Help! We Are Falling and We Can’t Get Up!

By Randy Taylor, Independent Analyst

22 February 2008: Barack Obama was born August 4, 1961 as Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. Born to a Kenyan father and an American mother, he spent some of his childhood in Honolulu, Hawaii. From the age of six to age ten, he lived in Jakarta with his mother and Indonesian stepfather. Jakarta, Indonesia, one of Islam’s jihadist training grounds.

He admittedly studied Islam early in life, attended a Wahabbi madrassa and then claims he converted from Islam to - well we aren’t really sure what he has converted to. In fact, we aren’t sure that he converted at all. People seem to forget one major fact about Islam: these people have been planning the demise of the United States for decades. They have more patience than anyone on this earth. So who is to say that when the Islamic radicals overthrew Iran in the late 70’s they didn’t have their own "Manchurian Candidate" in mind for the position as President of the most powerful non-Muslim nation in the world?

From a chronological standpoint, the timing of Islam’s bold move in Iran in 1979 and the fact that Barack Obama wrapping up his teenage formative years around the same time places him on my radar screen of suspicion. I haven’t heard him denounce Islam as of yet but I have heard him promote it. I've heard him slam just about everything this country has done in an effort to keep Islam and its perpetuators of the Islamic farce at bay. In fact after he whipped Hillary in one of the primaries he gave a speech in which if you closed your eyes and listened to only the words, you could have had Osama Bin Laden delivering the words to you.

What exactly do we know about this presidential candidate? I’m not talking about the surface, the obvious fake façade of Barack Hussein Obama. I’m talking about the true Obama, the ever evasive answerer, the Wahabbi trained and indoctrinated Muslim who suddenly, as we are experiencing our most difficult times with our Islamic enemy suddenly pops out of the cheap seats and makes a bid for the White House. The overall timing is bizarre to say the least. The bottom line is that this man should not be trusted with the security of the most powerful deterrent of Islam, the United States of America.

We know what a useless, lying piece of human feces that Ted Kennedy is, so why would anyone even consider anyone that he endorses? Possibly there are some back room manipulative plans in the works as surely even the Democrats know that Obama faces a higher than average chance of an assassination attempt if elected. I don’t wish that on anyone but let’s face the fact that Colin Powell even realized the risks and backed away from a presidential bid. Considering this theory, one would have to be curious who Obama’s running mate will be as there is a good chance that the vice president under Obama would eventually be the president. So let’s see who ends up in that seat as his running mate as that person could possibly be the President within the first year of the new regime. C’mon, Ted Kennedy is the same as the kiss of death. I’d put some distance between me and him if I were a candidate.

The Democrats are fairly certain that no Republicans will make it to the White House as most people, even the ones that voted for Bush are unhappy with the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the economy and the stock market. Since Hillary Clinton smells too much like her screwball husband Bill Clinton, she won’t make the cut. The ones to watch for running mate will be John Edwards or that idiot John Kerry. Kind of funny because the only way either of those two clowns could get into the Presidential driver's seat is if someone died and vacated it. The Democrats are banking on the politically correct, demented thinking and lost logic of the American left to put Obama in the white house. Then and only then will their plan work. Watch how this plays out America as I’m not to far off with this theory. It’s like watching a poorly choreographed musical which unfortunately does well because of the supporters of the actors, not the actors themselves.

The politically correct thing to do is put a black, foreign born Muslim into office only because it is so far opposite of who is running the country now. America won’t vote him in because they think he is the man for the job, they will vote him in because he is against the war, he isn’t the same color as George Bush and he talks a good show. No one is very happy with the Bush-Chaney management (or mismanagement) job and a good majority of weak shortsighted Americans want something different. I’m a Republican but even I have questioned some of the things I’ve seen playing out. Bottom line is that I vote my conscience and I will always support the best person to protect this nation, even if I disagree with some policies.

Islam isn’t going away anytime soon and their plan is the demise of this country. They already have managed to infect Congress with one of their Islamic piglets named Keith Ellison who, for the record, has done nothing positive while in office yet has managed to promote Islam. When you look closely at his congressional district, he has created much conflict between Islam and America. Look closely folks, Muslim airport taxi driver issues with western passengers, the flying imams escapade, the repeated appearances of issues related to the Muslim Brotherhood, etc.

That are just a few incidents in a city from where a Muslim weaseled his way into a Congressional seat. Sit back and imagine the implications of a Muslim in the White House, in charge of a nation, and not limited to one congressional district. That is, of course, if he survives.

Incidentally, if anything did happen to Obama in office, you can be sure that the supposed "assassin" will be killed and magically traced back to some white supremacy group, making the story much more "marketable" to the American public. Since the media is the Democratic mouthpiece for all things, be assured there will be tons of evidence blasted across the media airwaves to seal the deal. It worked with a prior presidential assassination and it will work again if the power designers need it to. It’s what I call the Caesar Principle. It will be a repeat of history much like the Kennedy assassination in which Americas foreign policy changed with his death. It’s been going on for centuries all around the world, as long as there was power to gain and men willing to kill to gain that power.

This will be an interesting presidential election and the follow-up scenes and after effects will be even more interesting if Barack Obama makes it to the Oval Office especially if he survives. Then we will have fallen and we will not be able to get back up. Islam doesn’t have to attack us since we are going to walk them in the front door of the head office.

By the way, if you are wondering why we haven’t been attacked by these Islamic fanatics, it’s because they have no reason to attack us. We are doing exactly what they want us to and have been for some time. Think about it. All the security in the world won’t stop an attack if terrorists want to attack. Yet, we haven’t had a major attack since 2001. We won’t be attacked if Obama is elected and survives. We will be attacked however if anything happens to him or if a Republican gets elected. That’s the terrorist playbook and calendar folks and it is quite simple. Barack Obama is the puppet of Islam and is Islam’s real life equivalent of the fictitious Manchurian Candidate, groomed since childhood possibly even birth for this strategic position.

One way or another America will fall if we don’t get serious about this problem of Islam. When we fall, we will not get back up.

Be safe and stay vigilant.

02.22.08 http://homelandsecurityus.com/BHOTalyorEditorial022208

Dallas cop: “Something was not right”

By Douglas J. Hagmann, Director

"I’ve been a cop too long not to know that there is something bigger going on here." -- Dallas police officer, referring to orders to "stand down" on Obama security detail.

UPDATE: Deju vu in Dallas? Conspiracy? You decide.
Click HERE to watch YouTube video of JFK Secret Service detail in Dallas on the day of his assassination.
Click HERE to discuss this on the NEIN Blog

23 February 2008: Dallas, Texas police officer Donald Strong* could not believe what he was hearing – an order issued by the United States Secret Service to “stand down” at a Wednesday rally at the Reunion Arena where Democratic presidential candidate Barak Obama was to address a crowd of nearly 20,000 people. “About 90 minutes before the start of the event, an order was issued to stop the most basic protective security procedures. We had the manpower - it didn’t make sense,” stated the officer.

A report published in the Star Telegram describes the surprise by several Dallas police officers upon receiving an order to “put down the metal detectors and stop checking purses and laptop bags,” allowing an untold number of people access to the arena without undergoing any security screening. “It was surreal,” stated the Dallas officer to the Northeast Intelligence Network.

The officer also described the statement made by Dallas Deputy Police Chief T.W. Lawrence, who said that the turnout “seemed to be a friendly crowd” as ridiculous. Lawrence is also head of the Police Department's Homeland Security and Special Operations divisions.

“I felt that there was something wrong with the order [to stand down] but I was told not concern myself, that it was being handled. But it was not being handled. When I continued to voice my concern, I was told to ‘stay out of it,’” stated the officer, who added that he fears going public with the information could jeopardize his job. Although the rally went forth as planned without incident, Officer Strong believes that there is something else – something more nefarious going on. “The manpower was there – it was not an issue. Why would we be told to stand down? It made no sense. There needs to be an investigation [of this incident] and the individual who ultimately issued the order needs to be identified. I’ve been a cop too long not to know that there is something bigger going on here.”

*The name of the Dallas, Texas police officer changed at his request to protect his identity.

First They Came for Piglet
Excessive deference to Islam.
National Review
By Mark Steyn

M y favorite headline of the year so far comes from The Daily Mail in Britain: "Government Renames Islamic Terrorism As 'Anti-Islamic Activity' To Woo Muslims."
Her Majesty's government is not alone in feeling it's not always helpful to link Islam and the, ah, various unpleasantnesses with suicide bombers and whatnot. Even in his cowboy Crusader heyday, President Bush liked to cool down the crowd with a lot of religion-of-peace stuff. But the British have now decided that kind of mealy-mouthed "respect" is no longer sufficient. So, henceforth, any terrorism perpetrated by persons of an Islamic persuasion will be designated "anti-Islamic activity" Britain's home secretary, Jacqui Smith, unveiled the new brand name in a speech a few days ago. "There is nothing Islamic about the wish to terrorize, nothing Islamic about plotting murder, pain and grief," she told her audience. "Indeed, if anything, these actions are anti-Islamic."
Well, yes, one sort of sees what she means. Killing thousands of people in Manhattan skyscrapers in the name of Islam does, among a certain narrow-minded type of person, give Islam a bad name, and thus could be said to be "anti-Islamic" - in the same way that the Luftwaffe raining down death and destruction on Londoners during the Blitz was an "anti-German activity." But I don't recall even Neville Chamberlain explaining, as if to a five-year-old, that there is nothing German about the wish to terrorize and invade, and that this is entirely at odds with the core German values of sitting around eating huge sausages in beer gardens while wearing lederhosen.

Still, it should add a certain surreal quality to BBC news bulletins: "The Prime Minister today condemned the latest anti-Islamic activity as he picked through the rubble of Downing Street looking for his 2008 Wahhabi Community Outreach Award. In a related incident, the anti-Islamic activists who blew up Buckingham Palace have unfortunately caused the postponement of the Queen's annual Ramadan banquet."
A few days ago, a pre-trial hearing in an Atlanta courtroom made public for the first time a video made by two Georgia Tech students. Syed Haris Ahmed and Ehsanul Islam Sadequee went to Washington and took footage of key buildings, and that "casing video" then wound up in the hands of Younis Tsouli, an al-Qaeda recruiter in London. As the film shot by the Georgia students was played in court, Ehsanul Islam Sadequee's voice could be heard on the soundtrack: "This is where our brothers attacked the Pentagon."
"Allahu Akbar," responds young Ahmed. God is great.
How "anti-Islamic" an activity is that? Certainly, not all Muslims want to fly planes into the Pentagon. But those that do do it in the name of their faith. And anyone minded to engage in an "anti-Islamic activity" will find quite a lot of support from leading Islamic scholars. Take, for example, the "moderate" imam Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who once observed that "we will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through the sword, but through dawa" - i.e., the non-incendiary form of Islamic outreach.
What could be more moderate than that? No wonder Mr. al-Qaradawi is an associate of the Islamic Society of Boston, currently building the largest mosque in the northeast, and also a pal of the present mayor of London. The impeccably moderate mullah was invited to address a British conference sponsored by the police and the Department of Work and Pensions on "Our Children, Our Future." And, when it comes to the children, Imam Qaradawi certainly has their future all mapped out. "Israelis might have nuclear bombs," he said, "but we have the children bomb and these human bombs must continue until liberation." As Maurice Chevalier used to say, thank heaven for little girls, they blow up in the most delightful way.
The British home secretary would respond that not all moderate imams are as gung-ho to detonate moppets. Which is true. But, by insisting on re-labeling terrorism committed by Muslims in the name of Islam as "anti-Islamic activity," Her Majesty's government is engaging not merely in Orwellian Newspeak but in self-defeating Orwellian Newspeak. The broader message it sends is that ours is a weak culture so unconfident and insecure that if you bomb us and kill us our first urge is to find a way to flatter and apologize to you.
Here's another news item out of Britain this week: A new version of The Three Little Pigs was turned down for some "excellence in education" award on the grounds that "the use of pigs raises cultural issues" and, as a result, the judges "had concerns for the Asian community" - i.e., Muslims. Non-Muslim Asians - Hindus and Buddhists - have no "concerns" about anthropomorphized pigs.
This is now a recurring theme in British life. A while back, it was a local government council telling workers not to have knick-knacks on their desks representing Winnie-the-Pooh's porcine sidekick, Piglet. As Martin Niemöller famously said, first they came for Piglet and I did not speak out because I was not a Disney character and, if I was, I'm more of an Eeyore. So then they came for the Three Little Pigs, and Babe, and by the time I realized my country had turned into a 24/7 Looney Tunes it was too late, because there was no Porky Pig to stammer "Th-th-th-that's all, folks!" and bring the nightmare to an end.
Just for the record, it's true that Muslims, like Jews, are not partial to bacon and sausages. But the Koran has nothing to say about cartoon pigs. Likewise, it is silent on the matter of whether one can name a teddy bear after Mohammed. What all these stories have in common is the excessive deference to Islam. If the Three Little Pigs are verboten when Muslims do not yet comprise ten percent of the British population, what else will be on the blacklist by the time they're, say, 20 percent?
A couple of days later, Elizabeth May, leader of Canada's Green party (the fourth-largest political party), spoke out against her country's continued military contribution to the international force in Afghanistan. "More ISAF forces from a Christian/Crusader heritage," she said, "will continue to fuel an insurgency that has been framed as a jihad." As it happens, Canada did not send troops to the Crusades, mainly because the fun was over several centuries before Canada came in existence. Six years ago, it was mostly the enemy who took that line, Osama bin Laden raging at the Great Satan for the fall of Andalusia in 1492, which, with the best will in the world, it's hard to blame on Halliburton. But since then, the pathologies of Islamism have proved surprisingly contagious among western elites.

You remember the Three Little Pigs? One builds a house of straw, and another of sticks, and both get blown down by the Big Bad Wolf. Western civilization is a mighty house of bricks, but who needs a Big Bad Wolf when the pig's so eager to demolish it himself?
© 2008 Mark Steyn

Imam offers prayer at Iowa Statehouse asking Allah for "victory over those who disbelieve"

Over the past few months we have sent out reports and articles providing insight into “Cultural Jihad” – the Islamist subversion of a society from within. Cultural Jihad is at a very advanced stage in countries like France and Great Britain, and it is on the march here in America.

What is insidious about Cultural Jihad is that it is not obvious, like acts of terrorism are. But its “end game” is the Islamization of a society and the replacement of existing law with strict Islamic sharia law.

The news story below reports how a Muslim imam opened the Iowa legislative session with a prayer that included an appeal for “victory over those who disbelieve” and “protection from the great Satan.” The “great Satan,” of course, is the United States. “Victory over those who disbelieve” is consistent with Islamic teaching that Allah is to be dominant over all religions, government, laws and people. This is to be accomplished through “Jihad” – which can take the form of violent conquest or cultural subversion and ultimate subjugation.

That some Muslims are becoming so bold as to proclaim their ultimate objective and declare us their enemy – in such a public forum as a state legislative opening session – speaks volumes as to how far Cultural Jihad has already advanced in America.

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is why we continue to issue warnings, alerts and information. This is why we are calling concerned citizens to action and organizing across the country. Those who wish us harm, those who wish to steal our liberties and change our society, are not only “over there.” They’re in our midst. If you’d like to assist our efforts with a financial contribution, please click here.

---

Muslim opening prayer at Iowa Statehouse raises concerns

By: Erin Ballou, Pilot Tribune Staff
Storm Lake Pilot Tribune, January 24, 2008

The Iowa Legislature started just over a week ago and some people were upset before the first issue was ever addressed.

When the session began, a Muslim Imam began the prayer in the Iowa Legislature. This is where the controversy begins.

The prayer asked of "Victory over those who disbelieve," and "Protection from the great Satan" among other things.

Pastor Steve Smith of the Evangelical Free Church in Albert City is among those concerned about the Muslim prayer. Rev. Smith admits that he doesn't know about all the levels of Muslim but knows that the Jihadists believe those in the U.S. are the great Satan.

Rev. Smith also wants to point out the mention of "victory over those who disbelieve." He feels "this is a request in the Iowa Legislature for God to grant the Muslims victory over every non-muslim. Not a request for salvation." Smith takes it as a gesture not of prayer but more as a political statement, especially with the wars that have been going on in the Middle East.

"I'm not concerned about a Muslim Imam opening the Legislature in prayer but it concerns me with the statements that were made. He interpreted this prayer from his understanding of Islam."

Here is the text of the opening prayer, as transcribed by Radio Iowa:

Imam Muhammad Khan of the Islamic Center of Des Moines spoke first in Arabic.

"I seek refuge in God against the accursed Satan in the name of God, most gracious, most merciful," Khan said in English. Khan made no specific mention of the war in Iraq or foreign affairs, but he called God the "master of the day of judgment" and asked for "victory over those who disbelieve."

"As we begin this new year...in a world with trials and tribulations, we ask you to open the hearts of our legislators and policy makers to make the right decisions for the people of Iowa," Khan said. "...We ask that you guide our legislators and give them the wisdom and knowledge to tackle the difficult problems that face us today in order to eliminate the senseless crimes on humanity. Help them, Lord, to solve the complicated problems in the State of Iowa so that we can be a model to the world."

Khan's prayer lasted about four minutes and he closed with a few words for legislators.

"On behalf of the Muslim community of Des Moines and Iowa, I wish you all the success in this year for making the right decisions for us," Khan said. Khan was the guest of State Representative Ako Abdul Samad of Des Moines, who is also a local Muslim leader.

Rev. Smith has urged others who may be concerned to contact their representative.

When asked about the prayer, Senator Steve Kettering replied in an e-mail that he had not heard the prayer, which did not take place in the Senate chambers.

"I cannot tell you what was said. I have received e-mail regarding this, but since it did not occur on the Senate side I do not have much information," Kettering said. "I should point out that the senate had a Catholic priest for their opening."

Representative Gary Worthan of Storm Lake said that he agrees with the concern being shown over the Muslim prayer.

He said that he has registered his concerns with the proper authorities.

As the father of two sons who have fought terrorism in the military, Worthan said the phrases mentioned earlier also jumped out at him and he said he shares concern for the same reasons as the constituents he is hearing from.

www.actforamerica.org

The Brittle Culture of Islam

In Human Events today I discuss implications of the Muhammad Teddy Bear Madness.

Mothers, cover your childrens’ eyes: Gillian Gibbons, a 54-year-old British schoolteacher working in Sudan, has allowed the children in her class to name a teddy bear…Muhammad. The Sudanese government’s reaction teaches us a lesson about the weapon we most neglect in the ideological war with the global jihad.

Gibbons’ blasphemy couldn’t go unpunished. She was sentenced to fifteen days in prison and deportation, but mobs in Khartoum wanted more: on Friday they burned photos of Gibbons and called for her blood while chanting, “Shame, shame on the UK”; “No tolerance -- execution”; and “Kill her, kill her by firing squad.”

Yes, shame on the UK. Shame on the West. Isn’t it time we learned? Manya Brachear, writing at the Chicago Tribune blog The Seeker, thinks so: “Should all have been forgiven or does the teacher’s sentence send a fair message that foreigners should be more sensitive when it comes to religion?” And Whoopi Goldberg and Sherri Shepherd on ABC’s "The View" scolded Gibbons for not being sensitive to Sudanese customs.

It’s time we get serious about being culturally sensitive. The penalty for blasphemy in Islamic law isn’t fifteen days in prison -- it’s death. What better message of accommodation, then, could we send to the Islamic world in these days of Islamophobia than to hand Gibbons over to the mobs? After all, if she isn’t executed, it will send a signal that blasphemy against Muhammad is just fine -- and what will come next? Blasphemous…cartoons of Muhammad?

Oh, wait, we already had those. And the reaction was frenzy, rage, riots, and -- in that case -- murders of innocent people. It should be clear: the Islamic culture is at this point extremely brittle and insecure. Would Gibbons be pardoned if her “offense” were to have brought a puppy to class? premeditated? Probably not. She might have had to join Salman Rushdie in the elite category of those condemned to death -- irrevocably -- for disrespect to Islam. Amidst the black humor, there is an important point.

The insightful Flemish journalist Paul Belien observed last year, when Muslims were rioting over the Pope’s quoting the 600-year-old words of an obscure emperor: “If a person is incapable of tolerating criticism, including mild criticism, and especially if he perceives criticism where there is none, this is often a sign of this person’s deep psychological insecurity. Rude aggression and wild rage, too, are usually not the normal behaviour of a self-confident person, but rather of someone who knows that he will lose an argument unless he can bully others into silence….It looks as if Muslims cannot cope with an open society and the modern globalized world.”

Even Muslims in the West who condemned the arrest and sentencing of Gibbons did so in disquieting terms. A delegation of British Muslims -- having met with the Sudanese -- apparently expects her to be pardoned. But Muhammad Abdul Bari of the Muslim Council of Britain said: “There was clearly no intention on the part of the teacher to deliberately insult the Islamic faith.” But what if there had been? If Gibbons had named the teddy bear Muhammad in order to mock the Muslim prophet, would Muhammad Abdul Bari have approved of her being arrested, imprisoned, lashed or even executed?

It’s madness, mind-boggling madness: what Bush, Brown, Blair, Rice and the rest keep calling a “great religion” brought to its knees by a teddy bear. But this should be a point for strategists. Years ago, at the height of French Chiracism, William F. Buckley, Jr. pointed out that the French were most vulnerable in their national ego: puncture their balloon and the whole of France zipped around the room, falling flat in a corner. The same would be true if we used humor – and apt insults – against the jihadis.

Many have said that we are in is as much an ideological war as a shooting war. In so many ways, words can be as effective as bullets and bombs. So how do we win the war of ideas against the jihadists? By remembering the Will Rogers Rule.

The great Depression-era comedian was a huge political force because he understood that you can do more political damage by hanging a good joke on someone than by calling him names. And that’s what we need to do in the defense against the global jihad and Islamic supremacism. Our greatest weapons can be humor and ridicule.

Sure, the jihadists look lethally formidable now, but if they can be undone by a stuffed animal, let’s beam Jackie Mason and Dennis Miller behind the Qur’anic curtain, and end this thing once and for all.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/019013.php

Al Qaeda and Islam- Strong As Ever

Submitted by admin on Sat, 2007-12-01 12:32. Editorials

"The Qur’an is merely a sales pamphlet for murder and treachery against God and his people, fabricated by a pedophile and salesman named Mohammed. Mohammed was not a prophet, he was a con artist. Obviously pretty good at it too." --Randy Taylor

By Randy Taylor, Independent Analyst

1 December 2007: I’m quite amused by some people who recently, even as recently as yesterday claiming that al Qaeda is near defeat. I find these statements to be ridiculous as al Qaeda is only one of multiple terrorist entities perpetuating Islamic hatred through violence and Islam itself is no where near defeat. Would I like to be able to say that al Qaeda is near defeat? Absolutely but one must face the hard truth and that is that Islam isn’t going away anytime soon.

That’s the problem with most people as they are looking for a quick, easy fix and reality is that there is not a quick fix for this problem. They think killing and capturing a few terrorist leaders will discourage the rest of the jihadist movement and the rest will lay down their weapons and suddenly become peaceful. This ridiculous thinking is not only haphazard, it is dangerous. It is dangerous because it gives a false hope and merely sets us up for further terrorist attacks as this poison moves in and infiltrates our society and our very way of life. These western religious leaders of late that coddle and embrace Islam and want to draw imaginary comparisons between Christianity and this Islamic filth are misleading the people. Go ahead and classify them in with the false prophets spoken of in the Bible as they are not much more than soothsayers and idiots. You cannot serve two masters.

The war between Islam and Christianity is a clash of religious faiths, cultures and political systems that was foretold many, many centuries ago. There is no way to intermingle the two as they differ completely and the divide will only become larger as time passes. We, as many western nations however ignore the religious implications and claim that the Islamic terrorists are but a few disgruntled, wayward souls that hijacked a “peaceful” religion. This in itself is our biggest downfall. We are losing to the enemy because we as a nation refuse to identify the enemy. The enemy is Islam. Islam is the enemy of all mankind not just Jews and Christians. The focus of Islam is Jews and Christians as we are the only thing standing between them and the destruction of mankind as a whole.

Christians support the Jewish people while Islam seeks the annihilation of Israel as well as the Christians that support them. The Jewish people are God’s chosen people and the people of Islam can only at best, wish they were the chosen ones. As the Muslims are clearly jealous of the favoritism shown to Israel by God, their sole mission is to destroy Israel and this can probably be traced down to anger and pure resentment. I find it quite ironic that the Muslims wish to eliminate a race of people chosen by the Lord God himself as his own, while claiming to be serving God. This clearly indicates the illegitimacy of this farce called Islam and rather pointedly proves that it is nothing more than a death cult, a Nazi like following of murderous savages seeking to destroy everyone and everything that isn’t Islam. The Muslim faith is a mockery of God himself, nothing more. The Qur’an is merely a sales pamphlet for murder and treachery against God and his people, fabricated by a pedophile and salesman named Mohammed. Mohammed was not a prophet, he was a con artist. Obviously pretty good at it too.

The Bible indicates that man is allowed free will in his religious decisions and will be accountable for his decisions regarding the same to God, not to man. The Qur’an makes man accountable to man instead of God and doesn’t allow for religious free will. Their twisted version of religion demands that you be murdered or destroyed if are not a Muslim. No choice, no variance, no quarter. I guess they must feel that they are higher than God in the food chain and the decision lies solely with them as men. This self appointed position alone indicates the imbalance in any logical thinking on their part and clearly indicates just how twisted the Islamic faith is overall. Islam is purely of Satan himself and God understood way back in the beginning of time that Satan would seek to destroy his creation and his people. There are detailed teaching as to the end of the world and who the two sides will be. Are there other players involved in the end? Yes, but they will fall on one side or the other, whether based on religious beliefs, economics or survival remains to be seen. It boils down to the final conflict between Gods chosen people and those that are not. Draw the lines on the map wherever you wish but the two categories remain the same.

If there is a hope, a prayer for this nation of ours to be a part of the grand design and fall into the right side of the conflict at the end, we had better start cleaning house right here, right now in preparation as we are currently headed down a very dangerous path which takes us as a nation well outside of being on Gods team in the end.

Personally, I prefer to be on the winning team. Somehow though as time passes on and Islam infiltrates and poisons this great team of ours called the United States, I am worried about our coaching staff and team owners as they are not acting in the best interest of our team.

Be safe and stay vigilant.

Muslims Against Sharia

By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Frontpage Interview's guest today is Khalim Massoud, the president of Muslims Against Sharia, an Islamic reform movement.

FP: Khalim Massoud, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Massoud: Thank you.

FP: Tell us why it is necessary for you to wear sunglasses in the picture you gave us to use of you.

Massoud: As you might imagine, Islamists are not particularly happy with our group. According to our poll, over 20% of Muslims want us beheaded. I am perfectly content with my head not being separated from my body and I'd like to keep it that way for as long as I can.

FP: Sounds like a good idea.

Tell us what Muslims Against Sharia is about.

Massoud: Our organization is created to give voice to moderate Muslims who are virtually ignored by governments and media and to expose the radicals masquerading as moderates. Our goals are

* to educate Muslims about dangers presented by Islamic religious texts and why Islam must be reformed.

* to educate non-Muslims about the differences between moderate Muslims and Islamists (a.k.a. Islamic Religious Fanatics, Radical Muslims, Muslim Fundamentalists, Islamic Extremists or Islamofascists).

* to educate both Muslims and non-Muslims alike that Moderate Muslims are also targets of Islamic Terror.

FP: Why do you think moderate Muslims are virtually ignored by governments and the media?

Massoud: Most of American mosques are financed and run by Wahhabis. Wahhabi imams are anything but moderate, hence most of religious leaders are radicals. So-called "civil rights" groups, i.e., CAIR, MPAC, ICNA, MAS, etc. that comprise Muslim establishment are nothing more than offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood and fronts for Hamas and al-Qaeda. They are very well financed and are extremely skilful manipulators of the media. And most of the people in government and media truly believe that those groups are moderate, because they are either too lazy to do research or they choose to ignore terrorist ties.

As a result, when either the government or the media needs an Islamic point of view, Muslim establishment groups are go-to "experts" by default. With the "expert" seat being filled, moderate Muslims are left out.

Another problem with moderate Muslims is they are scared and not organized. They are scared because they cannot speak up in mosques for fear of being kicked out and there are virtually no organizations that represent their views. They are not organized, because, unlike the radical, they do not receive tens of millions of dollars in financial support, therefore they have to work for a living.

FP: Why do radical Muslims masquerade as moderates? What are their strategies in doing this? Are they effective in doing so? Who have been some of the radicals that have been exposed?

Massoud: Radical Muslims are masquerading as moderates because they have no control over the military and police. Yet.

They cannot openly proclaim their agenda of Islamic domination in front of Western audiences. They are gradually taking over the West. Some countries in Europe (France, Britain, Germany, etc.) are partially ruled by Sharia law, and even up in Canada, there is talk about Sharia courts for Muslim communities.

Their strategy is very simple. They constantly claim that they are peaceful and moderate, and Western media is more than happy to repeat that nonsense. They do not praise terrorism in public, but they justify it by playing the Muslim victimhood card. And they are very effective at it.

Many radical organizations have already been exposed by counter-terrorism researches like Steven Emerson, John Loftus, Rachel Ehrenfeld, Joe Kaufman, Paul Sperry, Zeyno Baran, and many others. The proof that the Muslim establishment is anything but moderate is widely available. However, the government and the media either for political reasons or out of sheer stupidity completely ignore it.

FP: Is it possible to give a simple answer to this question: what exactly is the difference between a moderate Muslim and a radical Muslim? Where is the fine line that separates them?

Massoud: Absolutely. The determining criteria is the belief in Islamic supremacy. Radical Muslims believe in Islamic supremacy, which makes them religiously obligated to wage Jihad for world domination, using both terrorism and gradual subversion of host societies. Moderate Muslims consider their religion a private matter and believe in religious equality.

FP: What are some of the dangers presented by Islamic religious texts? If you are a Muslim, then how can you reject these texts and remain a faithful Musilm?

Massoud: Most of the dangers are presented by passages based on Islamic supremacy doctrine. The Koran contains verses that command us to subjugate or murder non-Muslims in order to create Islamic rule. On the other hand, the Koran teaches preciousness of human life. How can a logical person believe that those diametrically opposed concepts came from the same source? How could Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate be the source of "kill [infidels] them wherever you find them"? The only logical explanation is that the Koran has been corrupted over the centuries, and all we want to do is to revert it as close as possible to the original.

FP: I would like to touch on your intriguing point that “the Koran has been corrupted over the centuries, and all we want to do is to revert it as close as possible to the original. “ Is there any textual support for such a notion? And doesn't this notion run counter to the Islamic doctrine of the perfection of the Qur'an, which insists that the Qur'anic text is the same as it was in the time of Uthman? In light of these considerations, do you think you will gain much support in the Islamic world?

Massoud: We do not have any direct evidence that the Koran has been corrupted over the centuries. However, there is some circumstantial evidence supporting our point. First, if you take two English Korans translated by two different people, the difference could be very substantial. Substantial to the point that the same verses could have completely different meaning. Case in point: a recent arrest of Ghows Zalmay, who, according to the fundamentalists, misinterpreted some verses in the Koran.

Based on these facts, it is reasonable to conclude that when the Koran was copied many times over, the mere mortals who did the copying might have "adjusted" the texts to reflect their personal views, or the views of their superiors.

Second is deductive reasoning. The Koran contains verses that represent mutually exclusive concepts, i.e., human 'life is precious' vs. 'kill the infidels wherever you find them' or 'respect the People of the Book' vs. 'do not take Jews and Christians for friends'.

Allah is infallible and cannot contradict himself, which means that some of those verses are not the literal word of Allah. Also, how can Allah, who is the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate be a source of "kill them [infidels] wherever you find them"?

The only logical explanation is that the Koran we have today was significantly altered.

As for gaining much support in Islamic world, we believe that education is the key. Our experience shows that if we present our view to an open-minded sceptic, chances are we'll gain a supporter.

FP: How and why must Islam be reformed? Is this really possible? Some would argue that if you take the Islam out of Islam, it will no longer be an Islam. What would you say to that?

Massoud: Islam in its present form is incompatible with modern society, that's why it needs to be reformed. The first step is to abandon the doctrine of Islamic supremacy and remove passages from religious texts that could be interpreted (or misinterpreted) as calls to violence. We believe it is possible. Muslims, just as all other people, are human beings. If Christians could abandon the Inquisition, Muslims can abandon Jihad. Taking violence out of Islam is not the same as taking Islam out of Islam. It is a historical fact that major religions like Christianity and Judaism have undergone reformations on more than one occasion. Islamic reformation is no different.

FP: I very much appreciate your position and your goals are truly admirable. I would just like to say that the Christian reformation and the potential Islamic reformation are different. Christians easily abandoned the Inquisition because the Inquisition was un-Christian and had no foundation in Christian texts. The key is that when Christians have behaved in aggressive or intolerant ways, their acts were not based on Christian teachings; their acts were un-Christian. But the same cannot be said for Muslims when they engage in aggression and intolerance, since such behavior is a fulfillment of their theological mandates. All the schools of Islamic jurisprudence teach that it is part of the responsibility of the umma to subjugate the non-Muslim world through jihad.

But in any case, it is all of our great hope that Muslims such as yourself can succeed in the reformation you wish to engender in Islam. The key though: isn’t there a belief among Muslims that the Koran is the literal world of Allah and that it cannot be tampered with?

Massoud: The original Koran is the literal world of Allah and should not have been tampered with. The Almighty God, whether you call him Yahweh or Allah, is infallible. Since modern versions of the Koran contain contradictions, they cannot possibly be the literate word of God. Therefore, the belief that the modern Koran is untouchable is based on ignorance. God gave people free will, and unscrupulous people who were supposed to safeguard the Koran corrupted it instead. Now, we must change it back.

I also do not believe that all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence teach that it is part of the responsibility of the Ummah to subjugate the non-Muslim world through Jihad, i.e., Sufism.

FP: I am a bit confused as to who can arrogate to themselves the authority to be the arbiter of what the “original” Koran actually said. What if some Muslims argued that they need to “change it back” to get rid of all the peaceful messages that the Koran has in it, on the premise that the violent passages represent the real Koran? Wouldn’t this make more sense since the historical Mohammed was himself a military man who waged war, captured slaves, preached war against unbelievers, etc.? He led by example did he not? If this is not true, then how exactly do you argue that Islam is meant to be peaceful if Mohammed was himself a man of war?

It also appears from your words that you reject the idea of abrogation, as delineated by Qur'an 2:106. If so, how do you propose to distinguish between the original Qur'an you are saying existed and the interpolated passages, since there is no textual evidence for such an original Qur'an?

Also, what do you make of the fact that the Qadari movement, which upheld free will, was declared heretical by numerous Islamic authorities and eventually wiped out?

I would also like to touch on the point of the schools of Islamic jurisprudence. In terms of Sufism, for example, it remains a bit of mystery why this sect of Islam is constantly portrayed as being non-violent and tolerant when the history of the Sufis is actually one of violent jihad. The jihad in Chechnya is a prime example.

Also, Sufism is an order, a way of mysticism, not a school of Islamic jurisprudence. Moreover, the pioneering Sufi, Al-Ghazali, was clear that his Sufism did not negate his support for Islamic supremacism. Andrew Bostom has published this quote from Al-Ghazali:

"[O]ne must go on jihad (i.e., warlike razzias or raids) at least once a year...one may use a catapult against them [non-Muslims] when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them...If a person of the Ahl al-Kitab [People of The Book – primarily Jews and Christians] is enslaved, his marriage is [automatically] revoked…One may cut down their trees...One must destroy their useless books. Jihadists may take as booty whatever they decide...they may steal as much food as they need...[T]he dhimmi is obliged not to mention Allah or His Apostle…Jews, Christians, and Majians must pay the jizya [poll tax on non-Muslims]…on offering up the jizya, the dhimmi must hang his head while the official takes hold of his beard and hits [the dhimmi] on the protruberant bone beneath his ear [i.e., the mandible]… They are not permitted to ostentatiously display their wine or church bells…their houses may not be higher than the Muslim’s, no matter how low that is. The dhimmi may not ride an elegant horse or mule; he may ride a donkey only if the saddle[-work] is of wood. He may not walk on the good part of the road. They [the dhimmis] have to wear [an identifying] patch [on their clothing], even women, and even in the [public] baths…[dhimmis] must hold their tongue…. (From the Wagjiz, written in 1101 A.D.)"

What are your thoughts on these realities?

Mr. Massoud, please do not misunderstand by questions and arguments here. I am in full support of you and your organization and it is obviously the West’s and the world’s prayer that Muslims will follow people like you. I am only asking these questions to clarify matters and to crystallize if the possibility of an Islamic reformation is truly a genuine hope and can be based on strong and realistic foundations.

Massoud: We do not claim to have authority to be arbiters of what the original Koran said. What we do, is put forth our arguments why we believe that the modern Koran is not the same as the original. It is up to the Ummah to judge the validity of our arguments and whether accept or reject them.

The notion that violent passages represent the real Koran is contradictory to the notion that Allah is the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate, therefore, we believe it is incorrect. The issue of the Prophet Muhammad is very complicated. On the one hand, he was a human, and, therefore, imperfect. On the other hand, it is impossible to know how much of the historical accounts of that time are true and how much is fiction. If the Koran could have been changed over the centuries, so is the version of events surrounding Mohammad's life.

The idea of abrogation would run contrary to the idea of Allah's infallibility. We cannot with absolute certainty distinguish between the divine and 'man-made' verses. But we can do the best we can by using common sense. As for the Qadari movement (which I am not familiar with), not every reform movement achieves its goals, but that does not mean that we shouldn't even try.

Sufism may have its dark aspects, but in today's world it is as close to our idea of Islam as it gets. Sufi Islamic Supreme Council of America is the only real Islamic religious authority in the North America that does not advocate ideas of Islamic supremacy. Jihad in Chechnya is not indicative of Sufism. The remnants of Sufism that survived 70 years of Soviet rule are dominated by Wahhabism. Calling Chechen mujahideen Sufi is just as misleading as calling CAIR moderate.

Mr. Glazov, there is no reason to qualify your questions. They are legitimate attempts to get to the truth of the matter and nobody should be offended by honest and direct questions about 'sensitive' subjects. Failing to ask those questions is what got us where we are today in the first place.

FP: Can you talk a bit about how moderate Muslims are also targets of Islamic terror?

Massoud: Darfur. Hundreds of thousands of Black Muslims are murdered by the radicals. Algeria: more than a hundred thousands of Muslims are murdered by the radicals. Iraq: tens of thousands of Muslims are murdered by the radicals. Afghanistan, Lebanon, Gaza, West Bank, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Chechnya. Any place where there is conflict that involves Muslims, moderates are being murdered by radicals. Radical Muslims wage Jihad to kill infidels, and many of them consider moderate Muslims as infidels. This is a DHS-type threat level table that illustrates my point:

FP: Earlier you noted that a poll your group did revealed that roughly one-fifth of Muslims think that Muslims like you should be beheaded. What is your interpretation of this fact?

Massoud: Muslims like us present the biggest danger to the Islamists because we are destroying the myth of moral authority of the fundamentalism. When non-Muslims point out flaws in Islam, the radicals dismiss them as Islamophobes. When Muslims talk about problems with Islam, they are not as easy to dismiss. Moderate Muslims are the best antidote to Islamist venom and Western governments are being very unwise to choose radicals over moderates.

FP: So what is the most effective way we can help moderates and reformers such as yourselves?

Massoud: You, meaning non-Muslims, must stop living in your PC fantasy world, stop worrying about offending Muslims, and start calling things what they are. You must draw a clear distinction between Muslims and Islamofascists, between Islam and Islamism. Muslims will not be offended at the term "Islamofascism" as long as it is clear that the term applies to Islamists, not Muslims in general. You can no longer afford to pretend that there is no global war between Islamists and the rest of the world. You must pressure the government and the media to stop whitewashing (and cut all ties with) Islamists. Just because Islamists claim to be moderates, that doesn't make it so.

You must stop financing radical Islamic regimes like Saudi Arabia and Iran, but sending billions of Petro-Dollars to the Persian Gulf. You must provide political (and should provide financial) support for moderate Muslim groups, i.e., American Islamic Forum for Democracy. There are plenty of moderate Muslims who would join the fight against Islamism, given the chance. It must be made absolutely clear that terrorism is a military issue and terrorism cases, i.e., HLF or al-Arian, have no place in civilian courts. When Islamists praise bin Laden, march with "Hizballah is our Army" posters, or desecrate the American flag, you call it freedom of speech. But when a counter-terrorism researcher protests against events organized by Islamists, he is charged with harassment and gets a restraining order. And when another counter-terrorism researcher sheds light on Islamist-al Qaeda ties, she is sued for libel.

FP: Are you optimistic that non-Muslims and moderate Muslims that want to preserve Western civilization and liberty will be able to defeat the force of radical Islam?

Massoud: Yes, if the West wakes up before it’s too late. Unfortunately, at this time, the West seems to be more interested in Left vs. Right rather than Freedom vs. Slavery & Death.

FP: Khalim Massoud, thank you for joining us and thank you for your courage and for your noble fight to spawn an Islamic reformation.

Massoud: Jamie, thank you for having me and giving me a forum to present our views.

Reference

"Perish in your rage O filthy disbelievers!"

Islamic website:

And the Media Jihaad will continue to be waged by inshallahshaheed… October 1, 2007

Posted by inshallah

Just as the enemies of Islaam thought inshallahshaheed would come to an end, we revived the media Jihaad by the will and permission of Allah, Subhaanahu wa Ta’aala, once again. Indeed this is a great favor and blessing from Him as this would make it the 3rd revival of inshallahshaheed. They can attack us 100 times if they want; in the end, they will see us coming from many different positions to continue the media Jihaad of speaking the truth. So let them bite their nails in frustration. We say to them: Perish in your rage O filthy disbelievers!

The enemies of Islaam - including those from amongst the Muslims - can’t stand our preaching of the Qur’aan and Sunnah and the reality on the ground in the major battlefields of the world. They will continue to plot and plan, and so does Allah, and He, Ta’aala, is the greatest of plotters and planners.

So spread the good news to the brothers and sisters.

And by the way, a message to all disbelievers from the bloggers of inshallahshaheed: It is time for all of you to get a new Religion. If you are a Christian or Jew, then admit that your book has too many contradictions. Stop wasting your time trying to figure us and the Mujaahideen out; rather, figure out what will happen to you after your death and muse upon this point subtly.

You will stand accountable in front of the Lord of all the worlds, the King of all the Kings, the Creator of all Creators, the one and only true God, Allah. He knows what you say and do, and He knows your innermost secrets which you hide from the people with shame.

Come to the Religion where if you intend to do a good deed but don’t do it, you are rewarded with many deeds on your scale. And if you intend a good deed and do it, then it can reach anywhere between 10 to 700 times in reward; and if Allah wills, His Mercy can go beyond that. And if you intend to do a bad deed, but don’t do it, you get rewarded heavily from the All-Merciful. And if you intend to do a bad deed and do it, then it is written as only one bad deed. But none of this is possible whilst you persist in your disbelief of Islaam.

And no, Jesus (peace be upon him) did not die for your sins. Assuming if he did, then it is safe to say that Hitler went to Paradise, if he was a Christian. In our Religion - the Religion of Justice and Common Sense - every being is accountable for their own sins and nobody carries the burden of any other. Therefore, it is Christianity which has destroyed today’s society in America. It was Christianity that allowed its Priests to sexual assault young boys since Jesus supposedly died for their sins. It was Christianity that allowed Bush to murder thousands upon thousands of innocent lives in ‘Iraaq, and Afghanistan

since Jesus supposedly died for his sins. It was Christianity that allowed the American society to sway towards evil deeds - such as theft, murder, rape, abortion, drug use, alcohol use, etc. - since Jesus supposedly died for everyones sins! Shame on you, O leaders of the Christian Religion! Shame on all the faithful followers of Christianity! In the noble Religion of Islaam, we have a practical concept called al-Walaa’ wal Baraa’ah which is to love for the sake of Allah, to hate for the sake of Allah, and to therefore act upon it by enjoining the right and eradicating the evil.

So come, O disbelievers in the truth, come to the Religion of Islaam! On the Day of Judgment - the day where the hair of a child would turn gray because of the great fear - you will receive a book. And what will tell you what this book is? It is the book of accounts. You will open it and say to yourself, “Unbelievable! In this book is written down deeds of mines - both good and bad - that are so minute that I had never imagined…” And this is because the Angel on your left shoulder writes down your bad deeds whereas the one on your right shoulder writes down all your good deeds.

So come to the Religion where Allah does not distinguish between a fat and thin person, between a black and white person, between a tall and short person, between a man and a woman, except in piety. We, the Muslims, desire to live in a society of Godliness, justice and piety and not one of corruption, cheating, dirty politics, economic destruction based on interest and usury, shamelessness, blasphemy in the name of freedom of speech and a cowardly military led by a government full of crooks. So we call you to the opposite of what Bush and his cronies call you to; we call you to Islaam. Democracy has failed mankind because of its loopholes (like their Bibles and Torah’s), and Islaam - O what a Religion - when it only needs the proper men!

So it is time for you, O Disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah, to come to Islaam before death overtakes you and strikes you when you least expect it. Every soul will taste death. Convert to Islaam, or face the eternal punishment in the fire where Allah will replace your burnt skin, over and over again, in order for you to feel the pain… the pain of failing to realize the reality of this world that there is none worthy of worship except Allah, and that Muhammad is His last Messenger. Don’t allow yourself to become like those losers who will say to Allah, “Now we see and know the truth! Woe to us! Only if You, O Lord, put us back into the earth so that we may live as Muslims…” when Allah will reject it and throw you into the fire saying, “Were you not warned?”

Posted by Pamela Geller on Monday, October 01, 2007 at 10:13 PM in The Truth About Islam | Permalink

Atlas Shrugs

Floor Remarks by Congressman Zach Wamp, September 10, 2007

It's a privilege and an honor to come back down to the floor tonight. I want to talk on two fronts, really. The first one is about Iraq and the other is the threat of radical Islam, Islamofascism, as some people call it; but I think it's important here right on the cusp of the sixth anniversary, tomorrow of 9/11, to remind our colleagues and our fellow countrymen that we are not only not out of the woods, but that these threats are grave. They are grave this week.

It's easy for everyone in this country to get lulled back into complacency or look for the comforts of our living room and shopping malls, but we face a huge growing and imminent threat from the terror itself here on our homeland.

We come, as members of the Republican Policy Committee tonight, we just left a briefing downstairs from a Lebanese Christian named Brigitte Gabriel, who wrote a book called "Because They Hate." Some would ignore her, but, frankly, coming from that world and being able to go on Internet chat rooms and read Arabic and know what's going on out there, we should listen. We should listen very carefully to what's happening in the world of radical Islam…

…Let me give you an example. Mark Steyn just tells us recently of a book that was published called "Alms for Jihad; Charity and Terrorism in the Islamic World." A guy named Jay Millard Burr wrote it. Great research in Saudi Arabia where all this oil money, and we heard this downstairs from Brigitte as well, using the Saudi Arabian oil money to promote terrorists around the world, period. It's happening…

Let me tell you, folks, in this country, from Dearborn, Michigan to right here in Virginia, Falls Church, Virginia, oil money from the wahabis in Saudi Arabia training up young people in this country, under a global Shari'ah, Islamic law, bringing them up against America in this country today. Listen, this, to me, at the sixth anniversary of 9/11, is a call to action for Americans who've been lulled into complacency thinking that somehow this conflict is about Iraq. If we would just leave Iraq, all of our problems go away.

I'll say to you tonight, Mr. Speaker, this is not about Iraq. Iraq is the venue, it's the theater, it's where al Sadr is, it's where the Iranians and the Syrians have come, it's where they've recruited, it's where the fight is, but it's not about Iraq. It's about us and radical Islam at war. That's the theater. But let me tell you, it could just as easily be here tomorrow. God forbid it, but it could be just as easily here.

They have virtually taken some parts of Europe in terms of public opinion. They've challenged laws of countries and states in their courts, challenging Islamic law should take precedence, and that's what they would like to see here.

You may say, oh, he's wild; he's off the reservation. Not true. This is the way it is. They're using our very porous borders to come at us. And we're not secure. We're ignoring the threat…

And let me tell you, this threat we face, nobody wants to hear this, is greater than the threat of Nazi Germany…

This is not George Bush's war. This is America's fight. We committed it together. Some people would like to blame it on others now and not accept the responsibility. But this is America's fight against radical Islam, and it will go on for years to come, even when Iraq is over. And there'll be a time where Iraq is not the central theater. I'm concerned we're going to be fighting radical Islam all the days of my life.

The question is, are we going to stand up, as generations before us have, and defend freedom. And don't think for a second that it's all about Iraq. Some people dressed in pink would have you believe that. It's not true. And I'll tell you, what some of them are doing is downright un-American, and 50 years ago they'd have run them out of here on a rail.

The Truth About America

It may not happen in our life time, but I suspect history will prove that George Bush was correct in his actions. Radical Islam is not going away. They want world domination and are willing to die for it. I hope the people of our country wake up to this threat, but I suspect things
will have to get worse before they wake up.

President Bush did make a bad mistake in the war on terrorism. But the mistake was not his decision to go to war in Iraq . Bush's mistake came in his belief that this country is the same one his father fought for in WWII.

It is not.

Back then, they had just come out of a vicious depression. The country was steeled by the hardship of that depression, but they still believed fervently in this country. They knew that the people had elected their leaders, so it was the people's duty to back those leaders.

Therefore, when the war broke out the people came together, rallied behind, and stuck with their leaders, whether they had voted for them or not or whether the war was going badly or not.

And war was just as distasteful and the anguish just as great then as it is today. Often there were more casualties in one day in WWII than we have had in the entire Iraq war. But that did not matter. The people stuck with the President because it was their patriotic duty. Americans put aside their differences in WWII and worked together to win that war.

Everyone from every strata of society, from young to old pitched in. Small children pulled little wagons around to gather scrap metal for the war effort. Grade school students saved their pennies to buy stamps for war bonds to help the effort.

Men who were too old or medically 4F lied about their age or condition trying their best to join the military. Women doubled their work to keep things going at home. Harsh rationing of everything from gasoline to soap, to butter was imposed, yet there was very little complaining.

You never heard prominent people on the radio belittling the President. Interestingly enough in those days there were no fat catactors and entertainers who ran off to visit and fawn over dictators of hostile countries and complain to them about our President. Instead, they made upbeat films and entertained our troops to help the troops' morale. And a bunch even enlisted.

And imagine this: Teachers in schools actually started the day off with a Pledge of Allegiance, and with prayers for our country and our troops!

Back then, no newspaper would have dared point out certain weak spots in our cities where bombs could be set off to cause the maximum damage. No newspaper would have dared complain about what we were doing to catch spies.

A newspaper would have been laughed out of existence if it had complained that German or Japanese soldiers were being "tortured"by being forced to wear women's underwear, or subjected to interrogation by a woman, or being scared by a dog or did not have air conditioning.

There were a lot of things different back then. We were not subjected to a constant bombardment of pornography, perversion and promiscuity in movies or on radio. We did not have legions of crackheads, dope pushers and armed gangs roaming our streets.

No, President Bush did not make a mistake in his handling of terrorism. He made the mistake of believing that we still had the courage and fortitude of our fathers. He believed that this was still the country that our fathers fought so dearly to preserve.

It is not the same country. It is now a cross between Sodom and Gomorrah and the land of Oz. We did unite for a short while after 911,but our attitude changed when we found out that defending our country would require some sacrifices.

We are in great danger. The terrorists are fanatic Muslims. They believe that it is okay, even their duty, to kill anyone who will not convert to Islam. It has been estimated that about one third or over three hundred million Muslims are sympathetic to the terrorists
cause...Hitler and Tojo combined did not have nearly that many potential recruits.

So...we either win it - or lose it - and you ain't gonna like losing.

America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall.

Author unknown.