Views From Kennewick

Friday, August 10, 2007

WND Exclusive Commentary
Busted! Shining light on a cockroach
Melanie Morgan uncovers anti-war activist's true colors

Posted: August 10, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

The war on terrorism has shaken up the American homeland, and like any house, when things are shaken up you never know what will come crawling out from the dark corners.

In the case of Operation Iraqi Freedom, there's been an infestation of those who are determined to undermine our troops, and force them to surrender and admit defeat.

While most of the focus in the conservative world (and surprisingly in the Mainstream Media) this week has been on Scott Thomas Beauchamp, who admitted to Army investigators that he fabricated stories of wrongdoing by U.S. troops, I've also been swatting my folded newspaper at someone who has worked even harder to thwart the missions of our troops in Iraq: anti-war, left-wing activist, Jon Soltz.

(Column continues below)

Soltz is co-founder of the group which works with as part of the umbrella network known as Americans Against Escalation in Iraq.

This weekend Soltz was a panelist at the left-wing "Yearly Kos" convention where he launched into a tirade against U.S. Army Sgt. David Aguina of the 733rd maintenance company. Sgt. Aguina made the 'mistake' of noting the progress being made with "the surge" of U.S. troops in Iraq. He did not express any political opinions; he merely challenged the panel to prove him wrong that civilian casualties in Iraq had dropped.

Left-wing activist Jon Soltz apparently considers citing any evidence of success from Iraq a "political act" because Sgt. Aguina was soon subjected to a verbal attack from Soltz who threatened to have him punished by the military.

Here's what Soltz said as captured by the great people at Pajamas Media who videotaped the incident:

"For the sergeant I want to see you outside, I want the name of your commander, your first sergeant, you never ever use my uniform again in the name of political purposes."

As Soltz bolted from the stage, the Pajamas Media cameras were still rolling and asked Soltz why he was so worked up.

"Well look, you don't use the military uniform to talk politics…. I don’t appreciate people using military uniforms in politics," Soltz said.

One problem, Mr. Soltz – you're a hypocrite and a liar.

Here's the image I downloaded on Thursday from Mr. Soltz's website – a group that spent nearly $2 million in the 2006 election cycle to defeat Republican candidates for Congress who supported the missions of our troops in Iraq.

John Soltz on his Candidates website

There's Mr. Soltz using a picture of himself in his uniform right under a menu bar that shows which political candidates are " Candidates" – you can view the photograph of Soltz in uniform on the website until they realize he's busted and take it down.

I've been following Jon Soltz with special attention ever since I faced him on The Lehrer News Hour on PBS. (You can watch Part 1 of the debate or Part 2 of the debate)

Soltz reminded me of Sen. John Kerry, another combat veteran who turned against his brothers in the military and stabbed them in the back and betrayed them while they were engaged in their missions in Vietnam.

John Kerry

Like Soltz, Kerry famously posed in his uniform while attacking his superiors in the military and actively organizing to undercut the missions of U.S. troops involved in combat.

Birds of a feather flock together it seems, as Jon Soltz recently explained that it was none other than John Kerry himself who had counseled Soltz on his anti-victory activism.

As reported by Fox News Channel and The Riehl World blog, "Soltz ... thanked Massachusetts Democrat John Kerry, who opposed the Vietnam War after returning from combat, for helping him to focus his disillusionment after returning from Iraq." (They have the video to back it up too, which you can watch.

Our nation is at war, and we have boots on the ground overseas fighting in a war that Islamic jihadists declared against us. Have the anti-war activists stopped to think about what would happen if our troops leave the battlefield prematurely? I have. The entire region would be in chaos. Al-Qaida would rule from Syria, through Lebanon, into Pakistan, and Iran. America needs to win. Victory isn't hard to imagine. Iraq will be stable, a young democracy at work, and American interests in the region would be represented.

Yet, left-wing activists have been engaged in a fierce campaign to undermine the war effort. No news there, but what is alarming is the degree to which they are organized, funded, and orchestrated. Jon Soltz has emerged to become the front man in their campaign to betray our troops and force them to declare defeat in Iraq.

On Wednesday, Move America Forward Vice Chairman, Lt. Col. Buzz Patterson (USAF, Ret.) confronted Soltz on his political activism at the same time he is serving in the reserves – a violation of the U.S. Military's Uniform Code of Military Justice.

As captured in a video from MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews, Soltz screamed, yelled and literally stuck his tongue in the side of his cheek in discomfort as he realized that Colonel Patterson had busted Soltz for improper conduct.

Jon Soltz is acting like a cockroach, frantically scurrying from the spotlight of truth that's shining on him.

Does anyone have a can of bug spray handy?

OUTRAGE: Michigan Gov. Picks Islamofascist Who Defrauded Medicaid to Oversee Medicaid

By Debbie Schlussel

Yesterday, Crain's Detroit Business reported that Ismael Ahmed, Founder and Executive Director of the Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services, was picked by Michigan's liberal Democrat Governor Jennifer Granholm to head the State of Michigan's Department of Human Services.

Readers of this site are familiar with Ahmed because I've written a great deal about him. The former head of Jesse Jackson's Michigan Presidential campaign, heads a Muslim-dominated agency that defrauds Medicaid by helping bring pregnant Muslim women from all over the world to America and giving them phony Social Security numbers to use so they can defraud Medicaid and have you--the taxpayers pay thousands of dollars to cover the deliveries of their babies. Plus the babies get U.S. citizenship.

Ismael Ahmed: Islamofascist Fox Now "Guarding" Infidel Medicaid Henhouse

Granholm knows a lot about this because she was Michigan Attorney General in December 2002, when agents of her office and the FBI raided ACCESS in connection with a Medicaid fraud investigation her office oversaw. That's why it was strange when she hired her friend, Ahmed, to Co-Chair her Gubernatorial Transition Team, since she knew of Ahmed's organizations involvement in this scam. (She's since appointed him as a Regent of Eastern Michigan University.)

BUT, that she hired Ahmed to now oversee Michigan's disbursements of Medicaid--now as the new Director of the Michigan Department of Human Services--is even more outrageous. Trite but true, it's exactly like hiring the fox to guard the henhouse. It's also disturbing because Ahmed's agency used thousands of government job-training funds to train Al-Qaeda terrorists to get commercial driver's licenses and hazardous material hauling certificates.

And his agency used government money to sponsor the University of Michigan Divestment (from Israel) Conference. Imagine what Ahmed will do with access to and control over Michigan's giant budget for everything that falls under "Human Services."

Make no mistake. Michigan's top Republicans aren't clean in this either. Current Michigan Attorney General and Republican Mike Cox carefully waited until Muslim women defrauding Medicaid left the country before he issued bench warrants for their arrest. He did that, so he would never actually have to arrest them, interview them, and go after ACCESS and the other malefactors involved in this . . . and offend Muslims. He's been vying for extremist Muslim Arab votes and believes they are the route to his becoming Governor when term-limited Granholm leaves office after 2010.

He appeared on FOX News Channel's "O'Reilly Factor" to gush all over himself for issuing these empty warrants and lied to Bill O'Reilly, claiming that the people who turned these women in were "Arabs," themselves, "from the community," implying they were also Muslims. In fact, none of them are--all Infidels of non-Arab extraction. And what's worse, Cox issued the warrants, despite Justice Department requests not to, tipping off targets. (An incompetent, stupid former Assistant U.S. Attorney gave him the documents and information.) But rather than do the right thing for a proper investigation, he needed his time to shine in the "O'Reilly Factor" sun. After all, he wants to be Governor and, then, President.

To date, Cox done nothing to stop the Medicaid fraud at Ismael Ahmed's ACCESS, which continues and has throughout his five years as Michigan's chief law enforcement official. He is as culpable as Granholm in the wholesale giveaway of U.S. citizenship and tax-paid Medicaid dollars in Michigan to those who--surprise! surprise!--share the same religion as the 19 hijackers of September 11th.

Read more about Ismael Ahmed and his terrorist ties.

Thursday, August 09, 2007

CAIR Identified by the FBI as part of the Muslim Brotherhood's Palestine Committee

From the Investigative Project on Terrorism
Steven Emerson
Dallas--In testimony Tuesday, FBI Agent Lara Burns reported before the jury in the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial that the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) was listed as a member of the Muslim Brotherhood's Palestine Committee, right alongside HLF, the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), and the United Association for Studies and Research (UASR). Agent Lara Burns further testified that CAIR received money from HLF — a claim that Nihad Awad blatantly denied in a congressional testimony in September of 2003.

Burns also said that both Omar Ahmed and Nihad Awad, CAIR co-founders who today serve as CAIR's chairman emeritus and executive director, respectively, were also listed as individual members the Brotherhood's Palestine Committee in America.

Awad and Ahmed are further connected to the Palestine Committee based on their positions as president and public relations director of the IAP, a Hamas front group that was responsible for the dissemination of propaganda, and has since been closed down as a result of a multi-million dollar civil judgment in a trial involving the murder of an American teenager by HAMAS terrorists.

CAIR, which touts itself as America's premier Muslim civil rights organization, was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial. Burns' testimony so far has placed both Ahmed and Awad at a 1993 Philadelphia meeting where the HAMAS members and supporters discussed a strategy to kill the Oslo Peace Accords, which threatened to marginalize HAMAS. The group also discussed ways to improve HAMAS fundraising in America.

Government testimony regarding the role of CAIR reflects the prosecution's attempt to prove that the HAMAS network in America was established through the Palestine Committee, or what the indictment called "a sub-group of active Muslim Brotherhood members of Palestinian origin." The leader of this Committee was Musa Abu Marzook, a Specially Designated Terrorist since 1995, and Hamas' current Deputy Political Bureau Chief. Through this committee, a number of organizations were established to promote HAMAS politically and financially, including HLF, IAP and UASR.

What is the Palestine Committee

In 1988, the head of the Palestine Section (a.k.a. the Palestine Body) of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Levant came to America, where he met with fellow Muslim Brothers and established the Palestine Committee of the Muslim Brotherhood in America. This is revealed in a 1991 letter seized from the home of unindicted co-conspirator Ismail Elbarasse.

An October 1992 internal memo (also seized from Elbarrasse's home) explains: Palestine is the one for which Muslim Brotherhood prepared armies – made up from the children of Islam in the Arab and Islamic nations to liberate its land from the abomination and the defilement of the children of the Jews and they watered its pure soil with their honorable blood which sprouted into a jihad that is continuing until the Day of Resurrection and provided a zeal without relenting making the slogan of its children "it is a Jihad for victory or martyrdom."

The Palestine Section of this memo explains the founding of the Section and notes that Palestine Committees were being established all over the world:

At the end of the seventies, the Shamm [Levant] Countries Movement opened a new section which was called "The Palestine Section" to oversee the affairs of the Ikhwan inside the Occupied Territories. It was considered the liaison between the followers of the Movement inside and outside.

In the beginning of the eighties, the Islamic action for Palestine experienced distinguished leaps. At the inside level, groups and apparatuses were formed to confront the Zionist enemy and they carried different names then such as "The Palestinian Mujahedeen" and other names. At the outside level, a number of associations, Islamic youths and students unions were formed to ally [sic] the masses in order to render the Palestinian cause victorious.

The memo calls on the Palestine Committees, to work to "increase the financial and the moral support for Hamas" to "fight surrendering solutions," and to publicize and focus on "the savagery of the Jews."

The amended bylaws attached to the 1991 letter explains that the Palestine Committee in America will be composed of the heads of the following organizations and committees:

  1. Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP)
  2. Occupied Land Fund (OLF, which later changed its name to the HLF)
  3. United Association for Studies and Research (UASR)
  4. Rehabilitation and Coordination Committee
  5. Political Work and Foreign Relations Committee
  6. Money and Investments Committee

CAIR was not created until 1994 which explains why it is not listed here.

The remarks at the end of the bylaws note that the International Shura Council (leadership council) directed them to achieve eight goals. Among them were:

-"Collecting of donations for the Islamic Resistance Movement from the Ikhwan and others."
-"Bringing to the media light the case of [HAMAS founder] Sheik Ahmad Yasin and his ailing condition."
-"Making use of what relationships the Ikhwan have in all fields and gatherings to serve the cause."

Additionally, the internal memo notes that the president of IAP was a member of a section affiliated with the executive council. This establishes that these organizations, including IAP, were members of the Palestine Committee established by the Muslim Brotherhood, and that their leaders sat on the Committee.

In another development yesterday, prosecutors introduced a wiretap conversation between defendants Shukri Abu Bakr and Ghassan Elashi, in which they discussed IPT Executive Director Steven Emerson. Emerson first uncovered the ties between HLF and HAMAS in his 1994 PBS documentary, Jihad in America.

In the Aug. 2, 1995 call, Abu Bakr and Elashi discuss a Dallas Morning News editorial concerning U.S. plans to extradite Hamas political leader Musa Abu Marzook, who had been arrested while entering the country at John F. Kennedy airport in New York on an Israeli request that he face murder charges there.

Elashi reads from the editorial, which called for Marzook to be deported, but not to Israel. To release him, the editorial said, would send a message that America offers refuge to terrorists. According to a government transcript of the call, Elashi invokes Emerson's name after the editorial: "Sadly, Arab and Islamic organizations in America are perceiving the action against Mr. Marzook as 'anti-Islam' and 'anti-Arab.'"

"He says 'sadly,'" Elashi repeats. "Doesn't that bring you to Steven Emerson?" "Yeah, yeah, yeah," Abu Bakr responds. "Don't be surprised if Steven Emerson is the one who wrote it."

Elashi also expresses concern that the Morning News "is referring to us in a way or another" when it mentions the FBI has noted terrorist cells were operating in North Texas.

The trial continues Wednesday with the cross examination of Agent Burns by defendant Abdulrahman Odeh's lawyer.


Good Lord what took 'em so long??

Wednesday, August 08, 2007

Anti-CAIR Founder;
My Turn on Civil Rights

On January 6, 2004, I was threatened with a lawsuit for defamation by the Council on American-Islamic
Relations (CAIR), an Islamic terrorist supporting front group which has received funding from Islamic
terrorists. The reason I was sued was because I dared to tell the truth about CAIR, its "leadership" and

When I received the letter, I shut down our work for a few days while I examined my options. After a period
of reflection, I made the decision to resume normal operations and I also posted the letter from CAIR's
attorney on the Anti-CAIR web site:

The reason I refused to surrender to CAIR's blatant attempt at intimidation was simple: I believe that all
the information we provide on CAIR is the truth, and that the truth must be defended, in order to
maintain a free society.

When CAIR sued me, it discovered that bringing a bogus "defamation" case to silence free speech is a double
edged sword; just as CAIR could examine and test my material and delve into my works, so I was entitled to
do the same to CAIR. The question, as the discovery process unfolded was: "Who was going to blink first"?
For our legal team the answer was simple: we agreed to answer any/all questions in depth. We had, and have, nothing to hide.

Everything Anti-CAIR does is perfectly transparent, we show our sources (where we can), we name names, and we
provide links that any reader can follow.

When my legal team, headed by Reed Rubinstein, submitted questions to CAIR, we were rebuffed. CAIR finally realized that going after Anti-CAIR was not only a bad decision, it had the potential to show CAIR for what it is: an Anti-American front group for Hamas that was founded by Islamic terrorists.

CAIR ran from the suit they initiated and the case was settled.

Not one word that CAIR objected to was changed on the web site. No corrections were issued. No apology was made.

Why is this important?

Free speech.

Stanislav Shmulevich of Brooklyn has been arrested on charges of criminal mischief and aggravated harassment for allegedly placing a Koran (Islam's Holy Book) in a toilet at Pace University:,0,6882662.story

While most Americans can agree that placing a book in a toilet is disrespectful, is it really a crime?

For CAIR's opinion, we only have to listen to CAIR-NY "Civil Rights Coordinator" Aliya Latif:

"We commend the NYPD for its appropriate handling of this case...we must all be concerned when any actions
cross the line from protected free speech to acts designed to intimidate. Just as there is a difference between someone burning a cross in their own backyard and burning that same cross in the yard of an African-American family, there is a difference between
desecrating a religious text in a private setting and doing so in a setting that will create a hostile learning environment."

(Question: Why does a terrorist founded, terrorist supporting organization need a "Civil Rights Coordinator"?)

Contrast CAIR-NY statement with the following:

"Those who stay in America should be open to society without melting, keeping Mosques open so anyone can come and learn about Islam. If you choose to live here, you have a responsibility to deliver the message of Islam ... Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."

Quote of Omar Ahmad, CAIR co-founder.

What is more threatening, putting a book in a toilet or being told that Islam is in American to dominate all other beliefs?

Why hasn't Ahmad been arrested for a "hate crime"?

What about Nihad Awad, CAIR Executive Director when he publically states:

"I am in support of the Hamas movement."

Awad publically states his support for an Islamist terrorist group that has murdered innocent civilians, including American citizens, and there is no "hate crimes" investigation.

Showing the banality of evil, this from Ahmad:

"Fighting for freedom, fighting for Islam, that is not suicide...they kill themselves for Islam"

Ahmad celebrates fellow Muslims who commit terrorist suicide bombings as "killing themselves for Islam"...the very same Islam that CAIR consistently claims does not support terrorism.

Or is it only CAIR's particular brand of Islam that supports Islamic terrorism?

From a WorldNetDaily article:

"A group of American Muslims produced a video that shows its members on a New York City street corner declaring Islam's dominance over America as they tread on a U.S. flag and then rip it apart."

CAIR had nothing to say about the desecration of our national flag by a group of Islamist supremacists from the "Islamic Thinkers Society"...the group suffered no consequences for the defilement of the flag and no mention was made of it being a "hate crime". No matter that millions of veterans would disagree; rightly recognizing that the flag represents our country, our values...and our comrades, fallen or wounded in battle; not to mention those battling Islamist terror in foreign lands.

Shmulevich put a book in the toilet. But did he call for his religion to be dominant in America? Did he publically call for support for terrorists who are killing American citizens? Did he salute terrorists who commit suicide attacks? Did he trample our flag in the street?

What Shmulevich did was in bad taste, it was insulting, but it was no crime.

Freedom of speech is my birthright as an American citizen; it is a gift from God codified by our founding fathers in our great Constitution.

To silence my voice would be to silence my soul; no man has, or ought to have, that power.

If we won't stand up for Shmulevich, who will stand up for us when the time comes?

Andrew Whitehead
Director, Anti-Council on American-Islamic Relations Anti-CAIR


The Washington Times

Article published Aug 8, 2007
Terrorists teaming with drug cartels

August 8, 2007

By Sara A. Carter - Islamic extremists embedded in the United States — posing as Hispanic nationals — are partnering with violent Mexican drug gangs to finance terror networks in the Middle East, according to a Drug Enforcement Administration report.

"Since drug traffickers and terrorists operate in a clandestine environment, both groups utilize similar methodologies to function ... all lend themselves to facilitation and are among the essential elements that may contribute to the successful conclusion of a catastrophic event by terrorists," said the confidential report, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Times.

The 2005 report outlines an ongoing scheme in which multiple Middle Eastern drug-trafficking and terrorist cells operating in the U.S. fund terror networks overseas, aided by established Mexican cartels with highly sophisticated trafficking routes.

These terrorist groups, or sleeper cells, include people who speak Arabic, Spanish and Hebrew and, for the most part, arouse no suspicion in their communities.

"It is very likely that any future 'September 11th' type of terrorist event in the United States may be facilitated, wittingly or unwittingly, by drug traffickers operating on both sides of the United States-Mexico border," the DEA report says.

Rep. Ed Royce of California, ranking Republican on the House Foreign Affairs terrorism and nonproliferation subcommittee, said the DEA document substantiates information that his committee has been given in the past year.

"Hearings I held in Laredo [Texas] last year and this DEA report show that our southern border is a terrorist risk," Mr. Royce said. "Law enforcement has warned that people from Arab countries have crossed the border and adopted Hispanic surnames. The drug cartels have highly sophisticated smuggling and money-laundering networks, which terrorists could access."

Garrison K. Courtney, spokes- man for the DEA, would not comment on the document. However, he said that the DEA, which has only 5,000 active agents worldwide, is sharing information with other U.S. intelligence agencies and working closely with local law enforcement.

"We focus on drugs, but we keep our eyes open for any connection that can aid our other partners in law enforcement," Mr. Courtney said. "Everything we do relies on our ability to gather intelligence. We have said for years that there are shades of gray in the organizations we're dealing with. Intelligence requires us to look at the whole picture. Realistically to leave out a certain set of dots could be a huge mistake."

In the two years since the report was written, other DEA intelligence officials have said they are still struggling to cooperate with and share and gather information from other lead U.S. agencies charged with fighting the war on terrorism.

Lack of information sharing between U.S. intelligence agencies is creating a blind spot in the war on terror and has left the U.S. vulnerable to another attack, the report states.

"We are the eyes and ears when it comes to gathering intelligence on the cartels and smugglers," said the DEA official. "What we know for sure is that persons associated with terrorist groups have discovered what cartels have known all along — the border is the backdoor into the U.S."

According to a Department of Homeland Security intelligence report obtained by The Times, nearly every part of the Border Patrol's national strategy is failing.

"Al Qaeda has been trying to smuggle terrorists and terrorist weapons illegally into the United States," the 2006 document states. "This organization has also tried to enter the U.S. by taking advantage of its most vulnerable border areas. They seek to smuggle OTMs [other than Mexicans] from Middle Eastern countries into the U.S."

Peter Brown, terrorism and security consultant, stated that the "biggest element" to the DEA report is the ease with which terrorist cells have taken on new identities.

"The ability for people to completely transform their nationalities absent of their own identities is a dangerous step in the evolution of this cross-border operation," he said. "This is a true threat."

Lending credence to Mr. Brown's concern, an El Paso, Texas, law-enforcement report documents the influx of "approximately 20 Arab persons a week utilizing the Travis County Court in Austin to change their names and driver's licenses from Arabic to Hispanic surnames."

Under the current drug-intelligence collection, analysis and reporting posture, the DEA runs the risk of failing to detect or report the entry of terrorists, weapons of mass destruction or portable conventional weapons into the United States, according to the DEA document.

Many times, smugglers don't know what they are transporting.

"Despite all the pronouncements of the administration that these networks and their funding is being traced," Mr. Brown warned, "progress has been limited, and in certain circles of intelligence, they are nonexistent."

Tuesday, August 07, 2007

August 3, 2007

CAIR Executive Director Placed at HAMAS Meeting

I'll bet this goes over big in the offices of Sandler, Reiff and Young.

From The Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) (thanks to all who sent this in):

The executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Nihad Awad, participated in a three-day summit of U.S.-based HAMAS members and supporters in 1993.

Until now, he had been identified only as Nihad LNU (last name unknown) in FBI reports and analyses. The meeting occurred in a Philadelphia hotel in the wake of a White House ceremony formalizing the Oslo Accords, a peace deal with the potential to end the decades-old conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.

CAIR, which touts itself as America’s premier Muslim civil rights organization, was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the terror support trial of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development and five of its officials. Omar Ahmad, who founded CAIR with Awad in 1994 and was previously identified as attending the Philadelphia meeting, also was named as an unindicted co-conspirator.

The FBI already had wiretap warrants on several people who wound up organizing the 1993 meeting and agents listened in on the meeting itself. They concluded the two-dozen men present were HAMAS members or supporters. Transcripts and FBI analyses released since then show the meeting sought a strategy to kill the peace accord, which threatened to marginalize the Islamist movement. The group also discussed ways to improve HAMAS fundraising in America.

According to FBI reports, the men tried to hide their true agenda, agreeing not to even say the word “HAMAS” - but to call it “SAMAH” its reverse - even in their private conversations. Most of the participants were identified through surveillance and an examination of the hotel registry. But until Thursday, the identity of one person at the meeting – Nihad LNU - remained a mystery.

Awad was asked about the meeting during a 2003 deposition for a civil lawsuit. He initially said he didn't think he had attended the Philadelphia meeting. When pushed he replied, "I don't remember." Nor did he remember whether he was invited.

Previously available evidence shows Awad was at the 1993 HAMAS meeting. He can be seen on videotape the following summer, acknowledging “I am in support of the HAMAS movement” during a seminar at Miami’s Barry University.

The idea for the meeting was discussed in a telephone call recorded by the FBI on Sept. 14, 1993. A day earlier, Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin shared an uneasy handshake on the White House lawn. That paved the way for the Palestinian Authority’s creation, and, it was hoped at the time, a path toward a more peaceful future.

On the telephone, three men discussed who should be invited to join them in a meeting to discuss what to do next. The call included Omar Ahmad (CAIR’s chairman emeritus), who at the time served at President of the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), Shukri Abu Baker, President of the Holy Land Foundation and one of the defendants now on trial, and Abdelhaleem al-Ashqar, the Executive Director of a HAMAS-linked charity known as the Al Aqsa Educational Fund.

They discussed inviting people from the “Union,” a code reference to the IAP. They mentioned “Akram,” “Abdul Rahman” and “Nihad.” In 1993, Nihad Awad was the spokesman and public relations director for the IAP.

During that same telephone conversation, the men on the telephone call referred to Nihad's work in "media." Shukri Abu Bakr mentioned "a full article in Dallas Morning News...and every few lines: Mr. Nihad said this and that...." The Dallas Morning News did publish an article that day. It ran under the headline "Dallas' Mideast Observers Warn of Conflict Ahead." It extensively quoted "Nihad Awad, spokesman for the Dallas-based Islamic Association of Palestine."

A few weeks later, at the Philadelphia meeting itself, two men again referenced "Nihad" and an invitation he received to speak at a conference for the National Association of Arab Americans (NAAA) on October 30, 1993. The program from that NAAA Annual Convention, obtained by the IPT, lists the name of Nihad Awad, representing the Islamic Association for Palestine, as a speaker on a panel entitled "Israel-PLO Agreement: Analytical Perspectives." Nobody else named Nihad is listed in the program....

AUGUST 3, 2007

A Bridge to "Moderate" Islam Is In Fact a Road to Hell


Monday, 06 August 2007

'Islam is a religion of peace and the great majority of Muslims are not party to any plans and actions of the radicals'- so claim academic pundits, leftist journalists, and hired Islamic apologists. The incantation of these "authorities" is the lullaby that puts the people into a sleep of complacency.

Complacency and appeasement on the part of the free world and those well-meaning, non-practicing Muslims, can only serve Islam. There is no chance for co-existence with Islam. All one needs to know is to see what is happening in Islamic countries. That is exactly what is in store for the presently free people of the world if Islam is not held in check.

The average free person, who is busy with all manner of demands on his time and resources, would hardly want to worry about the very real threat which mainstream Islam poses to his life and to his future. It is so much easier to accept the claims of authorities who assure us not to worry; 'it's just a tiny minority of extremists', and 'soon the great majority of "moderates" will triumph over the crazy zealots'. So we lull ourselves back to the comfort of our pretenses, serene in knowing that the "experts" have it all under control.

Wait! Aren't these the same experts who told us Hitler could not possibly be crazy enough to attack Russia or Britain? Aren't these the same "experts" who tried to cover up Mao Tse Tung's reign of terror in China, or Pol Pot's genocide in Cambodia? Isn't this the same "expertise" that assured us in the 1970's that inflation was good, and could never be accompanied by recession?

Aren't these the same folks who tell us the Saudis are our best friends in the Middle East, that the Titanic was unsinkable, that we should not succumb to our racist impulses by reporting suspicious Muslim men who are learning to fly jumbo jets, and that goods imported from China are perfectly safe? Or that if we just "open up dialogue with our enemies", we can create peace?? Hmmm...It seems like we have much to worry about when the "authorities" begin to disseminate their collective wisdom. And don't bank on the politicians either. They are the master practitioners of the art of the politically correct.

Yet, some of these professional advocates of Islam go farther by accusing those who sound the alarm as racist, bigots, hatemongers and much more. That attitude sure worked well for England, Holland and France!

But the elites who scold us and seduce us into our slumbering acquiescence never allow their dismal record of intellectual failure to prevent them from claiming ever more enlightenment. Their present project is to 'build a bridge to moderate Islam'.

Let us, for the record, be clear on this subject one more time: Islamism, Islamofascism, Radical Islam, Political Islam, and Militant Islam are different terms for essentially the same thing, a virulent, hateful, and violent system of beliefs and practices. Yet, one and all are progeny and mutation of Islam itself.

Islam in all of its forms and sects is simply an evil ideology that is practiced by all Muslims. Islamism is a pincer, with the world in its jaws between the end-of-the-world Shiism and the jihadist Sunnis. To the simple mind of western "intellectuals", within every ideology there must always be "good liberals" and "bad conservatives", and so they search in vain for the "moderate", "reasonable", "pragmatic" wing of any threatening ideology.

But in their enormous ignorance of the realities of Islam, they fail to realize that in Islam, the wings are not "left" and "right", or "liberal" vs. "conservative"; they are two jaws in the same supremacist device that aims to crush the life of all non-believers. I will explain why attempting to build a bridge to "moderate" Islam is in fact a road to hell, since "moderate Islam" is oxymoronic.

The so-called "Moderate Muslims" or "Secular Muslims" would like to have their cake and eat it too. They wish to remain Muslims in name only, yet not bother to read the mandates of the Quran or understand the context in which Muhammad foisted his poisonous prophecy upon the world. Instead of conclusively demonstrating Islam's violent nature from its very inception and moving in another direction with what they can prove is the worthwhile portions of Islam, they have decided to marry an inherently noxious religion with an inherently godless philosophy, secularism. "Secular Islam Summit" was hilarious; a run-down and meaningless show of desperate attempt to salvage a bankrupt and deadly ideology.

These happy-go-lucky people-of-Islam are indeed delusional, for Muhammad's record is not even the subject of debate. His utterances and deeds are a part of history that is simply not debatable. Islam is what Muhammad said it was in the diatribes of vitriol and hatred that is the Quran; and Islam is what Muhammad did during his violent life. If you accept Islam as your religion, you become a part of the guiding principles of hatred, revenge, and rejection of prior enlightened prophecies. But the "bridge-builders refuse to acknowledge the fact that one cannot be a Muslim and not abide by the dictates of the Quran.

Keep in mind that the fact being a Muslim is a clear admission of wrongdoing, the extent of which depends on the degree of a person's Muslim-ness. If he is only a Muslim who does not practice Islam, then he is, at the very least, guilty of hypocrisy. If he is somewhat of a Muslim by tithing, from time to time, following the ranting of the local mullah or imam, and swallowing whole the pronouncements of the high divines, then he is guilty of significantly contributing to the evildoings of Islam.

It is time for the non-practicing Muslims to abandon their childish desire to cling to evil, yet pretend they can "reform" it, like the abused wife insisting that she can cure her alcoholic, violent spouse by remaining in a codependent relationship. It's time the self-described "moderates" either accept the truth of their ugly religious ethics and reject them by joining the forces of liberty and worldwide family of free people, or join the forces of darkness. But to join the peace-loving free world, you must immediately stop making excuses for the religion of hate!

Here is my 10-point process to understand why Islam cannot be "moderated", for the benefit of those misguided people who are the advocates of "Secular Islam." I will prove that Secular Islam is just a hoax.

1_The first question that must be answered is whether or not any doctrine can be called "evil." If nothing is good or evil, then all of life is inherently nihilistic, and all thinkers and believers in life (all of us) are necessarily nihilists. We must establish a way to measure "evil."

Take for example, Naziism. How are we to know that the Nazi party was evil, and that present-day believers in Nazi principles are doing evil? We certainly cannot use traditional Islamic mea culpas, to rid Nazis of their well deserved guilt! We can't look at present day Nazis who are demonstrably not trying to take over the world. We can't ask the average Nazis on the street to declare themselves authorities on their entire cult.

We can't just look at the actions of some of them, for in doing so, we could simply assert that the good Nazi party was hijacked by "radicals". It is certainly true that the vast majority of German supporters of the Nazi party in 1936 were normal, peaceful people who were simply held hostage by the zealots. If you took a random "Nazi", you'd be vastly more likely to condemn him for his taste for Sauerkraut rather than see him participate in an actual murder.

So we have the same excuses at work that exist in the debate over Islam, but today we condemn Naziism as evil. If it is illegitimate to simply look for a nice Nazi, and try to build a bridge to the Nazi power structure through him, then how can we think we can do it with Islam? We think so because we have presupposed that Naziism is bad, and because of the forces of propaganda, we believe that Islam is not. But this begs the question: How then do we know what evil is, so we can condemn it?

The answer is that the only way to determine if a thing is evil or neutral or good is to establish a working definition of what constitutes evil and its opposite, good, and then test the doctrine against the definition.

While it is true that many people will disagree on the precise definition, it does not matter. Let each person establish the definition for him or herself, and at least be logical and fair in evaluating the evidence of the creed. In other words, deal with the consequences of the process, no matter how hard the findings are to accept. The Bible says, "You shall know them by their fruits".

2_Once a definition is in place, the only way to evaluate a belief system under any accepted definition is to read the foundational books, the manuscripts that define the creed...the scripture that was carefully written to explain the norms and intent of those who established it. You cannot ask a Nazi whether he thinks he is evil. He will tell you he is good, and that you are evil for resisting him, because he is defending his "people" against those who resist his beliefs. This is exactly what Muhammad said about the Jews and Christians who resisted him.

"Thus (will it be said): 'Taste ye then of the (punishment): for those who resist Allah, is the penalty of the Fire.'" Quran 8.014

"And when those who disbelieve plot against thee (O Muhammad) to wound thee fatally, or to kill thee or to drive thee forth; they plot, but Allah (also) plotteth; and Allah is the best of plotters." Quran 8.030

"And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease (in defeat), then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do." Quran 8.039

You cannot allow a random Nazi member to provide personal anecdotal opinion and declare it to be authoritative. Only the written treatises of the founders may be taken as true expression of the belief system. You cannot take a third-party account of Nazi goodness to be superior to the Nazi party principles and the philosophy espoused in Mein Kampf. That would be ignoring Hitler's beliefs in exchange for that of an outside observer commenting on Hitler's beliefs. The same is true for Islamic apologists. We can't just trot out any "scholar" and declare him to be authoritative over the words and deeds of the most important figures in Islamic history.

This is the precise error that Stephen Schwartz makes in advising people to read the Aqida al-Tahawiyya (interpretations of the creed), or other apocryphal interpretations that only a fool would escalate above the Quran and Hadith. Yet normal people can't help notice the similarity in name of "Aqida al" as referenced by Schwartz is his fatuous quest for moderation in an inherently oppressive philosophy, and the more memorable name "Al Qaida" as manifested in reality. Why does the third-party whitewash text name so closely resemble Terror Inc's brand name? Because they are the same thing!

Once we have found the foundational texts which declare the basis and purpose of the creed, in order to validate the creed as it is written we must test if the leaders of the creed are in fact true to their words; one must look at historical actions of those who rose in rank through the belief system. Look at their words, actions, and reactions as their lives played out to see if they were consistent in representing their own creed. This is how you test whether or not a doctrine is evil.

3_ Having defined evil, and having isolated the relevant foundational texts, we can move ahead. If we find a group of people who adhere strictly to their codes of conduct as established in their scripture, we cannot place these people on the sidelines of their religion as aberrations or "extremists". Such attempts to marginalize the fundamentalist believers in a religious movement are the product of highly confused and illogical thinking.

A person cannot be "extreme" with respect to her religion if she is in alignment with all of its commandments and admonishments. Being highly devout is "fundamentalism," but it is not extreme or radical. The reason we wish to believe that a Buddhist who never steps on an ant is "extreme" is because we realize that the behavior is unusual and difficult to accomplish, inasmuch as almost nobody can live up to its ideals.

But to view an action that is rare and strange to you, and then declare that, because it occupies a far-off position with respect to your personal beliefs and capability to align, it is therefore "extreme" with respect to its own religious dictates, is highly illogical and quite frankly stupid. And this is the precise "logic" that is used by those who wipe the Islamic slate clean, declaring all inhumane practices and advocation in Islam to be the handiwork of "extremists." Such muddled thinking does nothing to advance our understanding of the creed, the evil it does, and its dangers to mankind.

If we use this process and we objectively find that Islam satisfies the definition of evil, we cannot then be subject to the insults of the ignorant who themselves refuse to conduct a like investigation. We cannot be accused of being "Nazis" ourselves simply because our rational discovery and analysis process uncovered true evil. It would be the height of absurdity to declare that an anti-Nazi is just as bad as a Nazi for vehemently opposing Nazi thinking! The same must be true for Islam.

4_ I won't get into every nuance of the reasons; any average person can define evil and read the Quran and come away with the sole conclusion that it is evil. Only those of us who have bothered to read the Quran and parts of the Hadith and Sunna and who have bothered to read history and take note of present-day Islamic violence and oppression in light of their dark beliefs can say that we have good reason to declare Islam an evil cult. But suffice it to say that Islam, as configured by Muhammad and as interpreted over the centuries, essentially boils down to the following principles:

a. Jews and Christians are, per se, the epitome of evil to Islamic thinking. Pagans are also evil, but somewhat less insulting to Allah, since the Jews and Christians received prophecy and "rejected" it.

One of many such verses of hate: "Those who reject (Truth) (Islam), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures." Quran 098.006

b. Therefore Jews and Christians are offensive to Allah. The worse between them is the Jew. The world will not be restored to Allah's preferences until all Jews are defeated and entirely eradicated.

One of many such verses of hate: "Say: 'shall I point out to you something much worse than this (referring to the previous verses), as judged by the treatment it received from Allah? Those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath (Jews), those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil;- these are (many times) worse in rank, and far more astray from the even path!'" Quran 5.060

c. Muslims believe that those who resist conversion to Islam and the establishment of the prominence of Islamic global domination are Islam's enemies who can never be trusted or treated as equals.

One of many such verses of hate: "O ye who believe! Take not my enemies and yours as friends (or protectors),- offering them (your) love, even though they have rejected the Truth that has come to you, and have (on the contrary) driven out the Prophet and yourselves (from your homes), (simply) because ye believe in Allah your Lord! If ye have come out to strive in My Way and to seek My Good Pleasure, (take them not as friends), holding secret converse of love (and friendship) with them: for I know full well all that ye conceal and all that ye reveal. And any of you that does this has strayed from the Straight Path." Quran 60.001

d. Allah calls on Muslims (believers) to use their corporeal power to murder Jews, Christians, and people of other religions and to destroy their nations, cities and institutions, until they sue for peace and either become Muslims or pay for the privilege of being ruled by a world Islamic order.

One of many such verses of hate: Volume 4, Book 52, Number 176:
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar: Allah's Apostle said, "You (i.e. Muslims) will fight the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, 'O 'Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.' "

One of many such verses of hate: Volume 4, Book 52, Number 196:
Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, " I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' and whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' his life and property will be saved by me except for Islamic law, and his accounts will be with Allah, (either to punish him or to forgive him.)"

e. Forget all you know about spiritually uplifting ideals of brotherly love and peace (the word "love" is nearly absent in the Quran). Peace and earthly enlightenment only comes after slaughter and victory in a war in which Islam is victorious. If, in any battle or time period, Islam is not victorious, Muslims must lie in wait until the right time and then ambush their enemies and establish Islamic rule. Until that time, policies of terrorism and deceit are both sanctioned and advised.

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220:
Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand." Abu Huraira added: Allah's Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them).

Excerpt Q-33:25-27
Set 66, Count 131-133 [33.25]...Allah sufficed the believers in fighting... [33.26]...some [Jews] you killed and you took captive another part. [33.27]...He made you heirs to their [Jewish] land and their dwellings and their property, and (to) a land which you have not yet trodden...

(So much for the theory that Muslims don't have a religious mandate to claim Jewish lands...that the "Palestinian" problem is all the fault of the on and so forth)

f. Islam calls for robotic acceptance of minute and grand prescriptions covering every aspect of a Muslim's life. Therefore, Islam is not personally or spiritually relevant. It is political, which is why it may never separate itself from government. Adherence is not a matter of voluntary devotion, but of the Law, and violators are severely punished, including capital punishment as in Sharia.

The principle of "an eye for an eye" (retribution/revenge) is supreme in all social interaction. Praying five times daily, wearing headscarves, ablution, abstaining from alcohol, etc... all this is done not out of personal belief that it is proper, but because Allah says so, and nobody may violate Allah's written commandments.

g. Men are the strong and superior. Women are the weak and inferior. Women must be kept ignorant and within a low social class so they do not abuse the Islamic order by seeking equality.

"Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the others and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because Allah has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you take no further action against them. Allah is high, supreme." Quran 4.34

Islam strictly forbids women to participate in many activities in which men are involved. In Islam, women are not in the calculus-women are incidental and merely exist for the pleasure of men.

The words "naghess al aghl" literally means defected witted person. It describes the intellectual capability of women in general. And the word "zaeefeh", is referred directly to female gender in contrast to men, meaning "the weaker one", in a condescending fashion.

"By another sign He (Allah) gave you wives from among yourselves, that you (men) might live in joy with them, and planted love and kindness in your hearts. Surely there are signs in this for thinking men." Quran 32.21

h. Muslims are entitled, in fact required, to wage war on all non-Islamic thoughts and deeds. Any who mock or disrespect the prophet Muhammad are to be murdered by honor-bound Muslim enforcers.

4:162b Muhammad said, "My livelihood is under the shade of my spear, and he who disobeys my orders will be humiliated by paying Jizya." ["Jizya" is the poll tax paid by subjugated peoples in return for the protection of the Islamic government.]
4:196 Mohammad said, "I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, 'None has the right to be worshiped but Allah,' and whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshiped by Allah,' his life and property will be saved by me except for Islamic law, and his accounts will be with Allah (either to punish him or to forgive him.)"

4:220 Muhammad said, "... I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy) .."

The 69th verse of Sûrah Anfãl declares:
"Eat ye the spoils of war. They are lawful and pure."

"The apostle (Muhammad) said, 'Kill any Jew that falls into your power.' Hereupon Muhayyisa b. Masud leapt upon Ibn Sunayna, a Jewish merchant with whom they had social and business relations, and killed him. Huwayyisa was not a Muslim at the time though he was the elder brother. When Muhayyisa killed him Huwayyisa began to beat him, saying, 'You enemy of God, did you kill him when much of the fat on your belly comes from his wealth?' Muhayyisa answered, 'Had the one who ordered me to kill him ordered me to kill you I would have cut your head off.'" 61

In another terrorist action, Muhammad asked his men to murder an old Jewish man, Abu Afak. "'Who will deal with this rascal for me?' The killing of such an old man moved a poetess, Asma b. Marwan, to compose disrespectful verses about the Prophet, and she too was assassinated." When the assassin prayed with the prophet at al-Medina, Muhammad said to him: "'Have you slain the daughter of Marwan?' The assassin said: 'Yes. Is there something more for me to do?' He [Muhammad] said: 'No two goats will butt together about her.'"62..." (from Islam is not Salaam, by CS Karlson, 2004)

i. All contemporary written scripture is corrupted, and only the Quran is the truth. Muhammad is the highest authority, as Allah's primary and final prophet. Even the Quran contains contradictions and infusions of verses by Satan (note: Muhammad actually codified this concept in the Quran, the subject of Rushdie's book, the "Satanic Verses"). But in order to eradicate Satanic infusion, whenever a passage conflicts with another, only the latter one may be understood as correct...because Allah will always trump Satan. The Quran (surviving, unabrogated prophesy) and its ethical commandments are eternal, perfect, and immutable.

j. This is why any references to "peaceful" earlier scriptures have been completely abrogated by evil scripture that is congruent with only older, violent scripture. What we have left is a book that is unbelievably sickening in its hateful attitudes and inhumane practices. This is why you cannot believe an ignorant Muslim who quotes abrogated scripture, such as "there should be no compulsion in religion"...that phrase was abrogated hundreds of times, and it is enraging to have to point out such obvious contradictions.

5_ Conclusion: These unalterable and undilutable sentiments represent that which is wrong, sinful, erroneous, ill-advised, and just plain evil.

6_ Moreover, anyone who acts consistently in the advocation and advancement of these ethics is adhering to Islam as it was intended. They are fundamentalists, like the Christian who consistently turns the other cheek, or the Buddhist who is careful never to step on a bug, but they are not extremists.

An extremist Christian would for example claim that Christ did not intend for people to forgive each other and express the final commandment for brotherly love, but rather to beat each other until they accepted Christ as God, and to reject anyone who did not believe as they do. Perhaps some, even many, Christians think that the latter is correct, but according to scripture, they are wrong. This is easily identifiable in the New Testament and is a consistent theme in Christ's prophecy. If such heretical "Christians" persist in evangelizing incorrect interpretations, they are extremists vis-a-vis Christianity as codified in the Bible.

Likewise, if any Muslim tries to declare that Muhammad (who personally led dozens of offensive military excursions, took slaves for himself, demanded 20% war booty, raped a 9-year-old concubine, ordered the assassinations of his detractors-all recorded in official ISLAMIC texts!) never intended his scripture to represent Islam, but rather Muslims should be peaceful and loving when such advice is not given in his scripture (in fact it is revealed in the scriptures Muhammad tried to eradicate), they are not mainstream...they are the true extremists. You cannot lie about your religion and consider yourself "moderate."

We have hundreds of commandments by Muhammad that declare such things as:

"Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost (in conquest): for Allah is with you, and will never put you in loss for your (good) deeds." Quran 47.035

"Fighting (in wars to advance Islam) is prescribed for you, and ye (may) dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Quran 2.216

"Fight those who: believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold forbidden that which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." Quran 9.029

Passages like these and worse are all over the Quran and Muhammad proved their meaning by the perfect records of how he conducted himself in life, as recorded in the Hadith.

7_ So what we have is this: we have a group of personally non-violent, well-meaning, friendly perhaps, but quite ignorant, and non-intellectual people such as the advocates of the "Secular Islam Summit" who seek to censor all the evil that is expressed within Islamic scripture as commandment, and yet seek to somehow allow the resulting "moderated" cult to retain its brand name, "Islam."

These people use confused logic, denial and censorship to create what they call "connections" and "bridges" between normal human behavior and those who refuse to abandon that which is manifestly evil. They assist ignorant Muslims in surreptitiously redacting most of their own scripture and all of Islam's raison d'etre, yet they refuse to call for the abandonment of the religion itself, and certainly refuse to admit that the reason reform is sought is because the religion they minister is full of antisocial, animus and hatred....ergo, evil.

These people are secularists who desire Islam to be restrained, so they can assert that their policies of dilution are good for all religions. In doing so, they seek to throw the baby out with the bath water, for not all religions are in fact evil.

8_ But once this liberal process of ambiguating religion is understood, we can also understand why their task is futile. "Moderating" by ignoring the truth cannot work unless the Quran itself, and much of the life and traditions of Muhammad recorded long ago, are universally destroyed to the last manuscript and digital file...and good luck with that.

Since this is impossible, one day even under the most successful liberal scenario where Muslims have forgotten their religion, some 16-year-old Muslim boy will bother to read the original works of the Satanic and evil Muhammad, and refusing out of sin of pride to abandon the cult, the whole sick, violent history of the Islamic juggernaut will rise again from the ashes of the books burned by self-described moderates.

Here, many uneducated people refer to the history of Christianity and its reformation, and perhaps to a general view of the dialectic of movements in general, which they believe go from pure to corrupt, then to reformist, then to post-modern. But applying this supposed deterministic process to Islam is absurd. Christianity was most certainly corrupted by the 13th century. By the 15th century, the church had become even more corrupted: acts such as the sale of indulgences, the sins of the papal rivalries, and its repression against heretics were legion.

When Martin Luther nailed his list of 95 grievances to the door of the Wittenberg Church, he was scripturally correct. In fact, the Catholic Church had gone so far as to make it illegal to print the Bible in any language other than the dead Latin (used as a code language by the church, since only Catholic-trained men were taught the language). But church chicanery was anti-Christian according to the actual Bible. So from the perspective of scripture, the reformists were correct, and the Popes were divergent, and that is what led to the Reformation.

Contrast this with what the so-called reformists are trying to do with Islam...they are not looking into the Quran for answers...they are banning the book altogether lest people find out the evil that drips from its pages. The Quran is the last place Islamic moderators look for help in "reforming" Islam, because it would make al Qaida look like a poodle pet-owners convention. In fact, doesn't it take great chutzpa to call a movement that seeks to eradicate the letter and intent of actual scripture "reformist"? Perhaps "retardation" or "revisionism" would be better terms.

9_ You can restrain Islam, but you cannot lie about its true character by branding those who abide as "extremists," and complimenting those who abandon all but its name as "Moderates."

10_The ludicrousness of their chosen position is exactly why "moderate" Muslims refuse to engage in a battle of truth using Muslim scripture to back up their preposterous denials. They can't read their book out loud because they are canonically wrong and they know it. And this is precisely why the vast majority of Muslims prefer to name their children "Muhammad" or "Osama" rather than march in the streets to protest the evils that this religion does on a daily basis.

This is also why liberal appeasers in 1938, who refused to call Hitler "evil," got the world into so much trouble by creating a similar confused intellectual forum about the Nazis. They tried to build bridges to the "moderate" Nazis; they lectured clear thinkers about the dangers of inciting German hatred by pointing out the truth. They accused conservatives of being "just as fascist" as the Nazis; they sent ambassadors and made treaties and trusted that the moderates would come out and "reform" their zealous leadership. And they were wrong.

We in the United States need to embark on a comprehensive legal, educational, and social campaign to eradicate the deadly plague of Islam. We need to immediately stop appeasing the Muslims and call Islam for what it really is. By effective action, we may even save those peaceful and self-styled moderate or secular Muslims from their own deluded affliction.

There is nothing that I would love more than witnessing all Muslims become ex-Muslims and full-fledged members of a diverse, tolerant and democratic society. I hope that Muslims themselves leave this Bedouin slaveholder cult. Yet, the hope is extremely slim. Islam has a stranglehold on its slaves and will neither let them go, nor do the Muslims seem to have the insight or the will to leave it in large numbers. But hope, as slim as it is, keeps me sounding the alarm before the fire of Islam engulfs us all. ---------Amil Imani