Friday, May 22, 2015

Shooting the messenger, literally and figuratively…

Some among us “conservatives” choose to shoot the messenger, in this case Pemela Geller.  Their rationale?  She is a money-grubber and seeks publicity stunts because she is in it to enrich herself.

Bosch Fawstin

This reaction, especially unexpected from Jews, is why I am a cynic.  If those who are most vulnerable from the threat of the rapid spread of the vile Islamic ideology are hostile toward one of the more informed and outspoken defenders of free speech in this country against Islamic fascism, then we are indeed in deep trouble.

There are a handful of people in this nation effectively shedding light on the intolerance and terror the Islamic ideology promotes.  Pam Geller is near the top of the list:

  • Led the effective delay of the 9-11 mosque location (I have little doubt a mosque will eventually be built there)
  • Running bus ad campaigns in major US cities countering the lies of similar Islamic ads, that, by the way, are anti-Israel and anti-Semitic.
  • Speaks around the country to educate people about the fascism Islam promotes
  • Publishes a continually updated website keeping us informed of Muslim atrocities, lies, and terror attempts.
  • Places her life on the line being a front-person telling truths about Islam for which millions of Muslims believe justifies killing. 

I was mistakenly hopeful that Pemela Geller and Robert Specer (Robert is Pamela’s partner in the educational efforts to reveal and demonstrate the real Islam) would eventually be considered American Heros, not American villains. 

But, you see, there is this suspicion that if anyone does any good, it is all about money – they only do good because they are greedy money-suckers.

I have been following Geller and Spencer for nearly ten years.  I regret that I have not donated a cent to either one.  And I further regret and suspect that the majority of their followers, people who look on these two as beacons of truth and sanity regarding Islam, have not contributed anything to them, either.

So, is this “money-grubbing” and “greed” accusation an excuse for something beneath the surface?  I have no idea.  I only know that such slander makes no sense to me.

Geller is doing the job our Federal Government and elected officials should be doing but don’t.  We would be paying our tax dollars to the government to do this job.  But this job is not being done by our government.  To the contrary, our government is doing everything they can to convince us that Islam has nothing to do with violence, intolerance, terror, jihad or sharia.

I am thankful that there are people like Geller and Spencer who, despite the slander of being “bigots”, and “haters”, and “inciters”, and now “money-grubbers” that they are doing what they are doing and being a voice of truth and reason – essential tasks that our own government fails to do.


Below is the text of an interview with the winner of the Draw Muhammad contest, Bosch Fawstin:

Bosch Fawstin on Islam and Jihad

by Craig Biddle

From The Objective Standard, Vol. 10, No. 2.


Bosch Fawstin

Bosch Fawstin is a cartoonist, blogger, and creator of the anti-jihad superhero Pigman. Having won the recent Muhammad cartoon contest, a pro-free speech initiative sponsored by the American Freedom Defense Initiative, Bosch was in attendance at the award ceremony in Garland, Texas, when two rifle-wielding jihadists arrived to murder everyone there. Fortunately, moments after the jihadists opened fire (hitting only a security guard in the ankle), they were shot dead by a SWAT team.

As readers of The Objective Standard know, this latest assault by jihadists on freedom of speech is one in a long series, from the Iranian government’s fatwa on Salman Rushdie for depicting Muhammad in his novel The Satanic Verses; to the murder of Theo van Gogh for directing the film Submission, which depicted Islamic violence against women; to the attempted assassination of Kurt Westergaard for drawing a cartoon of Muhammad; to death threats against Matt Stone and Trey Parker for depicting Muhammad dressed as a bear; to calls for beheading Geert Wilders for producing the film Fitna, which showed that the Koran calls for violence against infidels; to the massacre of twelve people at the offices of Charlie Hebdo for satirizing Muhammad. Bosch Fawstin and the organizers and attendees of the Garland event are recent additions to this list of infidels who speak their minds in spite of Muslim threats because they know that freedom of speech is the last leg of a free (or semi-free) society.

I recently spoke with Bosch, whose drawing of Muhammad and Jesus covers the Spring 2015 issue of The Objective Standard. Three of his cartoons, including his winning entry, are included with this interview. —Craig Biddle

Craig Biddle: Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to chat with me, Bosch. It’s an honor to interview you. And congratulations on winning the Muhammad cartoon contest. Your drawing is brilliant and profound, in that it captures so much about the nature of the problem at hand.

Bosch Fawstin: Thank you very much; that means a lot. And I want to say kudos to you as well for publishing an issue of The Objective Standard with Muhammad on it, something very few publishers have done in the West.

Biddle: Let me begin by asking what went through your head when you heard that shots had been fired at the Garland event?

Fawstin: I was on somewhat of a high, having just won the $12,500 award and standing on a stage with Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, and Geert Wilders. I was in the middle of an interview with CNN when my friend told me shots were fired. Now, I understand the threat we face—I’ve studied Islam as if my life depended on it after 9/11—but being in the middle of an actual jihadist attack was . . . I can’t find the words . . . surreal seems too easy, but it was just the latest reminder that this enemy—one our government could have long defeated by now—is getting to us in ways it never has before, because our government has not done its job in defeating it.

Biddle: Some people, such as Bill O’Reilly, say that publishing cartoons of Muhammad is pointlessly provocative, and that you and the organizers of the Garland event were asking for trouble. What’s your response to that?

Fawstin: Bill O’Reilly is a buffoon. He’s so far removed from the reality that we’re at war, that Islam is the motivation behind that war, and that Muslims are on the warpath, that his only concern seems to be about the feelings of Muslim “folks.” And he reserves all of his criticism for a woman (where are the “sexist” charges against her critics?), Pamela Geller, who showed more courage on that one night in Garland than O’Reilly ever has. The event was necessarily provocative to Muslims and Islamophiles who would censor us in the name of sharia—in other words, in the name of protecting them from experiencing their baseless emotions.

Biddle: Having been raised in a Muslim family, and having actually read the Koran, you are quite familiar with the religion of Islam. Why, in your view, are some Muslims bent on killing non-Muslims—especially those who criticize the religion or draw pictures of Muhammad?

Fawstin: Because unlike most nominal Muslims who are human beings first, jihadists are usually Muslims whose lives have gone sour and who are ready to throw it all away in a big bang where their lives, which have been devoid of meaning, can now be redeemed with a meaningful death. They’ve sold their soul to Allah and have been morally inverted by Islam to believe that the most heroic act they can commit is to “kill the infidels wherever [they] find them.” So in place of their mind, there’s only Islam, which dictates their lives. And that’s what led those two would-be mass murderers in Garland, Texas, to attempt to commit what, in Islamic standards, would have been a morally ambitious act.

Biddle: You’ve said that most Muslims are morally superior to Muhammad and morally superior to the religion of Islam. What do you mean by that?

Fawstin: What I mean is that Islam is a religion begun by the scum of the earth—I refer to “the Muslim world” as a world where the bad guy won. No matter how Muhammad and his gang tried, they couldn’t turn most of the human beings around them into monsters. Today, most Muslims—especially in the West—don’t allow and need not allow Islam to dehumanize them; they still retain their humanity. Unfortunately, they’re offered up as proof that Islam is just fine, when in fact it’s in spite of Islam that they’re not a threat to anyone.

Biddle: As you and others—including Muslims who take Islam seriously—have repeatedly shown, Islam is not a religion of peace. But some people claim that Islam is not a religion at all—because it calls for murder and other evils. The idea here is that religion is inherently a good thing, Islam calls for moral atrocities, so Islam doesn’t fit the bill. What are your thoughts on this?

Fawstin: I reject this fanciful myth that religionists are hell-bent to push. Islam is religion; it is also a political ideology—it’s a fusion of the two, and it uses its religious identity as both its shield and sword. 9/11 was an act of faith, or else Mohammad Atta and his fellow savages would never have flown those planes into the Twin Towers. They believed with everything they had that they were flying into paradise. When Bush uttered the America-crippling lie, “Islam means peace,” what he was really saying was “religion means peace.” He was a born-again Christian who was so beholden to religion that he gave a pass to Islam for religious reasons. And we’ve all paid a deadly price for it. And still to this day, there are those who bite their tongue about Islam, lest they suffer scrutiny for their own religion.

Biddle: You vehemently oppose calling the jihadists’ religion anything other than Islam—not radical Islam, not totalitarian Islam, not extremist Islam, not Islamic fundamentalism, not Islamism—just Islam. Why are you so strongly opposed to these kinds of terms?

Fawstin: Because any term other than Islam to refer to the enemy’s ideology implies that Islam as such is not the problem, that only some deviant form of it is the problem. Every time we use a term other than Islam, we’re helping Islam. I’ve gotten in endless arguments over it with friends and allies, but I believe that in the end, they’re going to see that Islam as such is the enemy’s ideology.

Biddle: You oppose Islam, but that’s a negative; that’s something you’re against. What, other than freedom of expression, are you for? What are your deeper positive values? Islam drives jihadists—what drives you?

Fawstin: Truth. Even when I was a nominal Muslim, I loved the truth, and it was that love of truth that led me away from Islam and eventually to Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism. I knew, even as a young kid, that I had to always do my best to seek the truth, to see things as they are, to be connected to reality. So by the time I found Ayn Rand’s work, I was ready to embrace her philosophy. Ayn Rand, in resistance to being called a genius, answered that she was simply more honest than most. And without Rand’s ruthless honesty, she could not have created the integrated philosophy that she did.

Biddle: In regard to the risks involved in speaking her mind about controversial matters, Ayn Rand said: “I’m not brave enough to be a coward; I see the consequences too clearly.” You clearly have the same attitude. What consequences do you see coming if people don’t speak up about the evil of Islam?

Fawstin: I see more attacks like the one in Garland, physical attacks against those of us who speak and write and draw in ways to which they object. I see an enemy further emboldened by what I call the scumedia, who are dying to tell offended Muslims the opposite of “I’m Spartacus”: “I’m Not Pamela Geller!” The Garland attack is a litmus test, and we have a clearer picture of who is ready to fight and who has already submitted to the enemy’s sharia restrictions.

Biddle: Our mutual friend, the late Joshua Lipana, reviewed chapter one of your graphic novel The Infidel in the Summer 2011 issue of The Objective Standard. But you’ve written other books both in that series and separate from it. And, of course, you have projects in the works. What are your main products to date? And what can you tell us about projects in the works?

Fawstin: Joshua wrote a particularly good review, and I have a blurb from him on my blog: “an engaging story driven by fundamental ideas and full of politically incorrect humor,” which I really appreciated. I began my career as a professional cartoonist in 2004 with the release of my first graphic novel, Table for One, which garnered two nominations at the Eisner Awards, considered “The Oscars” of comics. In 2009 I released my blog collection/print companion to The Infidel, called ProPiganda: Drawing the Line Against Jihad, which is the first print appearance of Pigman, my anti-jihad superhero. The Infidel is about twin brothers whose Muslim background comes to the forefront of their lives after 9/11/01. The twins represent me, as if I split myself in two, with one part of me becoming a born-again Muslim and the other a recovered Muslim, and that’s the main conflict of the story, which is echoed in the Pigman story with his battle against SuperJihad.

Biddle: Where can people view your cartoons and purchase your books? And how can they keep track of your work going forward?

Bosch Fawstin

Bosch Fawstin

Fawstin: I have my comic books, graphic novel, and my prints on my blog at I’m currently finishing up chapter three of The Infidel, featuring Pigman. The issue is as long as the first two issues combined, fifty-five pages, and I can’t wait to get it out. I also just signed a contract with a publisher for a project that I can’t yet divulge, but that I’m very happy to be working on.

Biddle: Thank you again for your time, Bosch. Yours is a voice of reason, justice, and benevolence, and the world needs to hear it loudly and clearly. Freedom depends on people like you.


I guess Fawstin has just reveled that he, too, is a “money-grubber.”  And “conservatives” are in favor of capitalism?  Really.


Tuesday, May 05, 2015

Muhammad cartoons, and the ignorant among us…

Reviewing media commentary about the event that drew the rats from their nest to attack the Texas “Draw a Cartoon of Muhammad” event, I am astonished at their casual and low view of freedom of speech and their lack of knowledge of the pervasively intolerant doctrines of orthodox Islam.     I am especially disappointed by the reaction of many conservatives who I thought knew better.

There are two messengers:  One, the messengers of Muhammad who mete out death for insulting Islam, and the other, the messengers who draw attention to the intolerance of the first messenger.

Rich Lowry, the Editor of the conservative magazine National Review criticizes the wrong messenger.  He wrote that Geller was a “provocateur” and referred to others of “her ilk”, a connotation that does not put “provocateur” in the same positive usage as applied to George Washington, unless you’re British.

Bill O’Reilly, Laura Ingraham and Donald Trump had similar criticism of the cartoon contest.  I’m learning that some “conservatives” are as clueless of Islam as low information voters and have little regard for freedom of speech.

Here is another example of a “conservative” news organization, a Newsmax commentator, attacking the messengers:

At one point the Newsmax interview drew the analogy between the cartoon event and shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre.  However, that “shout” was deemed an illegal act because there was no fire.  In the case of holding an event that demonstrates that Muslims show their offense by shooting or beheading there IS a fire.  Give Newsmax an “F” for Analogy 101.

Here is the winning entry in Pamela Geller’s Draw a Cartoon of Muhammad contest:

How offensive is that to western sensibilities?  Only to Muslims.  And Islamic doctrine contains dozens of other perceived slights that justify beheading or carnage.  Which ones will we bow to next?

We heard much worse slanders of religions:  Christ in a jar of urine; the play “The Book of Mormon.”  About the intended ridicule contained in that play, one writer gave this reply:

Late last year NPR interviewed Trey Parker and Matt Stone, the creators of television's "South Park" as well as "The Book of Mormon", and they talked about the LDS Church's response to the show. "The official church response was something along the lines of, 'The Book of Mormon' the musical might entertain you for a night, but the Book of Mormon — the book as scripture — will change your life through Jesus," Stone said. "Which we actually completely agree with. That's a cool, American response to a ribbing."

Not so with Islam.  Orthodox Islam teaches that Muslims should be not merely offended by homosexuals, by women who have freedoms, by Christian who don’t convert, and by Jews who merely exist.  They must ACT when they are offended.  The acts they are urged to take when offended are considered immoral barbarism by the standards of civilized man.  In their Sharia there are three options for the offender:  Submission, death, or some other punishment deemed barbaric in our culture.

National Review’s Lowry, and others “of his ilk”, to borrow his phrase, are part of the problem.  They condemn the defender of free speech more than those who would quash it for the sake of their fascist ideology. They apparently believe free speech is no big deal. Or perhaps they don't recognize the path Islam is taking to impose its doctrine of intolerance on what is for now a fairly free society.

HERE  (click link)  is an editorial defending the freedom of speech you apparently won’t see in US papers, this from the Israel National News.

Those who criticize the few brave souls on the front line confronting and highlighting the threat of Islam to our culture fail to realize this:  Islamic ideology decreed many freedoms we take for granted insult Islam.   And those who violate any of these Islamic taboos must be punished. What's going to be the next thing we should not "insult" under penalty of death? Check out Islamic Sharia - there are dozens.

The likes of Rich Lowry is one reason I don't subscribe to the National Review. He is ignorant of the doctrines and dangers of orthodox Islam, and is more apt to be critical of one who reveals the truth and evils of Islam than he is to call out the evils of Islam itself. Who or what is the "provocateur" here, the truth-teller (Geller) or the representatives of an ideology best known for its deception, intolerance, and terror?

I've been amazed at the ignorance and obliviousness about Islam among the self-absorbed US media, elected officials, academia and electorate for 10 years.  I am especially disappointed at the comments about this event from "conservatives."  They haven’t learned a thing in all these years.

It looks like we have a new brand of “conservative”: 

CONINO -  Conservative In Name Only®

Those who are critical of Geller and critical of the very few others who attempt to inform us of the slippery slope to tyranny that Islam promises, if they were consistent, would be critical of everyone attempting to reveal any unpleasant truth on any topic.  But they are not.  Their agenda befuddles.

Monday, April 27, 2015

Baltimore: Epicenter of lousy leadership…

Rioting in Baltimore is more a result of incompetent, Pollyanish leadership than it is about any legitimate grievance of the rioters.

Here is the rap sheet of the now deceased young man, Freddie Gray, who may very well become the latest poster child as one of Obama’s children:

The hand of Obama and the democratic left is apparent in Baltimore’s response to out of control blacks.  Just how much influence did Obama have on the decisions of not so bright Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake?  The rules of engagement imposed on the police were in the style of the “let it burn, anti-police” attitude of the Obama administration. 

Ms. “Let them riot.”

“While we try to make sure that [protesters] were protected from the cars and other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well,”

How well has that worked out for you, mayor?  This irresponsible “leader” of Baltimore deserves to be jailed for malfeasance and misfeasance in office.

We hear outlandish wishful thinking statements from locals that “it’s just a few people” or” its outsiders causing this.” Hmm, over a thousand police on duty and most observers are saying they are outnumbered.   It’s not “just a few people” and a few outside agitators.  It’s the essence of the black community in Baltimore, and likely reflects the aspirations of many blacks in cities across the nation.

Shepherd Smith of FOX News is one example of part of the problem.  During discussion on The Five, one commentator asked “where are the parents?”  Smith scolded the questioner suggesting that question isn’t relevant.  Say what?  That was an excellent question.  Is it possible that the parents, if they have any, support what their offspring are doing?

This whole debacle begs the question:  Why hadn’t the curfew been imposed at sunset Monday night?  Why hasn’t the National Guard been on standby outside the city two days ago?    We can guess why the police were handcuffed early on.  That’s the democrat way.  But after that tactic failed, there was nothing to take its place and the mobs and rioters prevailed.

It is noteworthy that the two major fires started by rioters on Monday night were Christian Senior Centers:  One Catholic and one Baptist.  One of the particpants in rioting is known to be the Nation of Islam and other similar racist groups.

In a city where 63.7% of the population is black, with a black mayor, a police department comprised of  over 40% blacks, where the Chief of Patrol is black, where 90% of the victims in Baltimore are black and 90% of the perpetrators are black, it seems clear where the problem lies.

Here is a useful commentary I picked up from a reader’s comment on a news site:

Junior Spence Joe

For almost 150 years the United States has been conducting an interesting experiment. The subjects of the experiment: black people and working-class whites.

The hypothesis to be tested: Can a people taken from the jungles of Africa and forced into slavery be fully integrated as citizens in a majority white population?

The whites were descendants of Europeans who had created a majestic civilization. The former slaves had been tribal peoples with no written language and virtually no intellectual achievements. Acting on a policy that was not fair to either group, the government released newly freed black people into a white society that saw them as inferiors. America has struggled with racial discord ever since.

Decade after decade the problems persisted but the experimenters never gave up. They insisted that if they could find the right formula the experiment would work, and concocted program after program to get the result they wanted. They created the Freedman’s Bureau, passed civil rights laws, tried to build the Great Society, declared War on Poverty, ordered race preferences, built housing projects, and tried midnight basketball.

Their new laws intruded into people’s lives in ways that would have been otherwise unthinkable. They called in National Guard troops to enforce school integration. They outlawed freedom of association. Over the protests of parents, they put white children on buses and sent them to black schools and vice versa. They tried with money, special programs, relaxed standards, and endless handwringing to close the “achievement gap.” To keep white backlash in check they began punishing public and even private statements on race. They hung up Orwellian public banners that commanded whites to “Celebrate Diversity!” and “Say No to Racism.” Nothing was off limits if it might salvage the experiment.

Some thought that what W.E.B. Du Bois called the Talented Tenth would lead the way for black people. A group of elite, educated blacks would knock down doors of opportunity and show the world what blacks were capable of. There is a Talented Tenth. They are the black Americans who have become entrepreneurs, lawyers, doctors and scientists. But ten percent is not enough. For the experiment to work, the ten percent has to be followed by a critical mass of people who can hold middle-class jobs and promote social stability. That is what is missing.

Through the years, too many black people continue to show an inability to function and prosper in a culture unsuited to them. Detroit is bankrupt, the south side of Chicago is a war zone, and the vast majority of black cities all over America are beset by degeneracy and violence. And blacks never take responsibility for their failures. Instead, they lash out in anger and resentment.

Across the generations and across the country, as we have seen in Detroit, Watts, Newark, Los Angeles, Cincinnati, and now Ferguson, rioting and looting are just one racial incident away. The white elite would tell us that this doesn’t mean the experiment has failed. We just have to try harder. We need more money, more time, more understanding, more programs, and more opportunities.

But nothing changes no matter how much money is spent, no matter how many laws are passed, no matter how many black geniuses are portrayed on TV, and no matter who is president. Some argue it’s a problem of “culture,” as if culture creates people’s behavior instead of the other way around. Others blame “white privilege.”

But since 1965, when the elites opened America’s doors to the Third World, immigrants from Asia and India–people who are not white, not rich, and not “connected”–have quietly succeeded. While the children of these people are winning spelling bees and getting top scores on the SAT, black “youths” are committing half the country’s violent crime–crime, which includes viciously punching random white people on the street for the thrill of it that has nothing to do with poverty.

The experiment has failed. Not because of culture, or white privilege, or racism. The fundamental problem is that white people and black people are different. They differ intellectually and temperamentally. These differences result in permanent social incompatibility.

Our rulers don’t seem to understand just how tired their white subjects are with this experiment. They don’t understand that white people aren’t out to get black people; they are just exhausted with them. They are exhausted by the social pathologies, the violence, the endless complaints, and the blind racial solidarity, the bottomless pit of grievances, the excuses, and the reflexive animosity.

The elites explain everything with “racism,” and refuse to believe that white frustration could soon reach the boiling point.

Wednesday, March 25, 2015

The Limits of Religious Accommodation…

Being a Christian in a (some say) “Christian nation”, I have come to expect my employer, school, community, state, and nation to accommodate my beliefs by recognizing Christian holidays and accommodate my beliefs.  It helps that my beliefs have been molded by not only my religion, but by the 200 plus year moral traditions of my country, and the millennia of traditions of my ancestors from a substantially Christian Europe.

So, is it just Christian accommodation we should expect?  Or is it universal religious accommodation we should expect?  Non-Christians of other faiths expect religious accommodation.  Atheists expect no accommodation for religions.

OK, here’s the rub:  There are religions wherein some of their doctrines, morals, and traditions are illegal based on our Judeo-Christian legal system.  For example, practitioners of Santeria, a Cuban blend of African lore and Catholicism, occasionally make the news. Why?  Because their practice requires the use of animal sacrifices. Many communities tried to outlaw this practice, but the Supreme Court ruled otherwise.  Undoubtedly, PITA was pissed.  Here is a summary of related legal action from Wikipedia:

n 1993, the issue of animal sacrifice in SanterĂ­a was taken to the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah. The court ruled that animal cruelty laws targeted specifically at SanterĂ­a were unconstitutional.[20]

In 2009, legal and religious issues that related to animal sacrifice, animal rights, and freedom of religion were taken to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in the case of Jose Merced, President Templo Yoruba Omo Orisha Texas, Inc., v. City of Euless. The court ruled that the Merced case of the freedom of exercise of religion was meritorious and prevailing and that Merced was entitled under the Texas Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (TRFRA) to an injunction preventing the city of Euless, Texas, from enforcing its ordinances restricting his religious practices relating to the use of animals,[21] (see Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 110.005(a)(2)) without the court having to reach his claims under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The city of Euless, even after losing a drawn-out lawsuit that tested the boundaries of religious liberty in Texas, was still searching for new ways to shut down Merced's spiritual practices.[22]

Now comes a tougher religious nut, Islam’s “sharia.”  Should or will the 1,400 year doctrine and traditions of Islam be upheld by our courts on the basis of freedom of religion and “religious accommodation?”  Keep in mind that most of Islam’s religious mandates are antithetical to our own long standing legal traditions, such as:

  • The methods of punishment for laws broken:  chopping off heads, hands, and other body parts
  • The reasons for these punishments:  Converting from Islam to any other, or to no religion; embarrassing or humiliating your family; women not submitting to men in approved ways; insulting Allah, and many others.
  • Many practices that we consider misogynistic.
  • Beheading of gays.
  • Taxation of non-Muslims at a higher rate for their “protection.”
  • Non-Muslims subject to loss of rights held by Muslims – if the Muslims in charge allow their existence at all.
  • Many other Muslim doctrines, laws, and traditions too numerous to mention here that are contrary to our nation’s long-standing religious and cultural convictions and practices.

Which of these “religious mandates” will our supreme court uphold in the name of “religious freedom” or “religious accommodation?”

It is likely that our rapidly growing and influential Muslim population will demand religious accommodation for a number of their “religious” practices.

Image result for accommodating Islam

And if this creates political havoc, the next step will be progressives proposing the elimination of all manner of religious accommodation out of a sense of “fairness.”  Example:  Ok kids, since this piece of poison candy isn’t good for you, you aren’t allowed to have any candy.  Or one plane crash  used as an excuse to prohibit all flights. 

If reason were exercised by our electorate, our leaders, and our courts they would determine that any doctrine, tradition, and law of Islam that contradicts our established legal system and cultural mores shall be unlawful, and promotion of such laws considered as treason or sedition.  But I doubt that will happen.

If reason is applied, Muslims are certain to cry “discrimination against Islam.”  What about  the religious traditions of Santeria that break our animal cruelty laws?

The above conundrum is exactly why Islam needs to be treated NOT as a “religion” in these matters, but as a political ideology, in the same manner as Nazism and Communism.  Islam is an all-encompassing way of life with an overarching legal/political component:  Sharia.  It is so far deviant from our Judeo-Christian tradition and ethics that it is incompatible with and destructive of the legal traditions of our nation and our way of life.

The cultural traditions and doctrines of Islam are the primary motivators (excuses?) for terror and killing in the world in our age.  That should be reason enough to distinguish Islam from virtually every other belief system we must contend with.  Islam is not worthy of “religious accommodation.”

That should also be reason enough to stop the influx of Muslims into this country and to make it clear to Muslims who choose to remain here that they will be subject to the laws of this nation, and not their Sharia.



Obama accommodates Islam by caving into Iranian demands for continuing development of nuclear weapons DESPITE Iran’s leader proclaiming “DEATH TO AMERICA.”  Do you see anything wrong with that picture?

Saturday, March 21, 2015

Not a small minority of “radicals”…

Given that Islam’s premier skill set is deceit, it is no wonder that people who aren’t really paying attention to that religion are deceived.  That skill set is not some recent political strategy adopted by some  radical Muslim offshoot that has nothing to do with Islam.  It is a feature of pure Islam. It has been a core doctrine in Islam from the practice of Muhammad 1,400 years ago down to this very second.  Deceit is taught in Islamic schools, mosques, and Islamic centers.  Deceit is to Islam as the golden rule is to Christians.  It is ingrained in their culture as perfectly normal.

In dozens of nations and thousands of communities around the globe where Islamic populations are dominant, Muslims apply some version of Islamic morality and law (sharia).   If you are a female, gay, infidel, or apostate Muslim, you forfeit your freedoms and possibly your life.   I would think that thoughtful Americans, Brits – heck, all Europeans – would consider Islam a cancer and treat it like they would any subversive organization.  But no.  It is easier to pretend they are just like us and just want to get along.

The “small minority of radicals” that have nothing to do with Islam are on the march.  Their march consists of leaders of Islamic states and their supporters and sympathizers numbering in the millions if not tens of millions of other Muslims that oddly have nothing to do with Islam.  Heck, the entire Islamic religion has been hijacked by a billion Muslims who have nothing to do with Islam!

Western leaders are fools.  As if in a drug-induced stupor, they dismiss facts about Islam and Islamic history.  US leadership wants a treaty with Iran concerning their development of nuclear weapons  They are hoping that Iranian leadership is just like us – morally speaking – and have the same aspirations as we have.  We are fools to think that.

While it is true not every Muslim is a jihadist, most Muslims are either sympathizers or active supporters of Muslims jihadists.  Their doctrine clearly teaches the things the jihadists do.  Their doctrine also teaches two other things:  1) They are called to support the jihadist because it is the right thing to do, and 2) They need to mask their true thoughts, intentions and actions in an infidel culture to defend themselves and to further Islam.  That is “taqiyya.”

The “nice Muslim next door?”  He is either an apostate (not practicing most of Islamic doctrine) or he is practicing taqiyya – most likely the latter if he still calls himself a Muslim.

What about Judhi Jasser, the token peace-loving go-to Muslim on Fox news?  He is an apostate.  He goes against the flow of not only the majority of Islamic texts, but against the teaching of nearly every mosque in this nation and the world.  That is, unless he himself is also practicing his own rendition of taqiyya:  a foil to attempt to deceive Americans that Islam is something that it is not – like the front man in a Ponzi scheme.   We are deceiving ourselves to wishfully think that Islam can be transformed into something it never was – at least not within the lifetimes of our grandchildren and beyond. 

Small minority of radicals?  I have undergone a progression of understanding of Islam since 9-11:

Before 9-11:  I knew nothing about Islam, or at best, that it was just another religion.

Weeks following 9-11:  I started researching.  I was initially influenced by the words of George Bush I, that “Islam is a religion of peace” and by Karen Armstrong who is an apologist for Islam.

I began reading and gathering facts about Islam from a variety of sources.  The most common source was the media at large that continued to offer the Karen Armstrong and George Bush version of Islam.  But soon I began balancing those sources with others such as Brigitte Gabriel, Robert Spencer – and later many more.  These sources actually presented facts about Islamic beliefs and value systems.

Eventually, the facts gained a lot more credibility in my mind than the fluff presented by people who “knew a nice Muslim next door.’'  (Or in the case of George Bush, who probably had a know-nothing apologist for Islam, or perhaps Muslims in the State Department as his advisors on Islam.)

A few months after 9-11 I accepted the idea that there is a “radical” component to Islam and that most Muslims don’t abide by that radical flavor.

It didn’t take me too many years (I guess I’m a little slow) to do some math on Islam.  Of the 1.6 billion Muslims on earth and a mere 10% being radical (meaning they would commit violence to further their cause), that means there are “only” 160,000,000 radical Muslims.

And one third of US Muslims support Islamic terror.  The percentage is probably much higher.  What self-respecting taqiyya-inspired Muslim would tell a US pollster what he really believes?  The 19% above probably refers to the broader US population of progressives, liberals, fascists, and socialists who thrive on chaos to gain more power.


Since I do believe in the evolution of thought and learning, it took me a couple more years to realize that it takes a number of non-jihadists to be eyes and ears, provide political cover, mentoring, teaching, logistics, training, and funding for the jihadist effort.  That understanding led me to a new calculation of jihadist supporters that likely doubles or triples the number of front line jihadists.  That upped the number of supporters to close to half a billion – probably more.

More recently, considering the likes of Obama who clearly supports the Muslim cause (whether he is Muslim or not, he is doing what a Muslim would do), I remembered his words from his book “Audacity of Hope.”  He was emphatic that he would side with [Muslim immigrants] should the political winds shift in an ugly direction. This declaration added more light to my understanding of an even more widespread Muslim support for violent jihad – the Muslim sympathizers.

There are those we call “cultural Muslims”, or “casual Muslims”, or “peace loving Muslims” which some believe make up the majority of Muslims.  This Muslim majority, as Obama claimed he would do, will likely side with the doctrines of orthodox Islam, the “radicals”, the military wing of the Islamic ummah, if the winds shifted in an ugly direction - from their perspective – meaning if the rest of us woke up to understand what Islam is all about and attempted to do anything about it.

So no, the Islamic threat is not merely from a tiny minority of radicals who have nothing to do with Islam.  The threat comes from the greater majority of those who claim Islam as their all encompassing model for life and morality following in the path of Muhammad.  Study the life of Muhammad if you want a clue of what faithful, devout orthodox Muslims have in store for the infidel.


Related:  See where pro-Islamic Tweets come from – you may be surprised.

Tuesday, March 03, 2015

What a breath of fresh air and sanity…

I listened to Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to the joint session of the US Congress (presentation linked below).

What a breath of fresh air after being subject to the stench of insanity foisted on the American citizens by our own political leader.

This man made sense.  Our man makes little sense and mocks the intelligence and sense of right that most of us innately possess.

His words provided a ray of sunshine and rational hope – not the false hope of the dark side we have to endure for another year and a half.

Listen and determine if you agree that the words spoken here reflect reality and sound logic and not the counter-intuitive, anti-American blather we usually hear from our Trojan horse in Washington: 

Here is the full transcript of the Prime Ministers speech to Congress.



Why Obama dislikes Netanyahu.  If it is not Obama’s affinity for Islam, then it is this…

Those who do not confront evil resent those who do.

Read more at:


Wednesday, February 25, 2015

A Message to President Obama from a former Muslim

If you want to hear pure logic and an educated list of facts that confirm ISIS represents pure Islam, this is the video to watch.

ISIS is not an aberration or perversion of Islam.  ISIS is Islam as taught by Muhammad and as expressed in the Qur’an.

You draw your own conclusions, after listening to this video, as to whether ISIS is totally Islamic.  Then ask yourself why anyone would attempt to convince us it is not.  What are their motives?



Sunday, February 22, 2015

Promoting jobs for jihadists is like suggesting abstinence for addicts

Or even more to the point, the idea of economic  prosperity is exactly what the resurgent Islamic ideology is against.

Obama and his junior varsity State Department don’t get it.  They are stuck in a Westernized mindset.  They believe that health and wealth is a universal ideal.  They fail to appreciate the fact that in some ideologies at some points in time there arise other priorities.  At this time in Islamic history, as in most periods of its history since its founding, Muslims number one priority is to destroy the wealth of others.  And that priority does not include their desire to be smitten by job opportunities.

One of their principle recruiting mantras is the un-allahness of western wealth.  They have joined hands with leftists and Communists like Obama and the 99%-ers who find it more satisfying to destroy prosperity than participate in it.

The companion motivation is to portray themselves as defenders of the moral high ground.  They see the West and Christiandom as immoral and corrupt.  They point to our obsession with entertainment, our promotion of homosexuality, our pornographic media and related favorite pastimes of our culture as things greatly displeasing to allah.  That justifies to them their moral superiority and motivates them toward their holy war against us. 

They don’t have time for jobs.  The mere suggestion of “better jobs” to most of the jihadi types is like throwing gasoline on a fire.  It is an attack on their Islamic sensibilities.  Jobs and economic prosperity are the very things they are crusading against.

The evidence for this diagnosis lies not only in their doctrine and history of conquests through North Africa and Europe, but in their current reign of terror.  Their destruction of the World Trade Center was symbolic of their motivation:  destroy symbols of prosperity and economic wealth.

Image result for jobs for muslims

The latest demonstration against symbols of Western prosperity is al-Shabaab’s plan to attack the Mall of America located in Bloomington, MN, an urban suburb 8 miles south of Muslim-infested Minneapolis. These fine, job-seeking souls have published their intent in a video as described on FOX HERE.  And more from Pam Geller HERE and Front Page Magazine HERE.

This threat highlights the fact that our intelligence agencies have little clue as to who comes to our nation:

Jim Kallstrom, the former assistant director of the FBI’s New York office, said the FBI has a “huge job in front of them.

“You look at the Mall of America, you look at all the malls then you start to backtrack and say you know it would be nice if we knew what comes and goes into the country,” Kallstrom told Fox News on Sunday. “We don’t have a clue.”

These are not “job seekers” in Syria or Libya or Somalia.  These Muslims are located in one of the more prosperous urban areas in the United States.   And this location also happens to be one of the most heavily Muslimized regions in the US.  Given that the US Census is prohibited from counting people based on their religion (a deadly blind spot in our planning for attacks) estimates of Muslim populations in any US location is difficult as described by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis HERE.

The Mall of America employs 11,00 year round.     They have dozens of  job openings provided on THIS web site.  This does not include openings in individual stores.

But no. These jobs are not what Somalian Muslims of Minneapolis really want.  They want to destroy the jobs, the symbols of western decadence.  They have an agenda that does not match the agenda of the West.  They already have great, motivating jobs, thank you.  They have jobs that plot and deceive and destroy.

We are so damned prideful that we believe every other God forsaken culture in the world wants what we want.  False!  That strategy is causing us to waste billions of dollars and thousands of lives because it does not address the motivation of our enemies.  It only incites them to more acts of terror and carnage.

How about we worry about getting jobs for Americans who want them, and deport the Somalians who don’t.

Speaking of jobs for jihadists, below are State Department job applications that are just now starting to pour in – thanks to Tyler Durden at :

(If only they were this obvious.  But then again, the obvious doesn’t matter.)

Wednesday, February 18, 2015

Obama’s speech: Words of an Advocate and Deceiver for Islam…

Imagine this:  If Catholics or Presbyterians were responsible for 99% of worldwide terror, and members of that faith were an immanent threat to our national security, would we tolerate a political leader demanding that we refrain from judging or being critical of those religions.

Such a leader would be called an apologist, an advocate, and a fool.

And so Obama is.

Not one word about positive action we can take to identify and neutralize terror.  Only that we should accommodate them with our sweetness and light.

A fool.

Muslims in the US will most likely be offended by Obama’s words.  Why?  Because he is telling Muslims what not to believe that their religion clearly tells them to believe.  Half the Qur’an (the most relevant half) instructs Muslims to behave exactly how the “radicals” are behaving.  Obama is once more providing cover for a vile, aggressive, intolerant political ideology.

And the rest of us should be offended because our president continually inferred the American public is the cause of Islamic violence.

Tuesday, February 17, 2015

We know why Obama does what he does; but why does the electorate do what it does?

The vinyl fence in my back yard has a lot of mildew on it because most of it is in the shade of a good-sized Oak tree.  I finally found a product that easily eliminates that mildew.  Its label says it “attacks mildew at its roots.”

Apparently cleaners that DON’T attack the root don’t work as well or at all.

The same can be said about Obama’s failing Middle East and national security policies.  He views the problem as “work place violence” or “lone wolf attacks.”  He will use every trite label and excuse to avoid identifying the root cause.  Those sloppy characterizations of universal Islamic terror provide the basis for other erroneous conclusions.  For example, his State Department suggests lack of job opportunities as a root cause of ISIS recruitment success.  That might be true if the hate, attacks and terror were coming from a wide array of ideologies held by people equally pissed off at the lack of job opportunities.  But the hate, attacks and terror come from one single ideology:  Islam.  Our university-brainwashed State Department atheists cannot grasp the concept that there exists societies and belief systems that value other things higher than a good job and a middle income, consumption-driven lifestyle.  Middle East Muslims don’t fancy after the same things we do.  They might even be several generations away from appreciating the golden rule versus their favored “do unto others before they do unto you” mentality.

Retired Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden believes Obama is trapped by his own words on Islamic terror.  But the General falls short of the one essential ingredient that motivates Islamic terror:  Islamic doctrine.  It is not simply “radical Muslims” inventing their own doctrine apart from Islam.  It is orthodox, fundamental Islamic doctrine that they follow.  That is the root of the problem.

Islam is the common denominator; the root of the problem.  Yet Obama remains in denial.  The Atlantic monthly takes several pages to attempt to explain the reasons for Obama’s denial HERE.  I will explain in one sentence.

Obama was raised Muslim, went to Muslim schools, his father and many close relatives were Muslim, he attended a church for 20 years that favored Islam over Christianity and consequently his entire world view is formed by and based on his Muslim experience.

From Qur’an 3:185 aka “taqiyya”

Deception and defense of the faith are key aspects of Islam.  That is why Obama’s incessant and illogical denial that Islam has anything to do with rampant Islamic terror in the world is his mantra.

Many of us knew these traits of Obama a few years ago.  The more difficult question for me, today, after two elections and dozens of gaffs and missteps, is why do 50% of the electorate still  approve the job Obama is doing? (Both Gallup and Rasmussen as of February 17, 2015) 

Here is what I believe is the root of this problem:  Corrupted human nature.

Here is an example:

Assume two equally competent politicians (I know, I know – that’s a stretch, but bear with me for this example).  One is particularly skilled in schmoozing – he is full of charisma, but has a tendency to shade the facts to tell people what they would like to hear.  The other is particularly skilled at getting, understanding and explaining the facts and likely solutions, but is weak in the charisma department – but insists on telling of things the way they are.  Who will be the more successful politician?  “Cool” wins over “competence.”

That is what we have today and have had since humans roamed the earth.   The Obama/Romney race gave us a front row seat to that dichotomy.

This raises another, more fundamental question in my mind:  How did the human race survive as long as it has given our tendencies toward avoiding facts and truth and preferring lies and excuses?  The only thing that comes to mind is that the balancing forces of hormones, sex, and reproduction maintain our existence despite our predisposition to be liars and deceivers. 

That is a major reason why the Muslim birth rate has to be as high as it is.

There you have it – the root of the problem.