Saturday, December 23, 2006


Posted on Jihad Watch by Hugh Fitzgerald, the following article makes clear YET AGAIN the ridiculous posture American and other Western politicians have taken toward Muslim aggressors anywhere they find them across the global with one notable exception—Afghanistan—and that was only a quarter measure of the necessary response because these same leaders were too busy planning an attack on Iraq instead of focussing on a clean victory in Taliban territories. But I digress:

Talk to Ethiopian Christians in the West. Ask them about their fears. Not fears or memories of this or that regime, of Mengistu and the DERG, or complaints about Zenawi, but fears about Islam. Many may be hesitant at first, thinking perhaps you might be a Muslim or a supporter of Muslims, but if you forthrightly declare your own views, see what you are told in return, what a torrent may follow.

The demographic conquest of the last redoubt of Christianity, the famous Christian Kingdom of Ethiopia, so famous that when the inhabitants of Western Christendom, under constant Muslim attack, with raids up and down the coasts of Europe as far as Ireland and on one occasion, even as far as Iceland, sought and found a comforting myth of the powerful Christian king, beyond the lands of Islam, who would help the Christians of Europe fight the menace of Islam. At first this mythical kingdom of Prester John was located in Asia, in distant India, but later became identified in the minds of many in Europe with Ethiopia as the new Kingdom of Prester John.

Here is how one blogger at an Addis Ababa site expresses his fears:

"Ethiopia is at a crossroads. In fact it was headed for this crossroad no matter who was prime minister. It is a lion cub being hunted by the sabre of Islam. Islam is at odds with democracy, freedom and human liberty. It will ultimately oppose Ethiopia, even in violation of its own Koran.

I have been traveling & working in Ethiopia for several years now. There have been many changes. While the politics of Meles may be brought into question. Any situation beats the DERG and I would say the current status, though far from perfect beats an Islamic state any day. Ethiopia faces the loss of a developing democracy to the enemies of freedom and liberty.

Where Isalm is the minority they are as lambs, where they are equal in power they are like a fox, when Islam is the majority they are as wolves.

What's going on is not merely political or philosophical, it is a war of ideology. The sovereignty of Ethiopia is at stake. Shore up her borders and then tackle the internal issues, as a parlimentary democracy—there is less freedom in an Islamic-fascist state. Just visit Somalia or Eritrea."

One might also note the views of Muslim apologists who do not want the Americans helping Ethiopia precisely because it is seen as a "Christian" state, and this would offend Muslims, who apparently are free to wage Jihad, but we who are not Muslims must not extend aid to fellow non-Muslims lest this put a "religious" cast on what, of course, is already a religiously-prompted war.

This absurd argument can be found in a piece that appeared in a Houston paper, of which an excerpt is given below:

There are several reasons why aligning with Ethiopia on Somalia would be a bad idea that might even jeopardize the current coalition and undermine the long-term objectives of the war against global terrorism.

First, such partnership with a nation that portrays itself as "a Christian" nation against a Muslim neighbor, which is a member of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) and the Arab League, and based on little and tainted information, would give the war a religious color, thereby undermining President Bush's core message right from the start: that the war is against terrorism, not against Islam.

Historically, Ethiopia viewed itself as a "Christian island surrounded by a Muslim sea." As a result, Islam has historically been perceived as a major threat to this country, and Ethiopian Muslims, though they constitute at least half of the population, have had an invisible presence in the country. A former U.S. ambassador to Ethiopia wrote: 'Islam in Ethiopia has confined itself entirely to the spiritual realm. It has shown no interest in politics, though it is keenly aware that it comprises at least half the population and probably more.'

Furthermore, Ethiopia's unshakable image in the eyes of the world is that of a Christian nation. The recent U.S. Department of State classification of all the main Horn of Africa nations in the region, except Ethiopia, as either predominantly Arab or Muslim, also reinforces that image. Apparently, this has nothing to do with being "predominantly Arab or Muslim."

The transparent argument here is that Christians are not allowed to help fellow Christians lest the war be perceived, as it is declared to be by the Muslims in Somalia and by all the non-Somali Muslims who will help them, as a war between Muslims and Chrsitians.

About one thing the writer is correct: there are many Muslims in Ethiopia, and its Christian character is threatened by the missionary efforts, and the usual overbreeding by Muslims. That is another problem, and it is a problem that needs to be recognized and not ignored but dealt with, because it is in the interests of the entire non-Muslim world that Ethiopia remain a Christian country and not succumb to Islam. And whatever that takes—:including the transfer of some Muslims into Somalia—should be considered.

Labels: , , , ,

Friday, December 22, 2006


Today we learn that Iran has hanged three Arabs for carrying out bombings in the oil rich Khuzestan province. The Tehran Emrooz daily newspaper said the men were hanged on Tuesday in the provincial capital Ahvaz, where in January 2006 they bombed a private bank and the office of the governor.

"They were convicted for acting against national security," the newspaper said.

In November, Iranian media said that a total of 10 men had been convicted of carrying out last year's spate of bombings in Ahvaz and that they would be executed soon. Ahvaz, the capital of the western Khuzestan province and home to a large community of ethnic minority Arabs, has witnessed a wave of unrest over the past year.

Two Arab separatists have already been hanged over attacks in October 2005, which killed six and injured close to 100. Another double bombing killed eight and injured 46 in January.

But here's the caveat. Government officials blamed the Khuzestan unrest on Britain with its troops based just across the border in southern Iraq. Damn. The power of the West is just amazing, isn't it? The hangings brings to at least 147 the number of people executed in Iran this year.

Amnesty International says there were 94 executions in Iran in 2005. Capital offences in the Islamic republic include murder, rape, armed robbery, apostasy, blasphemy, serious drug trafficking, repeated sodomy, adultery or prostitution, treason and espionage.

Labels: , ,


In November, the Colorado Attorney General reportedly flew to Saudi Arabia to stroke and reassure the Saudis after one of their royal infiltrators into this country, Homaidan Al-Turki, was convicted of sexually abusing and enslaving an Indonesian nanny. In June, Al-Turki was convicted of 12 counts of unlawful sexual contact with force. one count of theft of services, false imprisonment , and conspiracy, receiving 20 years to life in prison.

According to reports, a lot of public attention in Saudi Arabia on the case addes to the misperceptions there about the US judicial system. I guess the Saudi royalty figured their oil and money could buy American justice. After all, OJ got off.

The State of Colorado convinced US officials that the diplomatic trip was warranted. More dhimmi non-sense, of course. But we wouldn't want to Saudis to turn on us, now would we?

Under similar circumstances to theColorado case, a similar Massachusetts case was just prosecuted. A Saudi Arabian princess accused of breaking US immigration laws by locking up her domestics' passports and forcing them to work for low pay was ordered to be deported, prosecutors said yesterday.

Hana F. Al Jader of Winchester was sentenced to two years of probation, the first six months of which must be served in home confinement, after which she'll be deported to Saudi Arabia, prosecutors said.

U.S. District Judge Reginald J. Lindsay also sentenced Al Jader, 40, to pay $206,000 in restitution to three of her former domestic servants, pay a $40,000 fine, and perform 100 hours of community service.

In September, Al Jader pleaded guilty to two counts of visa fraud for lying on immigration forms, and two counts of harboring an alien for keeping the two women at her house though she knew their visas had expired.

Suffice it to say, slavery is indeed alive and well in many Islamic societies across the globe, supported by the Qu'ran (and thus active for fundamentalists), and practiced by Arab Muslims against the Sudanese in a devasting way this very moment.

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, December 20, 2006


Robert Spencer's Jihad Watch website, tracking the outrages of Islam that take place on a daily basis globally, has been growing daily for several years now. For anyone wishing to strike through the dense fog and thistle of the discredited notion of political correctness to discover the real war the West is fighting against Islam, Robert Spencer continues to press onward with a calm demeanor and clear rhetoric outlining the dangers of Qu'ran-inspired Islamic aggression, past and present.

And now, as he is beginning to make more personal appearances in the maintream media to voice his opinions in debate with representatives from so-called moderates such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), he has had his most recent book THE TRUTH ABOUT MUHAMMAD banned by the Pakistani government.

That government has confiscated all copies and translations of the book because it contains "objectionable material" about the founder of Islam, said a notification.

I suppose Musharraf had no problem with this latest outrage since he is less an ally to the United States and more simply a Muslim opportunist trying to keep his life and his job as President of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

Meanwhile, the number six best-selling book currently in Palestine is an Arabic translation of Hitler’s Mein Kampf according to the Telegraph in the UK. The book is also on sale in London's Edgware section, an area with a large Arab population.

Labels: , ,


  • Bible: The Antichrist is an unparalleled political, military and religious leader that will that emerge in the last-days.
  • Islam: The Mahdi is an unparalleled political, military and religious leader that will emerge in the last-days.

  • Bible: the False Prophet is a secondary prominent figure that will emerge in the last-days who will support the Antichrist.
  • Islam: the Muslim Jesus is a secondary prominent figure that will emerge in the last-days to support the Mahdi.

  • Bible: The Antichrist and the False Prophet together will have a powerful army that will do great damage to the earth in an effort to subdue every nation and dominate the World.
  • Islam: The Mahdi and the Muslim Jesus will have a powerful army that will attempt to control every nation of the earth and dominate the World.

  • Bible: The False Prophet is described essentially as a dragon in lamb’s clothing.
  • Islam: The Muslim Jesus literally comes bearing the name of the one that the world knows as “The Lamb of God: Jesus Christ.” Yet the Muslim Jesus comes to murder all those who do not submit to Islam.

  • Bible: The Antichrist and the False Prophet establish a New World Order.
  • Islam: The Mahdi and the Muslim Jesus establish a New World Order.

  • Bible: The Antichrist and the False Prophet institute new laws for the whole earth.
  • Islam: The Mahdi and the Muslim Jesus institute Islamic law all over the earth.

  • Bible: The Antichrist is said to “change the times.”
  • Islam: It is quite certain that if the Mahdi established Islam all over the earth, he would discontinue the use of Saturday and Sunday as the weekend or days of rest but rather Friday, the holy day of Islam. Also, he would most certainly eliminate the Gregorian calendar (A.D.), and replace it with the Islamic calendar (A. H.) as is used in every Islamic country.

  • Bible: The Antichrist and the False Prophet will both be powerful religious leaders who will attempt to institute a universal world religion.
  • Islam: The Mahdi and the Muslim Jesus will institute Islam as the only religion in the earth.

  • Bible: The Antichrist and the False Prophet will execute anyone who does not submit to their world religion.
  • Islam: Likewise, the Mahdi and the Muslim Jesus will execute anyone who does not submit to Islam.

  • Bible: The Antichrist and the False Prophet will specifically use beheading as the primary means of execution for non-conformists.
  • Islam: The Mahdi and the Muslim Jesus will use the Islamic practice of beheading for executions.

  • Bible: The Antichrist and the False Prophet will have a specific agenda to kill as many Jews as possible.
  • Islam: The Mahdi and the Muslim Jesus will kill as many Jews as is possible until only a few are left hiding behind rocks and trees.

  • Bible: The Antichrist and the False Prophet will attack to conquer and seize Jerusalem.
  • Islam: The Mahdi and the Muslim Jesus will attack to re-conquer and seize Jerusalem for Islam.

  • Bible: The Antichrist will set himself up in the Jewish temple as his seat of authority.
  • Islam: The Mahdi will establish the Islamic Caliphate from Jerusalem.

  • Bible: The False Prophet is said to do many miracles to deceive as many as possible into supporting the Antichrist.
  • Islam: The Mahdi himself is said to control the weather and the crops. His face is said to glow. We can also assume that since Jesus is viewed as having been empowered by Allah to work miracles when he was here on earth the first time, he will most likely be expected to continue to do so when he returns.

  • Bible: The Antichrist is described as riding on a white horse in the Book of Revelation
  • Islam: The Mahdi is described as riding on a white horse (ironically from the same verse).

  • Bible: The Antichrist is said to make a peace treaty with Israel for seven years.
  • Islam: The Mahdi is said to make a peace treaty through a Jew (specifically a Levite) for exactly seven years.

  • Bible: Jesus the Jewish Messiah will return to defend the Jews in Israel from a military attack from a vast coalition of nations led by the Antichrist and the False Prophet.
  • Islam: The Dajjal, the Islamic Antichrist will gain a great Jewish following and claim to be Jesus Christ and fight against the Mahdi and the Muslim Jesus.

  • Bible: The antichrist spirit specifically denies the most unique and central doctrines of Christianity, namely the trinity, the incarnation and the substitutionary death of Jesus on the cross.
  • Islam: Islam doctrinally and spiritually specifically denies the most unique and central doctrines of Christianity, namely the trinity, the incarnation and the substitutionary death of Jesus on the cross.

  • Bible: The primary warning of Jesus and the Apostle Paul was to warn Christians of the abundance of deceit and deception in the last-days.
  • Islam: Islam is perhaps the only religion in the earth that practices deceit as one of its tools to assist its own ascendancy. It actually has a specific doctrine which allows and even calls for deception to be used to achieve its desired end.

  • Bible: The specific nations pictured in the Bible as being part of the final empire of the Antichrist are all Islamic nations.
  • Islam: All Muslims are commanded to give their allegiance to The Mahdi as the final Caliph and Imam (leader) of Islam.

  • Bible: From the Bible and History we learn that the final Antichrist empire will be a revived version of the Empire that succeeds the Roman Empire
  • Islam: The Empire that succeeded the Roman/Byzantine Empire was the Islamic Ottoman Empire

  • Bible: When Antichrist emerges, there will already be some form of system in place that will be poised to receive him as a Savior and to give allegiance to him.
  • Islam is already the second largest religion and will at present growth rates become the largest religion within a few decades. Islam is awaiting the coming of the Mahdi with a universal anticipation.

    Labels: , , , , , ,

  • Monday, December 18, 2006


    We thank Dr. Mark A. Gabriel for this article discussing an issue considerate and intelligent Westerners are or should be asking themselves as should truly contemplative Muslims located in the West, the MIddle East and elsewhere. You can read more about Dr. Gabriel and his insightful critique of Islam today, past and future, at his website.

    People in the West are very curious about the differences between Muslims. They see that some Muslims join radical groups and attack innocent people while others live quiet lives as business owners in the West. They find it hard to imagine that their nice Muslim neighbors or coworkers believe all the teachings of the Quran and support Muhammad’s practice of holy war.

    There are between 6 million and 8 million Muslims living in the United States. Most of these are immigrants from Middle Eastern countries. The next largest group is black American converts. The smallest group is white American converts. Outside of the United States, there are 1.2 billion more Muslims. From my observations and experience, both in the United States and in other countries, Muslims can be divided into three main groups.

    Ordinary Muslims
    Ordinary Muslims practice some of the teachings of Islam, but they don’t want to do anything difficult, like participate in jihad. They are more interested in having nice lives, providing for their children and running their businesses. They are Muslims because of their culture and tradition rather than because of strong religious beliefs.

    Most of the Muslims in the United States are ordinary Muslims. Some even send their children to Christian schools. Even in the Middle East there are more ordinary Muslims than committed Muslims. It would take time and motivation to turn ordinary Muslims into committed Muslims.

    From the point of view of a committed Muslim, this group should be referred to as secular Muslims because they are not submitting wholly to Islam.

    Committed Muslims
    Committed Muslims are making great efforts to live according to Islam. They are praying five times a day (which can take 2 ½ hours per day), giving alms and fasting all food and water during daylight hours of the month of Ramadan. A committed Muslim may not be in a radical group like Hamas, but he could choose to cross that line at any time that he feels his religion or people are threatened.

    Orthodox Muslims
    A subset of committed Muslims is the orthodox Muslims. Not only do orthodox Muslims want to follow the requirements of Islam, but they also want to do it in the same way as Muhammad did in the seventh century. They spend much time reading the Quran and Islamic books. Following the Quran and hadith, they may put severe restrictions on women. In Islamic countries, orthodox Muslims may choose to grow out their beards, but in the West they may not look different from other Muslims.

    This is the first sect in Islam that tried to transfer the meaning of jihad from spreading Islam with the sword to a spiritual struggle to fight evil within oneself. Sufism started six centuries after Muhammad’s death. Only 2 to 3 percent of Muslims worldwide are Sufites. Orthodox Muslims and fanatic Muslims reject them and do not consider them to be true Muslims.

    Fanatic Muslims
    These are committed Muslims who put their words into action. They are the types of people who join militant groups such as Hamas or work with al-Qaeda. They are ready to practice jihad (to kill or be killed in the name of Islam).

    How to Tell the Difference
    After the September 11 attacks, you could identify the different types of Muslims according to their reactions. The ordinary Muslims were pretty quiet. In the United States, they were even hanging American flags on their houses and showing support for the United States.

    The committed Muslims were demonstrating in the streets in support of al-Qaeda. Their imams were praising the bravery of Osama bin Laden and his network.

    The fanatic Muslims were taking their joy a step beyond talk. They were planning new attacks, such as the kidnapping and murder of journalist Daniel Pearl in February 2002. A year and a half after September 11, they were able to orchestrate major new bombings against Western targets overseas (including bombings in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia in May 2003).

    What Do These Categories Mean?
    These categories mean that not all Muslims have the same level of knowledge and commitment. Some ordinary Muslims do not even know about many things that are in the Quran and Islamic history about Muhammad.

    Committed and fanatic Muslims often have a very clear understanding of the teachings of Islam. They use the Quran and the example of Muhammad and the early Muslims as a blueprint for their attitudes and actions today.

    Labels: , , ,

    Friday, December 15, 2006


    The optimism as regards the victory of the European element, which Arnold Toynbee was still able to uphold at the beginning of the sixties, looks strangely outdated today. “Of the 28 cultures we have identified…18 are dead and nine out of the ten remaining—in fact all except our own—show that they are already mortally wounded.” Who would still repeat these words today? And in general, what is our culture, what’s left of it? Is the civilization of technique and commerce spread victoriously throughout the world actually European culture? Or was this not perhaps rather born, in a post-European way, from the end of the ancient European cultures? I see here a paradoxical synchrony.

    The victory of the techno-secular post-European world; with the universalization of its model of life and of its way of thinking, is linked throughout the world, but especially in the strictly non-European worlds of Asia and Africa, to the impression that Europe’s world of values, its culture and its faith, that on which its identity is based, has reached the end and has actually already left the stage, that now the hour of other worlds’ values has arrived, of pre-Colombian America, of Islam, of Asian mysticism.

    Europe, precisely in this its hour of maximum success, seems to have become empty inside, paralyzed in a certain sense by a crisis in its circulatory system, a crisis that puts its life at risk, resorting, as it were, to transplants that cannot but eliminate its identity. To this interior failure of its fundamental spiritual powers corresponds the fact that, even ethnically, Europe appears to be on the way out.

    There is a strange lack of desire for a future. Children, who are the future, are seen as a threat for the present; the idea is that they take something away from our life. They are not felt as a hope, but rather as a limitation of the present. We are forced to make comparisons with the Roman Empire at the time of its decline: it still worked as a great historical framework, but in practice it was already living off those who would dissolve it, since it had no more vital energy.

    With this point we have reached the problems of the present day. As regards the possible future of Europe, there are two opposite diagnoses. On one hand there is the thesis of Oswald Spengler, who believed he could define a kind of natural law for the great cultural expressions: there is a moment of birth, the gradual growth, the flourishing of a culture, then the on-come of weariness, old age and death. Spengler embroiders his thesis impressively, with documentation taken from the history of cultures, in which this law of natural evolution can be discerned.

    His thesis was that the West had reached its final epoch, which is moving inexorably towards the death of this cultural continent, despite all efforts to avert it. This thesis, labelled as biologistic, found ardent opponents in the period between the two world wars, especially in Catholic circles. Arnold Toynbee, too, reacted against it in a striking way, with postulates that, of course, today find little hearing. Toynbee points out the difference between material-technical progress on one hand and real progress on the other, which he defines as spiritualization. He admits that the West—the western world—is in crisis, and he sees the cause for this in the decline from religion to the worship of technique, of nation, of militarism. Ultimately, for him, the crisis means secularism.

    If we know the causes of the crisis, then we can find a way to cure it: the religious factor has to be reintroduced. In his view, part of this is “ the religious heritage of all cultures, but especially what is left of western Christianity.” He opposes the biologistic vision with a voluntaristic vision, which rests on the power of creative minorities and on exceptional individual personalities.

    So the question is: is this diagnosis correct? And if so, is it within our power to reintroduce the religious moment, in a synthesis of residual Christianity and mankind’s religious heritage? In the end, the question between Spengler and Toynbee remains open, because we cannot see into the future. But independently of that, we must face up to the task of asking ourselves what the future can guarantee us, and what is able to keep alive the interior identity of Europe through all the historical metamorphoses. Or even more simply, what promises, for today and tomorrow, too, to impart human dignity and an existence that conforms to that dignity?

    Thus we are faced with the question: how are things to go ahead? In the violent turbulence of our time, is there a European identity that has a future and for which we can commit ourselves with our whole being? I am not prepared to enter into a detailed discussion on the future European Constitution. I would just like to indicate briefly the fundamental moral elements, which to my mind should not be missing.

    The first element is the “unconditionality” with which human dignity and human rights must be presented as values that precede any jurisdiction on the part of the state. These basic rights are not created by the legislator, nor conferred on the citizens, “but rather exist in their own right, are always to be respected by the legislator, are given previously to him as values of a superior order.” This validity of human dignity, previous to every political action and to every political decision, refers back ultimately to the Creator: only He can establish values that are founded on the essence of man and that are intangible. That there be values that cannot be manipulated by anyone is the real, true guarantee of our freedom and of man’s greatness; Christian faith sees in this the mystery of the Creator and of the condition of the image of God that He conferred upon man.

    Now, almost no one these days would directly deny the precedence of human dignity and basic human rights over all political decisions; the horrors of Nazism and its racist theories are still too recent. But in the concrete sphere of the so-called progress of medicine there are very real threats to these values: whether we think of cloning, or of the conservation of human foetuses for organ donation, or of the whole field of genetic manipulation—no one can ignore the gradual erosion of human dignity that threatens us here. Added to this are the growth in the traffic of human persons, of new forms of slavery, trafficking in human organs for transplant. Good ends are always adopted in order to justify what is unjustifiable. In these sectors there are some hard and fast rules in the Charter of basic human rights we can be happy with, but on some important points it is still too vague. And it is precisely here that we jeopardize the seriousness of the principle at stake.

    The second point in which the European identity appears is marriage and the family. Monogamous marriage, as the basic structure of the relationship between man and woman and, at the same time, as the cell of the formation of the state community, is derived from biblical faith. This has given Western Europe as well as Eastern Europe, its own particular face and its own particular humanity, precisely because the form of fidelity and self-denial set out here had always to be conquered, over and over again, with much effort and suffering. Europe would no longer be Europe if this fundamental cell of its social structure were to disappear or be essentially changed.

    The Charter of Fundamental Rights speaks of the right to marriage, but does not express any specific protection for marriage—either juridical or moral—nor give it a more precise definition. And we all know how threatened marriage and the family are at present—on one hand by eroding their indissolubility through easier forms of divorce, and on the other hand by means of a new and more and more widespread lifestyle, the cohabitation of man and woman without the juridical form of marriage.

    In stark contrast to all this is the request for communion of life between homosexuals, who paradoxically now demand a juridical form having the same value as marriage. This tendency marks a departure from the system of mankind’s moral history, which, notwithstanding all the diverse juridical forms of marriage, always recognized that marriage is, in its essence, the particular communion of man and woman that is open to children and thus to the family.

    This is not a question of discrimination, but rather the question of what the human person is, as man and woman, and of how the togetherness of man and woman can be given a juridical form. If on one hand their togetherness is more and more detached from juridical forms, and on the other hand, homosexual union is seen more and more as having the same value as marriage, then we are before a dissolution of man’s image that can have only extremely grave consequences.

    My last point is the religious question. I do not want to enter into the complex discussions of recent years, but to focus on only one aspect that is fundamental for all cultures: respect for what the other holds sacred, and in particular respect for the sacred in the highest sense, for God, something that we can legitimately suppose to find even in one who is not disposed to believe in God. Wherever this respect is denied, something essential in a society is lost. In our present-day society, thank God, whoever dishonours the faith of Israel, its image of God or its great personalities, is fined.

    Whoever scorns the Koran and the basic convictions of Islam is fined, too. Instead, with regard to Christ and to what is sacred for Christians, freedom of opinion seems to be the supreme good, and to limit this would seem to threaten or even destroy tolerance and freedom in general. Freedom of opinion, though, finds its limit in this, that it cannot destroy the honour and the dignity of the other; it is not freedom to lie or to destroy human rights.

    The West reveals here a hatred of itself, which is strange and can be only considered pathological; the West is laudably trying to open itself, full of understanding, to external values, but it no longer loves itself; in its own history, it now sees only what is deplorable and destructive, while it is no longer able to perceive what is great and pure.

    By Joseph Ratzinger—May 14, 2004

    Labels: , , , , , ,


    Oriana—not Arianna!

    Now that's a t-shirt slogan....

    Labels: ,

    Thursday, December 14, 2006


    BRITISH POLITICIAN Enoch Powell, a member of Parliament for 37 years, died in Febrauary, 1998. Powell was a man of extraordinary ability, who had the courage to speak the truth on immigration. For this, he was driven from the Tory leadership and became known as the best prime minister Britain never had.

    The son of teachers, Powell won a scholarship to Cambridge, was a professor of Greek at 25, enlisted in the British army as a private at the outset of World War II and rose to the rank of brigadier general. A Thatcherite before Thatcher, Powell was a forceful intellectual and an eloquent speaker.

    On his death, Margaret Thatcher said: "There will never be anybody else so compelling as Enoch Powell. He had a rare combination of qualities all founded on an unfaltering belief in God, an unshakable loyalty to family and friends, and an unswerving devotion to our country."

    But Powell is best remembered for a controversial 1968 address warning of the dangers to national unity from immigration, which came to be known as the "Rivers of Blood" speech.

    Powell saw immigration from Britain's former colonies leading to an upsurge of crime and poverty and the fragmentation of British society. From his vantage point, the future looked bleak. "Like the Roman," Powell observed, "I seem to see the River Tiber foaming with much blood."

    The Tory reaction was to brand him a racist. Powell was removed from Edward Heath's shadow cabinet and forever barred from the prime ministership.

    Conservatives have a long and depressing tradition of bludgeoning immigration skeptics. In 1993, Winston Churchill, grandson of Britain's wartime prime minister, made similar observations. Churchill noted that while immigrants accounted for 6 percent of the nation, in some cities they constituted half the population.

    Then-Prime Minister John Major, seeking to reassure the British, predicted that 50 years hence spinsters would still bicycle to communion on Sunday morning. "More likely the muezzin will be calling Allah's faithful to the High Main Street Mosque," Churchill countered. For integrity to match his namesake's, Churchill was excoriated by members of Major's cabinet.

    Among the tributes delivered on Powell's passing, William Hague, the current Tory leader, said, "Powell spoke his mind without fear or favor." When Lord Norman Tebbit spoke his, at the Conservative Party Conference last year, Hague's gang rushed to disown him.

    Tebbit didn't urge that immigration be curtailed, but merely warned of the dangers of multiculturalism. The children of immigrants "born here should be taught that British history is their history, or they will forever be foreigners holding British passports and this kingdom will become a Yugoslavia," Tebbit warned.

    "Tebbit gives the impression of intolerance," Hague's office clucked. "William Hague wants to build a multicultural society." Well, good luck to him, and God save the Queen.

    Still, Britain's immigration problems seem trifling next to our own. By the latest count, 9.2 percent of our population is foreign-born. In California, that figure rises to 25 percent.

    Due largely to immigration (at the rate of about 1.5 million a year, 90 percent non-white), Americans of European stock will decline from 73.6 percent of the population today to 52.8 percent in 2050.

    Augmenting the welfare rolls and crime statistics aren't the only contributions of newcomers. Like Enoch Powell, the more discerning among us see our national identity slipping through porous borders. In his monograph Huddled Cliches, Larry Auster warns: "In addition to the millions of people who see the United States as a candy store without a lock, a significant number of immigrants have a conscious animus against this country.

    "A very bright Bengali-American college student told her college English class that the word 'American' is 'Orwellian' because it imposes an identity on her that she doesn't feel. 'I am not an American. I'm Bengali.'"

    Those who dare to recognize reality get the Powell treatment. The American elite can't take the truth today any more than Britain's could 30 years ago. In surveying the ruins of a once promising career, Powell stoically commented: "All political careers end in failure. No regrets."

    At least Enoch Powell won't have to witness the balkanization of his nation. Your children and grandchildren won't be nearly so fortunate.

    Thanks to Don Feder of Jewish World Review.

    Labels: , , ,

    Monday, December 11, 2006


    Wellie, well, well, as the screw turns. Things in Jolly Olde England are not as they seemed even just a few weeks ago. Former Dhimmi Tony Blair finally speaks out in real terms about real issues without stooping to all that "religion of peace" (ROP) sugarcoating. As reported by Islam News in Cairo:

    CAIRO — In an unprecedented strongly-worded language, British Prime Minister Tony Blair has called on immigrants to accept British values or "stay away", and re-advocated a face-veil ban in public places, reported The Independent on Saturday, December 9.

    "Our tolerance is part of what makes Britain Britain. So conform to it; or don't come here," Blair told an audience grouping academics, students and Muslim leaders, adding, "We don't want the hate-mongers, whatever their race, religion or creed."

    Blair defined British values as "belief in democracy, the rule of law, tolerance, equal treatment for all, respect for this country and its shared heritage".

    The British premier said his government will take a series of measures to encourage immigrants and ethnic minorities to integrate into society, according to Reuters. Immigrants seeking a settlement in Britain will have to pass an English test, Blair said. Ethnic and religious groups in Britain will also be required to show they promote integration for getting government grants, he added.

    "In the future, we will assess bids from groups of any ethnicity or any religious denomination, also against a test, where appropriate, of promoting community cohesion and integration," Blair said.

    Integrating immigrants has become a burning issue in Europe with right-wing and conservative governments vowing to expel the un-adaptive or deny access to foreigners failing culture tests. In the Netherlands, would-be immigrants have to watch a film featuring a topless woman and gay men kissing to test their readiness to learn Dutch values and liberate in the country's liberal society. A number of German states are further considering a lengthy cultural quiz that immigrants have to answer to get citizenship.

    Blair also favored a ban of face-veil (niqab) in public places. He said that it was common sense that "when it is an essential part of someone's work to communicate directly with people, being able to see their face is important".

    Blair, who earlier described the veil as a "mark of separation", was reportedly mulling a face-veil ban in public institutions, including schools. Pope Benedict XVI on Saturday, December 9, opposed a ban of religious symbols in public places.

    "Hostility to all forms of recognition of the political and cultural importance of religion and in particular the presence of any religious symbols in public institutions—is not a sign of healthy secularism, but the degeneration of secularism," he said.

    A BBC survey on November 29 showed that the majority of Britons were against a blanket ban on the veil.

    The issue of face-veil was recently thrust into the spotlight after former foreign secretary and incumbent leader of the House of Common Jack Straw revealed asking Muslim women visiting his constituency office to show their faces.

    Aishah Azmi, a 24-year-old Muslim teacher, was recently sacked over her veil. The young woman had expressed willingness to remove her veil in front of children - but not when male colleagues were present.

    Islam sees hijab as an obligatory code of dress, not a religious symbol displaying one’s affiliations. As for the face veil, the majority of Muslim scholars believe that a woman is not obliged to cover her face or hands.

    Blair singled out "new and virulent form of ideology associated with a minority of our Muslim community" for threatening Britain's racial harmony. "Most Muslims are proud to be British and Muslim and are thoroughly decent, law-abiding citizens. But it is a problem with a minority of that community, particularly originating from certain countries," he added, drawing a parallel between white supporters of right-wing British National Party and Muslims who shun integration.

    Blair also spoke of what he said frustration of some Muslim women at being barred from certain mosques, saying, "Those that exclude the voice of women need to look again at their practices," he added. The British Prime Minister also dismissed suggestions for applying Sharia law in Britain.

    The Muslim minority, nearly 1.8 million the majority of whom are of Asian origins, has been in the eye of the storm since the 7/7 terrorist attacks by four British Muslim bombers.

    Labels: , , , ,

    Wednesday, December 06, 2006


    Now, this is what I am talking about. Ever since Bob Dylan turned the Beatles onto marijuana, America and the West has conveniently forgotten the true meaning of war. Okay, there was that unpleasant Korean police action thingie back in the early Fifties but you know, peace and love and understanding are all very nice concepts and even nicer realities where they truly exist, unencumbered by the heavy aroma of bullshit, but thought control fantasy doublespeak serves no one a warm fuzzy feeling without awful side effects. Unfortunately, even for doglovers "imagining" peace on earth doesn't quite cut it when a vicious dog is snapping at your heels.

    It's time to get educated. Re-educated, actually. About the ugly truths of warfare, about victory and loss in warfare, about the fist and fife of warfare that makes the future at least possible and the past none the more honorable than living in the present. Someone named John Lewis over at the Objective Standard knows why the Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraqi Wars have hardly produced victory on either side in any dignified sense of the word, but instead have doled out misery on both sides of the great divide.

    We all have heard Abraham Lincoln's remark that a house divided against itself cannot stand. As far as I can tell, in terms of conducting America's business, the only genuine consensus offered by the radical left and Islami-fascism dynamic duo is to smash capitalism and common decency at all costs by ripping apart the very house that nourishes and enriches them. Totalitarianism is kicking at the door again, my friends...

    Don't get me wrong. America has many faults, and could do better, should do better in living up to its amazing potential as promised in the early frontier years when Americans were inspirational dreamers but also a very practical citizenry, so don't go mistaking my longsleeved patriotism for "my country right or wrong" jingoism. But American failures do not mean I am willing to destroy that potential by selling out to a sworn enemy, whether that enemy be an invader from a foreign land or one standing on my own street corner wearing clothing of friendship propaganda so vile, it must be named and defeated as an enemy of not the state but of my own country, my own family, my own liberty.

    Please read this comprehensive article for an excellent bone-chilling rebuttal to the "fighting with one hand tied behind one's back" crowd. As for the childish peaceniks—in a time of war such as the one the (dis)United States is fighting now, a war unequivocally declared by the Islamofascists—they are easily dismissed. The ones I speak of are always up to mischief, and yet, find no contradiction in their own behaviors when they support other violent regimes inside and outside their own nation while screaming bloody murder about police state tactics in the relatively benign US justice system, while always a work in progress and susceptible to its own corruptibility, is the fairest and finest for ALL people on the history of the planet, bar none. Sharia law? Separate but equal, hmmm, where have I heard THAT before? Oh wait, it's separate but unequal that's really eating the cheese. God forbid! Defeat the damn bastards!

    My neighbor Leslie from down the hall calls me a free spirit. I'm sure she meant it as a compliment, and I know she meant me no harm, but it's amzing how many people presume I'm a card-carrying liberal, while others in the heat of bias have called me a conservative, if not a straight out redneck.

    I am not at war with anyone. But Al-Qaida is at war with me. It's time I and people like me (whatever that means in this wicked and perverse PC generation) woke up to the realities of our own American nightmare, and quit dreaming of peace signs and flowers petals. The enemy is not only us, the enemy is those who have announced their plans to conquer the West, inch by inch, infidel by infidel, city by city. They have a plan. It's rather obvious that any and all the plans our president's men have come up with are flawed. As they say down at my local diner, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

    I admit that I am still unsure about the competing ideals of the nation state versus the globalist model, but my gut tells me that a destroyed America is a destroyed world and new dark ages, not a "picking up the pieces" Marxist nirvana so loved by Leftist intellectuals. Interpret that any way you please.

    I've read the books. I've also observed the world at play, at work, and at war. Sit two nominally considerate toddlers in a sandbox assuring them that playing nicely together is just an all-around good thing to do, and watch them innocently play with each other for a short spell before boredom strikes like lightening and the petty power games begin. Throw a single toy into the mix, and watch all hell break loose. Add a second identical toy. Relative calm may return until the creative juices start flowing and one of our bundles of joy soon discovers the concept of concentration of power. A second different toy that is not identical of course conjures up similar if not precisely the reactions. Go figure.

    I highly recommend reading the whole John Lewis piece titled "No Substitute For Victory", and then try to tell me Thucydides was wrong.

    Labels: , , , , , ,

    Monday, December 04, 2006


    Excuse me. On the Keith "I Will Take Oath Of Office On The Qu'ran" Ellison controversy, someone has suggested to me that Muslims are taught not to pledge themeselves to anything save Allah because the Qu'ran tells them so. This might very well be true.

    However Jesus also tells his disciples not to take an oath, but to speak plainly, letting one's yes mean yes, and one's nay mean nay. The Nazarene's admonition was a correction to the Jewish and human tendency to take out holy oaths on everything from the mundane to the preposterous.

    In American life this wise counsel to avoid oaths has morphed into a cultural stigma against so-called profane or bad language, i.e. cursing (which changes with the times), and is something else entirely, much closer to the religious concept of blasphemy.

    Frank, dutiful honesty and follow-through trump the swearing of oaths and other empty gestures. This is the way pointed out by our prophets and Messiah. I'm old enough to remember when a man's word and handshake ruled the land without need for bloated contracts, lawyers, and legalistic oaths taken with one hand slapped to a book for most ordinary activities.

    In other words, as an American patriot who agrees that Islamo-fascism has announced itself as America's sworn enemy, and that we are at war with those Muslim jihadists and their moderate apologists who have lifted certain passages from the rather diabolical Qu'ran to support their agenda whiel using our own open system against us, I believe that the "honest Christians" on this website—to remain free of petty hypocrisy—would be better served by a more comprehensive understanding of their own book before lashing out at some of the less pernicious clippings from the Qu'ran.

    After all, the bible is a rather controversial book, in its own right, especially from a Protestant perspective. Ever heard of an absentee Christian, a listener of the word rather than a doer of the word, a lukewarm believer? The fact is we are all condemned by our own self-interests and hypocrisies. And we will ALL require grace at Judgement Day.

    Now back to our regularly scheduled program...

    Labels: , , ,

    Sunday, December 03, 2006


    A contributor to Jihad Watch offers this solution to what many see as the growing and intractable problem of worldwide Islamic aggression that Americans need to address this very hour in light of how Europe appears failing its own indigenous populations against rising Muslim instabilities.

    Let's be clear. These are dangerous times. The critical question facing all thoughful Americans is not do we DESIRE but rather, do we NEED such draconian laws to play a role in keeping our land free of a highly suspicious ideology. Put another way, does American need to heed these suggestions, frankly, to survive as a culture?

    Please read:

    Islam is not going to reform, except in a negative direction. In fact, as has been said elsewhere, an Islamic reformation is currently underway. But this reformation consists of "getting back to basics"; that is, getting closer to the literal text of the Koran and the sayings and doings of Muhammad—in other words, revival of the perpetual war against non-Muslim humanity.

    At present, we cannot begin to protect ourselves legally from this onslaught, because religious freedom is protected under the Constitution. That is the crux of the problem, as I see it.

    Therefore, we must press for nothing less than an amendment to the US Constitution to the effect:

    1. That while the ideology called Islam carries the trappings of religion, and in some foreign countries and locales is considered to be a religion, within the territories of the United States is not recognized as a religion.

    2. That Islam is recognized instead as a violent, intolerant, supremacist political ideology totally incompatible with every fundamental tenet of the Constitution, including consent of the governed, equal protection under the law, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of conscience—the entire Bill of Rights.

    3. That Islam is recognized, by its own immutable doctrines laid out in the Koran and the way of Muhammad, to be in a perpetual state of war against this Constitution and the people protected thereunder.

    4. That no person bearing or advocating this ideology shall be admitted as a permanent citizen or temporary resident of this country or its territories. Those who enter on false pretenses shall be deported without delay.

    5. That no person bearing or advocating this ideology shall be permitted to hold public political office in this country or its territories, at any level of goverment.

    6. That no person bearing or advocating this ideology shall be permitted to serve in the armed forces, police, immigration, border control, or other security services of this nation.

    7. That the President, Congress, and the Courts are required and empowered to resist and confront Islamic encroachment on our freedoms at home and our interests abroad by every means, including force when necessary, consistent with the checks and balances defined in other articles of the Constitution.

    Without such an amendment to the Constitution, we will be unable to construct and uphold workable laws to defend ourselves. Any law, regulation, or municipal ordinance, no matter how innocuous, that in any way restricts Muslim sedition will be challenged in court on religious grounds. And, with the copious oil money at their disposal, the Muslims have deep pockets with which to pursue endless court challenges and outright legal attacks. Even when they ultimately fail to win a particular case, they can create paralysis and drain resources better used in productive endeavors.

    Labels: , , , ,