Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Dismal State of our National Security

Within a six month period in 2009 we've had the Fort Hood shooting by a devout Muslim, the Nation of Islam-affiliated cop massacre near Seattle, and the "angelic" Muslim from Nigeria in a miraculous failure to blow up a Detroit-bound plane.

These terrorist attacks all have one thing in common.  Our failure of acknowledging the root cause of the terrorist threat.  No, the root cause is not "poverty" or "the haves vs. the have nots" or "racial discrimination" or "religious discrimination."  It is not the "evil US suppression" of other peoples or nations, although this is a popular "blame-America-first" belief.

The root cause is our failure to understand the basic historical teaching and goals of Islam, and the motivation of those who become devout in its practice.

Instead we have leaders who believe Islam must be respected and dealt with benevolently.  We have sympathizers who continue to insist that Islam is a "religion of peace."    We have national security leaders who confusedly profess that "the system worked really, really smoothly."  We have a President who rewards Islamic nations while snubbing our allies - who has the Islamic threat totally off his radar of national concerns.  Heck, he doesn't even recognize any "terror threat" as a high priority, never mind admitting that 99% is Islamic motivated.

We have been "reactive" and not "proactive."  We are being severely manipulated by our failure to acknowledge the root problem.  After 9-11, we had cockpit doors fortified and searches of passengers for box cutters.  After the shoe bomber, we all have to remove our shoes in the security line-up.  After the European plot to carry small vials of liquid explosives onto planes, no one can bring perfume, aftershave, or liquid medications in our carry-ons.  Literally tons of these were confiscated at the gates.  As a result of the underwear bomber, we will either have full body scans revealing every mole or be subject to pat downs up to our crotch.  When the devout Islamist conceal their explosive of choice in their body cavities, we may be induced to accept body cavity searches as well.

Don't you think we are missing something here?  Instead of punishing Americans who love our freedoms, why don't we focus on those whose ideology promotes the terror?  Instead of reducing the freedoms of those who respect freedom, why not reduce the freedoms of those who want to destroy our freedom?  Is this approach too logical?  Yes, it involves profiling.  Before the Islamic cancer spreads further, every individual who claims Islam as their faith, and every individual from an Islamic-dominated nation must receive special attention.  This special attention must be carried out at the airport gates as well as in our selection of individuals for sensitive positions in our government and defense organizations and industries.  This is the least we should do.  Others may soon be calling for the deportation of all who profess a devout belief in Islam, or worse, especially if we experience another successful attack of 9-11 proportions or worse.  We need to stop our demeaning harassment of the innocent majority out of our insane desire to not offend those who profess their offense toward us.

We know our President is not with us when he declares in his book "Audacity of Hope" that he promises to “stand with them [Muslim immigrants] if the political winds became ugly.”   I take that to mean that he will defend Islam and Muslims in this nation no matter how severe the political backlash might be as a result of future Muslim atrocities.  Stunning.

Daniel Pipes, in this pointed article about our security failures, asked "What size disaster must occur to inspire a serious approach to counterterrorism?"

I would add "What size disaster must occur and how much of our culture and freedom must we sacrifice to inspire a serious approach to Islam?"

Friday, December 25, 2009

Big Tent-itis

Both the Democrats and Republicans suffer from “bigtentitis":  The political philosophy that every group and movement is worthy of being embraced by the “party.”  But like bowels, not everything that comes out is worth embracing.  The idea of a “big tent” has reached the same culturally destructive extremes as “cultural diversity” and “moral relativism.”

Ironically, Democrats are now being criticized for NOT have bigtentitis.  They are accused of not being more “moderate” by some within their ranks as noted here.

NEWS FLASH:  Not having a “big tent” is not their problem.  Hyper-inclusivity is.  The hyper-inclusivity is their embrace of every radical thought that has flowed out of the bowels of leftists and progressives for the past 50 years.

Bigtentitis is a particular bane of Republicans at the moment.  This was exhibited with the party’s nomination of moderate to left-leaning McCain.  Most of his platform was barely distinguishable from Obama’s.  Republicans lost because of his mundane rhetorical skills compared to Obama – as well as his failure to communicate a convincing grasp of the essence of our economic problems at the time.

The Republican’s tent was too big.  Its focus was not sufficiently distinguishable from that of the Dems.  Bigtentitis continues to plague the party.  Their hyper-inclusivity may become the reason for a strong showing by an independent in 2012.

If nothing else good comes out of the Obama administration, it may be a the kick in the butt that wakes the nation up to tent poles that are most important:  Less government, lower taxes, emphasis on personal responsibility and initiative, and a strong national defense.  Whoever believes in those principles admit themselves into the tent.  The tent needs to be no larger than that.  Republicans need to get out of the Dems business of being all things to all people with the government doing all things for all people.

The folks who want to make our nation something it was never intended to be can erect their own tent and have it as big or as small as they want – inclusive of all the animalistic tendencies they feel compelled to embrace.

Monday, December 21, 2009

1939 Movie: Parallels with Muslims in America

Watch this movie.  So many parallels - and some unfortunate differences.  Here are some of them:

  • Substitute the word Muslim for Nazi: their methodologies are uncannily similar
  • Substitute the word Religious for Racial:  The Nazi's supremacist pride was race; Islam's supremacist pride is religion
  • Substitute Muslim loyalty to Islam over loyalty toward America for German-American loyalty to the Furher over loyalty to America

The film depicted most German-Americans being ashamed of their German cohort Nazi's.  I'm not so sure that most American Muslims are similarly ashamed of their Islamic cohorts.

I cannot imagine a current prosecutor of Muslim spies or terrorists in this nation being as impassioned toward America as the 1939 prosecutor of Nazi spies was.  Our government officials and legal system do not have the passion for this country that existed 60 years ago.  And most have not yet acknowledge there are Muslim spies or terrorists in this country. 

The President is complicit.

Thursday, December 17, 2009

Government will go bankrupt! I’ll guarantee it!

Charlie Gibson with the President discussing health care.Gibson Obama

On the proposed health care bill, the President said: 

“If we don't pass it, here's the guarantee….your premiums will go up, your employers are going to load up more costs on you…potentially they're going to drop your coverage, because they just can't afford an increase of 25 percent, 30 percent in terms of the costs of providing health care to employees each and every year.

“Medicare and Medicaid are on an unsustainable trajectory and if there is no action taken to bring them down, the federal government will go bankrupt.”

Mr. President.  If you DO pass it, here’s the guarantee.  The cost of medical treatment will go up for most of us, the quality of medical treatment will go down for most of us, government will become responsible for more of our lives, we will all be on an unsustainable path of expecting government to do more than it is capable of doing for us, and the federal government will go bankrupt.

On the President’s sales pitch, I say:

Mr. President.  Instead of all the lies and hyperbole about none of us losing existing coverage and promising more people will be covered for less money, why don’t you just tell the truth?  Costs are increasing and if we want the same level of coverage we have now, we’ll have to pay for it.  But haven’t we all known that for the past several decades?  Hey, the price of a gallon of gas was 23 cents in 1955 and is now $2.80.

So, what’s missing from your sales pitch?  Oh, you want the government to pay for the coverage for the 30 million who are now without coverage?  OK.  And that keeps the government from going broke – how?  Do you seriously believe that the government will ever adequately fund that new responsibility?  Every four years there will be a new tax payer revolt that will gut the program of funds.  That is what has happened to Medicare.  Our representatives don’t even have the fortitude to adequately fund that program.  And instead, you use the pending bankruptcy of that program – and of our nation – as a scare tactic to promote even more government intrusion and irresponsibility.  

News flash!  If the government insists on spending more than the taxpayers want to pay, the government will eventually go bankrupt.  To be a responsible president, wouldn't it be better to promote the idea of paying for services we receive?  The majority of us are concerned with our unsustainable debt right now.  Try really hard not to use illogical arguments to get us to spend more money than we have. 

If you want the “have nots” to have health coverage, donate to a church or mosque*, or hospital  or other non-profit organization that provides assistance.  Don’t force our government to do things it was never intended to do and that which will further erode the motivation for individual initiative.


*More likely than not, donating to a mosque will contribute to terror networks, equipping people to blow themselves up.  While this is certain to reduce the health care costs for some (those who blow themselves up), there are others who will need costly medical assistance.  Consequently, the health care “cost/benefit” ratio does not warrant contributions to this entity.  For this reason and despite the President’s predisposition to do so, I would advise him not to donate to mosques but instead to donate to entities where his health care dollars are likely to go further.

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Avatar – the evil capitalists

I may be reading too much into the trailers, but Avatar strikes me as another “hate America first” Hollywood script.

The plot:  A team of humans (I presume Americans) is sent to planet Pandora to mine an ultra rare mineral.  Unfortunately, the Na’vi happen to occupy the very spot of the planned mining operation.  The Na’vi have to be relocated, a la residents of “community redevelopment projects” in our urban areas.  The key member of the human team, who happens to be a paraplegic Marine, switches sympathies and sides with the Na’vi.

Despite the fact that the mineral might be very useful, maybe even essential, for mankind back home, and relocating the Na’vi may not be the worst thing in the world, humans are portrayed as the evil greedy villain, upsetting the indigenous apple cart (think American Indian). 

This theme latches on to the eco-Nazis “humans-are-destroying-the-planet” mantra, and is as anti-progress as any humans-are-causing-global-warming deception.  The movie merely joins this pandemic of self-loathing that hopefully runs its course within the next few decades, ideally before the retrograde philosophy returns the US to a third world entity, or returns humans to a Na’vi, stone-age existence.

I would give the movie an ”A” for throwing in all the right sympathies and guilts and button pushing emotional triggers to further its aim of infusing politically correct, anti-progress and anti-capitalism/free enterprise themes.  No wonder the main-scheme Hollywood reviewers love it so much.

Unfortunately, I was not reading too much into the trailers.  Apparently this movie is as America, capitalist, and human hating as I interpreted from the trailers.  There are a number of reviews that agree with my unhappy assessment.  Here is one.

Monday, December 07, 2009

Today’s notable events bode ill for our culture…

Today is the 68th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 where the death toll was 2,390, mostly military personnel.  To put this attack in perspective, the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, the death toll was 2,752, mostly civilians.  Eight years later, we are still tiptoeing around the Islamic ideology that conceived, carried out, and applauded that attack.  How different our reaction was to Pearl Harbor.  Much more decisive, wouldn’t you say?

In Copenhagen today we have the global warming conference.  The world’s biggest danger was declared to be carbon monoxide.  It is likely that our world’s power structure will adopt global policies that will control the cars we buy, how much we drive, how much excrement our livestock produce, how much meat we’re allowed to eat, how often we can BBQ, and how deeply we exhale.   Our gullible media and Obama and his control freak administration is eating it up.

National news media reports an “American” as one of the terrorists in the attack on Mumbai, India, last year.  He was labeled “a Chicago man.”  Not once in the two separate reports I viewed (FOX and ABC) was it mentioned that this Muslim terrorist was a Muslim.   The insanity still insists we identify evil with America, and deny the evil of Islam.  Very odd.   We still hear the generals and media and Congress puzzling over the reasons for Islamic aggression and terror.

Sunday, December 06, 2009

A perfect example of “hypocrisy” – Islam style

The Prime Minister of “moderate” Islamic Turkey said this recently of Islam:

“The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets, and the faithful our soldiers...this holy army guards my religion."

In essence, Minarets are the stamp of Islamic domination in an area, a symbol of local conquest in keeping with their supremacist ideology.

Meanwhile, Switzerland has legitimate concern with the proliferation of Islamic Minarets in their nation, with their Jihadi connotation. So much so that a referendum to ban construction of new Minarets throughout the country passed by a wide margin.

The predictable response from scholars in Saudi Arabia, a nation that absolutely forbids the construction of any Church or Synagogue, lambasted the referendum:

“This is another evidence of the West’s antagonism towards Islam. This is a clear evidence of the racial and religious segregation still prevails in the West, especially in a country, which boasts of an exemplary model of democratic ideals."

The audacity of fascist Muslims throwing out the phrase “democratic ideals.” This scenario is as worthy of the word “hypocrisy” as any I have observed. Of course, Muslims don’t see this as hypocrisy because they claim to possess the “one true religion” and it is their way or the highway to dhimmitude for those who disagree.

Friday, December 04, 2009

We met another one tonight…

We were at a party tonight when the topic of Obama came up.  When my wife opined to the couple across the table that she believed Obama was a Muslim, she thought the man was going to lunge across the table and hit her.  In a less than soft voice he said he was very angry, and jettisoned himself away from the table before another word was said.  Muslim apologists and Obama defenders (same thing) are pretty sensitive – I think intolerant is the word – of other peoples opinions.  Of course it didn’t help when I laughed at his loss of control.

You would think this man was a Muslim in Syria offended by Mohammad cartoons the way he reacted.  If this man was a military psychologist, he would be suspected of “snapping” and becoming a Jihadi.

The fact is, millions of Americans increasingly believe that Hussein Obama is a closet Muslim at worst, and an Islamic promoter at best.   Take a look at this video if you haven’t done so yet.

Just wait till we learn of Obama’s proposed alliance with Afghanistan’s neighbors to the west, Islamic Iran or Turkey, to “assist us” in subduing al Qaeda.  He will do anything to avoid facing the real agenda of Islam.

Folks like this couple this evening who believe Islam (the fascist ideology it really is) is just like any other religion, who adore anyone who defends and promotes that ideology, and who suggests Christianity is just as bad will one day discover how utterly clueless they really were.  We could have lit up that party if we tweaked this couple by pointing out their ignorantly amoral attitude after they proclaimed that Catholics are as bad as Muslims.  "Moral equivalence" anyone?  We probably would have had to reimburse the recreation center for their destruction of property.

Thursday, December 03, 2009

New web site for the Newbie concerned about Islam

Many excellent web sites discuss Islam. But unfortunately, for those people just now starting to pay attention to this concern, perusing these sites is like coming into the middle of a movie. It's difficult to know who's doing what to whom.

There is a new site called Islamic Threat Simplified. It is the starting place for facts on Islam without the spin of political correctness. There is a wealth of information, dozens of links to Islamic experts and an excellent glossary of terms.

Check it out. Share it with friends who are just now getting concerned.

Wednesday, December 02, 2009

Separation of Science and State

I thought of two “unfortunatelies” this morning.  One “unfortunately” is our success in separating Church and State, the result of which is the isolation of western moral values from government and public institutions.

The other “unfortunately” is our failure to separate Science and State.  It is becoming more and more certain that political agendas have manipulated science to the point of becoming worse than a religion.  The “Global Warming science” is showing itself to be an outright lie and deception.  At least religion is understood for what it is - belief based on “faith”:  Trust in things not seen.  However, science sets itself out to be based on observable evidence – things seen.  And it appears that, for political purposes, this “observable evidence” has been perverted for political purposes. 

I would much rather have Church and State than Science and State.  At least we known what we’ve got with religion.  And contributions are voluntary.

Read more here from Lord Monkton.

Tuesday, December 01, 2009

Changing 1,000 years of tribal history in 2 years - say what?

President Obama finally announced his decision on Afghanistan over three months after his appointed general provided his recommendation: Send in three quarters of the number of troops requested, stabilze the country by making buddies, then vacate the country within 18 months.

I have a number of problems with not just the President's response and how he handled it, but with the whole US approach in Afghanistan and to Islamists generally.

First, the Fort Hood incident is a clue that generals, including General McChrystal, don't have an accurate appreciation of Islam's deep devotion to its worldwide mission. The generals can't even disceern the Islamic enemies pandered to within their own ranks.

Second, the President proposes to stabilize Afghanistan within 18 months? Yeah, that'll happen. We had indiginous tribes in this nation and it took many decades of sustained military/Indian conflict for the military to prevail. And we lived here, too. And do our own native Americans look on our act of conversion of their "old ways" with glee and thanksgiving? Hardly. Thanksgiving is what we celebrate, not the folks who's culture was sunamied. And I'm not at all convinced that the native American ever harbored as much deep seated, religion-based, rabid hatred toward us as the middle east Islamists do.

Obama is either deceived or the deceiver. He will be wasting lives over the next year and a half for what? A stable, democratic Afghanistan? Maybe gaining stability during our presence there. He's failing to highlight one major factor: Islamic democracy equals "one vote; one time." Then Sharia law. That's what we will have fought for. Their right to vote in Islamic law. Two years for the west to sustainably change 1,000 plus years of tribal Islamic governance - you have got to be kidding. The hatred of the west and the Jihadi mentality will still remain. Just wait to see what happens in Iraq over the next year or two when we have only a few thousand troops remaining.

Our only purpose in Afghanistan, along with our allies who share our concerns, should be to monitor, through covert means, terror plots and characters that pose a threat. Period. At the same time, we need to get a clue about subversive Islamic supremacist activities in our own nation, within our own leadership, and within our own military and take appropropriate measures to identify and eliminate them.

Waste, waste, waste.

"But what about Pakistan?" some may protest. "If we abandon Afghanistan, the Islamists will take over Pakistan and its nukes. " If we are in Afgahnistan to keep Pakistan from going "Islam," what sense does that make? It already is. If we are in Afghanistan to keep the "radicals" from overpowering the Pakistani government, that can be done better with direct assistance to Pakistan. Rather than wasting hundreds of billions on the rat hole in Afghanistan each year, wouldn't it be better to focus a portion of those billions on the root concern in Pakistan - toward whatever measures that will bolster their resistance to radical elements? Fortunately, so far, it appears that most of the Pakistani leadership has not yet caught the "true Islam" bug that is spawning across the globe. But it is just a matter of time before they do.

Saturday, November 28, 2009

Nature Abhors a Vacuum: Islam is Filling It

For those who realize Islam is the world’s fastest growing religion, have you wondered why, aside from their rapid population growth?

The United States and western Europe are prime examples of the decline in faithfulness toward Christianity.  Christian fervor is receding.  Islamic fervor is flourishing.

We don't feel our values, our religion (if any), our culture and form of government are worth defending.  The fact is, the decline of a dynamic Christian faith in this nation and much of the west has left a vacuum.  Nature abhors it – Islam is filling it.

We have become so critical of ourselves, who we are, where we came from, how we got here, that anything else - anything else – is seen as better.

The Obama administration is a prime example of this self-loathing and self-flagellation in action – his apology tours, and all his leftist cohorts who are ashamed of our history and our culture – just like his wife.

As many of the comments in the above link reveal, the decline of Christian faith in the west is being met with shouts of “good riddance. Now we won’t be encumbered by superstition and constrained by “Biblical morality.” 

That is why we were willing to embrace "hope and change" without even caring where the "change" would lead us to.  We are so desperate for something different that, when facing the challenge of a completely foreign and contrary ideology, our attitude might as well be - "Whatever."  We care that much.

It will be very interesting and tragic over the next couple of decades as we observe the Islamic ideology sweep in and fill the vacuum.  The advocates of amorality won’t know what hit them.  Don't it always seem to go; that you don't know what you've got till it's gone?

Terror & Intimidation - Parallels with the “Stockholm Syndrome"

The Stockholm Syndrome: This can explain a lot of odd and counterproductive behavior created by the terror and intimidation of Islam in many parts of the world. From afar we might wonder why people don't respond more forcibly to the aggression of Islamic terrorism. We often wonder about Israel's reaction. Of all countries, we would expect Israel to react with firm and incessant resolve whenever they are threatened or attacked by the Islamic world around them. After all, six million Jews were slaughtered only 60 years ago. Several neighboring nations vow to wipe Israel off the map. Many of Israel's leaders are aware of Islam's hatred of Jews and their vow to eradicate them. Yet Israel is plagued by many of her leaders who are conciliatory, appeasing liberals, rather than the firm and resolute conservatives we would intuitively expect given the facts. Can the Stockholm Syndrome be an explanation for this?

Israel is surrounded in a manner suggestive of "captors". Israel is "Patty Hurst." The surrounding Islamic nations are "The Symbianese Liberation Army," analogically speaking. Being in the position they are in, Israel, viscerally, feels helpless and beholden. They truly are of split mind, on one hand feeling a desperate need to defend themselves, but on the other hand grateful for every reprieve from warfare or perception of annihilation they can get. So grateful that many grasp at irrational straws of conciliation and illusions of peace from illusionary treaties. The captives grow more beholden as the captive become more emboldened. The book, “The Oslo Syndrome” written in 2005 documents this very relationship.

The same principles of human behavior are at work in Western European countries whose populations near Islamic majorities. As the Muslim numbers increase, so does Muslim intolerance and intimidation. With both their dwindling percentages and the Muslim intimidation, the "natives" in those western nations reach a point where rather than face the perceived inevitable end to their culture, they reach out in a desperate, perverted "friendship" with those who are quickly overtaking their centuries old culture, religion, and political system. This, too, is where the Stockholm Syndrome is playing out.

Even in the United States, it would be no surprise to learn that some of our leaders who "buddy up" and defend Islamic leaders are doing so out of fear of what they see as "the inevitable." They see the coming Islamic wave being so over powering and so certain that they feel it is better to befriend than declare hostilities. They feel it is better or easier to compromise their own values and culture to accommodate a diametrically opposed ideology than it is to challenge it. So they accommodate it.

So while some of our accommodation of the hostile supremacist Islamic ideology is due to our ignorance of its nature, some is also due to fear. The Stockholm Syndrome provides an easier way out rather than facing up to the challenge.

The other component of our failure to face the Islamic challenge, one that is not even on the radar for many of us, is this: We don't feel our values, our religion (if any), our culture and form of government are worth defending. The fact is, the decline of a dynamic Christian faith in this nation and much of the west has left a vacuum. Nature abhors it – Islam is filling it.

We have become so critical of ourselves, who we are, where we came from, how we got here, that anything else - anything else - appears that it might be better.

That is why we were willing to embrace "hope and change" without even caring what the "change" would lead us to. We are so desperate for something different that our attitude when facing the challenge of a completely foreign and contrary ideology might as well be - "Whatever." We care that much.

Thursday, November 26, 2009

A “Politically Correct” Thanksgiving…

A “politically correct” Thanksgiving would be a depressing experience.  I can imagine a gaggle of left leaning, America-hating socialist-progressives gathered around the Thanksgiving dinner table with a cold tofu turkey in their midst (to save energy and pacify PITA).

What can you imagine they would be expressing thanks about?  Certainly not for the foreign invaders from Europe who displaced indigenous native Americans to practice and spread their superstitious religion – the misguided “Pilgrims.”

It couldn’t possibly be for the hard work and dedication of our great grandparents as they destroyed the environment building factories, railroads, and highways to bring consumptive greed to their fellow invaders.

And I doubt it would be for the sacrifice of millions of our soldiers who over the decades fought and killed innocents around the world for what?  To further US imperialist interests to satisfy the money and power lust of big business?

And above all, I can’t imagine they would give thanks for our culture of liberty, tolerance, and personal initiative because actually, all cultures are the same – there are none better than any other.  All cultures and ideologies are worthy of respect and must be embraced.

I can imagine who the folks are that are gathered around this table:

  • President and Ms. Obama
  • Nancy Pelosi, John Dean, Al Gore, John Edwards and dozens from Congress
  • Many  in our media, especially the likes of Keith Olbermann, Maureen Dowd, Bill Moyers, Chris Matthews, Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, Rachel Maddow, Jon Stewart, Arianna Huffington and all their cohorts
  • Leaders of the Council on Arabic and Islamic Relations (CAIR) and other Islamic apologists who really hate most things about our culture except the freedom to spread their intolerant, fascist ideology.

Happy Thanksgiving, all you ungrateful b---tards.

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

"Amorality" is the new "Moral"

After thinking some more about my previous blog posting, I am reminded that there is no such thing as "amorality." Everyone has moral standards of one of sort or another. My attorney friend merely had a different and somewhat vague set of moral standards, but she still had them.

Hitler had his set of standards, as do radical Muslims and child molesters.

So, it is not a matter of morality or no morality, but "whose" morality. Which version of morality fulfills our needs the best? The "our needs" definition is part of the problem. Is morality to serve our own individual "selfish" needs? Our family's needs? Our community's needs? Our nation's needs? Or the world's needs. Obama's morality seems to be focused on fulfilling the world's needs. The child molester's morality is based on fulfilling his own needs. Biblical morality is based on fulfilling a definition of God's desires as understood through the prophets. Increasing numbers of us today seem to consider this standard a fiction.

The truth is, the Biblical standard of morality really does promote interpersonal and intergroup harmony, personal responsibility, respect, and tolerance - qualities that are lacking in the major competing ideologies of Islamicism and Communism.

Ironically, we have to be discerning (informed version of "judgemental") and resolute (civil version of intolerant) in order to maintain our collective moral values.

Who's morality shall we choose? Is our version worth fighthing for, or shall we let the new "morality" become the the standard by default?

Monday, November 23, 2009

“Linear thinking” used as a slur…

Early in my career, a lawyer and I were driving to a hearing together and had time for some idle chatter.  Not far into the conversation I had the distinct impression I was on the psychoanalyst’s couch.  Critical of my Christian beliefs, she diagnosed me as being a “linear thinker.”  Of course I had no idea what that phrase meant at the time.  She proceeded to evaluate my mental processes as being excessively “black and white.”  In any event, the context of the conversation revealed that she determined my mode of thinking to be defective – a handicap.

It wasn’t until I looked up the term 30 years later that I realized the term “linear thinking” she used was not the term she intended.

Linear thinking is…

a process of thought following known cycles or step-by-step progression where a response to a step must be elicited before another step is taken.

That sounds like a definition of “analysis.”  Ahaa.  She was telling me I was “anal” before the word “anal” came into common usage. 

Seriously, if I knew the definition at that time, I would have taken it as a complement.  But a complement, it was not.  What she meant was that my thinking did not allow for a million shades of gray as any “normally and productively functioning person should think.” 

What I learned during that conversation was she hated religion and the concepts of faith and moral absolutes.  Isn’t that just like an attorney.  To her there were no moral absolutes.  She didn’t grasp the concept of embracing clear principles and values that enable discernment.  She likely considered such “discernment” to be “judgmental”, which of course one should never be.  Wink wink.  She questioned what my “principles” and “values” were based on.  Of course, being naive and not a good debater, I responded “the Bible”.   The trap was sprung.  At which point she chuckled and proceeded to give me a litany of Old Testament scripture – a standard misdirect anyone who loathes Christianity or Judaism will do.  She rattled off several misquoted, out of context, and misinterpreted sections of the Old Testament that discuss mass slaughter.  “Is this what shapes your values?” she quizzed.  Our 10 mile trip was a thousand miles short of a defense on my part.

One interesting twist is that an alternative to “lineal thinking” is “conceptual thinking.”  I would guess, reviewing my blogs over the past four years, I am both.

Unfortunately, the great majority in Congress are attorneys, that breed of human stricken with the same deficiency in “principles” and “values” as my attorney “friend.”  They have little sense of right and wrong, and insist on a million shades of gray to the point where right and wrong do not exist.  That is a definition of “amoral.”  Is it any wonder they are taking us down a dark path and don’t care about the future?

Sunday, November 22, 2009

“Deleveraging”? Does it mean giving up our lifestyle?

Adapted from Investor, “deleveraging” is:

The pay down of debt, whether public or private. Individuals, companies or nations use leveraging (i.e. borrowing) to accelerate their consumption, growth or return.

But when an entity is concerned about defaulting on its obligations, about to be forced into bankruptcy, or concerned about rampant losses, it can use deleveraging to lower its risk of default and mitigate its losses. By deleveraging its balance sheet, a company sells off debt to lower its overall risk profile. Deleveraging can have serious financial consequences when a company, individual or nation tries to dispose of assets that are illiquid.

In this case, deleveraging may mean selling assets at relatively steep discounts. When an individual does this, he sells his widescreen TV he paid $2,000 for last year for $500 and whatever else he can unload for 5 cents on the dollar at a garage sale. As a result, deleveraging may lead to downward pressure on security and asset prices as more and more companies, individuals, or nations tighten their belts during the deleveraging process.

What happens when a nation deleverages because of rampant debt that no other nation wants to hold anymore?

One investment company in Europe tells clients how to prepare for potential 'global collapse'. Here’s another description of what US deleveraging might involve.

The preferred method of national deleveraging is inflation of the currency. For example, in the next five years, the United States might need to make the dollar worth 50 cents. A $2.29 half gallon of milk will cost close to $5.00. Inflating the currency to achieve deleveraging requires incomes to remain the same as they are today while prices of everything increase substantially.

Will our lifestyles be affected? Absolutely. Is that necessarily a bad thing? No. Such action would bring us back to a sustainable level of consumption – a place we strayed from several decades ago.

Is this what will happen? Probably not. We are so clever that we will figure out a way to prolong our over-consumption until the only recourse is a total collapse of our economy. That will most certainly affect our lifestyle, with unpredictable and extremely unpleasant consequences.

Friday, November 20, 2009

Deeming the investigators “ignorant”

Unbelievable and frightening.  No.  Not the Jihadists.  The ignorance of our FBI and other intelligence officials.

Remember the emails Hasan wrote to radical al-Qaeda cleric Anwar al Awlaki that the FBI intercepted, but “deemed innocent.”  Do you wonder what the emails said?

From ABC News:

United States Army Major Nidal Hasan told a radical cleric considered by authorities to be an al-Qaeda recruiter, "I can't wait to join you" in the afterlife, according to an American official with top secret access to 18 e-mails exchanged between Hasan and the cleric, Anwar al Awlaki, over a six month period between Dec. 2008 and June 2009.

"Hasan told Awlaki he couldn't wait to join him in the discussions they would having over non-alcoholic wine in the afterlife," the official said.

One military analyst, Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, a military analyst at the Center for Advanced Defense Studies, said…

"It sounds like code words.  That he's actually either offering himself up or that he's already crossed that line in his own mind."

Code words, indeed.  These were the words of a clearly devout Muslim whose light bulb of “sudden Jihad” just clicked on.  Are these ignorant fools (FBI and senior military) so out of touch with religion, generally, and Islam specifically, that they are blind to a devout radical when one is staring them in the face?

Our intelligence agencies and military officers need to spend much LESS time on training in political correctness and cultural diversity, and much MORE time on training in Islamic doctrine and signs of becoming “devout.”   It is true that in Islam “devout” is synonomous with “radical.”  The ones who become “devout” seem to be the very ones who seem to come down with the so-called “sudden Jihad syndrome.”

On a related note, Evan Kohlmann, a senior investigator for the New York-based NEFA Foundation, which researches Islamic militants, had this to say:

"The point is you don't have to be an official part of Al Qaeda to spread hatred and sectarian views.  If you look at the most influential documents in terms of homegrown terrorism cases, it's not training manuals on building bombs. The most influential documents are the ones that are written by theological advisers, some of whom are not even official Al Qaeda members."

Increasing the devoutness of Muslims in this country toward true Islam motivates them to find their own “best weapon” to demonstrate their faithfulness to Allah. 

They don’t use just “bombs”, you morons.  C’mon, FBI, get a clue!  You need to understand the motivation – the teachings of Islam – and not focus on the weapon of the moment.

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Why is a “liberal” liberal”; Why is a “conservative” conservative?

I was having a discussion with some liberal and conservative friends this evening and posed the question:  What in our backgrounds, do you suppose, caused you to become liberal and caused me to become conservative?  Of course we could have each told the other that they grew up as a clueless idiot.  But we were polite.

In fact, liberals and conservatives are pretty much polar opposites of one another in our world/life view of most things that matter.

Liberals are suspicious of business/free enterprise; conservatives believe business/free enterprise is our nations best hope and creates the motivation that made our nation great.

Liberals favor more government programs and government spending which require bigger/more government; conservative are suspicious of big government and want it smaller with less taxes.

Liberals believe people need to rely on government and are often incapable of solving problems on their own; conservative feel that problems are best solved by individuals without government intervention.

Liberals tend to be for open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens; conservatives favor secure borders and enforcement of immigration laws.

Liberals tend to be amoral, live and let live, less spiritual/religious; conservatives tend to be more concerned about morality and tend to be more spiritual/religious.

This list could go on for several more feet.  Needless to say – we are very different from one another.

Why?  What caused us to be so different?

Certainly it couldn’t all be because of the way we were raised, could it?  We are all capable of independent thinking after we leave home.  Are the childhood biases we acquired so firmly implanted that we can’t escape them?

How much does our later education, college or otherwise, influence our basic world-view mindset?  Does one side or the other have better critical thinking skills?  Does it depend on what our career is – the special interests that we feel compelled to defend or promote because our livelihood depends on a given world view? 

Is it some significant life experience that turned us on or off to one set of views or another?  Were we influenced by who we associated with and respected the most?

In all likelihood it is a combination of all these factors that resulted in certain character traits that cause us to tend toward conservative or liberal.

My set of conclusions, given my world/life view are that the character traits each group develops are different in the following ways:

  • Conservatives are more engaged in learning the issues while liberals are superficially engaged and follow populist fads like global warming
  • Conservatives have better analytical skills and rely on facts while liberals are more gullible and follow whatever is popular sans facts.
  • Conservatives are more open minded and receptive to objective information; while liberals base their preferences on emotion.
  • Conservatives have a more independent spirit, tend to be more self-sufficient problem solvers  while liberals tend to be whiners and dependent on others and expect others to be the same.

So, do you think my analysis is spot on?

Other than that, we’re all the same.

LiveJournal Tags: ,

Thursday, November 12, 2009

Obama’s Affinity for Islam…

Here is a video worthy of going viral on the net.  Obama’s comments bring to me the strongest feeling of being a foreigner in my own land.  He is our nation’s Trojan Horse who has entered our gates at the invitation of our ill-informed and gullible electorate.

His statements on this video about the glories of Islam deserve refutation:  He glorifies Islam beyond all common understanding of history.  He elevates the Islamic culture above all that America is based upon.

The video compresses every pro-Islamic statement Obama has publicly uttered over the past two years – statements when heard in isolation were uneasily dismissed as a random gaff or reminiscence of his childhood.  Most of us wishfully thought that such statements couldn’t possibly really represent the thoughts of OUR president.  To many, it clearly answers the questions about why a decision about Afghanistan is taking so long; why he panders to Islamic nations and shows disdain for Israel; why he eliminates the missile shield from one of our best European allies; why he supports Gaza, Palestine and Hamas over Israel, why he refuses to acknowledge that Fort Hood was attacked by a Muslim Jihadist to further Islamic supremacist goals.  It explains why in his book Audacity of Hope he promises to “stand with them [Muslim immigrants] if the political winds became ugly.”

What will it take for America to wake up?

The left hates Christianity – finds it hard to prefer Christianity over Islam

First, listen to what Pat Robertson has to say about Islam…

He has been getting a lot of heat for saying what Islam really is, truths shared by many Islamic scholars – shared by many Muslims, including the Fort Hood Jihadist, Hasan, facts ignored or denied by the left and most media. Even Bill O’Reilly did a little ridiculing last night, not quite fully understanding what Islam really is.

Now listen to this next video…skip over to 1:42 and listen to the tirade by this ignorant human on The Young Turks web site. Cenk Uygur repeats the many slanderous half-truths liberals believe about Christianity to deflect Robertson’s critique of Islam.

I have never heard so many ignorant comparisons between Islam and Christianity in my life. He is a pro at twisted logic and twisted facts. He is apparently one of those individuals I wrote about earlier who believes every political system, every human thought, every cultural practice is as good or as evil as another. He is certainly ignorant about both Christianity and Islam. Once again here is an individual disingenuously comparing Christianity to Islam, failing to realize that Muslims have instigated more atrocities in two months than Christians have in a millennium. We wonder who might be the next “moderate” Muslim to turn pious and acquire “sudden Jihad syndrome.” Sounds like Cenk might be on his way to catching this psychosis – he has many of the same symptoms exhibited by Hasan - although there is no evidence he is currently Muslim.

He is also ignorant of the fact the the most devout among Muslims preach the greatest violence – violent Jihad. He is oblivious to the fact that the most devout among Christians tend to be pacifists, or at least, abhor violence.

My guess is this miscreant secretes outrageous blather for attention while Robertson does his thing to try to be genuinely helpful.

Here is more about this Islamic apologist:

Cenk Uygur, Esq., J.D. (pronounced /ˈdʒɛŋk ˈjuːɡər/, jenk yew-gur) is a Turkish-American who is the main host of the liberal talk radio show The Young Turks. He was also the host of the internet interview show Meet The Bloggers throughout its run.

The show currently airs in a number of places, including the 8pm slot on XM Satellite Radio's America Left, channel 167. Aside from airing on the radio, TYT has also made several online partnerships with media groups such as AOL News, TidalTV, and YouTube. The show's YouTube channel gets an average of 3 million hits per month.[citation needed]

Uygur is also a regular blogger on The Huffington Post and an attorney. He grew up in East Brunswick Township, New Jersey, where he attended East Brunswick High School.[1] Cenk admits to being a Republican in his youth.[2] He first became a talk show host at a Washington, D.C. radio station on the weekends while working at Drinker, before eventually shifting to full-time radio work.

Cenk has appeared on television on numerous occasions, on MSNBC, CNN Headline News, E! Entertainment Channel, Al Jazeera, ABC News, Voice of America, NPR, and Fox News Channel.[4]

Oh, he was also a lead on the failed super-liberal “Air America” radio show and continues to be a proponent of the fun liberal game called “Hate America First.”

This twisted individual is part of the ignorance we face as a nation. How did it go at Al Jazeera, Cenk?

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Judging Islam

“Judge not lest ye be judged” is an expression we’ve grown up with that helps justify our political correctness and our penchant for cultural diversity.  That well-meaning expression is misunderstood and carried way too far in our society.  Too many interpret it to a mindless extreme:  Don’t judge between good and evil; right and wrong.  Don’t presume we are right and another person is wrong. Give every idea, utterance, and action of another the benefit of the doubt no matter how obscene, obscure, or objectionable it might be.

More accurately, the expression pertains to the fact that we are subject to the same standards by which we judge others.  Don’t judge unfairly; don’t judge out of ignorance.  Conversely, informed judgment is a good thing – as is “discernment”: the exercise of informed judgment.  Judgment is essential for us to be moral beings – to have a sense of right and wrong. 

Unfortunately, there are growing numbers of Americans who have become “moral relativists” who disdain or deny there is such a thing as right and wrong.  It is only someone’s “opinion.”  Any anti-social action is defended as someone’s freedom of expression.  Many of our political leaders, like General Casey who still blindly defends cultural diversity in the military over identifying the ideology of the Islamic terrorist who killed 13 soldiers, are moral relativists.

Cultural diversity is the handmaiden of moral relativism.  Our military, FBI, CIA, and many police departments practice moral relativism when they continue to give Islamists the benefit of the doubt despite their promotion of violence, bigotry, hatred, and Islamic supremacism.

Why is it OK for Islamists to demean, denounce, threaten, belittle, and bemeoan “the infidel”, but not ok for Jews and Christians to be critical of Islamist intolerance, supremacism and bigotry?  Is it our disdain of “judging” others?  Our affinity toward cultural diversity?  Or has it gone beyond that?

Have we transitioned from electing to be “culturally diverse” to being coerced into Dhimmitude?  It is appearing more and more that we are being intimidated into submission by the very ones to whom we granted the benefit of the doubt via our failure to judge.   This appears to be the case.  In the Fort Hood case, doctors and officers up and down the line are expressing that they failed to act on Hasan’s many obvious signs for fear of litigation by the Muslim community, fear of being called a bigot, or fear of disciplinary measures from their superior officers for violating their self-imposed rules of cultural diversity (aka “do not judge – do not think”).

There is no question that basic Islam as taught in the Qur’an, as written and practiced by Muhammad, as being promoted by the violent vocal minority of Muslims, teaches intolerance and Islamic Supremacism through any means up to and including violence and terror.  There is no doubt that Sharia law and Islam’s universal treatment of women is an anathema to our own culture and our own values.  Yet we give Muslims the benefit of the doubt.  Why?  Because we “assume” they are moderate and benign. And because we fear the consequences. 

Most Muslims appear to be patriotic, America-loving individuals.  No doubt many are.  The trouble with this assumption, as Hasan has demonstrated, is this:

  1. We don’t know for sure which ones are truly “moderate and benign” and
  2. We don’t know for sure when the “moderate and benign” kick over to the Jihadi phase of the devotion to Islam.

No, the same dilemma cannot be attributed to Christians and Jews and atheists.  These groups don’t have a tiny fraction of the track record in the past millennia that Islam has in the last decade.  Don’t even try that “moral equivalency” BS.

We need a major shift of thinking from the past several decades.  We need to become more judgmental, more discerning, less culturally diverse, more appreciative of our own culture, less tolerant of those in opposition to our culture.  This Veterans Day, we need to vow not to sacrifice our soldiers or our nation on the alter of cultural diversity.  General Casey; President Obama:  Get a Clue!

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Nationality does not equate with Doctrinal Beliefs

Some fuzzy thinking individuals caution that we must not make the same mistakes we did during WWII when Americans were united in feeling uneasy about Japanese after Pearl Harbor.  They had good reason to feel uneasy about the Japanese back then.

These same fuzzy headed thinkers urge that we should not rush to judgment about Muslims in the same way.  However we have even better reason to feel uneasy about Muslims today.

A more accurate analogy would be to compare Nazis to Muslims, not Japanese to Muslims.  Japanese refer to the people of Japan, a nationality comprised of people with a variety of beliefs.  We embraced people of Japanese origin in our military because being simply Japanese did not necessarily mean that they ascribed to the supremacist, violently aggressive doctrine of their government. 

On the other hand, Muslims, by definition, ascribe to a doctrine that has shown itself to be supremacist and violently aggressive and has these principles embedded in its doctrine.  Muslim is not a nation – it is a belief system.

At this point in time in our understanding of Muslims, the people, and Islam, the doctrine, we obviously do not have the capacity or inclination to discern the difference between peaceful Muslims and Jihadi Muslims – or when the peaceful will turn Jihadi.  Until we have a desire to learn the difference and means to discern the difference, it is foolhardy to have Muslims in our military in the same way it was foolhardy to have avowed Nazis in the military during WWII.

How blind can they be????????????

Here it is, Major Hasan’s PowerPoint presentation to a roomful of senior Army physicians about the threat of Muslims in the military.  In Slide 49 he concludes “Muslims may be seen as moderate (compromising) but God is not.”  His point:  Moderate Muslims are not faithful to God.  As an example he cites compromising “moderate” Muslims who say “I love the Koran and being a Muslim, but I don’t want to live under Islamic rule.”  True Muslims desire to live under Islamic rule. 

And his huge red flag, on slide 48: 

  • “If Muslim groups can convince Muslims that they are fighting for God against injustices of the “infidels”; ie: enemies of Islam [aka Christians and Jews] then Muslims can become a potent adversary ie: suicide bombing, etc.”
  • “We love death more then you love life!”

Throughout he quotes verses from the Qur’an that shout the superiority of Islam and the mandate to fight infidels until they are in a state of subjection.

If any non-Muslim wrote these things, he would be called an Islamophobic bigot.

A bit chilling, wouldn’t you say?

I have to give the US Military one thing.  Their diversity training or “cultural sensitivity” training or whatever they call it has been very effective.  Their cultural diversity training staff needs to be awarded a crescent moon medal for their fine work.  The officers who gave them direction should be court marshaled.  There could have been a guy standing naked in that room full of senior Army physicians telling them his culture has sex with animals and they would likely embrace and respect the concept because of their training.

On the other hand, Islam seems to have garnered some extra-special treatment among the political-correctness Nazis.   if a Jew or Christian expressed any supremacist notions relative to Muslims, all hell breaks out.  But when a Muslim expresses superiority toward an infidel (Jew or Christian), there may be a little inner discomfort and wriggling around in their chairs, but not a word.  Doctors (and politicians and media and too many Americans) are not stupid – just very effectively indoctrinated.

Actually, Hasan’s PowerPoint presentation is the very thing that the military needs to be showing to their leadership as part of their security training – but they probably won’t because they have their collective heads up their politically correct butts.

Monday, November 09, 2009

We are as dependant on Muslims as on Saudi oil…

I’m learning some of the reasons for our suicidal, “Muslims-are-pro-US” political correctness attitudes, especially as practiced by the Federal government, US military, and some police agencies.  And this goes a long way toward explaining why we ignored the warning signs about the Fort Hood attack.

Despite the fact their reasoning is based on wishful thinking, our civil and political servants are more concerned about not upsetting Muslims than they are about our national security and our individual safety.  Why is that?  Several reasons, all having to do with our desire for language interpreters, intelligence analysts and informants.  Apparently we rely on Muslims in the military, CIA, police departments and FBI to assist us with these matters in our two wars, as well as with domestic terror threats.  We do this being unaware that some unknown number of these folks place their Muslim beliefs ahead of US interests.  Their allegiance is with Muhammad and the Qur’an, not with their country.  And we certainly don’t want to offend them by suggesting that some of them may be working against us.  And based on their practice of Taqiya they will certainly not tell us.

Wake up, people.  Enough ignorance about Islam and its followers!  Are we incapable of producing our own interpreters, analysts, agents, and counselors we can trust without relying on those who are likely to be offended by the battles we fight?

For more information, there are two enlightening books available on this topic:  Muslim Mafia, and Infiltration, both by Paul Sperry.

Please learn about the deceit of Islam and our ignorant dependence on many who are likely traitors to our way of life. 

Saturday, November 07, 2009

If you were the commander of a military base, what would you now do differently?

This is a question **I HOPE** is being considered by many base commanders at this moment.  Recruitment of Muslims has proven to be a “double-edged sword” (NPI).  What needs to be done differently to avoid a repeat of the Fort Hood attack?

First, within the scope of authority I am granted, I would modify the “cultural sensitivity training” mandated by the military to include greater recognition of signs of odd behavior and political discontent as exceptions to the mandate that everyone is benign and must be respected as equals.

I would especially assure that officer and senior NCO training include “signs of discontent, disloyalty, erratic behavior, anti-war sentiment, moodiness, aloofness, etc.” and courses of counseling and potential discharge as the military solution to these problems.

While others besides Muslims are capable of psychotic behavior, I would recognize that Muslims are in fact taught what we consider to be “psychotic behavior” as part of their “religious” training.  With this in mind, I would assure that my key leaders were fully aware of the teachings and track record of Islam (or what is politically correctly called “radical Muslims”) in this nation.  I’m sure there are abundant FBI reports available that reveal the anti-American, anti-“infidel” (“people of the book”: Jews and Christians) teachings of Islam in most Mosques of America.

I would establish a program that assures that anyone with identified “issues” is assigned two or three other trusted individuals in their unit to “buddy-up” with, befriend, or otherwise make it their business to know what is going on in the disturbed persons personal life and mind – as part of a limited evaluation period.

So many signs were missed with Hasan.  Why?  Mostly due to excessive political correctness, excessive and wrong-headed cultural sensitivity training, and excessive ignorance about the nature and teaching of Islam in this country, all of which mis-programmed coworkers into ignoring the many clear warning signs that were displayed.

But I’m wondering how far up the military food chain these changes would have to go to receive approval.  I envision a plethora of bureaucratic, politically/legally-correct and diversity-centric road blocks.

This is the mentality we are dealing with, from an Islamic web site in the US:

An Officer & a Gentleman

Friday, 06 November 2009 00:24 Revolution Muslim

E-mail Print PDF

Major Nidal Hasan M.D.

An officer and a gentleman was injured while partaking in a preemptive* attack.

Get Well Soon Major Nidal

We Love You

We do NOT denounce this officer's actions,we do however apologize for the following acts committed by our country:

Bay of Tonkin

The East Timor Massacre by USA Supported Suharto

1902 Samar Massacre in the Philippines by the USMC

1,000,000 Dead Iraqis

Afghani & Pakistanis Killed by the USA

Starvation of Africa & Rape of it's Resources by the USA

Support of the Brutal "Israeli" Occupation Entity

Etc. Etc.

Every day is Fort Hood for the world community due to USA policies and & their tyrant totalitarian puppet regimes. Rest assure the slain terrorists at Fort Hood are in the eternal hellfire and it is not to late for YOU to change your policies.

And here are well-conceived comments from a reviewer of a book comparing Islamic and Christian eschatology titled “The Islamic Anti-Christ”:

The author shows that Islam is an ancient, popular, and possibly demonic-inspired religion through its sacred texts, and that it's currently a powerful political force bent on world domination. Its scriptures encourage terrorism and imperialism, and threaten the U.S. Constitution with its Sharia Law, and provide explicit directives to commit human rights abuses (prejudice, torture, beheadings).

In my opinion the U.S. response against Muslim states should be a political, economic, and military response, though the author recommends only a religious response based on prayer and martydom in the face of Islamic terror. Such a single-minded, conciliatory response is an act of surrender and enables an inevitable, intractable, self-fulfilling prophecy. I disagree with the author's recommendation.

Similar to the Cold War, where conflicting ideologies contested for world influence, the U.S. could project a powerful net of containment, hindering the spread of Islam and its empire-building ambitions. There is no distinction between Islam and a militant Islam. There is Islam, and it is militant, as its holy books brashly proclaim and its bloody history proves. There is no New Testament in Islam to overcome its past sins, and no Golden Rule to reconcile people. On the contrary, the author shows that Islam is spread by compulsion, not compassion.

The U.S. should no longer waste blood and treasure in the construction of new Muslim states in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Unless amendments are added to the Quran requiring tolerance toward other religions and atheists, and respect for their continued existence, Islam in the U.S. should be treated as a political organization under the law, not as a religious organization, for without amendment Islam will continue to be an intolerant force, and its religious and political leaders dangerous.

As the author aptly pointed out, 90% of the wars and acts of terrorism throughout the world are performed under the banner of Islam.

Exploring Islamic eschatology and Christian apocalypticism, the author shows convincingly how both religions' anticipated destinies are intertwined, and adversarial, with Armageddon the result. This isn't just a matter of personal religious belief kept hidden away in somebody's mind to be used for self-examination and betterment. Islam is a cause, and its zealots die for it, and kill for it. A political, economic, and military response to Islam as a political, economic, and military force is necessary, if one believes the prophecies on either side, and connects the dots as the author has. As Islam moves, anti-Islamic forces should move.

Islamic terrorism or merely a mental snap?

Our neo-Muslim President says “don’t jump to conclusions.”  I’m sure CAIR suggests the same thing.  And our frequently clueless media speculates all sorts of things – all ignorant of the doctrine and teachings of Islam.

For those who haven’t had their head up their butts, the answer is very clear. 

Walid Phares, an expert on terrorism and a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, called the shooting "the largest single terror act in America since 9/11."

"What happened at Ft. Hood is not about being frustrated by America's foreign policy or exacting revenge for racial slurs. Nor is it about simply being a Muslim-American serving in the military or about being a member of any faith," he wrote in an opinion piece published by

"The murders at Ft. Hood are about the radicalization of individuals by an extremist ideology -- jihadism -- which fuels acts of terror," he said. "The main question we should be asking is when did Hasan become radicalized and who indoctrinated him? Everything else will fall in place once we have these answers. Moreover, this would allow us to detect other potential terror acts that may be in the making."

There is too much evidence of widespread Islamic Jihadist teaching in the US, too much evidence of Nadal’s immersion in Islam, his anger at US policy, his premeditation, and numerous other indications of his radicalization to fall for the “he just snapped” argument and ignore all the rest.  If the man just “snapped” – wow – what a great excuse for all the other Jihadi’s who randomly blow people up.  Lets just give them their Miranda rights, four weeks of counseling and let them go.  Ya, right.

Here’s some more proof for you doubters out there. Nadal worshipped at a mosque led by a radical imam said to be a "spiritual adviser" to three of the hijackers who attacked America on Sept 11, 2001, and had “deep respect” for his teachings.

I don’t mean to pick on the psychiatric profession, but, as my junior high band director used to say as he chastised some collective bad behavior, “if the shoe fits, wear it”, but the most inane excuses for this dude’s behavior have been expressed by shrinks trotted into TV studios.  They are not qualified to comment because they haven’t been paying attention to the underlying issues.  Many shrinks will tell people exactly what they want to hear – usually that they are innocent of any moral lapse, only human, and are worthy of self love, no matter how badly they behave or no matter what evil doctrine they believe. In fact, I suspect they are right now creating a new name for the Hasan “psychological disorder”:  Sudden Jihadi Syndrome.  Four weeks of counseling ought to cure it – ya, sure, you betcha.  They, like most Americans, are oblivious to what goes on in most Muslim mosques in this country, and the fascist, intolerant teachings that trademark the Islamic movement. 

The Muslim teaching of “gross intolerance” is the key to their call to violence and the vile actions of their adherents.