A rabbi's warning to U.S. Christians

Saturday, January 13, 2007
From World Net Daily


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A rabbi's warning to U.S. Christians

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 13, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern



By Rabbi Daniel Lapin



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2007
I am certainly not a Churchill. I am not even a Revel. I am having enough trouble just trying to be a Lapin. But I am issuing a very serious warning about deep consequences, just as they did. It is a warning about the earliest stages of what could become a cataract of disasters if not resisted now.

During the 1930s, Winston Churchill desperately tried to persuade the English people and their government to see that Hitler meant to end their way of life. The British ignored Churchill, which gave Hitler nearly 10 years to build up his military forces. It wasn't until Hitler actually drew blood that the British realized they had a war on their hands. It turned out to be a far longer and more destructive war than it needed to be had Churchill's early warning been heeded.

In 1983, a brave French writer, Jean-Francois Revel, wrote a book called "How Democracies Perish." In this remarkable volume, he described how communism's aim is world conquest. For decades he had been trying to warn of communism's very real threat. Yet in January 1982, a high State Department official said: "We Americans are not solving problems, we are the problem." (Some things never change.) A good portion of the planet fell to communism, which brought misery and death to millions because we failed to recognize in time that others meant to harm us.

(Column continues below)


Heaven knows there was enough warning during the 1980s of the intention of part of the Islamic world to take yet another crack at world domination. Yet instead of seeing each deadly assault on our interests around the world as a test of our resolve, we ignored it. We failed the test and lost 3,000 Americans in two unforgettable hours.

I am not going to argue that what is happening now is on the same scale as the examples I cite above, but a serious war is being waged against a group of Americans. I am certain that if we lose this war, the consequences for American civilization will be dire.

Phase one of this war I describe is a propaganda blitzkrieg that is eerily reminiscent of how effectively the Goebbels propaganda machine softened up the German people for what was to come.

There is no better term than propaganda blitzkrieg to describe what has been unleashed against Christian conservatives recently.

Consider the long list of anti-Christian books that have been published in recent months. Here are just a few samples of more than 30 similar titles, all from mainstream publishers:


"American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America"
"The Baptizing of America: The Religious Right's Plans for the Rest of Us"

"The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason"

"Piety & Politics: The Right-wing Assault on Religious Freedom"

"Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person's Answer to Christian Fundamentalism"

"Thy Kingdom Come: How the Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens America"

"Religion Gone Bad: The Hidden Dangers of the Christian Right"

What is truly alarming is that there are more of these books for sale at your local large book store warning against the perils of fervent Christianity than those warning against the perils of fervent Islam. Does anyone seriously think America is more seriously jeopardized by Christian conservatives than by Islamic zealots? I fear that many Americans believe just that in the same way that many pre-World War II Westerners considered Churchill a bigger threat than Hitler.

Some may say that today's proliferation of anti-Christian print propaganda is nothing to become worried about. To them I ask two questions:

First, would you be so sanguine if the target of this loathsome library were Jewish? Just try changing the titles in some of the books I mention above to reflect anti-Semitism instead of rampant anti-Christianism and you'll see what I mean.

Second, major movements that changed the way Americans felt and acted came about through books, often only one book. Think of Rachel Carson's 1962 error-filled "Silent Spring" that resulted in the pointless banning of the insecticide DDT and many unnecessary deaths. Other books that caused upheavals in our nation were Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle," many of Ayn Rand's books and of course "Uncle Tom's Cabin."

No, I would advise you not to underestimate the power of books to alter the behavior of the American public, and I fear for an America influenced to detest Christianity by this hate-filled catalog.

It is not just books but popular entertainment also that beams the most lurid anti-Christian propaganda into the hearts and minds of viewers. One need only think of who the real targets of the recent hit movie "Borat" are. The brilliant Jewish moviemaker Sacha Baron Cohen, as his title character, using borderline dishonest wiles, lures some innocent but unsophisticated country folk, obviously Christians, to join him in his outrageously anti-Semitic antics. Cohen then triumphantly claims to have exposed anti-Semitism. In fact, he has revealed nothing other than the latent anti-Christianism of America's social, economic and academic secular elites.

Even the recent PBS documentary, "Anti-Semitism in the 21st Century: The Resurgence," managed to do more attacking Christianity than defending Judaism.

Richard Dawkins, an Oxford University professor, is one of the generals in the anti-Christian army of the secular left. American academia treats him with reverence and hangs on his every word when he insists that "religious myths ought not to be tolerated."

For those with a slightly more tolerant outlook, he asks, "It's one thing to say people should be free to believe whatever they like, but should they be free impose their beliefs on their children?" He suggests that the state should intervene to protect children from their parents' religious beliefs. Needless to say, he means Christian beliefs, of course. Muslim beliefs add to England's charmingly diverse cultural landscape.

The war is against those who regard the Bible to be God's revelation to humanity and the Ten Commandments to be His set of rules for all time. Phase one in this war is to make Christianity, well, sort of socially unacceptable. Something only foolish, poor and ugly people could turn to.

We have seen how a carefully constructed campaign pretty much made it socially unacceptable to drink and drive. For years, there had been stringent laws against drunk driving. They achieved little. In the end, the practice was all but eliminated by groups allied with Mothers Against Drunk Driving and their effective ways of changing the way Americans thought about it.

We have seen how a carefully constructed campaign has pretty much made it socially unacceptable to smoke. In the face of a relentless campaign (dare one call it propaganda?), Americans became docile and forfeited the right to make their own decisions. Nobody was willing to stand up to the no-smoking tyrants. Nobody even asked whether health was sufficient grounds for freedom to be reduced. Now, entire cities and even states have banned smoking, not only in public places but even in privately owned restaurants.

Tyranny comes when citizens are seduced into trading freedom for the promise of safety and security.

Considerably more intellectual energy is being pumped into the propaganda campaign against Christianity than was ever delivered to the anti-smoking or anti-drunk-driving campaigns. Fervent zealots of secularism are flinging themselves into this anti-Christian war with enormous fanaticism.

If they succeed, Christianity will be driven underground, and its benign influence on the character of America will be lost. In its place we shall see a sinister secularism that menaces Bible believers of all faiths. Once the voice of the Bible has been silenced, the war on Western Civilization can begin and we shall see a long night of barbarism descend on the West.

Without a vibrant and vital Christianity, America is doomed, and without America, the West is doomed.

Which is why I, an Orthodox Jewish rabbi, devoted to Jewish survival, the Torah and Israel am so terrified of American Christianity caving in.

Many of us Jews are ready to stand with you. But you must lead. You must replace your timidity with nerve and your diffidence with daring and determination. You are under attack. Now is the time to resist it.

Where Terrorism Starts

What strikes me as odd is there is no cry from the palestinians to keep Iran from nuking Israel. It's as if they have no clue that they too, would be obliterated. Is there a more stupid group of people alive today?

So, here's where terrorism starts, folks. With the indoctrination of kids....little kids. From the cradle to the grave, children are brainwashed. Yet we do nothing except send the pali's money, try to help them achieve peace with Israel. It's not going to work. It's wasted money.

God help Israel, and the United States of America.

BRAINWASHED

"Muslims must grow in strength... then take over"

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/014808.php

January 11, 2007

Another report on jihadist preaching in Britain. "Britain's New Preachers of Hate," by Bobby Pathak in the Mirror, with thanks to Montague:

IN a dilapidated mosque, half a dozen awestruck young men listen to a preacher spell out his vision for Britain.

"King, Queen, House of Commons... if you accept it, you are a part of it," says Dr Ijaz Mian. "If you don't accept it, you have to dismantle it.

"So you being a Muslim, you have to fix a target. There will be no House of Commons. From that White House to this Black House, we know we have to dismantle it.

"Muslims must grow in strength... then take over."

A 10-month undercover investigation into home-grown extremism has revealed hard-line Islamic fundamentalism being preached in British mosques.

Some speakers call for girls to be hit if they don't wear Islamic dress and say that they can marry before puberty, others praise the Taliban.

Speaking at the Ahl-e-Hadith mosque, in Derby, Dr Mian tells his listeners: "You are in a situation in which you have to live like a state-within-a-state - until you take over.

"But until this happens, you have to preach, until you become such a force that the people just submit to you."

Dr Mian wants to see religious policemen roaming our streets, modelled on the feared Saudi Arabian force.

He says of their strict implementation of Sharia - or Islamic - law: "They send the police and they say: 'Well, if you don't come for prayer, we will arrest you. But if you still don't, then we have to bring the punishment on you - you will be killed and nobody will pray for you.'"

Also from JihadWatch:

January 12, 2007

Spencer: The Anti-Profiling Agenda

This morning in FrontPage I explain how Pelosi, Conyers, and Ellison want to make us all less safe (news links in the original):

Representative Keith Ellison (D-MN) has been named to the House Judiciary Committee. Ellison said in a statement: “I look forward to pursuing a progressive agenda in the committee, including the restoration of American citizen’s civil liberties that have come under increasing attack over the past six years.”

The American citizens Ellison, the nation’s first Muslim congressman, has in mind are likely Muslims who charge that they have been subjected to unjust scrutiny and inconvenience in the aftermath of 9/11. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) shares this view: she has announced her intention to “correct the Patriot Act,” and wants to criminalize scrutiny of Muslims at airports and elsewhere: “Since September 11, many Muslim Americans have been subjected to searches at airports and other locations based upon their religion and national origin. We must make it illegal.” Helping make it illegal with Ellison on the House Judiciary Committee will be John Conyers (D-MI), the new chairman of that committee. “The policies of the Bush administration,” he has declared, “have sent a wave of fear through our immigrant communities and targeted our Arab and Muslim neighbors.”

Pelosi, Conyers, and Ellison by all appearances seem less concerned about any wave of fear that may be sent through American non-Muslims by continued jihad terror activity on American soil. But just this week there have been numerous indications that that jihad activity is continuing:

[1] Talib Abu Salam ibn Shareef (Derrick Shareef), a convert to Islam, pled not guilty Tuesday to plotting a terrorist attack against a shopping mall in Rockford, Illinois. As they were discussing his plans before his arrest, Shareef told an undercover agent: “Any place that’s crowded, like a mall is good, anything, any government facility is good. I swear by Allah man, I’m down for it too, I’m down for the cause, I’m down to live for the cause and die for the cause, man.” What cause? In a videotaped statement discovered after his arrest, Shareef tied his plans explicitly to his Islamic faith: “I am from America, and this tape is to let you guys know, who disbelieve in Allah, to let the enemies of Islam know, and to let the Muslims alike know that the time for jihad is now...be strong, oh Mujahideen...May Allah protect me on this mission we conduct...so do not cry, do not mourn for me.”

[2] Mohammed Yousuf Mullawala, a Muslim citizen of India, is the subject of a continuing investigation in Rhode Island after enrolling in a truck driving school, inquiring about getting a permit to carry hazardous materials, and telling instructors that he did not need to learn how to back up. Also, Rhode Island State Police Major Steven O’Donnell revealed that “we’ve tied some of his cell-phone records to people of interest nationally” – that is, people who are suspected of terrorist activity. “They’re not your typical person’s cell-phone history … the volume of contacts obviously raises the level of suspicion.” Referring to Mullawala’s own possible connection to jihad terror activity, O’Donnell said: “We don’t know whether he’s a major player, a minor player, or any type of player. But the indicators lead us to believe that his behavior is not normal.”

[3] Imam Fawaz Damra, the former leader of the largest mosque in Cleveland, was deported to the West Bank last Thursday. When he arrived, Israeli authorities promptly arrested him for his ties to the terrorist group Palestinian Islamic Jihad. His failure to disclose those ties got him deported in the first place. He was also captured on videotape telling an Islamic audience that “the first principle is that terrorism, and terrorism alone, is the path to liberation…. If what they mean by jihad is terrorism, then we are terrorists” – despite having been a signer of the Fiqh Council of North America’s much lionized condemnation of terrorism.

[4] On Monday, a Pakistani Muslim, Shahawar Matin Siraj, was sentenced to thirty years in prison for his plan to blow up a Manhattan subway station.

[5] Last Friday in Palm Springs, a man named Haider Mohammad, who claimed to be an Al-Qaeda operative, was arrested in a bar after threatening to “kill all Jews.”

And that’s just in the last couple of weeks. In light of these and other cases, are law enforcement officials not justified in directing particular scrutiny at Muslims? After all, neither the American Muslim community nor any other has pronounced takfir on Osama bin Laden or any other jihadist individual or group. (Takfir is an Islamic practice akin to excommunication, involving the declaration that a particular Muslim is actually an unbeliever.) Jihadists move more or less freely among peaceful Muslims worldwide, and those peaceful Muslims have mounted no large-scale, organized attempt to wrest the intellectual and theological initiative away from the jihadists. In light of this, and of the jihadists’ copious and consistent use of Islamic teaching to justify their actions and make new recruits, it would be foolish in the extreme to outlaw, as Pelosi, Conyers, and Ellison wish to do, what is known as “religious profiling.”

Would we really all be safer if the one and only element that is common to all jihad attackers – a devout attachment to Islam – were ruled out of bounds as an object of consideration by law enforcement officials? The anti-profiling initiative that is sure to begin soon will necessarily be predicated on the proposition that there is no more reason to be concerned about devout Muslims than about devout Presbyterians or devout Amish.

Unfortunately, the evidence leads in exactly the opposite direction.

BUT WAIT...THERE'S MORE from Jihad Watch:

January 12, 2007

Another teacher murdered in southern Thailand; junta allows teachers to carry weapons

Thai Jihad Update. "Thailand extends emergency rule in south," from AFP:

BANGKOK (AFP) - Thailand's junta extended emergency rule in the restive south and said teachers there can carry arms, in an apparent return to strong-arm tactics after attempts at reconciliation.

The new government, installed after the September 19 coup, has tried to promote peace in the Muslim-majority region, where separatist violence has killed more than 1,800 since January 2004.

But the bloodshed has continued, prompting the Council for National Security (CNS), as the junta calls itself, to extend emergency rule for three more months in Yala, Narathiwat and Pattani provinces.

[...]

Thailand's military-backed government had said in late October that it would end emergency rule in January, after it revived a key regional mediation body and offered a series of other olive branches to the insurgents.

But the militants have not yet taken up the government's peace initiatives, and violence has spiralled, with civilians increasingly targeted.

Some 65 teachers and 10 students have been killed in the three southern provinces since the insurgency erupted, and 110 schools -- seen as easy targets representing the government -- have been set ablaze.

The fatal shooting Wednesday of a 39-year-old Muslim female teacher in Pattanit highlighted the problem, prompting Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont to hold an emergency security meeting in Bangkok.

After the meeting, the regional southern army commander agreed to allow teachers to arm themselves outside of working hours.

"It's up to the teachers, but I personally don't want teachers to get involved in fighting, because their duty is to teach," Lieutenant General Viroach Buacharoon told reporters.

"But they can be armed when they're on a private trip and out of working hours."

The military also agreed to step up patrols around schools.

"Security measures will vary depend on the school's location, but soldiers and police will be deployed during teaching hours. In some cases they will patrol around the school buildings," Viroach said.

The announcement came as the nation was still mourning the death Monday of a teacher who spent eight months in a coma after she was taken hostage and beaten at a school in Narathiwat.

AND MORE!

January 11, 2007

Does CAIR support censorship?

“I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”: Voltaire’s axiom articulates a core principle of any free society. Thus when my book The Truth About Muhammad was banned in Pakistan, I immediately thought of the Council on American Islamic Relations.

CAIR’s vision, says its website, “is to be a leading advocate for justice and mutual understanding….Since its establishment in 1994, CAIR has worked to promote a positive image of Islam and Muslims in America.” CAIR officials have met with Presidents Clinton and Bush, consulted with the FBI, led sensitivity training seminars for law enforcement authorities nationwide, and are regularly consulted by the media for a moderate Islamic perspective. Since I wrote my book in order to draw attention to the elements of Islam that are being used by jihad terrorists worldwide today to recruit among peaceful Muslims, what group is better situated than CAIR to protest its banning in the name of American pluralism, free and open debate, and a Western Islam that is free of coercion, intimidation, and enforced conformity?

The government of Pakistan banned the book and confiscated all copies and translations because the book, according to the Kuwaiti News Agency, allegedly contains “objectionable material” about Muhammad, the prophet of Islam. Shahid Ahmed, counselor of community affairs at the Pakistani Embassy in Washington, declared: “The book is very, very damaging — let me tell you.”

In fact, however, The Truth About Muhammad, a New York Times bestseller, contains nothing but material carefully sourced from the texts that Islamic authorities consider most reliable for the life and words of Muhammad. It presents a respectful picture of Muhammad that generally accords with what Muslims believe about what Muhammad said and did. The only difference is that I hold Muhammad to a moral standard different from the one he delineated for himself, and do not in every case consider him to be an excellent example of conduct, an honor which he is accorded in the Qur’an (33:21).

That difference, however, ought to be not an occasion for banning and confiscation, but for free and open debate – particularly when moderate Muslims are crying out to be heard. After all, the reform of Islam that is so needed today – in order to mitigate the elements of it that are giving rise to violence and extremism -- cannot possibly begin without acknowledgment of the fact that there are aspects of Islam that need reform. Thus I determined that the banning of The Truth About Muhammad in Pakistan presented CAIR with a golden opportunity to demonstrate its moderation by denouncing the banning of the book and calling for discussion of the issues raised by it, with an eye toward confronting and refuting the use jihadists worldwide make of the Qur’an and Sunnah to justify their actions.

If CAIR condemned the banning and confiscation of The Truth About Muhammad, and called upon the government of Pakistan to adopt the principles of free inquiry and free expression that are hallmarks of the prosperous, democratic societies that CAIR would no doubt like to see arising today in the Islamic world and elsewhere, doubts that have recently arisen about the group would be substantially dispelled. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) just rescinded an award she had given to a CAIR official after she learned that several former CAIR officials are now in prison for various terrorism-related activities; several nights ago CNN’s Paula Zahn tried unsuccessfully to get CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper to denounce the terror groups Hamas and Hizballah unequivocally.

Thinking that CAIR might welcome this opportunity, I contacted Hooper. He limited himself in his response to quoting a Qur’anic verse: “The (true) servants of (God) the Most Gracious are those who walk on the earth in humility, and when the ignorant address them, reply with (words of) peace” (25:63). He didn’t respond to further inquiries.

So does CAIR approve of Pakistan’s banning of my book? Certainly the organization hasn’t condemned it, and is unlikely to do so. It is odd, and hypocritical, that a civil rights group would decline an opportunity to denounce censorship, even if the group members disagree with the material being censored – for is not freedom of inquiry a foundation of civil society? Perhaps Hooper will reconsider, and recoup some of the public relations drubbings his group has been suffering of late.

But I am not holding my breath.

MORE YET

January 11, 2007

Mississippi grad student was Hamas leader

"He's Hamas, and he's assisting the murderous terrorist activities of Hamas."

"Student Was Terrorist, Prosecutor Says," by Mike Robinson for Associated Press, with thanks to Noir:

CHICAGO — A graduate student living in Mississippi was an important Hamas terrorist leader directing thousands of dollars to families of members who were jailed or killed, a prosecutor said Tuesday in closing arguments of the trial of two accused militants.

"He's Hamas, and he's assisting the murderous terrorist activities of Hamas," Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph M. Ferguson told jurors, pointing at Abdelhaleem Ashqar, who was a graduate student at the University of Mississippi in the early 1990s. It was the second day of Ferguson's closing argument.

Ashqar, 48, later an assistant professor of business at Washington's Howard University, is accused along with former Chicago grocer Muhammad Salah, 53, of being a high-ranking member of the Hamas terrorist network.

The two are charged in a racketeering indictment with funneling thousands of dollars and fresh recruits to the anti-Israeli organization.

Ashqar, of Springfield, Va., does not support terrorism and has done nothing illegal, according to his defense attorney, William Moffitt. Ashqar was merely trying to get charitable contributions to impoverished Palestinians on the West Bank under Israeli army occupation, Moffitt says.

WAKE UP AMERICA

CAIR STILL PROMOTES TERRORISM
even if they pretend not to...don't be fooled!

Boxer's stand
Will Senator's rebuff of CAIR mark a turning point?

By Joel Mowbray

The Washington Times

In what could be either a major turning point or just an aberration, Sen. Barbara Boxer recently rescinded an award given to a California resident because of his position with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

Despite being founded by two self-identified supporters of Islamist terrorism and continually refusing to condemn Islamist terrorism, CAIR has not only survived, but thrived. In the five years since September 11, CAIR has grown exponentially in both resources and influence, becoming the de facto voice of American Muslims in the mainstream media. It has been embraced by many sectors of the federal government, including the FBI. But politically, CAIR's success for the most part has been limited to forging alliances with leftist organizations, most notably the American Civil Liberties Union.

Though the long-term implications are still far from certain, Mrs. Boxer's very public disavowal of CAIR might encourage real media investigation by changing the perception that criticism of CAIR is a right-wing affair, and it could even inspire other Democrats and liberals to follow her lead.

Shortly after Mrs. Boxer's office last month presented Sacramento activist Basim Elkarra a "certificate of accomplishment," he was notified that the award was being withdrawn because he heads the local chapter of CAIR. For Mr. Elkarra, it probably means little whether he is the recipient of the certificate or not. For CAIR, however, the move must feel like a stunning rebuke, considering that the group that has masterfully courted the left by positioning itself as "America's largest Muslim civil liberties group."

While Mrs. Boxer cited, among other things, quotes from fellow Democratic Sens. Charles Schumer of New York and Richard Durbin of Illinois that were critical of CAIR, both statements were made more than three years ago -- and no other prominent Democrats have said anything similar since. Although no prominent elected Republicans have joined the chorus criticizing CAIR, a fair reading of grass-roots Internet activity shows that concern over the organization is largely found on the right.

CAIR claims that Mrs. Boxer succumbed to the "pro-Israel lobby," who are "anti-Muslim extremists." The reality is that Mrs. Boxer, as politically safe as any member of Congress' upper chamber, received little flack for issuing a relatively minor certificate to Mr. Elkarra. She had little to gain, and much to lose. A savvy pol, Mrs. Boxer likely realized that she would be subjected to CAIR's well-oiled attack machine.

Sure enough, CAIR unsheathed the long knives. Calls to Mrs. Boxer's office were overwhelming against her decision, and only one group, California-based Stand With Us, actually encouraged its members to support her. But ironically, in the course of disparaging Mrs. Boxer, CAIR demonstrated precisely why the senator did the right thing.

Interviewed this week by Paula Zahn on CNN, CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper let loose a grandiose fabrication:
"We practically have a rubber stamp saying, 'CAIR condemns blank act of terrorism.' We've repeatedly, consistently condemned terrorism in all its forms, including attacks on Israeli civilians by Hamas, Hezbollah. We've condemned it repeatedly."

Not true.

While CAIR did condemn one specific attack committed by Hamas -- the particularly gruesome Netanya Passover massacre in March 2002 -- it pointedly omitted any reference to the terrorist organization. (Interestingly, CAIR's press release also avoided acknowledging that the bombing occurred in "Israel," writing instead that the attack happened in "the Middle East.") As for Hezbollah, CAIR has never condemned any of that organization's many terrorist attacks. During the month-long war last summer, CAIR issued at least eight condemnations of Israel and America -- but not one of Hezbollah.

CAIR has, in fact, never condemned Hamas or Hezbollah. Given repeated opportunities to do so by outlets such as The Washington Post and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, CAIR has flatly refused to denounce either. Asked point-blank by Newsweek just last month to condemn Hamas, CAIR Executive Director and cofounder Nihad Awad demurred, dismissing the question as "the game of the pro-Israel lobby."

When unaware their words were being recorded, though, both of CAIR's cofounders have freely discussed Islamist terrorism -- by voicing their support. In a speech at Barry University in Florida in 1994, Mr. Awad declared, "I'm in support of the Hamas movement." Addressing a youth session at a 1999 Islamic Association for Palestine convention in Chicago, CAIR's other cofounder, Omar Ahmad, praised suicide bombers who "kill themselves for Islam": "Fighting for freedom, fighting for Islam, that is not suicide. They kill themselves for Islam." (Transcript provided by the Investigative Project.)

That its apologism for Islamist terrorism has been remarkably slick is probably why CAIR has thus far escaped scrutiny by the left or the mainstream media. Case-in-point is its much-ballyhooed fatwa against terrorism and extremism -- terms that intentionally were not defined. No fundamentalist Muslim considers himself "extreme," and Hamas and its boosters maintain that the only real "terrorist" in the region is Israel. Not coincidentally, CAIR claims to condemn "all forms of terrorism," yet it almost exclusively focuses on Israel's actions.

Seeing through CAIR's tapestry of lies and deceptions is admittedly a tough task, but by no means an impossible one. Mrs. Boxer did it with little outside prodding. How many others in the media and on the left will follow suit?

To Jihad or not to Jihad

The Pope says that jihad violence is against God's nature, and officials fear that in response, Muslims enraged by this insult will commit ... jihad violence.

a. Muslims murder 3,000 innocents in New York and expect no criticism.

b. Muslims murder 202 tourists in Bali and expect no criticism.

c. Muslims murder 333 schoolchildren and their teachers in Beslan and expect no criticism.

d. Muslims murder 292 innocents, mainly Kenyans and Tanzanians at two US Embassies and expect no criticism.

e. Muslims murder 241 US and 58 French peacekeepers in Beirut and expect no criticism.

f. Muslims fire 4,000 Katyusha rockets into Northern Israel killing over 50 innocent civilians and expect no criticism.

g. Muslims murder 52 in London and 191 in Madrid and expect no criticism.

h. Muslims murder 200 in Mumai and expect no criticism.

i. Muslims behead Western hostages in Iraq, Buddhist monks in Thailand and Christian schoolgirls in Indonesia and expect no criticism.

j. Muslims murder 500,000 in Darfur and expect no criticism.

k. Muslims regard Jews as 'sons of pigs and monkeys', and vow to nuke Israel and expect no criticism.

l. Muslims force women to wear hideous sacks, stone to death women for getting raped and for leaving the home unescorted, engage in honor killings of sisters and daughters for unapproved dating, and expect no criticism.

m. Muslims danced in the streets and handed out sweets to their kids to celebrate the 9/11 atrocity, and still expected no criticism.

n. Muslims have killed over 26,000 and wounded over 50,000 in terrorist attacks worldwide since 9/11 and expect no criticism.

o. Since 9/11 Muslims have committed terrorist attacks in Afghanistan, Algeria, Bangladesh, Belgium , Chad, Chechnya, Dagestan, Denmark, East Timor, Egypt, England, Eritrea, Ethiopia, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ingushetia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Jordan-Iraq, Kabardino-Balkans, Kenya, Kosovo, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Mauritania, Morocco, Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, Gaza-Palestinian Authority, Philippines, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Scotland, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Arab Republic, United States, Uzbekistan and Yemen, and still expect no criticism.

p. Muslims have carried out over 5,800 fatal terrorist atrocities since 9/11, and countless thousands since Islamic conquest began in 623 AD and expect no criticism.

But if a Pope dares to tell the truth about Islam, or Danes publish cartoons about Mohammed, then let the outpourings of Islamic hate and outrage begin.

And by some twisted reach of logic, the arrogant bastards demand the Pope issue an apology.