Why Afghanistan is no Japan…

Increasing numbers of us argue that we should get our military out of Afghanistan – that it is a hopeless cause.  We argue that Afghanistan is “too different”, it is futile to remake that culture “in our own image” or to attempt to “democratize” it or to “nation-build” over there.

Others will argue that Japan during WWII was similarly foreign to us.  We could not relate to their values, their form of government or their culture.  But look at Japan  20 years later.  Look at Japan today, 60 years later.  See what can happen if we persevere?  We should “stay the course.”

Very funny!  Not really.

There are three huge differences between Japan and Afghanistan that make the comparison laughable:

1.  Japan was a civilized nation, already a part of the 20th century.  Afghanistan is several centuries behind in most respects.

2.  Islam informs the culture, morality, social systems, and values of Afghanistan.  Islam is unique among all the world’s religions in its moral degeneracy.  Japan had and has a moral code that is much more compatible with western values than Islamic moral codes ever were or ever could be.

3.  The ultimate “shock and awe” – our will to win and save lives via “the bomb.”  Our shock and awe today has turned into a feminine whimper.  We do not have the will to win.   The definition of “winning” has reached the pinnacle of obfuscation.  No one in authority really knows what winning means or should mean – not since the Korean War.  We are too down on ourselves as a nation to impose our winning on another.

Until we rediscover our national self-worth, we have no business with a military presence in another nation.

My transformation into an Islamo-realist

Several years ago when I first became engaged in learning and writing about Islam I was like most Americans.  I wondered “where are the ‘moderate’ Muslims who should be speaking out against the violent Jihadi acts of terrorists in the US and around the world?  Where are they?”

I wondered where they were as if finding them would be the solution to all our concerns about Islam.  There was a smattering of qualified apologies for 9-11 among some Muslims, but the majority of demonstrations around the world were celebrating the jihadists and their victories over the Great Satan.  We called their ideology “radical Islam” pretending it was distinct from Islam.  After all, a day after 9-11 our president declared Islam “the religion of peace.”

As the years passed, more “moderate” Muslims in the US were added to the ranks of Muslims already in positions of influence in our government and academia as if their presence would help us solve the problem of “Islamic terror.”  Instead of working to solve that problem, the Muslims in positions of influence in government and academia convinced our leaders to rename the problem of “Islamic terror” to “workplace violence” and “domestic terrorism”, removing all vestiges of association of these problems with Islam.  No longer is the problem identified with the source of the problem.

In fact, the advice we acted on should have been the exact opposite:  Identify the problem not merely as  “Islamic terror”, but “Islam” itself.   Sadly the influence of Islamist infiltration kept that from happening.

Why should we go that far?  Why should we lay these problems at the foot of the Islamic ideology itself, and not on the so-called perversion of Islam that is referred to as “radical Islam?”  First, few of us heard of Sharia law or knew what it was until half a decade after 9-11.  It has taken us almost a decade now to realize that we have more to worry about Islam than just “terror.”  The great majority of Muslims living in this country would like to impose their antithetical moral and political values on the rest of us, and in a very intolerant and unforgiving manner.  Don’t believe for a second this isn’t the case.

I have come to realize over the past couple of years in particular that “radical” Muslims are just the tip of the Islamic spear.   The shaft is what the Islamic ideology would like to impose on the rest of us:  Sharia law, Islamic morality, Islamic intolerance of other faiths, Islamic treatment of women, Islamic engendered anti-Semitism, and all the rest of their ideology which is incompatible with our Judeo-Christian heritage, faith, legal, and political systems.

I am the subject of evolution.  I have evolved into understanding that it is not merely the “radical Muslims” who are a threat to our nation.  It is the Islamic ideology itself.  It is historic, orthodox, fundamental, Muhammadan Islam that informs and promotes the intolerant, supremacist drive to subvert our way of life.  Whether it is the patriotic, self-described devout moderate Muslim like Zudhi Jasser or a blatantly violent jihadi like Nadal Hasan, they both represent and claim their allegience to Islam.  One represents the Meccan version; the other the Medina version.  They both represent the teaching of Muhammad.  The early Muhammad cannot be separated from the later Muhammad.  It is the later, violent, intolerant, supremacist warring Muhammad that Islamic leaders throughout the world almost universally declare supersedes  the earlier Muhammad.  The early Muhammad represents the “make nice” version of Islam today.  The later Muhammad is certain to follow.

So, I no longer seek the “moderate” Muslim. Such is a diversion.  A waste of time.  The moderate Muslim is an illusion; wishful thinking.   The occasional “moderate” Muslim’s rhetoric aimed at chastening his fellow violent Muslims into moderation is a fruitless exercise; a shell game.  There is example after example of “moderate” Muslims who have turned out to be anything but.

There is too much “Muhammad” even behind the moderates to believe that they are either sincere or believable.  Who will they side with if the SHTF (as Obama has declared)?  And there is too much momentum behind the  fundamentalist-inspired Ummah of Islam to believe that the rhetoric of the “moderates” is any more effective than spitting against the wind.

Obama’s son…

Oh my how they grow up…

_____________________________________

Obama proclaimed "if I had a son he would look like Trayvon.”  I have no doubt.  Let’s hope Obama’s son would have better sense.

Here is the latest info about this “innocent victim”:

Trayvon’s cousin tweets back to Trayvon, "Yu ain't tell me you swung on a bus driver…"

Suspended THREE times for drugs, truancy and graffiti and 'caught carrying a burglary tool

Trayvon’s Twitter handle:  NO_LIMIT_NIGGA

And a sampling of Trayvon’s supporters:

Trayvon supporters ransack Miami Beach Walgreens

Spike Lee twittered wrong address for George Zimmeramn

Black Panthers offer bounty on Zimmerman

And of course the mainstream media who, like Obama, knee jerks a racist reaction to the whole incident by portraying Trayvon as a mere innocent deprived black child, and George the Hispanic as “evil whitey.”

Here is George, the Hispanic, the real victim, with a more recent picture from work…   Yes, he has a real job.

PAUL HARVEY & GLENN BECK

Thanks to Pamela of the Tri-County Tea Party Florida…

Glenn played some incredible audio on his radio program recently of radio commentator Paul Harvey from 1965. Glenn knew Harvey, and described him as "absolutely inspired of God." Glenn explained to viewers that America has crossed over into new territory. "The progressives, I believe, have realized their dream. They have taken those baby steps," Glenn said. "It is time to stop studying progressives." Glenn challenged those that don't think the progressives have accomplished their goals to "listen to the prophetic words of radio commentator Paul Harvey." The audio is of Paul Harvey explaining how he would destroy us [America] if he were Satan... "If I were the devil, I wouldn't be happy until I had seized the ripest apple on the tree-Thee. So I'd set about however necessary to take over the United States. I'd subvert the churches first-I would begin with a campaign of whispers. With the wisdom of a serpent, I would whisper to you as I whispered to Eve: "Do as you please." "Do as you please." To the young, I would whisper, "The Bible is a myth." I would convince them that man created God instead of the other way around. I would confide that what is bad is good, and what is good is "square". And the old, I would teach to pray. I would teach them to pray after me, 'Our Father, which art in Washington...' And then I'd get organized.  I'd educate authors on how to lurid literature exciting, so that anything else would appear dull and uninteresting. I'd threaten TV with dirtier movies and vice versa. I'd pedal narcotics to whom I could. I'd sell alcohol to ladies and gentlemen of distinction. I'd tranquilize the rest with pills. If I were the devil I'd soon have families that war with themselves, churches that war that themselves, and nations that war with themselves; until each in its turn was consumed.  And with promises of higher ratings I'd have mesmerizing media fanning the flame.  If I were the devil I would encourage schools to refine young intellects, and neglect to discipline emotions-just let those run wild, until before you knew it, you'd have to have drug sniffing dogs and metal detectors at every schoolhouse door. Within a decade I'd have prisons overflowing, I'd have judges promoting pornography-soon I could evict God from the courthouse, and then the schoolhouse, and then from the houses of Congress.  And in His own churches I would substitute psychology for religion, and deify science. I would lure priests and pastors into misusing boys and girls, and church money. If I were the devil I'd make the symbols of Easter an egg and the symbol of Christmas a bottle. If I were the devil I'd take from those, and who have, and give to those wanted until I had killed the incentive of the ambitious. What do you bet I could get whole states to promote gambling as the way to get rich? I would question against extremes and hard work, and Patriotism, and moral conduct.  I would convince the young that marriage is old-fashioned, that swinging more fun, that what you see on the TV is the way to be.  And thus I could undress you in public, and I could lure you into bed with diseases for which there is no cure.  In other words, if I were to devil I'd keep on doing on what he's doing.  Paul Harvey, good day." "That is unbelievable," Glenn said after listening to the audio. Of the line, "I would lure you into bed and give you disease to which there is no cure," Pat noted was way ahead of it's time. "That wasn't the case in 1965. We had no idea about AIDS-that's amazing," he said. "When you listen to that now you say, those are our problems," Glenn told listeners. "Those are the problems of our society. Those are the ills." Glenn pointed back to what he calls "Phase 1," the transformation of the nation and to weaken it to the point of crisis. "If you listen to what he just said, that's phase 1," Glenn said. Glenn explained that just how the devil wants your soul forever, that by creating a system for ours to collapse into, people would end up begging for the things America once stood against. "What you would never, ever ask for today, I'm going to make it your idea. If I'm the devil," Glenn explained, "I make you beg for it." http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/03/21/the-prophetic-words-of-paul-harvey-from-1965/

Sloppy use of political terms masks our problems…

In news reporting as in common speech, terms are often used that cloud a concise or even a correct understanding.

Here is a sampling of politically charged words that create misunderstanding and confusion:

Liberal and conservative:

The meaning of these words depends on the location and circumstance they are spoken about.  “Conservative” in the US is one thing.  A “conservative” in the Middle East is quite another.  And the same applies to “liberal.”

Here is the problem.  These terms are often thought by those in the US as having the same meaning in whatever part of the world they are applied.  This is far from reality.  For example, in the US, “conservative” means either a fiscal conservative, one who wants less government spending, lower taxes, fewer regulations, and smaller government.  Or it means a social conservative, one who promotes a given standard of morality for himself and others, with or without government involvement.

Conversely, a US liberal is generally for more government spending, supports higher taxes, more government regulation and prefers relaxed moral codes, if any, sharing social preferences with libertarians.

This second US definition, “social conservative” comes closest to the Middle East usage of the term “conservative” (one who favors Islamic law), but still remains starkly different.  A “conservative” in the Middle East is likely to be an Islamist desiring full implementation of Sharia law, burning churches and killing Jews.  A conservative in the US is opposed to the spread of Islam and seeks greater religious freedom.

On the other hand, liberals in the Middle East typically favor less Islamic influence ranging all the way to a preference for a secular rather than an Islamist government.  Liberals in the Middle East want less oppressive government, unlike liberals in the United States.  This is exemplified in a recent Stratfor article that reads in part:  “Liberal groups called for protests against Islamist influence over the process.  (Read more: Egypt: Parliament Elects New Constitution Panel | Stratfor)  In the US, it is conservative groups that protest Islamic influence.  Liberals here are generally allied with Islamic groups.

Strange, isn’t it?  Here are others.

Far left and Far Right:

Right wing and left wing are similarly misunderstood terms that depend on the region of the world the term is applied to.  “Far right” in the US is overused simply to describe people who want smaller government and lower taxes.  “Far left” as used in the US appropriately is applied to those who favor bigger government, more government control, and more government intervention into personal lives that tends to resemble Communist and Socialist forms of government.

However, popular usage of “far right” in Europe is commonly but mistakenly equated with Fascism.  Popular usage of the term “far left” is often equated with the Communism.  This application is more accurate than is the “far right” application to fascism.

A more accurate and meaningful set of terms to address degrees of freedom than “left” or “right” is a continuum from “absolute oppression” on the left, to free wheeling freedom (aka absolute anarchy) on the right.  The far left is total government control over every aspect of human existence.  The far right is the total absence of any government control or rule of law.

Using this formula, the far left would include Communists, Islamists and Fascists, with Socialists close behind.  Islamist is included because the government would rule via strict Sharia (Islamic) law that would pervade the entire culture.  This explains why Communists, Fascists, and Islamists tend to be allies.

The far right would include extreme libertarians, skin heads, and other anarchists preferring a “law of the jungle” existence.

The far left relieves the individual of personal decisions concerning employment, shelter, and sustenance, security and defense which are assumed by the government.   There is little sense of personal responsibility, initiative or motivation.  There is little uncertainty or fear unless one challenges authority.  Government provides.  The people produce the minimum required.

The far right relieves the government of all responsibility, leaving every aspect of employment, shelter, sustenance, security and defense up to individuals.  There is an overwhelming sense of personal responsibility, more likely and often based in fear and uncertainty.   Personal production is stifled by the need to survive.

The Extremes

Of course, these are extremes of each end of the continuum.   A balance between these two extremes is where the ideological and political battles rage.  Personal responsibility versus government responsibility.  More regulation versus less regulation.   Higher taxes versus lower taxes.   You name it.

But the essence of the debate is how to achieve a social environment that enables an optimum level of personal productivity, personal responsibility, and personal freedom.  The farther we can escape from either the left or right extreme the more likely these goals can be achieved.

What divides

The absence of an indwelling sense of moral responsibility and common purpose tends to allow a nation of people to unglue from the balance in the middle and get sucked to the extremes like by an invisible magnetic force.  Both of these value systems are shot to hell in the US.  Christianity is mocked.  Churches are turned into entertainment plazas. (They’re turned into mosques in Europe and soon here.)  Hedonism and amorality are glorified.  Out of control immigration cannot be assimilated, and poorly conceived immigration policy masks the problem.  Multiculturalism degrades and destroys unity.  It divides; it does not unite.

What unites

Conversely, a strong, mutually shared sense of morality and common purpose provides the underpinnings for personal responsibility that relieves the need for very much government or the need to rebel against authority.  But most trends in the US appear to be headed in the opposite direction.  That is why I am refraining from making any positive recommendations.  Any suggestions would be so far out of the mainstream of acceptable thought that they would be considered untenable or ridiculous.   I could suggest “reverse multiculturalism” or “deport all illegals” or “cease Muslim immigration” or “ban all class warfare rhetoric”, or “ban all Jeremiah Wright, Black Liberation Army types of inciting racist hate speech” and allow prayer and Bible Studies in the public schools, and promote Judeo-Christian values in the public square.  But you see how far from “acceptable policy” these actions would be in our current political environment?

A strong, mutually shared sense of morality and common purpose is what our nation sorely lacks and is losing more of every day.  And we are ungluing from the center toward polar opposite camps of extremes.   This cannot end well.

Santorum’s “scorched earth” policy

Santorum had his two months in the sun.  And I supported his thesis that the degeneracy of our nation contributes greatly to its current fiscal and foreign policy problems.

But as  in Obama’s dying presidency, the desperation of Santorum’s dying candidacy can be treacherous indeed.  His desperation shows in his scorched earth words.

Santorum’s recent remarks about  Romney being no better than Obama is a classic “burn it all down” statement.  What exactly did Santorum say?

“You win by giving people a choice. You win by giving people the opportunity to see a different vision for our country, not someone who’s just going to be a little different than the person in there. If you’re going to be a little different, we might as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk with what may be the Etch A Sketch candidate of the future”, referring to Romney.

The first part of his statement is true.  The second part could have been true with any candidate in history except Obama.

That statement is widely interpreted as Santorum suggesting we would be better off voting for Obama than Romney because we would know what we are getting.

WRONG  WRONG  WRONG!!

Santorum screwed up by saying anything that could remotely be interpreted that we may as well vote for Obama.  He is waaaaay off base on that comment.

For what ever it’s worth Gingrich and his dying campaign, he proclaimed Santorum dead wrong to infer that Obama would be better than republican candidate – that any candidate would be light years better than Obama. 

One has to wonder whether Santorum has a clue about how bad Obama is for this country when he makes a statement like that.  He has sacrificed credibility and potential voters, probably illretrieveably so.

Santorum’s statement was a last gasp effort to win votes.  His scorched earth policy is like lighting a back fire that backfires. 

Now he’s trying to recover from his ignorant statement with another :

"I always have said I would vote for the nominee of the Republican Party, no matter who it was."

That statement shows as much indiscretion as his first.

I expect he will remove himself from the race before the end of the month – or so I hope.

Dick Morris lists a bunch of examples of how Romney is different from Obama HERE.

Checklist for embracing “moderate Muslims”

It is politically correct to embrace the “moderate Muslim” , to accept him as an ally in our mutual defense against the “radicals.”  Conversely, it is bigoted and Islamophobic to suggest that Islam itself, in all its permutations, is THE real problem, a real and present danger to our country and our freedoms.

In fact, some law enforcement types urge us not to demonize the more “moderate” Muslims because it is the “moderates” who serve as informants amidst Muslims who are more prone to terrorist acts.

Let us take an inventory of the facts and relate these facts to our thought processes concerning “moderate” Muslims.

Here are the facts:

• Those who claim they are “Muslim” claim Islam as their religion
• Islam is a pseudo-religion/political ideology based on the life and teaching of Muhammad.
• Muhammad is the author of the Qur’an revealed through drug-induced spells.
• Muslims are universally taught that Muhammad is the perfect man to be emulated in all respects. 
• The later portions of the life of Muhammad and of the Qur’an abrogate, i.e. are “better than” and take precedent over the earlier portions. 
• It is these later portions that are intolerant, militaristic, supremacist, anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and in opposition to Judeo-Christian moral and legal systems.  These portions are the authoritative “last word” of how Muslims are to think and act .  

This is the nub of Muslim belief.  To call oneself a Muslim, one basically believes in these things.

Then, if a person calls himself a “moderate” Muslim, which of these things does he not believe in?

Does he not believe in Muhammad or the model of his life?

Does he not believe in half the Qur’an, the portion written in Medina that demands intolerance, supremacism, wars and conquest, anti-Semitism , anti-Christianism, and which is an anathema to Judeo-Christian moral and legal systems?

Does he believe that the many parts of the Qur’an and other books of the Islamic trilogy that demand “kill the Jew” and “subjugate the infidel” are merely some sort of spiritualized parables?

Does he disbelieve the teachings of the huge majority of Islamic leaders and Imams throughout the world who teach exactly what orthodox, fundamental, historic Islam has promoted from the time of Muhammad?

Does he disavow the doctrine of taqiyya, purposeful deceit to defend and promote Islam?

So, what exactly does a “moderate” Muslim, even on the order of Zudhi Jasser, really believe?  What does a Muslim who calls himself a “devout” Muslim really believe?  What aspects of Islam remain for such a man to insist he is a devout Muslim?  What is the basis of their faith?

It is not just the so-called “radicals”, those willing to fill their underwear with explosives, who are the danger.  It is also every individual who calls himself “Muslim” and who proclaims the values of Muhammad and those who followed, who demand the intolerant imposition of their values and Islamic morality on the rest of the world who are a real and present danger to our nation.

Those of us who wishfully persist in embracing the “moderate Muslim” because of some comfort-invoking kinship we feel with him because he, at this moment in time is refraining from promoting mayhem, are deluded.  We need to understand that it takes balls to call oneself “Muslim” in this day and age, with the history and track record of that vile ideology.  And those who pander to Muslims, moderates et al,  may as well seek a moderate Nazi, Communist, or Satanist to associate with.

The short memory, wishful thinking, and gullibility of so many of us continues to astound me.

The “Hoodie” culture

Hoodies.  What images does a male teenager wearing a hoodie conjure?  Or especially a dark skinned male teenager?  Images of a soccer or basketball jock?  Or something else?  Stereotypes are everywhere.  Some are positive; others not so much.

Hoodies are a utilitarian feature of a sweatshirts and rain gear to keep the head warm or dry.  They are worn by millions of people with only a tiny portion having any evil intent.

But in all honesty, hoodies also conjure images of gangs and hoodlums who use them to keep their identity concealed while performing their hoodlummy behaviors.   Hoodies are associated with hoodlums today every bit as much as long slicked back hair, ciggies in rolled up t-shirt sleeves, and jeans were  associated with “hoods” in the 50’s.

Certainly one should not be declared guilty of breaking the law or thought of being a gang member simply because of how they are dressed.  Although, frankly, the way we are dressed may draw increased suspicion about our activities or propensities. 

But there must be something to the “hoodie” stereotype.  Britain apparently has a severe case of hoodie gangs:

“Headliners”, a United Kingdom charity that promotes personal development of young people through journalism reported this about the wearing of hoodies:

The government and the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, have publicly backed the decision by certain shopping centres in the UK to ban young people wearing hoodies.

It is crimes like the one perpetuated by a “hoodie gang” that brings suspicion to the wearing of this multipurpose item of clothing:

Guilty:  The hoodie gang that stabbed boy, 14, to death in “initiation ritual”

Or another…

Hoodie gang beats up teacher

Watch any cop show on TV and the most common street thugs are depicted as wearing either black skull caps or hoodies.

And now we have a “hoodie march” protesting the lack of a kangaroo court in Sanford, FL.   Give me a break!

Our culture has a nasty, degrading habit of promoting mainstream style based on the styles adopted by street thugs and low life.  Why do we do this?  Why do we legitimize slimy culture by mimicking its style in clothing, music, the “attitude” portrayed in a certain walk, and other manifestations associated with those whose behaviors are radical fringe anti-social, rebellious, and illicit?

Responsible parents owe it to their children to avoid styles of clothing and forms of speech and music associated with lowlife and street thugs.  The old adage of “sleep with dogs and wake up with fleas” also pertains to mimicking the styles and behaviors of lowlife.  What business do these have in serving as role models for our kids?  I submit, NONE. 

But then again, it appears that the “hip” among us consider it too “geeky” or “establishment” to mimic the moral, the successful, and those of outstanding character.   We’re “cool” if we mimic styles associated with gangsta rap.

From Wikipedia:

Before the late 1990s, gangsta rap, while a big-selling genre, had been regarded as well outside of the pop mainstream, committed to representing the experience of the inner-city and not "selling out" to the pop charts. However, the rise of Bad Boy Records, propelled by the massive crossover success of Bad Boy head Sean "Puffy" Combs's 1997 ensemble album, No Way Out, on the heels of the media attention generated by the murders of 2Pac and The Notorious B.I.G., signaled a major stylistic change in gangsta rap (or as it is referred to on the East Coast, hardcore rap), as it morphed into a new subgenre of hip hop which would become even more commercially successful and popularly accepted.

I suspect that Tebow-mania may be quite short-lived.  I would not be surprised to see “Tebowing” elicit more mockery than respect.  It’s not “gangsta” enough.

__________________________

Disclaimer:  I wrote this piece before learning that Geraldo Rivera wrote a nearly identical opinion HERE.  I would be receiving the same blind criticism as Rivera if I had his same exposure.  I appreciate my relative anonymity.

I seldom agree with Rivera’s liberal positions, but those of us in this culture who are tired of its incessant pandering to low-life as our cultural mantra will tend to agree with us in this case.

“Moderate Muslim” analogies starring Zudhi Jasser

Zudhi Jasser is the moderte Muslim darling of conservatives, including FOX News.

Dr. Jasser’s actions reflect his words – he walks his talk.  He is indeed a “moderate among moderates” among Muslims.

But here is the confusing part:  He is self-described as a “devout Muslim.” 

Islam revolves around the teachings and life of Muhammad.  One cannot be a  devout Muslim without being a follower of Muhammad.   Muslims cherish Muhammad and his life as much as Christians cherish Jesus Christ.

But isn’t Muhammad the one who authored the Qur’an, the whole Qur’an, including the violent, supremacist, intolerant, Jew and infidel-hating parts that abrogate the peaceful, tolerant parts?  Doesn’t that book, and the life Muhammad, serve as the model of behavior for Muslims?  And doesn’t that book, and the life of Muhammad teach all the things that are contrary to Judeo-Christian morality, including lying (taqiyya), the subjugation of women, polygamy, the  treatment of the “infidel” as inferior, intolerance toward other faiths and gays, honor killings, and a myriad of other behaviors that are considered “atrocities” from a western perspective?

Yet Jasser insists he is a “devout Muslim.”

Here are a few analogies to try on for size:

In the early 40’s there were Nazis and there were devout Nazis.   A person who disavowed the actions of Nazis did not call himself a “devout Nazi.”  I would think such person would disavow any association with Nazis.

During the cold war in the 50’s and 60’s, there were Communists and devout Communists.  A devout Communist would be known as one who was an activist for Communism, a believer in the teachings of Marx, Stalin, and Lenin and faithful to the current communist regime.  A person who disavowed the tenants of communism would not call himself a “devout communist.”

We have the Italian Mafia, Chinese Mafia, and Russian mafia, among others.  One who called himself a “devout Mafioso” of any stripe would be loyal to the leaders of whatever “family” he belonged to. 

Jasser has explained that he is attempting to “reform” Islam.  He has latched on to the popular but misled politically correct view of Islam that it is really “a religion of peace hijacked by a few [million] radicals.”  I cannot tell you how sick and tired I am hearing that line.  Being a Muslim, don’t you think he would know better? 

But instead we have a populist “Islamic reformer” who claims he is a devout Muslim using that same line.  And we have people believing that – fawning all over Jasser - because he says Islam is something it is not.

Let’s for a moment accept the idea that Jasser disavows or spiritualizes major portions of the Islamic trilogy.  That does not make him “devout.”  That makes him an apostate.  But lets accept this scenario for the sake of discussion.  That would mean that Jasser really believes that Islam is not what Muhammad taught and is not represented by the life he lived.  Instead, he is urging us to believe that Islam is not really based on the life and teaching of Muhammad, but an Islam of his own invention that bears no relationship to the historical Islam that has survived and conquered mercilessly through the centuries. 

Unfortunately, despite all the wishful thinking, that Islam is not at all represented by the great preponderance of Islamic leaders today who worship, mimic, promote, and enforce Muhammad's methods and behaviors.

Jasser, at best, is distorting the truth of Islam.  At worst he is as deceptive as the devil.  If he was sincere and truthful, and not merely acting, he would disavow Islam and admit to its historic doctrine; a doctrine that is at odds with everything he appears to promote in this country.

 

Romney clueless; Phares equivocating…

No wonder Romney is confused about Islam.  I have seldom read such equivocating hogwash from an advisor as Walid Phares is providing to Romney.  As a former City Planning Director, if I received this sort of gibberish from an analyst (if the articles below are any indication), I would be concerned for his future.

Here is a sample of recent comments by Phares, courtesy of WalidPhares.com:

Phares to BBC 5 Radio: "Assad wants to crush the revolt before the US Presidential election"
In an interview on BBC 5 London Radio,Professor Walid Phares, a US congressional advisor said "the Assad strategy is to try to crush the Syrian uprising before the US Presidential election in November."
Mar 12, 2012, 00:42

Phares to BBC TV Arabic: "The US must factor Iran in its strategies towards the Assad regime"
Middle East expert Professor Walid Phares told BBC TV Arabic that "the US Administration must factor the Iranian support to Bashar and Hezbollah's reaction, when it devises strategies towards the Assad regime."
Mar 11, 2012, 18:31

This is the kind of reporting (or “stream of consciousness” blather, I’m not sure which) Phares is offering up: 

Phares said "UN envoy Kofi Anan may be optimistic or pessimistic, but without a connection to reality, his mission cannot find a solution to the complicated crisis.

Insightful, don’t you think?  And here’s more “new” news:

You need Assad to accept to make a concession and the opposition to do the same. Presently Assad has no intention to let go of his power and the opposition will not accept a solution short of Assad resignation."
Phares underlined that without a decision by Washington to gather an alliance of Arab and European countries and Turkey to take real steps to remove Assad, all other measures won't change the reality on the ground, unless a major rebellion explodes inside Syria's army, a matter not happening yet."

And so what is the significance of any of this to the US?  What are US interests in any of this?

Being Romney’s Middle East advisor and his expert on Islam, Phares is likely the source of Romney’s asinine statement that “Jihadism is no part of Islam.”  Is Romney making this stuff up on his own?  I certainly didn’t see any backtracking by Romney on that statement.  I didn’t see any correction published by Phares.  In fact, a Phares staffer affirmed that “sophisticated” position that Romney has staked out as documented HERE.

Or is Phares’ “advice” to Romney so obfuscated that whatever message he has buried deep in his academic brain isn’t getting out.  Hard to know.

Is this the type of confusing “advice” that leads to useless wars?

I dread the waste of resources awaiting another uninformed US foray into yet another mission of “nation-building”, this time in Syria.

I am not a pacifist by any means.  I cherish a good fight to achieve a decisive win when our collective asses are on the line.  In that scenario I am a hawk.

In the scenarios since Korea,  where we were present for some sort of foggy “police action” or nation-building, where the “enemy” is not identified, their doctrine is denied, where “winning” is undefined, and when there are more cost-effective ways to protect our national security, I am a dove.   Look at these “wars” and “skirmishes”:

Korea:  What did that prove?  Would the result without US intervention be similar to Vietnam?  Did the world come to an end with our departure from Vietnam?

Vietnam:  Vietnam seems to be a decent ally and trading partner even despite our unsuccessful foray.

Iraq #1:  The first Iraq war was to defend Kuwait.  We were in and out.  End of story.  Short duration and few casualties.

Iraq #2:  Bad intelligence re: weapons of mass destruction?  We may never know.  But it was our excuse to kill the regime.  Once the regime was dead, so should our presence have been.

Afghanistan:  This is a real puzzler.  Most 9-11 terrorists were Saudi.  There were several highly portable training camps in Afghanistan were the Saudi’s and other Muslims honed their skills.  It would seem a simple matter to eradicate training camps if that is our concern.  Why was that a pretext to invasion and “nation building.”  And for over ten years?  That is a puzzle to me.

Next is Syria?  Why?  What is the threat to us?  None.  Zero!

So why is this Romney advisor all abuzz about building coalitions to eliminate a dictator in another Islamic nation?

It almost appears that experts like Walid Phares are being “used” to legitimize otherwise illegitimate policies by throwing academic BS at an alleged problem without really addressing the problem.  There is no legitimate problem that should have anything to do with priority US interests or national defense.

Disarming our Marines IS a big deal…

With all due respect, General Gurganus, it IS a “big deal” to disarm our Marines in Afghanistan, you pandering toad.

The order to disarm 200 Marines to accommodate the visit of Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta to Camp Leatherneck was given by the General so as not to offend the Afghani support staff who were already unarmed in the facility.  As the General stated:

“You've got one of the most important people in the world in the room," Maj. Gen. Mark Gurganus told reporters at Camp Leatherneck, dismissing concerns related to the shooting. "This is not a big deal."

“I wanted to have the Marines look just like their Afghan partners…”

No.  This doesn’t happen all the time.  This is the first time a visit by the Defense Secretary prompted the disarming ouf our troops.  Is there distrust of our Marines by the higher ups?  It appears so.  Read more HERE. 

At the same time there is no lack of trust of the Muslim Afghanis.  Why else would one of those trusted Muslims find himself  in a pickup truck  heading though heavy security toward the tarmac on a suicide mission aimed at Panetta’s “welcoming committee” at the precise time Panetta is exiting his plane. More on this HERE.

This comes a day after the Commander in Chief proclaimed he is  still "proud generally" of what U.S. troops have achieved in Afghanistan.

See more about our foolish policies in Afghanistan HERE and HERE.

And HERE is Pam Geller’s take on today’s attempted suicide attack on our Secretary of Defense.

The limits to living a lie–US troops in Afghanistan

There is only so much bull crap an individual’s sanity can stand.  And apparently a US Army Staff Sargent had all the mind numbing BS he could stand just before he went on a personal unhinged vendetta killing 16 Afghan civilians.

This is a classic consequence of extreme cognitive dissonance.  Expect this unfortunate but understandable incident to incite tens of thousands of Afghanis across that God-forsaken nation to rampage in the streets in the coming days.  Hopefully one result of this incident may be to get US troops out of a nation populated by a culture we do not understand, which is diametrically in opposition to our own and which is a foolhardy waste of our resources to attempt to convert into any sort of sustainable democracy or compatible ally.

While there have been a sprinkling of similar such incidents over the previous decade of our presence in Afghanistan, I am surprised there have not been  many more.  There is only so much illogical “respect their culture” indoctrination a human being can consume without going nuts.  Beyond their training, bravery, dedication, and fighting skills, our troops in Islamic dominated countries need to be commended for their endurance of their commanders’ incessant reminders to “respect the culture, respect the people, respect Islam, respect the Qur’an, respect their psychotic behavior, trust them, befriend them, yadayadayada” all the while being broadsided by many of the same people whose asses they have been commanded to assist.

This incident is clearly the predictable consequence of requiring our troops to live a lie in Afghanistan; to fight and assist (at the same time) a shadow enemy whose specialty is deceit and deception honed through centuries of Islamic culture and indoctrination.

 

Truth vs. political correctness: Logan’s Warning and Act! for America

ACT! for America, the major “radical Islamic” awareness organization in the US and led by Brigitte Gabriel, has recently partnered with Zudhi Jasser, a self-proclaimed “devout” Muslim of moderate, pro-American disposition as representing the form of Islam they can embrace.

Logan’s Warning, one of the major web blog sites informing us of the problems with the Islamic ideology and its proponents, and unemcumbered by political correctness, has taken exception to ACT’s action which I agree is counter-productive and distorts the truth about Islam.

For the context of this debate check out the summary of Logan Warning’s correspondence with spokesmen of ACT! for America, HERE, HERE, and HERE.

Here is my take on the matter:

Caveat to the following:  Individual ACT Chapters are autonoumous and are comprised of participants who hold a variety of views, some not in accord with the doctrine espoused by ACT! for America national leadership.

I've had difficulty with national ACT's identification of “the Islamic problem” since I first explored that organization several years ago. They insist on referring to the problem as "radical Islam." They insist that all other forms of “Islam” are hunky dory. Once the goon thug bombers and intolerant mad dogs disappear, what’s left will be the OK Islam, and all will be fine.

But the reality is there IS NO "Radical Islam." Islam is Islam. What we see in the bombers and mad dogs is just one aspect of Islam. Peel away these layers and you have Muhammad, his life and teachings – the real Islam – which promotes and motivates the bombers and mad dogs, and intolerance, and Sharia law, and all the rest.

A few years back when I was exploring ACT, I questioned Rogers on why they refer to the problem as “radical Islam” and not just “Islam” since what we call “the radicals” is Muslims informed and motivated by Islam. In reply, Rogers urged me not get involved in ACT until I can gain an appreciation for their way of doing things because my attitude toward Islam might detract from ACTs message and effectiveness. I needed to mature a bit more and become more sophisticated in my understanding of Islam and how one approaches the problem.

I suppose I could become as sophisticated as Mitt Romney and proclaim, like he does, that “Jihad is no part of Islam.” The Romney campaign claims a high degree of sophistication in dealing with the Islamic problem. Unfortunately, that much sophistication creates a lie.

I prefer to deal in facts and truth and logic.

ACT is not truth telling. ACT is ignoring the truth of Islam. And even when ACT glosses over the root of the problem, Islam, to avoid criticism, ACT is STILL condemned and discredited by Muslims and their sympathizers. How is that working out? Don’t forget:  Any insult, real or imagined, is worthy of beheading.

Zudhi Jasser proclaims he is a “devout Muslim.” Jasser is as devout a Muslim as Joy Behar is a devout Catholic. Jasser represents a model Muslim as much as Behar represents a model Catholic. Neither is and neither do. “Typical”, maybe, in that neither practices their faith as it is strictly taught by the leading authorities within their respective groups. It appears that neither holds orthodox views of their respective faiths. In Jasser’s case, since he proclaims he is a “devout” Muslim, we have to sincerely question the truthfulness of what he says and the motivation for what he does. At best, he is an enigma who is confusing a lot of people.

And neither is Jasser reforming Islam. “Reform” means going back to the original as in the protestant reformation of the Catholic Church.

Islam has been in a reformation process for the last several decades. It is coming out of its slumber of the prior centuries. It has been reforming itself back to the original supremacist, intolerant, political, militaristic ideology as modeled by Muhammad.

Jasser is trying to re-make Islam into something it never was at its beginnings and never can become without becoming something other than Islam.

It is confusing and divisive for ACT to pursue a course that avoids the truth about the historic ideology that defines Islam and defines and motivates the huge majority of the 1.5 billion who call themselves Muslim – followers of Muhammad.   ACT declares that it is not concerned about continuing Muslim immigration?  No, Brigitte, most Muslim immigrants will not be Dr. Zudhi Jassers!  They are more likely to be semi-literate versions of Nadal Hasan or politically motivated versions of the ground zero mosque imam, Abdul Rauf .

No, Islam as not a monolithic ideology. There are those like Jasser who do not practice orthodox Islam.   Making matters worse, calling himself “a devout Muslim” one has to question his credibility.  Jasser would be more believable if he simply disavowed Islam.  That would be more consistent with his words and actions.

Such men as Jasser do not define Islam . It is a huge error to pretend he does.

Islamo-ignorant military

Our military leaders in Afghanistan are either totally devoid of knowledge of the Muslim mindset, or are a bunch of cowards for not standing up to our Islam-inspired President.

Two more soldiers are dead.  Dead as a result of Muslim psychopaths – their Islam/Jihad-inspired revenge killing in response to destruction of their Satanic books.

And Hussein Obama claims his apologies helped calm the inbred masses.  (I still think it bizarre that the electorate elected a neo-Muslim president.  The current scenario is a personification of “the hedge of protection” being removed from this land.)

Why did this killing happen so soon after the Muslim animals rioted throughout Afghanistan – and so soon after several military officers were similarly murdered? 

Here’s your answer:

Both were killed on the same day that the top NATO commander allowed a small number of foreign advisers to return to work at Afghan ministries after more than a week of being locked down in secure locations because of the killing of two other Americans.

Who is the “top NATO commander?

U.S. military spokesman Lt. Col. Jimmie Cummings said Thursday that Marine Gen. John Allen, the top commander in Afghanistan, approved the return of selected personnel. 

May I have a word with you,General Allen, and your seditious commander-in-chief, Hussein Obama, and much of our Congress:

You are ignorant bastards who are screwing over our nation.  You ignore or deny the nature of Islam. You refuse to understand the treachery of the ideology you are dealing with.  Neither of you are fit to lead an ant colony, never mind a war theatre or a nation.  Yeck!  You people make me SICK!

You don’t know your enemy from a hole in the ground.  No wonder you’re wasting lives and billions of dollars fighting “tactics” not ideology.  You insist on being politically correct – sooo concerned about offending someone – some group of people.   Yet you refuse to name the evil ideology that drives the animals you are fighting:  Islam, and its dark ages morality.

You fail to understand the different morality of the people you are dealing with.  You are all such self-absorbed narcissists that you can’t fathom a group of people thinking differently than you.  You believe you have ***the POWER**.

Well, you don’t.  You are caught up in wishful thinking – thinking that these people whose ideology you are defending – that they have the same set of values you do.  They don’t.  You may wish they did.  But they don’t and they won’t.  I don’t blame them for your ignorance.  They are who they are.  I blame YOU for YOUR ignorance.

The quicker we can expunge Islamo-ignorant, alleged leaders like you and your cronies from power the better off our nation will be.