jihadi mosques without violating the First Amendment. Surveillance of the existing mosques (about 80% of them are owned by the North American Islamic Trust, a Muslim Brotherhood front group) and suspect imams with deportation as a resource would be key to securing our base. Blocking al-Jazeera and jihadist web sites would likewise close off channels of jihadist indoctrination. I can't imagine why that isn't being done already.

Rather than the current charade at our airports and public places, we need to adopt Israeli-style profiling with a corps of highly trained and dedicated security personnel rather than expensive screens purchased from one of George Soros's companies that have been proven not even to work very well. And that goes double  for relying on unionized personnel actually trained in part by a Muslim Brotherhood front group with a long record of opposing US counter terrorism efforts, especially at airports.

And a ban on Muslim immigration from some of the obvious countries along with real border security would likewise help secure our base. It simply makes common sense, and all we need to do is see how well not doing it has worked out in Europe. Islam does not play well with others, and not only should we pretty much stop importing it, but we need to be alert to whom is practicing it and how it is practiced here in America. And we need to be  prepared to deport problem Muslims and Islamists unclear on the concept of America being a free society.

It is also necessary to forcefully show our political and elite class that we no longer have tolerance for their appeasing Islamists and jihad against the West for their own profit. A law that should be passed is one outlawing anyone in public service to accept employment or compensation in any form from a foreign government during their service and for at least 15 years after his or her retirement. This would eliminate what I call the 'golden magic carpet' pension plan financed by people like the Saudis and Emirates, among others. We must make an end to the funding of presidential libraries and foundations, the special 'business opportunities' the six figure speaking fees,honorariums and consulting fees showered on our politicians and others with influence after retirement in exchange for their loyal services performed while in office.

The actual military aspect is likewise self evident.

We have at present given billions of dollars and lots of military hardware to Muslim countries like Pakistan, Qatar and Lebanon (which means Hezbollah) that are by no means friendly to us in the least. Not only that, but we have spent more billions arming and training no less than 3 Arab armies who are definitely not our 'allies' in the least- Iraq, Afghanistan and the Palestinian Authority. The first  step is to be far more careful not to fund our enemies or undependable 'allies'.

The second step is restoring our military to its former strength and bringing back commanders like Generals Mattis, Ham and McCrystal. Our military when used needs to have clear goals and a strategy and to not be handcuffed by PC nonsense or ridiculous rules of  engagement. Their first order of business should be to kill people, break things and be victorious over our enemies.

The strategy part is extremely important. for instance, when we took out Saddam Hussein, we essentially removed the check to Iran's fascist regime. The same thing would happen if we decided to take out ISIS without curbing Iran. As Dick Cheney famously said about the Iran/Iraq War that cost a combination of a million casualties, "It's a pity they can't both lose."  Thanks to President Obama's abject stupidity and his appeasement of Iran, we're currently arming both sides of the current conflict, supplying arms and funding to Hezbollah via Lebanon and  doing the same thing to Jaish al-Fatah, the rebel 'Army of Conquest' for the Sunni rebels that has al-Qaeda allies as its main components and is no better than ISIS. We may end up being required to make sure that both Iran and ISIS lose, but if we do, we need to have clear goals, and declarations of war by Congress in the event we plan something more long term than a pre-emptive strike on Iran, for instance. In short, unlike before, we need to know what comes next and that should most assuredly NOT involve US nation building. In fact,having our military turn a militant and unrepentant jihadist haven into ashes, dead bodies and wreckage might be quite useful as a reminder and example to others who have forgotten whom we are and what we are capable of thanks to our failed leadership and their lack of resolve. It worked with Japan and the Nazis quite well.

Another step is cultivating and in some cases rebuilding relationships with real allies and partners, something Rome and Britain provided models for. President Obama has done his best to alienate them, but Egypt, Israel, and a strong and viable independent Kurdistan are obvious candidates in the region. And we need to make an attempt to come to an understanding with Russia's Vladimir Putin, who has actually done more to curb ISIS than we have. China, with their own problems with the violent Muslim Uighers is another possibility. So is India.

We can win this war provided we end our self defeating behavior. If not, we can look forward to a new dark age for our freedoms and our civilization. Those are the alternatives.

'What Thy Right Hand Possesses' - The Rape of Kayla Mueller

 

According to people loosely identified by ABC as 'counter terrorism officials' American captive Kayla Mueller was repeatedly tortured and made a sex slave by the leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

Mueller's family confirmed to ABC News that government officials have told them that their daughter, who would have turned 27 today, was the victim of repeated sexual assaults by al-Baghdadi.

"We were told Kayla was tortured, that she was the property of al-Baghdadi. We were told that in June by the government," Kayla's parents, Carl and Marsha Mueller, told ABC News today.

Al-Baghdadi, an Iraqi who calls himself "Caliph" as ruler of the Islamic State, personally brought the enslaved 26-year-old humanitarian aid worker from Prescott, Arizona, to be imprisoned inside the home of Abu Sayyaf, a Tunisian in charge of oil and gas revenue for the group, counter-terrorism officials have told ABC News over the past several months.

"Baghdadi was at the house of Sayyaf. He delivered Kayla Mueller, live and in person," one of several counter-terrorism officials briefed on the case told ABC News.

These counter-terrorism officials claim they got this information from debriefings of at least least two Yezedi teenage girls who were also held as sex slaves in the Sayyaf compound as well as from the interrogation of Abu Sayyaf's wife Umm Sayyaf, who was captured in a U.S. raid. Kayla Mueller was reportedly killed by a Jordanian air strike last February.

 

The first thing that occurs to me is that it was incredibly cruel for the Obama Administration to tell Ms. Mueller's family these horrific details. Does any parent ever want to know that their abducted child died in pain and torment? Isn't it enough to know that they'll never see their loved one again?

I have a feeling the release of this news via ABC in this fashion is not coincidental. As I write this, President Barack Hussein Obama is arming and training a Syrian force known as 'The Army of Conquest' to fight ISIS and then Assad. The Army of Conquest (Jaish al Fata) is primarily composed of jihadis drawn from al Nusra and other Islamist groups, and the strategy Obama is pursuing is exactly how ISIS got started, as a part of the Free Syrian Army that this president  armed and trained in connivance with Qatar and Turkey without the knowledge of congress. Having built up one terrorist army and seen it go out of control and become ISIS, President Obama is now building up a second one to fight the first..ignoring the possibility that ISIS and Jaish al Fata might decide to join forces against Assad and the infidels. It might very well be that releasing a news story of this kind is designed to encourage the American people to pick sides and to embrace the Iran deal, with Hezboallah and Iran considered our new 'allies.' The Ayatollah Khameinei has said repeatedly that while Iran might fight ISIS on its own accord at a time of its choosing, the Iranians and their allies are definitely not going to operate in any sort of alliance with the  Great Satan. This, even though we're still arming Hezbollah and they're showing off their American weapons to the American advisers they're sharing bases with in Iraq.

If this seems like an insane 3 ring circus with the Obama Administration arming and training both sides of this conflict and no clear direction or strategy in mind, you get no argument from me. You can't make this stuff up.

Another thing to consider...while as usual the Obama Administration is carefully steering away from even mentioning the word 'Islam' it is worth knowing that this behavior is religiously sanctified by sharia and  the Qu'ran,  in verse 33.50 ("O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those (slaves) whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee" Pikthal translation) as well as 23.5-6. 4.24 and numerous other places.

This is not to say that all Muslims are rapists of non-Muslim women or that non-Muslims never rape captive women. But only in Islam is it religiously sanctified. The Bible actually forbids such practices and was the first recorded document to give women in that situation any rights at all, as laid out in Leviticus. But based on the Qu'ran, what happened to Ms. Mueller, a captive, is fully in accord with sharia. Mohammed himself took many sex slaves.

President Obama is bringing a lot of Muslims into America via diversity visas and refugee asylum programs similar to Europe's from countries like Syria, Somalia, Pakistan and other countries where sharia law based on the Qu'ran is practiced and the traditional cultures are built around these beliefs, including honor killings and FGM ( female genital mutilation).

Ironically enough, Kayla Mueller, who was something of a career activist actually worked for a while with the pro-terrorism International Solidarity Movement, whom supports the Palestinian Authority and Hamas where these practices occur with distressing regularity.

At last count, something like 800,000 Muslims have entered the US under these programs since Barack Obama took office and the screening has been fairly minimal. As I write this, another surge of refugees to America is being planned for Syrian Muslims by the Obama Administration with screening done not by our FBI but by the UN.

Europe has seen major problems develop by importing huge amounts of Muslims, many of whom are not at all compatible with European culture, are disproportionately on public assistance, want to impose sharia in their new home countries, and strongly resist assimilation. Crime among Muslim refugees in Europe is rampant, especially rapes involving Muslim males and non-Muslim females. For example, Stockholm, Sweden, once relatively crime free for a city its size has experienced a 300% increase in crime since it began importing substantial numbers of Muslim refugees into the country. Rapes have increased to the point where Sweden is one of the rape capitols of the world, with the second highest number of rapes per capita of any country on earth.

The vast majority of these rapes are committed by Muslim immigrants or their teenage sons whom may hardly think of these infidel women as anything more than 'what thy right hand possesses.'

Whether we want to change America in this fashion is a conversation the Obama Administration refuses to even consider, but I think it's a conversation we deserve to have as a nation, and sooner rather than later.

All human beings are equal, but cultures are not.As Kayla Mueller discovered too late, she wasn't in Arizona anymore.

Islamophobia?? Diet Coke?? You Decide

Tahera Ahmad is a Muslim associate college chaplain at Northwestern University, in Illinois.Here is her FaceBook page entry describing what allegedly happened to her on a United Airlines flight (hat tip Memeorandum):

I am sitting on a United airlines flight in the air 30,000ft above and I am in tears of humiliation from discrimination. The flight attendant asked me what I would like to drink and I requested a can of diet coke. She brought me a can that was open so I requested an unopened can due to hygienic reasons. She said no one has consumed from the drink, but I requested an unopened can. She responded, "Well I'm sorry I just can't give you an unopened can so no diet coke for you." She then brought the man sitting next to me a can of UNOPENED beer. So I asked her again why she refused to give me an UNOPENED can of diet coke. She said, "We are unauthorized to give unopened cans to people because they may use it as a WEAPON on the plane." So I told her that she was clearly discriminating against me because she gave the man next to me an unopened can of beer. She looked at his can, quickly grabbed it and opened it and said, "it's so you don't use it as a weapon." Apphauled at her behavior I asked people around me if they witnessed this discriminatory and disgusting behavior and the man sitting in an aisle across from me yelled out to me, "you Moslem , you need to shut the F** up." I said, "what?!" He then leaned over from his seat, looked me straight in the eyes and said, "yes you know you would use it as a WEAPON so shut the f**k up." I felt the hate in his voice and his raging eyes. I can't help but cry on this plane because I thought people would defend me and say something. Some people just shook their heads in dismay.

"Tears of humiliation" over a can of Diet Coke? I have to admit that while that seems a little histrionic to me, a little too conveniently outraged, she's entitled to her own feelings and emotions.

But there are a couple of things about her account I find interesting.

First of all, I've never seen one instance on an airline of someone bringing a passenger a previously opened beverage can. The normal procedure is either (a) to open a midget soft drink can on front of you and pour the contents into a cup with ice or (b)to place the cup with ice on your tray, open the midget can in front of you and then leave it on your tray for you to pour yourself. The reason's obvious - they don't want any passenger cutting themselves opening an unopened can, disrupting the cabin service routine and suing the airline.

The stuff about them being a weapon? Have you seen how small these cans are? Maybe in munchkin land in the Wizard of Oz, but not on my planet unless they were filled with explosives, something unlikely considering the already stringent precautions.

Now, I also note that this happened on a United flight.

I would not fly on United ever unless I literally had no choice. In my experience, they are one of the worst airlines going.You see, United is employee owned and heavily unionized, so there's very little beyond the most basic minimum accountability on anything for their employees, and for the most part that quaint art known as customer service is rarely if ever practiced. The last time I had anything to do with United was several years ago when my son was flying home from Chicago as an unaccompanied minor, which I paid extra for. Somehow, they 'lost' him, which I wasn't told by the good people at United. No, they left it as a happy surprise for me to find out when his flight landed and he wasn't on it.

After being told twice snidely that they were 'making inquiries' about my young son stranded at O'Hare,  I lost it, loudly in the middle of a crowded terminal with a lot of potential United ticket buyers looking on. It took a major public rage fit at top volume on my part and a phone call to them from my lawyer for them to suddenly 'complete their inquiries,' find my son and put him on the next flight home.

The point I'm making here is that Ms. Ahmad might have had an altercation with one of United's flight attendants, but it might have had nothing to do with Islam. United says that the flight attendant 'tried several times' to fulfill Ms. Ahmad's drink request. Perhaps she didn't see the can being opened somehow, and her emotive  complaining about it might have ticked off the flight attendant, especially a United one. Anyone who flies knows that upsetting the flight crew can definitely earn you some retaliation. Or the flight attendant might have simply been having a bad day and after several attempts to please Ms. Ahmad simply told her whatever came to mind to shut her up and ignored her afterwards, leaving her with her 'tears of humiliation.'.

With all due respect, I frankly have difficulty believing the next part about anther passenger cursing her out and using religious  slurs. Her narration simply sounds too pat, too much straight out of CAIR's ridiculous 'flying while Muslim' storybook. Given what they throw people off of airplanes for these days, I'd want some unbiased witnesses before I credited this.In reality, it might have been someone telling her to shut up so he could enjoy the in-flight movie or get some rest, especially if she was sobbing her little heart out over a cup of diet coke.

I also wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't Ms,Ahmad's first high profile grievance. Or if a look back at some of her past statements reveals that she isn't particularly tolerant herself.

Needless to say, this incident is being trumpeted by CAIR and the other usual suspects as the reason to jump start a Muslim boycott of United.That could either hurt United or actually get them some additional business. I've already seen most of the joke ad slogans, so feel free to come up with yours.

I would end by saying this. No one deserves to be treated badly simply because of their faith but I also think that Muslims need to look at it from the other side of the telescope as well.

Before 9/11, flying was a lot more fun than it is now.  Because both the Bush and Obama administrations for various reasons have avoided security steps like profiling, all of us, Muslims included, have had to put up with a number of increasingly annoying regulations and personal indignities, including invasive TSA patdowns and expensive scanner screens that don't work.

Since then, we've also had underwear bombers, shoe bombers, imams on a plane who didn't need them demanding seat extenders (which actually can used as weapons) and acting in ways guaranteed to raise the suspicions  of their fellow passengers, and  a number of plots to blow up airliners, some of which came pretty close to succeeding. 

We've had the spectacle of Islamist groups like CAIR,   MPAC, and others telling Muslims not to cooperate with law enforcement and the FBI in fighting domestic terrorism, something many Muslims have thankfully ignored.
                            


We've also discovered something else as a society in spite of numerous attempts to whitewash it. While the majority of the 1.3 billion Muslims in the world are  happy to live peaceful lives,  there are a significant number whom aren't, and whom see Islamist terrorism as a fully justified activity of jihad, as a holy act sanctified by their religion. And they are by no means a fringe element. 

It would be contrary to human nature for Americans whom aren't Muslim not to look upon those whom are with some degree if apprehension and suspicion, especially on a plane. And that's something I think Muslims ought to take into consideration when they consider how they behave on an airliner and whether it's really a good idea to ramp up tension in the crew or the passengers.

Actually, I think that's true of everyone. But in view of recent history, perhaps thoughtful Muslims need to address that with special sensitivity.

UPDATE: As I suspected, Ms. Ahmad has a history of grievance mongering and intolerance of others.  And I haven't even bothered yet looking into what I'm almost certain are some interesting posts and remarks on Israel ...

Austria Bans Muslim Groups From Receiving Foreign Funds

 

The Austrian Parliament passed a law today regulating how Islam is funded and administered in the country.

Austrian Muslim groups are no longer allowed to receive foreign funds. This measure largely targets Islamist and Muslim Brotherhood front groups in the country.

The law also requires any group claiming to represent Austrian Muslims to register and to use a standardized German translation of the Koran (Yes,Mr.President, they speak German in Austria, not 'Austrian) :

The law met with little opposition from the overwhelmingly Roman Catholic population, was backed by Austria's Catholic bishops, and was grudgingly accepted by the main Muslim organization. But it upset Turkey's state religious establishment.

"We want an Islam of the Austrian kind, and not one that is dominated by other countries," said Sebastian Kurz, the 28-year-old conservative foreign minister - formally the minister for foreign affairs and integration - who is easily Austria's most popular politician. [...]

Austria's biggest Islamic organization, IGGiO, accepted the law, but its youth arm opposed it, as did the Turkish-financed Turkish-Islamic Union in Austria (ATIB), which runs many mosques and has vowed to challenge the bill in the Constitutional Court.

Many of Austria's Muslims are Turkish migratory workers.

The new law also guarantees Islamic imams being allowed attend Muslims in hospitals in hospitals and be chaplains in the army, and protects Muslims' rights to eat and produce Halal food.

Just for the record, banning foreign funds going to religious groups in America and having Muslim groups register in accordance with the Smith Act so that their membership, literature and sources of funds are vetted and available for government scrutiny is something I've championed for some time. And admittedly, my target for this would be Islamist and Muslim Brotherhood groups, but to make it fair the ban on foreign funds would have to be extended to all such religious groups.

Hopefully, this is the start of a trend of sorely needed bit of sanity. Islam is simply not like other religions, and Islamists in particular need tobe watched closely and defanged.

Jihad,Islam and The French Farce In Paris

 

By now the world knows about the latest atrocity carried out in Paris by jihad terrorists. The wholesale murder of the staff of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo including its editor 'Charb,' Stephane Charbonnier. The murders at the magazine, the shooting of a female police officer, a car bomb exploding at a local synagogue, a gunman invading a kosher supermarket filled with women and children and killing four shoppers and wounding a number of others..these have all been covered by the media and digested by the world at large.

For a couple of days, this made headlines, but by now the world has processed it. And it is last week's news,because to really focus on it would mean we'd have to actually do something about it.

Beslan, 9/11, Boston, Bali, Mumbai, London, Itamar, Jerusalem, Nairobi, Fort Hood, Sydney, a never ending list..and those are just the ones we notice,because they're either in the West, or involve the murder of Westerners. The ones that don't barely rate a mention. In Nigeria last week for instance, Boko Haram, who have already pledged their support and allegiance to Islamic State attacked the city of Baga, near Lake Chad. The known death toll from that one attack alone is over 2,000. And it may go higher, once the final figures come in.

Chant with me, why don't you..'black lives matter!' Except when they're murdered by Muslim terrorists.

I wonder if it has occurred to many of us how much our society has normalized terrorism committed by Islamist fascists? The limitations to our freedoms we've already accepted without complaint? The millions in additional tax dollars we're forced to spend? The handcuffs we've put on ourselves and the forces we enlist to protect us because we're unwilling to be honest?

We have become acclimated to accepting Islamist terrorism as the norm, as business as usual. We've been doing it for so long it barely moves us, let alone raises the revulsion and the resolve to stop it, the normal reaction. Instead, we hide behind inane rhetoric, insipid and cowardly rationalizations and yes, hash tags.

If we were really all Charlie Hebdo, or Theo Van Gogh, or Ayaan Hirsi Ali, or Molly Norris, or Kurt Westergaard, or Drummer Lee Rigby, or Daniel Pearl or the Fogel Family, this would have ended long ago, because we would have risen up en masse to demand that the political class do something to stop this once and for all.

We haven't. We simply ingest the latest atrocity and continue to sleepwalk. After a few words from our sponsor, of course. And the usual 'Muslims fear backlash' stories, although somehow that backlash never seems to occur.

A case in point is the recent 'Unity rally' in Paris. No one, of course, would dare call it a rally against Islamist fascism, a rally against 'radical Islam' or even a rally against terrorism. No, it was all about unity, with signs saying 'Je suis Charlie' and flags and forty world leaders marching together in the streets of Paris. Nice, until you look behind the facade.

Among the participants was the Emir of Qatar which openly funds terrorism. Also at the rally was Turkish PM Ahmet Davutoglu, who country has more journalists in jail than any other NATO member for what's labeled as 'un-Turkish sentiments', whose Islamist government is a haven for Hamas. It is also the country where at least one of the killers, Hayat Boumeddiene was allowed to enter France freely via a ticket from Istanbul to Spain and the country from which she was allowed to escape back to Syria.

And of course, Palestine's unelected Dictator Mahmoud Abbas was there too. Yes, Abbas, the Holocaust denier with his history of terrorism as Arafat's second in command, Abbas who is allied with the genocidal Hamas in a unity government. Interesting how that came about.

Israeli PM Benyamin Netanyahu had wanted to show up in Paris to take part as one of the world leaders involved. You would think he'd be a natural participant, given Israel's history of combating Islamist terrorism, and especially since about a third of the victims of the attacks were Jews.

But the Israeli PM was told outright by the French government that he was persona non grata and unwelcome, since his presence was deemed 'divisive' and would 'make having the rally difficult.'

After mulling it over for a day, Netanyahu simply told the French he was coming anyway. My sources differ on whether Abbas had already been expressly invited (the Palestinian Authority insists he was, and a private meeting between Abbas and Holland scheduled the next day seems to bear this out) or whether he was invited simply out of spite towards Netanyahu,but the fact remains that the leader of a democracy with a free press and an admirable record fighting exactly the forces responsible for last weeks' carnage was insulted and initially shunned while nations that finance and support terrorism and rigidly repress any criticism were courted and invited.

I doubt having Abbas there went a long way towards reassuring French Jews.

President Obama, for once, made the right choice in avoiding this farce although for all the wrong reasons. Because nothing is going to change, at least in the near term.

French Prime Minister Manuel Valls made a brave speech about France waging “a war against terrorism, against jihadism, against radical Islam, against everything that is aimed at breaking fraternity, freedom, solidarity.”

But Socialist François Hollande is France's president and the one with power, and he most definitely did not echo Valls' sentiments. Neither did President Obama or Attorney General Eric Holder, whom was present in Paris but pointedly did not attend the rally.

France's Socialist government and President Hollande in particular are hugely unpopular in France, although he got a slight boost in popularity from last weeks' events that will soon fade as things return to normal.The Socialist's election victory, in part, occurred because they carried the Muslim vote almost in a bloc.At this point, they need all the political support they can muster, so rest assured that Prime Minister Valls likely received a quiet spanking at the Élysée Palace and no 'war' is going to be declared just now.

To win a war, you first have to be willing to name your enemy and be honest about his motivations. In spite of the perpetrators murdering people while yelling 'Allahu akbar!' and 'the Prophet has been avenged', most of Europe as well as the Obama Administration were quick to say this had nothing to do with Islam. Even PM Valls referred to 'radical Islam,' and other apologists on the Left like our president referred to the perpetrators as 'radicals' who are 'distorting a peaceful religion. Others referred to them as fanatics, or as simply insane.

They aren't any of those things. They're Islamists engaged in jihad, with their actions justified by a fairly mainstream reading of the Qu'ran, even if many Muslims don't act on it - yet.

But that reading, the 'radicalization' the political class mentions every once and a while has gained precedence in the west and is directly attributable to the policies they and their willing tools have promulgated in Europe and America.

They have appeased Islamism and empowered it at every turn. They have imported huge numbers of Muslim immigrants,many of whom come  with a culture that despises western freedom into our countries without bothering to ask the citizens they ostensibly represent and have increasingly not insisted on these new migrants to  assimilate or respect the western culture of the host country. Instead, they have pushed 'multiculturalism' to force western culture to twist like a pretzel to appease and accommodate something that is essentially incompatible.

They've allowed and continued to allow the cancer of Islamism to grow. turning a blind eye to Islamist mosques being constructed with foreign money, to radical imams imported to promulgate jihad and in America, subversive groups like CAIR, MPAC, The Islamic Trust of North America(ITNA) the MSA and similar Muslim Brotherhood front groups to be funded and nurtured. They've been doing it for years.

The Obama Administration has even protected such groups when they were clearly involved in money laundering and material aid to officially designated terrorist entities.

Contrary to being 'crazy' or fanatic, in action these warriors of jihad are calm, deliberate and well trained as you can see from the video below. And savage, executing a badly wounded policeman whom was no threat to them as he begged for his life.



And even that shows deliberation, The policeman in question happened to be Muslim and undoubtedly mentioned it in an attempt to survive. He was shot dead in this video, reproduced worldwide, to send a message to other Muslims. Terrorism is a tactic, not a madness and this killing along with all of the others last week was tactical, not mindless butchery.

Yes, it is about Islam, although not about all Muslims. Does any rational person still doubt it? Ahmad Harqan is an Egyptian civil rights activist raised this question on a popular TV show..'What is ISIS doing now that the Prophet Mohammed and his followers didn't do?'



For his outspokenness, Hargan narrowly escaped being assassinated and was later jailed briefly for blasphemy under article 98 in the Egyptian penal code,but his point is a valid one. All one needs to do is consult the Qu'ran and read what it says and the Hadiths, the recording of Mohamed's life, times and sayings by his followers.

To themselves and to a significant number of Muslims, Islamic State is merely following in Mohammed's footsteps. Until we understand that and obtain new political leadership that understands that and is willing to act on it seriously, we will continue to wallow in this sordid, self-defeating funk as the attacks continue to grow and get more serious.

It's time we awakened.

A Good Example Of How Islamist Apologists Lie About What's In The Bible

I frequently find that Islamist apologists ( and many atheists) have a cute if deplorable habit - they attempt to rationalize or make trivial the brutality committed in the name of Islam by citing out of context Biblical verses to show that 'all religion is the same' or that the Qu'ran and the Bible are similar.

Here's a good example I'd thought I'd share with you that appeared in the comments section of a Breitbart Article about the scandal of Muslim pedophile rape gangs in Rotherham, UK and the local police and government's deliberate and knowing failure to deal with it in the name of political correctness while over 1,400 young British girls were victimized.

In response to a statement that there's nothing in the Bible that allows this kind of behavior, one 'Dr. Polidori' responded:

"... kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, save alive for yourselves." - Numbers 31:17-18

Sounds pretty damning, doesn't it? At least until you know the whole story.

This verse specifically refers to the Midianites and it is not a guide to behavior towards any other  people or wars in the future. Numbers 25 tells how the Midianites, specifically the women, led the Israelites astray into worshiping the idol Baal, and kindled G-ds anger so that He struck the Israelites with a plague, which only ended when Pinchas, the grandson of Aaron, killed an Israelite man and the Midianite woman he brought into his family (Numbers 25:6-9).

That's why the women 'who had lain with man' were to be killed but the ones whom hadn't were spared. Moses was concerned that the Midianite women 'who had lain with men', including Israelites would corrupt the Hebrew nation and lead them into sin and idolatry again.

This verse also implies ('save alive for yourselves') that the Isrealites took the Midianite virgins as spoils and sex slaves. Nothing could be further from the truth.

For one thing, it would have been sinful for the Israelite men to rape the Midianite girls because rape was (and still is) abhorrent and sinful to G-d (Deuteronomy 22:23-28, esp. 25).

And secondly, the Torah, unlike the Qu'ran with its' 'What thy right hand possesses' doctrine (Qu'ran 4:24) specifically forbids such behavior.

In Deuteronomy 20-14, it states explicitly that female captives are NOT to be raped or sold into slavery but to shave their heads and cut their nails ( to make them less desirable to their captors) and are to be allowed 30 days to mourn without being enslaved,molested or coerced in any way - after which they are free to leave or to be married to their captors.

Only a truly perverse mentality would attempt to rationalize what's being done in the name of Islam by promulgating a vile lie about something that was actually an attempt to mitigate the fate of women captured in war and their status as booty.

The usual disclaimer..many Muslims likewise would never indulge in the sort of behavior  characterized by Qu'ran 4:24  and numerous other places in the Qu'ran and Hadiths. But the fact remains that there is definitely a religious justification for this treatment of women, especially non-Muslims, and that a substantial number of Muslims adhere to that interpretation of Islam, including many prominent imams,  Qaddis, clerics and scholars of both Sunni and Shi'te Islam.

We see this in action every day, and until we admit it instead of rationalizing it, it's going to not only continue but to become even more blatant.

Cheerleaders, G-d And Civil Disobedience

 

Oneida High School in Oneida, Tennessee ended prayers before athletic events because they were afraid of the possibility of lawsuits after pressure from the ACLU and atheist organizations like the Freedom From Religion foundation. So they stopped the usual broadcasting of the Lord's Prayer, otherwise known as Psalm 23 (written by King David) over the PA and substituted a 'moment of silence' instead.The school's decision didn't resonate well with the students and much of the community.

What happened next is simply heartwarming.

The next Friday night football game, the school's cheerleaders in a body used that 'moment of silence' to lead the assembled crowd and the athletes in Psalm 23.

“We need prayer for so many reasons especially in our community now and the troubles we face every day,” said junior Kayla King.

“During the moment of silence all the cheerleaders came together and recited the Lord's Prayer,” King explained.

Cheerleader Captain Ally Meyers said she was "emotional" when she learned that prayers could no longer be recited over the PA system. She said the cheerleaders decided to keep it going on their own, and the whole crowd joined in.

"Our community needs God in it, especially at football games. We pray for the safety of each and every player out there and the cheerleaders and the fans for the drive home," she said.

“In that moment the atmosphere was kind of great because it was nothing but heads bowed, and you heard the Lord's Prayer ring over the football field,” said King.

It must have been quite a moment.

And here's the irony. While the outside groups trying to impose their version of secular tyranny were looking to limit prayer, they had the opposite effect. Instead of one person reading Psalm 23 over the PA, there are now hundreds of people reciting it, and receiving an enhanced spiritual charge from a wonderful act of civil disobedience.

Contrary to what you've heard, there is no legally mandated 'separation' of religion and state, and that entire belief is based on a couple of highly questionable decisions from the ultra-Left Warren Court. But for those of you whom claim there is, here's a test.

If you think reading a Judeo-Christian prayer over a PA system at a non-mandatory school event is 'unconstitutional', do you feel the same way about the adhan, the Muslim call to prayer? That consists of a statement of Islam's superiority and other religion's inferior status broadcast publicly through PA systems at often earsplitting volume where people are forced to listen to it even if they are non-Muslims.



Funny thing...I haven't heard of any letters to mosques telling them to ditch broadcasting the adhan...not even so much as one threat of an ACLU lawsuit, have you? The muscular secularists at the ACLU or the Freedom From Religion Foundation seem to have plenty of courage when it comes to Judeo-Christian practices and institutions, but somehow they aren't lining up to file suits against mosques that are openly even more intrusive when it comes to broadcasting their religious beliefs in the public sphere.

If you're going to go after Oneida High School and not the mosques and their minarets, that is selective enforcement, a polite name for bigotry. It really is that simple.

Kerry: US Must Help Push 'Real Islam'

No, I'm not kidding...John Kerry's 'strategy' for defeating the Islamic State involves proselytizing to push what he and his pals at the White House consider 'real Islam.'

As I'm sure you know,both Kerry and President Obama have said that they don't 'consider ISIS Islamic.'


Here's our Secretary of State at a roundtable discussion in Paris, still trying to build that so far illusory coalition:

" What this effort has to do is literally dry up the money, dry up the foreign fighters, prevent the foreign fighters from going home back to various places to do harm. It has to start major efforts to delegitimize ISIS’s claim to some religious foundation for what it’s doing and begin to put real Islam out there and draw lines throughout the region.

And I think this is a wake-up call with respect to that because every Arab leader there today was talking about this, about real Islam and how important the Friday sermons are and where they need to go. Those are critical components of this strategy. Getting logistics, airlift, putting humanitarian assistance in, flying it in, ammunition, equipment, training, advisers – all of these roles are the totality and you have to be able to describe this in a logistic way – in a holistic way."

The 'real Islam?' I wonder if John Kerry has actually read the Qu'ran and seen what's in there?

There's nothing the Islamic State is doing that isn't justified by a fairly straight forward reading of the Qu'ran and the Hadiths, the Muslim equivalent of the Gospels where Mohammed's life, deeds and sayings are recounted by his closest followers.Not all Muslims would agree with that reading, but there are a significant number that would. And a lot of them have no problem with the Islamic State.

Believe it or not, Left wing Icon Bill Maher addressed this fairly well talking to PBS's clueless Charlie Rose:



Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State has a doctorate in Islamic studies from Baghdad University, one of the historic centers of Islamic learning and thought. He's formulated the Islamic State's ideology on what he and a lot of other people consider a legitimate reading of Islam.Do Kerry and Obama claim they understand what 'real Islam' is better than him?

For that matter, where do Kerry and President Obama get off talking about 'real Islam' when they support and fund a unity government that includes Hamas, whose beliefs are essentially the same as Islamic State's?

Kerry's State Department spokesmouth Maria Harf emphasized that just the other day, when she was asked about it.. “They’re different groups…They have different goals and different capabilities and different aims…

Needless to say, when she was asked what those differences might be, she simply responded, “I’m not going to get into the business of ranking terrorist organizations.”

When you have a President who's on record saying that "I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear" , you run into troublesome dichotomies like that.Some terrorists are OK, others are sort of borderline and some are..well, just not Islamic.Can't tell who the players are without a scorecard.

I have to admit, I'm curious what Kerry and Obama have in mind to push this 'real Islam.' Dawa classes at your local public schools? Having U.S. and Eu taxpayers subsidize Wahhabi mosques at home and abroad? Free sets of flashcards, 'This Is Islam, This Ain't?'

Pathetic. And needless to say, outright useless because of its fundamental dishonesty.

Sharia Rears Its Head In Pennsylvania

This one caught my eye (h/t, This Ain't Hell).

In Mechanicsburg, PA, there was a Halloween parade. And a group calling themselves 'The Parading Atheists of Central Pennsylvania' decided it would be a hoot to dress up as the Pope, Jesus, Mohammed, and other religious figures and portray them as zombies.

A Muslim watching the parade with his family became livid over what he saw as blasphemy and there was a confrontation. What it consisted of depends on whom you believe. The plaintiff/victim Ernest Perce V,
whom just happens to be the Pennsylvania State Director of American Atheists, Inc.,claims he was physically assaulted, choked from behind by the defendant, Taaliq Elbayomy, that the defendant attempted to smash the sign over his head and pull his costume beard off. In addition, the atheists caught the entire episode on video.

The police were summoned, and in their interview with Taaliq Elbayomy, he admitted there had been physical contact.There's a Pennsylvania law against this sort of thing, so the police and the DA took it to court, which is when things got strange.

The trial was presided over by Judge Mark W. Martin. The first thing he did was to refuse to allow the video of the altercation taken by the plaintiff to be used as evidence. And he allowed Elbayomy to testify without challenge, saying that there was no physical contact, thus changing the story he told the police. That in itself is a crime since its illegal to lie to an officer of the law. Elbayomy also told the court that he was under the impression that to parade around dressed as Mohammed was against the law here in America (which it isn't) and that he felt he needed to show his young son that he was willing to fight for his Prophet.

In delivering his verdict, Judge Martin then proceeded to give Ernest Perce V a tongue lashing, lecturing him on the Qu'ran, sharia law and Muslim culture. The judge's rant starts at about 27:00:

“Having had the benefit of having spent over 2 and a half years in predominantly Muslim countries I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam. In fact I have a copy of the Koran here and I challenge you sir to show me where it says in the Koran that Mohammad arose and walked among the dead. I think you misinterpreted things. Before you start mocking someone else's religion you may want to find out a little bit more about it. It makes you look like a doofus and Mr.Elbayomy is correct. In many Arabic speaking countries something like this is definitely against the law there. In their society in fact it can be punishable by death and it frequently is in their society.”

“Islam is not just a religion, it's their culture, their culture. It's their very essence, their very being. They pray five times a day towards Mecca to be a good Muslim, before you die you have to make a pilgrimage to Mecca unless you are otherwise told you can not because you are too ill too elderly, whatever but you must make the attempt. Their greetings wa-laikum as-salaam (is answered by voice) may god be with you. Whenever, it's very common when speaking to each other it”s very common for them to say uh, this will happen if it's Allah's will, they are so immersed in it.”

“Then what you have done is you have completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very very very offensive. I'm a Muslim, I find it offensive *. But you have that right, but you're way outside your boundaries or first amendment rights. This is what, and I said I spent about 7 and a half years living in other countries. when we go to other countries it's not uncommon for people to refer to us as ugly Americans..this is why we are referred to as ugly Americans, because we are so concerned about our own rights we don't care about other people”s rights as long as we get our say but we don't care about the other people's say.”

The judge than said that what he basically had here was a he said, she said situation, that the burden of proof was on the defendant and that it was not "proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant is guilty of harassment, therefore I am going to dismiss the charge”

(* First, before we go further, let's discuss at that asterisk. In the video linked above,which is a recording of the trial Judge Martin appears to clearly say "I'm a Muslim, I find it offensive." However, the judge claims what he actually said is 'I'm not a Muslim, I find it offensive.' You can take your pick, although I will say for a non-Muslim, it's interesting that he had a Qu'ran so handy, claimed such authoritative knowledge of it, seemed so enamored of sharia, seems to not understand the First Amendment and seems to somewhat regret that our atheist friend isn't being beheaded for blasphemy.)

I actually understand Judge Martin's verdict. The selfie video doesn't show things all that clearly,mainly a lot of shouting. Not allowing it as evidence in a non-jury trial is not how I would have proceeded,but Judge Martin was within his rights to do so.

It's also true that when the atheists chose to dress up as religious figures, they were obviously looking to provoke a confrontation. To do something like that and then claim 'oh, I'm such a victim' is pretty typical in Obama's America, but that doesn't make it right. Personally, whenever I hear a militant atheist like Mikey Weinstein pule on about those 'evil Christianists' and how we have to get G-d out of our military, I admit to experiencing a pretty disgusted reaction myself. But I also recognize that he's entitled.

Since there wasn't any clear evidence of an actual physical assault, I think Judge Martin was entitled to dismiss the case.

But that's where it stops.

There's absolutely no excuse whatsoever for Judge Martin to use the bully pulpit of the bench to deliver a one sided rebuke to an American clearly exercising his First Amendment rights. If someone wants to burn a Qu'ran or a Bible or an American flag, that is both stupid, disrespectful and unkind, but it is not illegal.At least not in America, not yet.

Here Judge Martin had a defendant who is an immigrant and plainly admitted in court he wasn't aware of how the First Amendment works. Did Judge Martin engage in what was obviously called for, a rebuke that explained Mr.Elbayomy's mistake to him and included some basic information on how our Bill of Rights works? Nope. In fact, the way he ruled and his subsequent remarks obviously left Mr.Elbayomy feeling like what he did was entirely correct behavior, as well as providing an interesting model of conduct to his children.

Must.not.offend.Islam.or Muslims.ever.

You see, that's where sharia kicks in.In his off the wall rant, Judge Martin essentially honored the Muslim blasphemy laws, implying that anyone could understand what Mr.Elbayomy did. Why, his essence was being attacked!

This is unfortunately symptomatic of a trend in some American legal circles that seek to legitimize a legal code totally incompatible with America's Constitution and our freedoms. No less than Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer has weighed in about how foreign law and sharia needs to be considered in U.S. jurisprudence, and how respect for a Qu'ran should trump the First Amendment. And President Obama's new Justice Elena Kagan who lied openly during her confirmation hearings is also very sharia friendly as evidenced by her conduct while on the Harvard faculty.

 Here's a list and evaluation of about fifty  cases where sharia law has figured in American judicial proceedings, and it's by no means all inclusive.While many of these cases were overturned at the appellate level, the fact that sharia was considered at all even as a legal argument is cause for concern. Britain, where sharia is now mandatory for Muslims in family matters has proved a disaster for women's rights and is a clear warning to other countries about what a slippery slope this can be.

It's quite obvious that for whatever reason, whether he is a Muslim or not, Judge Martin holds certain very positive views on Islam and sharia and accords sharia an equal status with U.S. law, and he went out of his way to express them. It's also obvious that it affected how he treated the case and the plaintiff and that his bias would affect how he would treat future cases, future lawyers and plaintiffs whose fate he might be deciding.

This is clear judicial misconduct, and Judge Martin should be removed for it.

Mohammed's Birthplace In Mecca To Be Bulldozed By Saudis For 'Redevelopment'

The UK's Independent is reporting that a site in Mecca believed by most scholars to be the birthplace of Islam’s Prophet Muhammad is going to be bulldozed by a Saudi company in order to build a modern compound that would include a presidential palace. There's now a small library and shrine at the site, just steps away from Mecca’s Masjid al-Haram, or Grand Mosque, which surrounds the Ka’aba, and contains the Sacred Black Stone, a meteorite Muslims have worshiped since pre-Islamic times. This is the most sacred site in Islam, where Muslims come from all over the world to make the haj, or pilgrimage to Mecca.

 


The Binladin Group (yes, it's that Bin Laden) which has the contract from the Saudi government for redevelopment estimates the cost at billions of dollars.


“The last remaining historical site in the kingdom is the birthplace of the Prophet Muhammad, probably the most important site to the Muslim and Shia community around the world,” The Independent quoted Irfan al-Alawi, a historian and executive director of the UK-based Islamic Heritage Research Foundation, as saying.

“Most people are not even aware there are plans now to destroy it.”

While some Muslims have expressed reservations, the Saudi government is behind the project, because they feel that preserving such relics encourages idol worship.

Contrast this cavalier attitude with the sort of sentiments expressed over the al-Kuds mosque in Jerusalem,which was an abandoned wreck until the fascist Grand Musti Haj Amin al-Husseini rebuilt it in the late 1920's, and the Temple Mount, where Muslims play soccer, defecate, picnic and pray facing Mecca with their posteriors facing the 'holy mosque', but riot and throw stones whenever Jews come near the Temple Mount simply to worship.

Or the murderous rage that occurs when 'kuffrs', non-believers even handle a Qu'ran.

Yes, it's political, and a part of jihad against the infidels. But you knew that, right?