Let's Give "Giving Up On Peace" a Chance

Saturday

I WAS READING an article by Barry Rubin called A Middle East Strategy for the West, when I read this sentence: "The problem is not just that cynical rulers (in the Middle East) mislead the masses through demagoguery — though that's true; it's that the masses embrace extremist world views."

I had to do a doubletake. If the
masses are embracing it, then it's not extremist, right? It's mainstream. By the term, "extremist world views" he is really saying "following classic, mainstream Islamic teachings." But what a politically-correct, double-talk way of saying it!

Rubin did say something worthwhile in the article, however. He wrote:


Obtaining Israel-Palestinian or Arab-Israeli peace is a useless strategy, distracting from real issues. It isn't going to happen; Islamists would use any such peace to portray those signing it as traitors; and even many Arab nationalists would denounce it to raise their credibility as tough, unyielding fighters. Violence and unrest would increase, not lessen, as a result.

Absolutely. All this talk of "peace in the Middle East" is ridiculous. It's not going to happen. EVER! Get over it. Orthodox Muslims will not ever give up trying to "drive the Jews into the sea," and the Israelis will not ever give up trying to survive. The world needs to embrace this reality and aim for something actually attainable: An Israeli population that is relatively safe from Jihadis.

I'm not a Jew, by the way. I don't have any special attachment to the Jewish religion or Israel, except that it's a democracy, and by far the best democracy in the Middle East. As Glen Reinsford wrote in his article Understanding the Arab-Israeli Conflict, "Perhaps the greatest of all ironies in the present-day Middle East, as David Horowitz has pointed out, is that Arab Israelis enjoy more social, legal and political freedom than do Arabs in any one of the fifty-three Muslim countries." Ironic because so many Arabs are hell-bent on destroying Israel.

But Israel needs to embrace this reality too and quit bending over backwards to "make peace." They keep being lured into making deals with the ruling Jihadis of the day in order to finally have "peace." They should be able to look at their own history in the Middle East, or look at easily-obtained Islamic teachings and see that "peace agreements" with Jihadis are worse than a waste of time
(for example, Qur'an 9:1-17).

One particular Islamic principle the Israelis might discover within fifteen minutes of perusing Islamic texts is that no peace agreements between Muslims and non-Muslims can last longer than ten years, and the only Islamic purpose for a peace agreement is to get the enemy to stop attacking Muslims while the Muslims regroup and strengthen their position, allowing them to take up the fight again at a time of their choice from a position of strength (read more about this). As Robert Spencer says in the DVD, Islam: What the West Needs to Know:

"It's unfortunate, but there's no negotiating with the Jihadists. There is no striking a deal with them. Islamic law is very clear on that...Islamic law does not allow for treaties. It does not allow for negotiated settlements between Muslim states and non-Muslim states.

"All it allows for is a temporary period of up to ten years of 'hudna' or what is commonly translated as 'truce' to allow the Islamic forces to gather their strength. But that's not the same as peace as we know it. That's not the same as the absence of a state of war. That's only a temporary lull in a war that the Jihadists consider has gone on for 14 centuries, and are willing to fight for 14 more." (Read more about the Islamic way of war here.)

Another very basic Islamic principle nobody in Israel or the U.N. seems to be aware of is the principle of taqiyya. That is, the allowance and even encouragement by Islamic teachings for Muslims to deceive non-Muslims in order to further the political goal of Islam, which is dominance over all other governments and religions.

These are very basic Islamic teachings anyone can discover with very little effort. They are not obscure, hard-to-decipher teachings.

But here is Israel, having been duped and tricked and lied to again and again by people who are quite open about their dedication to fundamental Islamic teachings, making more "peace agreements" with Jihadis! It's absolutely crazy. They should give "giving up on peace" a chance.

It's not that peace isn't a worthy goal, of course. But the idea of peace as in "living together in harmony" is something to throw out the window when it comes to Israel and the Muslim world. It's kind of like having breast cancer and saying, "Okay, cancer, I'll give you one breast, and then we can live in peace together."

No, you can't. If you don't stop it, the cancer will metastasize.
That's its nature. That's what it does.

And the orthodox Muslim world will continue to undermine, fight, and try to destroy Israel. That's its nature. That's what it does. Which means if Israel wants to survive, it had better quit trying to appease Muslims and accommodate Islam's demands and concede to the Muslims' wishes and start drawing the line, and saying "no further."

And not just Israel. The U.N. has pressured Israel to appease and accommodate and concede. Why? Because there are lots of Muslim countries in the U.N. who have used taqiyya successfully.

What the world has been doing about the Israeli-Palistian conflict has not worked.
Let's try something different.
We could change what we mean by "peace." Peace might mean "the good guys have the upper hand." It might mean the good guys have enough power to hold Islam's relentless encroachment at bay so the rest of us can live in harmony with each other.

How do we decide who is the "good guy?" Whoever is promoting liberty and equality, not just in words but in fact. And anyone promoting Shari'a or jihad does not promote liberty and equality.

"Kafir911," an occasional commenter on Citizen Warrior said: "I think it's sad but telling that the man who started that whole movement (the 'let's give peace a chance' movement), John Lennon, with his Make Love not War and his love-ins with Yoko Ono, got shot by an idiot with a gun. So apparently its not true that 'all you need is love.' You need protection as well."

Let's just give up on the idea of peace. Let's give up on the idea that somehow everyone can just get along. And let's aim at international security. There is no "getting along" with an organized, relentless group of people who spend their every waking moment seeking your destruction. But it is possible to contain them and limit them and weaken them. Let's be realistic and aim for those. Let's aim for the protection of liberty and equality.

Read more...

Jihad Kills

Sunday

Killed by the Ku Klux Klan: 1500

Killed by Nazi Germany: 40 million
Killed by jihad: 270 million

Jihad kills more people per year than were killed in 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition. (source)

Jihad kills more people every day than the Ku Klux Klan has killed in the last 50 years. (source)



Read more...

Stop Putting Gas in the Islamist Tank

Friday

By Clifford D. May in The National Review Online:


Islamists are a diverse lot. Some are what diplomats like to call “violent extremists.” They want to kill you. Others are less eager to shed blood, more confident that by mastering electoral politics, manipulating international organizations, and designing effective public-relations campaigns, they can achieve their objectives. What are those objectives? Islamism implies a commitment to the imperative of Islamic power. Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, articulated the basic idea succinctly:

It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.

If those championing Islamism were only stateless terrorist groups and tin-pot dictators, their geostrategic significance would be minimal. But the regime that rules Iran is dedicated to waging what it calls a global Islamic revolution. And in Saudi Arabia, the state religion is Wahhabism, a strain of Islam that preaches the inferiority of infidels and the rejection of Muslims who do not share Wahhabi ideals.

These regimes float atop an ocean of oil, a commodity that is valuable thanks to those the Islamists despise. It was the Western mind that figured out how to pump oil out of the ground and refine it into a variety of fuels, including those used in internal-combustion engines, another history-bending Western invention.

Imagine you are one of the rulers of Iran or Saudi Arabia: Fabulous wealth is yours due to no intellectual or physical labors on your part. If you invest that wealth wisely, you’ll make even more, but if not, so what? Wealth will flow to you every single day as surely as rivers run to the sea. To sell rugs, olives, or computers requires salesmanship. But oil sells itself: Those who depend on it for their cars, ships, and planes have no other options. Well, theoretically, they do: They could take it by force. But you need not worry about that because, as you are well aware, modern Western ethics prohibit such behavior.

If there were even one oil-rich, Muslim-majority nation solidly committed to liberal democratic values, to freedom of religion and speech, to tolerance and minority rights, the challenges of the 21st century would not be so formidable. But there is no such nation.

Almost 80 percent of global oil reserves are controlled by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), a cartel, a conspiracy in restraint of trade. Most OPEC countries are autocracies. Many are hostile toward America and other free nations. From the income produced by OPEC oil comes most of the money used to train and arm terrorists around the world, and to build nuclear-weapons facilities in Iran.

That makes the price of oil and the West’s dependence on it national-security problems of the first order. What can be done? Robert C. McFarlane, who served as then-president Reagan’s national-security adviser, wrote last week that we can and should be producing more of our own oil, but “that is not enough. To outmaneuver OPEC we need to eliminate oil’s monopoly as the only transportation fuel.”

The most promising possibility: Natural gas is a resource America has in abundance. Cutting-edge American technology — e.g., horizontal drilling and fracking — has made natural gas easier and cheaper to extract. As McFarlane points out, natural gas “can be used in various forms to fuel vehicles. Compressed natural gas (CNG) is well-suited to drive long-haul and other fleet vehicles” but for “light trucks or automobiles, a better approach lies in using natural gas to make the liquid-fuel methanol, a high-octane, clean and safe fuel . . . ”

He notes that the Methanol Institute, a private industry group, estimates that producers can, right now, deliver an amount of fuel equivalent to the energy in a gallon of gasoline for approximately $3. The cars we drive would require only minimal and inexpensive modifications in order to run on methanol — as race cars already do.

Let me emphasize: McFarlane is not proposing that we stop using gasoline and other petroleum products. He is not proposing government subsidies for natural gas, methanol, or other fuels. On the contrary, he is making the case for eliminating subsidies and government favoritism of one fuel over another. He and others are arguing for breaking the monopoly that oil currently enjoys and encouraging the creation of a competitive fuel market.

If, for any reason, that does not happen, only those who invested their own money would suffer. If it does happen, however, having a larger fuel supply from more than one source would provide multiple benefits: It would reduce the funds available to Islamists (strengthening national security), bring down the cost at the pump and reduce price volatility (easing the burden on families, commuters, truckers, etc.), and keep more money and jobs in the United States, thereby reinvigorating the domestic economy (good for those who live, work, and invest in America). The downside? There is no downside.

“Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman stressed that the foremost economic duty of government is to eliminate cartel pricing,” McFarlane notes. At the moment, however, government is not doing its economic duty. Nor is it doing its national-security duty: It should not require a Clausewitz to grasp that transferring unprecedented amounts of wealth to your enemy in a time of war is counterproductive. Yet, at the moment we are knowingly funding the “violent extremists” who want to kill us, as well as the more moderate Islamists who merely want to dominate us.

From time to time, Islamists of both stripes must gaze at Westerners and wonder: “How can people so technologically smart be so strategically stupid? Like the oil under the desert sands, this must be a gift from Heaven.”

— Clifford D. May is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on national security and foreign policy.

Read more...

Should Christians Kill Mark Thompson?

Saturday

Mark Thompson, the head of the BBC, admitted in a public interview that his fear of Muslim retaliation causes him to treat Muslim stories with far more sensitivity than Christian stories.

In his most telling comment, Thompson said: "Without question, 'I complain in the strongest possible terms,' is different from, 'I complain in the strongest possible terms and I am loading my AK47 as I write.' This definitely raises the stakes."

He says he knows his fear creates censorship.


We applaud Thompson for his honesty. But his censorship creates more problems than it solves. A recent Spectator article goes into detail about some of the problems this kind of censorship can cause. Read the article here (and then share it with your friends, especially those friends who are fans of the BBC).

Watch Thompson's half-hour interview here.

Read more...

Islam Had an Unusual Historical Window of Opportunity

Friday

SIMPLY STATING facts about Islam can be interesting, but some facts are more interesting than others, and we want to hold peoples' attention when we're talking to them. I have found that the following fact is interesting to people and also helps them see Islam in a new light, and in a memorable way. It helps them think of Islam as not just another religion like any other, but as something unique. When you're talking about Islam, try to work this in somewhere:

Islam is different from other religions in at least one important way: It began at a time and in a place where no empire constrained its spread. In other words, if you start a religion within the Roman Empire, you're going to have certain limitations. The Romans would see any new religion — especially a militant or political religion — as a threat to its power and would make sure you stayed peaceful. A religion that preached tolerance and goodwill toward others might survive, but a violent or militant or political new religion would be quashed immediately.

But Islam had no such restriction when it began, so it could incorporate "conversion by warfare" into its memeplex, and it did. As Aaron Lynch wrote, "The faith provides for a jihad or holy war, which historically led to Islamic rule over whole societies."


Once a country has been attained by war, pagans were often given the choice: convert to Islam or die. That is written into Islamic law. If any members of the newly acquired country are Christian or Jewish, they are required to pay special taxes and become a second-class citizen, unless they want to convert.

Read more...

The Surest Way to Reach People

HOW CAN you reach someone? That's the basic question, isn't it? You want to share what you know about Islam with people you love, and you want them to listen to you. What can you do to make them more likely to listen to you?

One of the most successful, effective, and enjoyable books to read on the subject of dealing with people is How to Win Friends and Influence People, originally published in 1937 and still on store shelves today. One of the principles from the book is to talk in terms of the other person's interests. Is that obvious? Perhaps. Do you do it? Probably not nearly as much as you could. But if you want to reach people, this principle is a good place to start. The book is full of true stories. Here's one:

Take Henry G. Duvernoy of Duvemoy and Sons, a wholesale baking firm in New York.

Mr. Duvernoy had been trying to sell bread to a certain New York hotel. He had called on the manager every week for four years. He went to the same social affairs the manager attended. He even took rooms in the hotel and lived there in order to get the business. But he failed. "Then," said Mr. Duvernoy, "after studying human relations, I resolved to change my tactics. I decided to find out what interested this man — what caught his enthusiasm.

"I discovered he belonged to a society of hotel executives called the Hotel Greeters of America. He not only belonged, but his bubbling enthusiasm had made him president of the organization, and president of the International Greeters. No matter where its conventions were held, he would be there.

"So when I saw him the next day, I began talking about the Greeters. What a response I got. What a response! He talked to me for half an hour about the Greeters, his tones vibrant with enthusiasm. I could plainly see that this society was not only his hobby, it was the passion of his life. Before I left his office, he had 'sold' me a membership in his organization.

"In the meantime, I had said nothing about bread. But a few days later, the steward of his hotel phoned me to come over with samples and prices.

"'I don't know what you did to the old boy,' the steward greeted me, 'but he sure is sold on you!' "Think of it! I had been drumming at that man for four years — trying to get his business — and I'd still be drumming at him if I hadn't finally taken the trouble to find out what he was interested in, and what he enjoyed talking about."

If you want people to listen to you, if you want to reach people, if you want to influence people, start by talking to people about what they really care about. It will not only transform your ability to persuade, it will vastly improve the feelings of connection you have with each other.

Read more...

Once Non-Muslims Have Awakened, Then What?

AWHILE BACK, in an article entitled, What Would Happen?, I challenged you to think past our biggest barrier to a time when the majority of people in free nations understood the disturbing nature of Islamic doctrine. Once that happens, then what? What would we do? What laws would be passed? How would our national policies change?

The idea was to clarify where we're going, because this could lay the groundwork for how we are proceeding at the moment. What are we aiming at? What needs to be changed once the political will exists to do it?

One of the best answers was the very first one, by Damien. He wrote:

For one thing, it would be much harder for the stealth jihad to operate. In fact it would be almost impossible, and that's why Jihadists don't want non-Muslims to know about these things, (at least the smarter ones anyway).

Also, it would make it almost impossible for Islam to gain new converts, because people in general wouldn't want to be part of a religion that encourages hatred for anyone who doesn't blindly accept it, including their friends and family. It would also make it harder for them believe Muhammad was a good person, or that books like the Koran are the inspired word of God. That alone would make the religion much less appealing to people who were not born into it.

As far as foreign policy, almost no non-Muslim would support endorsing constitutions that recognize sharia law, unless they somehow thought that they could take advantage of an Islamic dictatorship somehow, despite what they knew. But the idea that sharia or Islam is compatible with democratic government would be unthinkable.

The only downside might be that some heterodox Muslims as you call them, (liberal secularized Muslims as I've called them) might be more likely to be wrongfully attacked. Of course, in such a world it might be much harder for them to stay Muslims, if everyone else around them knew the truth about what their religious texts actually teach.

As for exactly what new policies would be enacted, I'm not sure, but the answer would largely depend on how long most of the non-Muslims knew this. If they had known this for well over a hundred years or more, much of what's going on right now wouldn't even be happening, so some of the policies you might think of wouldn't be necessary at all.

If, on the other hand, all other non-Muslims just found out today, it would be a different story.

Another frequent commenter, Ben, wrote: At best, we can hope for immigration bans, stepped up surveillance and constitutional action to prevent imposition of Shari'ah.

Kingsley Beattie emailed this comment: It could result in termination of all unnecessary contacts with Muslims, and Islamic nations and societies. Islamic schools and mosques could be made illegal and closed. Diplomatic and commercial exchanges could be restricted to neutral territory. Muslims living in Dar al Harb could be "encouraged" to migrate to Dar al Islam. In other words the kaffir would strive to establish reciprocity with the Islamic heartland, Saudi Arabia.

Someone emailed this comment: What would happen? Islam would lose its status as a religion. I have always felt that if a movie showing the true life of Muhammad were to be made and shown around the world, that would mean the end of Islam as a religion.

Someone emailed this: What if everyone knew that political action to establish Sharia law is a religious duty for all able-bodied Muslims? Then there would be a national Sharia ban in place. Unlike Jewish or Ecclesiastical law, Sharia seeks to undermine and overthrow secular state law.

As such, all its supporters should be treated as enemies, stripped of citizenship, and deported to Saudi Arabia.

The same person also said: What do I think would happen? We would have a strong sense of community identification as non-Muslims.

Then I asked the same question in a different way: Right now it seems clear that very little can be done politically without more people knowing more about Islam, or at least making fewer mistaken assumptions about Islam. It will probably never happen that "everybody" knows about Islam, and it isn't even necessary.

But the question is, "Then what?"

Then what will we do? What do you envision as our next steps? If someone became president who had a great deal of popular support and who knew all about Islam's prime directive, what do you think she or he would do?

Damien stepped in again with this: If someone who knew all about Islam's prime directive become president, what would he or she do? I can't tell you exactly what he or she would do because I'm not that person, but if I were, I can tell you what I would do.

I would try to enact laws that would at the very least put severe restrictions on immigration from Islamic countries to America, at least until those societies voluntarily abandon Jihad and Sharia, and I would encourage other western leaders to do the same. Plus I would argue that Turkey should not be allowed into the EU.

In addition to that I would try to convince congress to actually enforce our current immigration laws and tighten border security so it would be harder for terrorists to sneak in. I would get either the National Security Agency or some other secret government organization to monitor mosques in this country.

Technically Islam is a religion, so I don't see how we could realistically say it was not, but we don't have to deny that Islam is a religion to do what needs to be done. Unlike what a lot of people think, religions are not inherently benign. Many of the religions in South America prior to Columbus practiced ritualized murder to appease their gods, for example.

Remember that the constitution is not a suicide pact. Besides, your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins. I don't think the Founding Fathers intended freedom of religion to include violating other people's rights based on your religion. They also would have found the idea that people have a right to try to use their religion to commit treason against a legitimate, democratically elected government to be absurd.

In addition, I would encourage schools to adopt non-politically-correct text books that devote at least one chapter to the early and later history of Islam. Ones that were not filled with pro-Islam propaganda and don't leave important things out just because Muslims complain.

I would demand that any group that receives money from Saudi Arabia or any other Islamic state register under the foreign agents act. (At least I think that's what its called.)

Speaking of the Constitution, I would try to get an amendment passed that would forbid judges from considering foreign law, including Sharia, when it came to deciding constitutional matters. I know that we already have the First Amendment that forbids the state from officially recognizing a religion, or enacting purely religious laws, but it would make it harder for U.S judges to justify even considering Sharia, for politically correct reasons. I would also argue that we should pass the anti-foreign law, anti-sharia amendment to reinforce what's already in the First Amendment.

I would do everything in my power, including war if necessary, to eliminate the Jihadist threat, with the ultimate goal of sending them the message that their attempts to destroy us and/or subjugate us are futile.

I can think of more, much more. Citizen Warrior, what would you do if you were president of the United States knowing what you know?

I wrote: I really like your answer, Damien. And my answer would be very similar. If I were president, curbing Muslim immigration would be my first move, too. And making the borders secure.

And I would begin a program that would ongoingly monitor mosques in America. Those found to promote jihad would be shut down. Those imams promoting jihad would be arrested for sedition or deported. I would do the same with Islamic schools in the U.S.

I would instigate a national law similar to what Louisiana and Oklahoma have done that explicitly outlaws Sharia.

I would order the investigation of history textbooks and remove those that have falsely whitewashed Islam's image. And I would call for textbooks that taught an accurate and detailed history of Islam and the Crusades.

I would immediately encourage, in every way possible, to end oil's status as a strategic commodity, and encourage all other countries to do the same.

I would stop all foreign investments in this country for mosques or madrassas. I would allow U.S. security agents to call our enemies by their accurate names. I would stop Muslims from being able to come to America to be educated. I would stop allowing visas for imams to come here from Muslim countries. I would prevent foreign Muslims from donating to colleges here in the U.S.

All Muslim chaplins in prisons and the military would be monitored and any hint of jihad or Sharia would disqualify them. And then I would get a good night's sleep because that first day in office was a long one!

I also asked the question on a Citizen Warrior Facebook post, and got quite a few more responses. One woman wrote: Let women know especially how all the freedoms we take for granted would be ripped away under sharia law. Females become non-persons and property. Any decision that has to be made about a woman will be made by a man. The koran urges every man to take 4 wives. Polygamy is outlawed in the US but our government is turning a blind eye to everything muslim to the point of allowing muslims to break our laws. When in Rome, so muslims who come to the US (and immigration to the US from muslim countries should be outlawed as they do not assimilate into our society and have no intention of living by our rules and laws) have to abide by our way of life. We will NOT accommodate them and their culture.

For the most part, I wasn't getting the kind of answers I was looking for — people seemed focused on the impossiblity of getting people to understand the danger of Islam. So I clarified the question: Let's imagine that somehow it happened. I'm sure at some point it would have seemed impossible for people to stop smoking, and yet our whole culture's orientation to tobacco has changed in my lifetime, from something totally acceptable and commonplace to something that is banned in more and more places and done by fewer and fewer people.

So imagine that a huge change like that happened to a majority of people in the free world. Somehow a majority of people really understood what Islamic doctrine is all about. What kinds of policies would we vote in? What kinds of new laws would we make? What do you think we would do once we all knew about it?

Someone wrote: In my opinion I see Islamic doctrine in the same way I view slavery. The laws wouldn't be able to paint the doctrine with a broad brush, but by taking parts of it and dealing with them individually. What CAIR is trying to do is make this a religious issue and that we also have to accept it because of free speech. Therefore sharia should be allowed because it is a religious belief. That is how we have to attack it. We don't allow sharia because it is against the laws and Constitution of this country, regardless of their religious beliefs.

Someone else wrote: The biggest problem we face is that there are too many of them in this country. Who would pay to deport them all? We would first have to say we do not recognize Islam as a religion. We would take away their tax exempt status. We would use undercover people to monitor what is going on inside mosques and what is being taught there. Any mention of terrorism would be closely watched. Sharia law in ANY form would NOT be tolerated. We would not allow ANY type of worship by them in our schools. No Muslim would be permitted to be employed or do volunteer work in any state, Federal or local governments.

Someone else wrote: I think if everyone knew the truth about Islam they would not bow down to it and would not appease those extremists who throw temper tantrums to get their way. They would not let Islam creep into their judicial systems and social systems the way it is, just like a cancer, starting slowly but over time taking over and destroying. They would put a stop to it eradicate it!

Someone else wrote: It would have a profound affect on the behavior of Muslims. If the West would stand up to Islam and lose the politically correct facade, I think that many would leave Islam. They are held hostage, so to speak, by their fear of being persecuted or harmed for apostasy. If we can convince them that we are not a bunch of pussies and offer protection, they would leave in droves.

Someone else wrote: Immigration reform regarding Islamic countries should be the 1st thing after outlawing political correctness. We should find some way to make allowances for true asylum seekers. They do exist. They need to end the student/clerical visa "exchanges", especially since they do not vet them well & there is no "exchange" of other religious clerics to them, just reception of them to us.

Get the Supreme Court to rule definitively that Sharia Law is totally impermissible in American courts, period. Also, that there are no laws to give Islam protected status either. It should not be exempt from critical examination any more than any belief system should be. There should be no thought-police-type crime laws for Islam either. (I am not a believer in "hate crimes" laws, I believe ALL crimes deserve the same treatment, regardless of who/what the victim is or the motivation of the perpetrator, murder is murder — whether the perp hates me or not, I'm still dead!)

Also, do not allow fawning presentations in history classes for Islam without even mentioning the dark side. I know all about how many of the educators feel about the dark periods of Christianity but, according to some of them, they did NOTHING right & Islamic countries were the perfect, just, tolerant societies. Balance & truth, no need to sugarcoat.

Someone else wrote: We are going to have to outlaw islam as a religion first. This way, they don't get to run and seek protection under our own religious persecution laws. Is anyone aware that this is what they are doing? Using our own laws against us. Islam=nazi's. Same thing.

Someone else wrote: We would demand a loyalty oath as a condition to stay in this country. If they cannot swear allegiance to our Constitution, before anything else, they will be deported. Immigration is going to be what bites us on the ass. The second generation will be the problem.

Someone else wrote: A Palestinian immigrant I know told me she lied when taking the oath to become an American citizen.

If people knew the truth about Islam, they (some wouldn't care one way or the other because they're too apathetic/distracted) would want laws stopping all Muslims from immigrating to the US and demand all construction of mosques be halted.

Also, if the truth were accepted, then Islam might possibly be considered seditious, but since communist doctrine seems to be tolerated under freedom of speech, I won't hold my breath.

Also, every time there's an article in my local rag or on the news regarding terrorism, it tilts in the direction of the 'hijacking' of a peaceful religion and they always have 'professors from coast to coast telling the interviewer jihad really means "inner struggle" and the same tired mantra, "islam is peaceful."

Even if the majority of muslims in the West want to live sharia-free, the dedicated agitators promoting Islam's political advancement are organized and focused. I liken it to the mafia where you have a small number of people willing to be violent to intimidate the majority to maintain control and power.

Martel Sobieskey (an occasional contributor to Citizen Warrior) sent me a section of an interchange he had with someone else, and it was along the lines of our conversation here, I'm including. The other person sent Sobieskey an article. And Sobieskey responded:

This is a very excellent and insightful article exposing the Islamic invasion. My highest respect, appreciation and admiration for your wisdom in this regard. Like a wise physician you have accurately diagnosed the "patients illness" Now we need the cures, the remedies.

What remedies do you prescribe to cure the patient?

The other person responded:

Martel, Thanks for the complement, As for the remedies:

1. First, we must awaken more Americans to the nature of the illness. ACT! for America and its chapters are pushing this forward. I think the Report of Team "B"II - Shariah, the Threat to America may be an effective tool. Hope you've read it. I understand it is going to be distributed to members of Congress, and major movers and players in our government, education, and the judiciary. Tragically, it seems that it has taken major terrorist acts inside the U.S., like the Ft. Hood massacre, to wake Americans up. Maybe we are simply going to need to have more 9/11s as horrible as that may seem.

2. Once we gotten enough voters awakened, then there are many things that can and must be done, such as:

Ending the State Department's Refugee Resettlement Program's ability to bring Muslims here as
refugees from Muslim terror.

No more religious visas for Imams to come and fundamentalize our secular Muslims.

Curtail Muslim immigration.

Seal our borders

Stop educating Muslim students from abroad — especially in sensitive technologies.

End welfare benefits to non-citizens and illegals — particularly Muslims.

No aid-to-dependent Muslim moms. Make them prove they are/were legally married
in registered monogamous marriages.

Excise the political ideologies out of Islam here in the U.S.

Forbid Shariah as Oklahoma recently did.

Stop caving in to Muslim demands for "accommodations" of any type.

Stop allowing U.S. universities/colleges from accept grants or endowments from Muslim countries.

Monitor activities in all U.S. mosques.

End the construction of new mosques in the U.S.

Stop providing Muslim chaplains in our prisons and armed forces.

Stop allowing and funding Muslim Student Associations/groups on our campuses.

Locate and deport Muslims who are not here illegally.

Amend our Constitution, if necessary, to declare Islam a seditious alien ideology, outlawed in
the U.S. and ineligible for First Amendment protection.

End tax-exempt status for Muslim organizations.

Forbid Muslims from holding elective office.

Well, there's a few for starters.

Then Martel Sobieskey wrote this response:

1. I have very little confidence that the majority of Americans will ever awaken as you state in your item #1. My reasoning is based upon the fact that since 9/11 Islam has made enormous progress and America has only done a little ineffective chat. Basically Americans remain paralyzed because it has wrongfully called Islam a religion and this is suicidal.

2. I believe the attack against Sharia is flawed because it implies that there is an Islam independent of Sharia and therefore leaves us stuck in the same split between moderate and militant. Now you will have Islamic deception that good Muslims do not want Sharia but the bad Muslims want Sharia.

3. My opinion is that our efforts should be against Islam in general by telling the truth that Islam in a counterfeit religion as stated in my article Islam's Invasion Ideology and that failing to do so means our gradual demise.

4. What's wrong with telling the truth about Islam that it is a fake and a fraud and not a genuine religion? I guess we could say that a cat is religious because it is so quiet and contemplative as it stalks a mouse.

5. When Islam prays five times a day, it is to kill and destroy all religions and nations worldwide. One should not be fooled by their pious demeanor. There have been several serial killers who had pious and holy demeanors. This is the case with Islam — it puts on the pious facade in order to deceive and kill its prey.

6. Our discussion here is more than theoretical because it can be verified by facts on the ground and the blood in the streets as time goes on. The most obvious strategic fact is the enormous progress Islam has made since 9/11.

7. Here we are talking about Sharia which is an obvious and egregious hate crime against all humanity. The very fact that we are discussing with such trepidation and timidity this far after 9/11 foretells our failure. We have become lost in a malaise of disconnected idealism avoiding the strategic realities.

8. Why don't these anti-Sharia efforts attack Islam head on? It shows that they do not have a strategic understanding of the situation, but remain locked in a discussion of hair-splitting idealism of a college classroom. Islam is defeating us strategically while we have our college classroom discussions about Sharia and court battles about Sharia. All the while Muslim immigrants build their enclaves and practice Sharia on the sly while their invasion ramps up and continues unabated.

........................................

Is there anything you'd like to add? Click here to leave a comment.

Read more...

Why the Open Fuel Standard is Important

Wednesday

Someone just mentioned that we're promoting the Open Fuel Standard without explaining what it is for people new to Citizen Warrior. Here are some previous articles about it, in order of their relevance:


http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2010/08/how-to-boost-economy-of-free-world-and.html
http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2008/11/support-open-fuel-standard.html
http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2009/03/strike-heart-of-jihad.html
http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2011/06/keeping-saudis-wealthy.html
http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2011/05/how-to-achieve-energy-security-and-fair.html
http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2011/06/if-you-have-gas-only-car-youre-already.html






Read more...

This Just In...

Monday

The following Action Alert just arrived in my inbox from ACT! for America. Let's add momentum to this important legislation!

*** LEGISLATIVE ACTION ALERT ***

VOICE YOUR SUPPORT FOR THE OPEN FUEL STANDARD AMENDMENT TO THE SENATE TRANSPORTATION BILL!

This week, the U.S. Senate is scheduled to consider S. 1813, a transportation bill called “MAP-21.” We expect Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Richard Lugar (R-IN) to offer S.1603, their Open Fuel Standard (OFS) Act as an amendment to the transportation legislation (amendment #1657).

The auto industry has been blanketing the Hill in opposition to the OFS amendment, using patently false claims. To counter that message, it is critical that our U.S. Senators hear voluminous and loudsupport for the amendment from the folks back home. ACT! for America’s 185,000 grassroots members can easily provide that support. Will you help us make this impact?

The Open Fuel Standard Act is very much needed legislation—especially at this point in time. With the return of increased gas prices due to OPEC’s standard manipulation, as well as the Iranian regime’s dangerous game- playing using oil as a negotiating tool, it’s time for us to finally sever OPEC’s chokehold. The OFS Act will move us in that direction. Brazil has already done it successfully and other nations are moving in the same direction.

While there certainly are numerous valid approaches to transportation fuel independence (most of which we fully support), the Open Fuel Standard legislation is the easiest first step. At zero cost to the Federal Government, and only $70 to $100 per vehicle, passage of the OFS Act will finally provide Americans a choice when filling up their gas tanks—just like we all have a choice for every other product offered to us. It will allow free market capitalism to be applied to the transportation fuel industry—something that currently does not exist.

We must finally cut the cord that keeps us dependent on wealthy dictators and Islamist nations for our gasoline. Further, we must stop funding Islamist terrorists every time we fill up our gas tanks. Passage of the Cantwell/Lugar Amendment is our opportunity to do so.

** IMPORTANT ACTION ITEM **

Please take a moment today to send your U.S. Senator an e-mail of support for the Cantwell/Lugar OFS amendment. Simply click on the Alert titled, “Cantwell/Lugar OFS Amendment” and follow the simple directions!

Thank you for all of your efforts. Together we will achieve freedom from OPEC oil!

REMEMBER, YOUR VOICE COUNTS!
IF EACH OF US DOES JUST A LITTLE, TOGETHER WE CAN
ACCOMPLISH A LOT!

Read more...

Blasphemy and Free Speech

Sunday

IN A RECENT issue of Imprimis from Hillsdale College — a publication read by almost two million people every month — is an excellent article by Paul Marshall, adapted from a lecture he delivered February 3rd this year. Here are the opening paragraphs of the article:

A growing threat to our freedom of speech is the attempt to stifle religious discussion in the name of preventing “defamation of” or “insults to” religion, especially Islam. Resulting restrictions represent, in effect, a revival of blasphemy laws.

Few in the West were concerned with such laws 20 years ago. Even if still on some statute books, they were only of historical interest. That began to change in 1989, when the late Ayatollah Khomeini, then Iran’s Supreme Leader, declared it the duty of every Muslim to kill British-based writer Salman Rushdie on the grounds that his novel, The Satanic Verses, was blasphemous. Rushdie has survived by living his life in hiding. Others connected with the book were not so fortunate: its Japanese translator was assassinated, its Italian translator was stabbed, its Norwegian publisher was shot, and 35 guests at a hotel hosting its Turkish publisher were burned to death in an arson attack.

Click here to read the whole article (and share it with your friends).

Read more...

Ayaan Hirsi Ali Has Gone Mainstream With Our Message

Friday

I DON'T KNOW HOW she did it, but Ali has an article in the February 13 issue of Newsweek. Not only that, but it's the cover story! The cover says simply, "The War on Christians." The name of the article is this gem: "The Rise of Christophobia."


She makes some great points in the article, including an admonition to pay attention to the differences in "intolerance." The "intolerance" in the West comes in the form of cartoons, films, and writings. The intolerance against Christians in the Muslim world is expressed with knives, guns, and grenades.

In the article, she takes the Western media to task for not covering the war on Christians better.

This is excellent. Count one point for our side and celebrate the victory.

Read more...

Copyright

All writing on CitizenWarrior.com is copyright © CitizenWarrior.com 2001-2099, all rights reserved.

Article Spotlight

One of the most unusual articles on CitizenWarrior.com is Pleasantville and Islamic Supremacism.

It illustrates the Islamic Supremacist vision by showing the similarity between what happened in the movie, Pleasantville, and what devout fundamentalist Muslims are trying to create in Islamic states like Syria, Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia (and ultimately everywhere in the world).

Click here to read the article.


Citizen Warrior Heroes

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Visit the blog: Citizen Warrior Heroes.

No More Concessions to Islam

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Visit the blog: Concessions to Islam.

  © Free Blogger Templates Columnus by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP