Why I am not “kinder” and “gentler” toward Islam

In a word:  “Truth.”  I admit it.  I have sacrificed “kinder and gentler” in exchange for conveying the objective reality of Islam.  In fact, I am not as concerned about Islam as much as I am concerned about the obliviousness (blindness, ignorance, gullibility) of the American people (in particular) toward the history, ideology, and aspirations of that ideology.

For reasons I only partially understand, most media and commentators insist on sugar-coating the Islamic ideology.  Certainly the mainstream media and most arms of our Federal Government do this.  And the White House goes several steps further by embracing, supporting, promoting, and giving preference to Muslims and Islamic nations over other faiths and over our non-Islamic allies.

The great majority of voices in the media and elsewhere are only repeating the Islamic story line.  So many reporters and government officials have taken the easy road by uncritically consuming the propaganda pumped out by CAIR and various Islamic leaders and promoters.  Most likely they are ignorant of “taqiyya”, the  sanctioned Islamic doctrine of purposeful deceit in defending or promoting Islam.  You would think that many of our politicians who are so practiced in this technique themselves would see through this.

Not many voices feel obligated to reveal the negatives of Islam.  Ignoring them will not make them go away.  One doesn’t have to read and become expert in the Qur’an to observe the widespread hate, violence, and immorality promoted by the adherents to Islamic Holy Books and associated ideology – the rampant hate, violence, and immorality carried out “in the name of Islam.” 

Whether the “radicals” are a minority of that “faith” or not is beside the point.  The point is that Islamic ideology breeds quantities of hatred and terror we see occur every day we don’t see coming from any other ideology on the face of the earth.  There are estimates that Islamic terrorists or “Jihadis” comprise only a small minority of all Muslims.  If only 10% are terrorists, 10% of all Muslims is 120 million.  So “only” 120 million Muslims are involved in terror against the infidel:  Jews, Christians, and the west.  And this is considered a conservative figure by many.  No one knows for sure how many Muslims are in various degrees of “practicing Jihad” as a means of promoting their ideology.

While the majority of Muslims may appear benign or friendly, under that veneer lies a variety of possibilities of levels of “devoutness” toward Islam, and varying stages of promoting the ideology, such as:

The most devout tend to be:

• Jihadi leaders and masterminds of terror
• Islamic leaders: Imams, etc.
• Those who plan and stage acts of terror
• Those who fund and overtly support acts of terror
• Those who actively promote hate and distrust toward the “infidel”, “the people of the book” (Jews and Christians), and the west generally.
• Those on the sidelines cheering on this effort.

The least devout tend to be:

• Those who appear to honestly condemn Islamic violence and supremacism (how many are these?)
• Those who are Muslim “in name only” because of their heritage but who are fully integrated into our western culture (how many are these?)
• Those in predominantly Muslim countries who are preoccupied with survival and who are most susceptible to the influences, threats, and coercion of the more devout (this is probably the majority).

So, how might the percentages line up for the 1.2 billion Muslims in the world based on the above breakdown?  It appears that while a minority are actual Jihadi terrorists, it is very likely a majority are supporters of their efforts against the west.

While Islam is not a monolithic faith, there is a common “brotherhood”  or “umma” that is shared among Muslims.  This explains in part why there was so little outcry against the acts of 9-11, even among those Muslims who are considered “moderate” by their neighbors.

I chalk up the gullibility of defenders of Islam by believing that they are simply not paying attention.  And by not paying attention they remain ignorant and accuse those of us who are paying attention of being mean spirited toward Muslims and Islam.  In practice, the gullible and ignorant non-Muslims have joined forces with CAIR and other Muslim deceivers in defaming those who are attempting to bring the reality of Islam to their attention.

It is interesting to note the definition of the word “bigotry”:  “Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.”  The “irrational” part of the definition is important.  Those who are paying attention to the nature of Islam and proclaim their informed rational understanding of that ideology are called “bigots” by those who insist on maintaining an uninformed irrational ignorance of Islam.  The “hatred” is maintained by the irrational against the rational.

For more on this topic, go to Islamic Threat Simplified.

Why Eric Holder prefers civilian trials of Gitmo detainees…

Am I understanding this correctly?  If true, this makes Watergate and Monicagate seem like benign Cub Scout mental lapses.

The article below by Michelle Malkin reveals one of the most audacious conflicts of interest by our government in recent times:

Eric Holder’s law firm and ex-law firm associates now working for the Department of Justice are representing Gitmo detainees.

The very regrettable problem is that this conflict of interest doesn’t just reap dirty profits – possibly from Saudi or other pro-Muslim or far left interest groups - but more seriously, compromises our national security as well.

This is part of Obama’s incessant stream of audacity…

Read Malkin’s revelations below:

Corruptocrat Eric Holder’s National Security Cover-up

by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2010

The White House wants to play Transparency Olympics with the Tea Party movement. President Obama’s Chief Technology Officer Andrew McLaughlin dared Tea Party activists and conservatives last week to “push the administration to make its policies more open” and make it a “political competition…to see who can be more radical in their openness,” The Hill reported. So, let’s start by knocking down Attorney General Eric Holder’s national security stonewall at the Department of Justice, shall we? Let the sun shine in.

For more than a year, I’ve been writing about the looming national security and conflict-of-interest problems posed by Holder’s status as former partner at prestigious law firm Covington and Burling. The company currently represents or has provided pro bono representation and sob-story media relations campaigns in the past to more than a dozen Gitmo detainees from Yemen who are seeking civilian trials on American soil.

The firm wasn’t just a bit player. It led the charge contributing more than 3,000 hours on Gitmo litigation in 2007, according to The American Lawyer. At least one known Covington & Burling bigshot and fellow former Clintonite, Lanny Breuer, now works for Holder as head of the DOJ’s criminal division. Though he himself did not participate in the detainee cases, Holder’s celebrity undoubtedly boosted company-wide prestige.

How many of Holder’s former colleagues and associates are now on the DOJ payroll? How many like them who worked at other law firms or left-wing lobbying groups now inhabit DOJ offices? How many of them have been allowed to work on government terrorism cases related to their past crusading for al Qaeda-tied clients? How many have had to recuse themselves – and have those recusals been full and forthcoming? How can the public judge whether these lawyers are truly representing America’s best interests – or the jiahdis’?

GOP Sen. Charles Grassley has been trying to get answers. He has been snubbed repeatedly by the information suppressors at DOJ. As the Washington Examiner’s Byron York reported on Friday, Holder has now acknowledged that “at least” nine Obama appointees in the Justice Department “have represented or advocated for terrorist detainees before joining the Justice Department.” But the tight-lipped, taxpayer-funded litigators at the agency won’t name names or cough up any relevant details.

Sen. Grassley had asked for “the names of political appointees in your department who represent detainees or who work for organizations advocating on their behalf…the cases or projects that these appointees work with respect to detainee prior to joining the Justice Department…and the cases or projects relating to detainees that have worked on since joining the Justice Department.” Beyond two DOJ appointees whose work for jihadi defendants had already been made public, Holder gave up nothing. Zip. Zilch.

It’s not even clear that the unnamed Gitmo Nine are the end of the line. The list is not a comprehensive tally of DOJ appointees, Holder told Grassley and other GOP senators who pressed for public disclosure. Why not? What are they trying to hide? Who are they trying to spare?

Americans have a right to know whether they are subsidizing jihadi sympathizers and whether their Justice Department is now a sanctuary for human rights transnationalists and little terrorists’ helpers in the mold of Lynne Stewart, who was convicted of abetting Muslim terrorist mastermind Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman and spreading messages inciting violence on his behalf while representing him.

Americans have a right to know whether Holder – who put political interests ahead of security interests at the Clinton Justice Department in both the Marc Rich pardon scandal and the Puerto Rican FALN terrorist debacle – has made hiring decisions that provide the common defense and promote the general welfare.

Tellingly, Holder has treated the GOP’s national security concerns dismissively. He’s hoping his non-response blow-off of Sen. Grassley’s request dies on the vine. And just as he used his own past lapses in judgment during the Clinton era to argue that they made him more qualified for the job he holds now, Holder argues that the phantom jihadi lawyers on the DOJ payroll are a good thing for the country, so we should just shut up:

“A prosecutor of white-collar fraud cases may have previously represented defendants in such cases. This familiarity with and experience in the relevant area of law redounds to the government’s benefit.”

As usual, Holder puts ordinary civilian crimes on the same footing as terrorism plots and acts of war against our country. But why not let the people decide for themselves whether his staff decisions redound to their benefit? “The American people have the right to information about their government’s activities,” Holder himself said in a press release trumpeting new freedom of information rules last year. Put up or shut up, Mr. Attorney General.

Technorati Tags: Eric Holder,corruption in the White House,gitmo detainees,civilian trials of foreign terrorists

Islam a Lamb or a Viper?

Here is an e-mail concerning the recent London bombings prominently displayed on the CNN website:

"We utterly condemn those atrocities. We condemn those responsible. Islam is a peaceful religion and it teaches peace. Those who are responsible must be brought to justice, no matter what religion or what country they belong to. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families and friends of those who have suffered in this atrocity. We the Scottish Muslims stand United and our prayers are with the families and friends of those who have been killed and all those injured in this atrocity. We appeal to the authorities that those who are responsible must be brought to justice. " Tahir Mohammed; Glasgow, Scotland

Based on what I know about Islam, current events, and CNN, the following observations are made:

• CNN, as most left-leaning media outlets, is a pawn of Islam
• The e-mail does not represent the truth about Islam; if spoken sincerely, it is an oddity; if spoken insincerely, it is a purposeful deception.
• The hundreds of terrorist acts over the last two decades have virtually all been committed by (pick one) grandmothers, boy scouts, Muslims.
• Therefore, Islam (pick one) is a peaceful religion, bakes cookies and gives them to little children, is a religion that frequently practices and condones terrorism as a means to exert their influence over those not sharing their faith.

It is interesting to note that most of the Islamic blogs and e-mails (see Jihad Watch website http://jihadwatch.org/) following the London bombings either congratulated themselves or complained about possible retribution against fellow Muslims. Rarely did they express sorrow for the victims or rage at the perpetrators.

Intelligence reports indicate at least 24 terrorists were involved in setting up and setting off the blasts. How many additional "sympathizers" do you think were needed to keep the plot a secret from British intelligence?

I am wary of Muslims. No, I am more than wary. Islam itself is not far from being a terrorist organization. I suspect that many of the "peaceful" among them are PR front people - the lobbying and fund raising arm, so to speak. And they have well-earned their reputation. Those who sincerely claim to be "peaceful" certainly do not appear to be in the Islamic mainstream.

PS: A great article about what we in the US should be doing differently and unapologetically is summarized by Michelle Malkin in a recent commentary http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/mm20050713.shtml