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.   

Friday, November 06, 2009

Obama’s contrasting views on “drawing quick conclusions”

Remember back in July during a press conference when Barack Hussein Obama defended his radical friend Henry Gates by saying “I don’t have all the facts but the Cambridge cops acted stupidly?”

Well, today the very same Obama warned the public “against drawing quick conclusions” about the motivation behind Hasan’s Jihadist attack that killed 13 people at Fort Hood.

These two events along with Obama’s radical history and actions doesn’t leave much to the imagination to conclude the President is a defender of his radical friends, holds police and military in low regard, and is either ignorant or disingenuous about the teaching, practice, and goals of Islam.

And who exactly recommended Nidal Malik Hasan to be a “Task Force Event Participant” for the Homeland Security Policy Institute’s Presidential Transition Task Force report “Thinking Anew—Security Priorities for the Next Administration?” Out of the several dozen participants on that task force, how many Muslims were ask to provide their advice on homeland security matters?  At least two stand out based on their titles:  Waleed Alshahari, Embassy of Yemen (a Muslim nation next door to Saudi Arabia) and Safiya Ghori, representing the Muslim Public Affairs Council. How many more were there, like Hasan, whose title was not revealing and whose attitudes and motivations not in our nations’ best interests?

Thursday, November 05, 2009

Another Muslim attack: Our nation will be screwed before “political correctness” allows the facts to be acknowledged

The excuses for the mass killing given by the media, including FOX and Schlepard Smith include:

  • Stressed US troops
  • “Upset” about being deployed to Iraq
  • Caused by “multiple deployments”
  • An act of a “crazy person”
  • Delusional


In fact, this is another premeditated terrorist attack by at least one Muslim among many who have been encouraged to infiltrate our military to do this very thing.  Whether this is a lone Jihadi acting on what he has been indoctrinated to do, or whether he was an implanted “sleeper”, part of a larger plot, is beside the point.  The results are the same.  The hatred and vile impulse and the religion behind this is all the same. The main point is Muslims indoctrinate themselves to have the beliefs and the mentality to carry out these kinds of acts.

Most of us don’t get it yet. The media gets a Muslim name from multiple sources, yet refuses to utter the name Nadal Malik Hasan for hours after being advised.  That is politically correct suicide – and ignorant.  In fact liberal web sites such as the Huffington Post don’t believe the Muslim religion had anything to do with this – not worth mentioning.  Ignorant Ignorant Ignorant!

Solutions, anyone?  How about keeping Muslims out of the military, just like we kept the Japanese out of the military after their attack on Pearl Harbor.  How about admitting there are few “moderate Muslims” who would not give their life for the Jihadi Muslim cause.  How about acknowledging that “moderate” Muslims are not so moderate and recognize them for what they are: Enemies of the State?

When will we learn?

Here is an update from Robert Spencer.

And doesn’t THIS explain a lot about our neo-Muslim president (from Robert Spencer):

Fort Hood shooter was member of Homeland Security Panel advising Obama

Of course. Why not? He was a "moderate." Until he wasn't.

"Nidal Hasan: Ft. Hood Shooter Participated in Homeland Security Disaster Preparation," from Gawker, November 6 (thanks to Mary Belle):

The gunman who killed 12 people today at Ft. Hood appears, based on current media reports, to be Army psychiatrist Nidal Hasan who was listed as a participant in a Homeland Security Policy Institute's presidential transition task force last year.

The task force was not officially affiliated with the White House. It was a project of the Homeland Security Policy Institute, an independent thinktank housed at George Washington University, aimed at drafting policy recommendations for the incoming Obama administration.

According to the task force's May 2009 report [pdf], a "Nidal Hasan" from the Uniformed Services University School of Medicine was a task force event participant. Other participants included Senate and House staffers, Department of Homeland Security officials, Defense Department officials, and reporters for Politico, the Washington Post, and the London Times....

Posted by Robert on November 6, 2009 7:56 AM | 45 Comments
Digg this | | Buzz up!

My sweet letter to AARP: Their Obama-care endorsement

I don’t think my e-mailed letter from their web site went through because of excessive internet traffic :) A couple of other folks were probably writing them as well.

Here is what I wrote:

“You (AARP) say you want to separate "myth" from"reality." I suppose you’re referring to all the “scare tactics and half truths” the “radical right” is foisting on the American public.

Here is “myth” and “reality” for you...

Myth: We can afford the 1.2 trillion dollars for better coverage for 40 million more people

Reality: This plan will cost American taxpayers much more than we can afford at this point in our economic history and the vast majority of us will have worse coverage.

Myth: We will not lose existing health coverage.

Reality: Medicare Advantage Plan members will be forced to get less, more costly coverage under the Plan AARP endorses.

Reality: AARP has lost all credibility with me.

I just received an AARP mailing soliciting my membership, with a couple of pre-mature membership cards enclosed. This evening I will mail their membership cards back to them in little pieces. If you would like to do the same, their mailing address is:

601 E Street N.W.
Washington, DC 20049

Wednesday, November 04, 2009

Thinking through the “gay marriage” issue…

Viscerally, I’m glad the Maine “gay marriage enabling” referendum failed.  It is the right thing to happen, morally and socially.

Logically, why do I have this opinion?  After all, the arguments go, why not allow consenting, loving adults to get married and enjoy the same benefits of marriage that heteros do?  It is soooo discriminatory to legally prohibit marriage between gays.

My response:  I have to go back to the ignorant, not very well thought through expression “you can’t legislate morality.”  C’mon, people.  Consider just about any law on the books of local, state, or federal governments.  What laws ARE NOT based on some moral principle?  Murder, stealing, rape, polygamy?  Even speeding has moral implications – endangering the lives of others.

Gay marriage is openly advocated nowadays only because our nation has lost its “moral compass.”  We’ve forgotten the reasons for morality.  With a growing Muslim influence, polygamy will be the next morally-based prohibition to be openly challenged.  What’s next?  There are already special interest groups that advocate legalization of man-boy sex and other “morally deviant” behaviors.  Government has already legalized stealing in the form of a wide variety of tax policies.  Our President covets the role of Robin Hood by stealing from the rich and middle class and giving to the poor – “wealth redistribution”, they call it.

Everyone has varying degrees of predispositions to practice deviant, anti-social or self-destructive behaviors.  There are people who are genetically or behaviorially prone to alcoholism, to drug addiction, and to sex addiction.  Does that mean that society must condone and feed these predispositions?  Hell no!  They are encouraged to practice self control – they are not legislatively encouraged to practice their destructive behavior.

Are there reasons why these practices are not condoned by society?  Absolutely!  You peel back the layers of reasons and it goes beyond “morality” to the reasons for morality – usually having to do with the survival and well-being of a culture or society.

Similarly, there are reasons for society not condoning or sanctioning “gay marriage” and, in fact, not promoting openly gay behavior.  The reasons are not simply because “the Bible tells me so,” although that by itself is good enough reason for many.  Looking beyond the present day cult of self-gratification and sexual deviancy and promiscuity and looking instead at millennia-long principles of cultural survival and human well-being and we find wisdom on this matter will become evident.

It is enough that many heterosexuals refrain from having children.  Add to that a growing portion of our population who entertain their inner gay fantasy to the point that they too remain childless.  There goes our birthrate to a level that gradually reduces our population and facilitates a decline of our society.  And although I hesitate to suggest any “guilt by association”, have you noticed that gays tend to be notably more overtly promiscuous than heteros?  I come to that conclusion after being stuck in traffic and becoming an unwilling observer during “gay pride day” parades and reading news stories of their goings-ons in public parks, restrooms, and truck stops.  Look at some of the web sites of gay activists to see the displays of sexual promiscuity they not only embrace, but which they unabashedly defend and promote.

Our society is on a dangerous course when it changes its laws to legitimize homosexual lifestyles, marriage or otherwise.  Thank you, liberal Maine, for not succumbing to the “anything goes” mentality.

Sunday, November 01, 2009

Groundswell of pessimism toward the human spirit…

Obama's election and continuing popularity isn’t about a a radical American president.  It isn’t about Chicago-styled politics.  It’s not about socialist or Marxists in the White House promoting their liberal agenda.  And it has nothing to do with his campaign “tricking” people into voting for him.  He was honest in what he proposed to do.

The significance of Obama’s election runs much deeper than that.  The support that he still receives has demonstrated to me that there is a groundswell of pessimism toward the human spirit.  This has been building for several decades and has erupted in the current spate of politicians and Presidential advisers who trust more in government than in the capacity of the individual to resolve human problems.

Individual initiative, hard work, personal responsibility, and perseverance are no longer considered adequate to solve problems and improve our lot.

This is the primary distinction between liberals and conservatives.  Liberals don’t trust the individual to solve problems.  To the liberal, individuals are either a victim, are too ignorant, or are too greedy to act appropriately.  Government must take over the responsibilities once held by individual Americans, whether it is their health care or their buying habits.  Government must keep us safe and healthy.  Government must control what we eat and what we drive.  Don’t trust the individual.  A “free market” is comprised of individuals unrestrained by government.  Therefore a free market is not to be trusted, either.

Conservatives trust the individual more than they trust government.  Conservatives believe the productivity, ingenuity, and success of our culture is the result of unrestrained individual initiative motivated by prospects for success and profit.  Conservatives believe in the individual; therefore they believe in the free market. 

The figurative “iron rod of morality”, essential for a healthy free market, helped restrain greed and dishonestly among individuals.  This influence has greatly diminished over the past decades.  And with it, the trustworthiness of the free market has also been reduced.

There is a groundswell of pessimism toward the capacity or desire of the individual to solve our own problems.  It is no longer popular or uplifting to hear motivational speeches about what the individual can accomplish.  That is out of vogue.  It is more popular to listen to motivational speeches about what the government should do for us.

Liberals now believe it is too difficult for individuals to problem solve – to pull themselves up and make a go of their lives.  They believe things are too hopeless for that to occur.  So they redirect their politics, their speeches, their candidates, their government programs, their whole philosophy of life to ignoring the capacity of the individual, and building the capacity of government.  They believe it is ok for individual initiative to be stunted, even neutralized, in favor of building a big and benevolent government system to do things that they believe individuals will not do for themselves or their fellow man.

Liberals are selling out the human spirit in favor of an elusive collective that reduces the individual to “useless eaters.”

Hillary to Pakistan: US taxes everything that moves...

Hillary said two things of note to the Pakistani press:

“I find it hard to believe that nobody in your government knows where [the leadership of Al Qaeda] are and couldn’t get them if they really wanted to.”

That’s to the point. But do the “really want to?”


“We (the United States) tax everything that moves and doesn’t move, and that’s not what we see in Pakistan.”

She put this statement in the context that taxing everything that moves is a very good thing and that Pakistan ought to start doing the same to address the demands their population growth will place on their infrastructure needs. What if Pakistanis, as many in the US, don’t want to tax everything that moves and doesn’t move? Is Pakistan’s national government the only entity over there capable of producing anything for the public good? That is the philosophy of our own politicians. It is not a good thing that our politicians are exporting their sense of human helplessness that only a national government can overcome.

Here is the story from Pakistan’s “Daily Times”:

LAHORE: The leadership of Al Qaeda is in Pakistan, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Thursday. “I find it hard to believe that nobody in your government knows where they are and couldn’t get them if they really wanted to,” she added.
“Maybe that’s the case; maybe they’re not gettable. I don’t know... As far as we know, they are in Pakistan,” Clinton told senior Pakistani newspaper editors in Lahore, AFP reported.

“The percentage of taxes on GDP (in Pakistan) is among the lowest in the world... We (the United States) tax everything that moves and doesn’t move, and that’s not what we see in Pakistan,” she said.
“You do have 180 million people. Your population is projected to be about 300 million. And I don’t know what you’re going to do with that kind of challenge, unless you start planning right now,” she said.
“If we are going to have a mature partnership where we work together” then “there are issues that not just the United States but others have with your government and with your military security establishment”.

It is true that Pakistan needs to get its security system in order before we “have a mature partnership.” Unfortunately I believe their security system is just about where most of their population wish it to be – applying “rope-a-dope” on the United States.