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.

Burning questions about Islam answered by Bill Warner

Bill Warner has spent much of his life studying Islam, the religion, and Islam the political ideology.  Dr. Warner, a scientist in his earlier life, applied analytical methods to his study of the “trilogy” the 3 books that comprise the Islamic “bible” or Islamic “Mein Kampf” however you want to view them.

What he found is the answer to the complexity and successes of Islam.  These three books, collectively, focus on what Muslims must do about the Kafir, the non-Muslim.  Sixty percent of the words of these books deal with how Muslims must think and act toward the Kafir.  That makes Islam a political ideology and a political movement.

Understanding that, I have had three burning questions about the West’s reaction to the Islamic movement and its representatives over the past few years.  So yesterday I posed these questions to Dr. Warner.

1. Why does Romney say "Jihadism is no part of Islam."  I elaborate on Romney’s odd statements here.
2. What should we make of individuals such as Zudhi Jasser who claims he is a "devout" Muslim but sounds and acts like he is not a Muslim at all.  I elaborate on Zudhi Jasser here.
3. And finally, if our government intelligently understood Islam, what should we do differently in Afghanistan, if we had a presence there at all.
   

Here is Dr. Warner’s reply, and I quote [list numbers added]:

Briefly:

1. Romney's statement is false. I will not speculate as to why.
2. I don't bother with moderate Muslims, since there is no moderate Islam.
3. Wars against Islam should include its doctrine. War should only be used to punish and cause suffering. After the war, send in the missionaries. Teach the true Islamic doctrine in our schools; every student should know Koran, Sira, Hadith and the history of the Tears of Jihad.

His answer to the first question:  Romney is wrong.  Romney’s statement is false.  Dr. Warner does not speculate on obvious error.  I will speculate that Romney is influenced by his own Mormon doctrine and upbringing as further explained here.

Dr. Warner’s answer to the second question:  There is no “moderate” Islam, pure and simple.  Those who appear to be practitioners of “moderate” Islam are not practicing Islam, but are practicing a perversion of it.  Islamic history does not support what “moderates” purport to be – except in the cause of deception to further Islam.  The so-called “moderates” are either practicing taqiyya (Islamic deception) or are truly ignorant of their own faith.

His answer to the third question is exactly as Col. Allen West has stated:  We have been mistakenly fighting “terror” which is a tactic.  A tactic separated from the ideology that originates that tactic is a phantom.  We are fighting ghosts.  We will never know our enemy until we admit to the ideology that motivates our enemy.  That ideology is Islam itself. 

We cannot fight a war and have a “missionary” mentality at the same time.  We should be “nation-building” only after we have achieved a clear-cut victory.   And the clear cut victory will only be achieved by scaring the holy crap out of the entire population (civilian, political, as well as military) of the nation we are trying to neutralized.

Will will continue to lose this decades-long war as long as we continue to make believe Islam is something it is not.  We must understand Islam in the same manner we understood Fascism during WWII and Communism during the Cold War.  We must understand Islam and Islamism in this new, protracted epic battle so we will not repeat the demise of past cultures who were deceived and supplanted by Islamic taqiyya (deceit).

We don’t yet know our enemy…

Today’s headlines from Drudge…

5th day of Koran-burning protests...
Islamists rampage British WWII cemetery in Libya...
Mobs charge US bases...
Taliban: Kill foreigners...
Pentagon Official Apologizes at VA Mosque...
Obama 'deeply regrets'...
Gingrich: Obama 'surrendered' with apology...

2 AMERICAN OFFICERS KILLED IN KABUL

This is yet another testament to the ignorance of US “experts” with regard to the Islamic influence in Afghanistan and the Middle East.

It is maddening to observe our leaders, not just Obama, not just his Generals, but people like Bush and even Mitt Romney make excuses for the Islamic ideology by continually proclaiming Islam is a religion of peace.

Romney:  “Jihadism is no part of Islam”

In a recent speech before the Heritage Foundation, in response to a question about an earlier statement he made, he said:

“…I spoke about three major threats America faces on a long term basis. Jihadism is one of them, and (1) that is not Islam. If you want my views on Islam, it's quite straightforward. (2) Islam is one of the world's great religions and (3) the great majority of people in Islam want peace for themselves and peace with their maker. They want to raise families and have a bright future.

There is, however, a movement in the world known as jihadism. They call themselves jihadists and I use the same term. And this jihadist movement is intent on causing the collapse of moderate Muslim states and the assassination of moderate Muslim leaders. It is also intent on causing collapse of other nations in the world. (4) It's by no means a branch of Islam. It is instead (5) an entirely different entity. In no way do I suggest it is a part of Islam.” 

(Weird – I typed “paren/6/paren” and the little devil appeared.  How fitting.)

His statements are flat out WRONG on so many levels.  I’ve inserted numbers above at the beginning of each ignorant and wrong statement he made.  These are Islamist talking points, concluding with number 6, the little devil.

This is pure Islamic influence – offense at Qur’an burnings.  It is ALSO Jihad, actions to defend and promote Islam.  Wake up, Romney!

This is what Islam is:  It is a religious excuse for maintaining an intolerant, supremacist ideology among psychotic, inbred people who are stuck in a dark ages morality.  That is the only rational explanation of their knee-jerk, psychotic behavior.

Why else would a book burning incite thousands if not millions to engage in riots and killing?   There are millions upon millions of other third world people around the globe of other religions who do not act this way.  The only common denominator to such violent and insane behavior is Islam.

We need leaders who do not deny the truth of Islam.  And if we must elect a leader who, because of our pre-occupation with “jobs”, happens to be a bit south on his understanding of Islam, we need to embark on a concerted bombarment of letters, emails, blogs, faxes, and phone calls reminding such people of the truth.  Hopefully they haven’t been brainwashed enough to be totally closed minded and insist on remaining in their ignorance. 

Being all things to all men has limits…

Most Christians are aware of Paul’s method of evangelism – relating to the people he is trying to bring to Christ – namely “becoming all things to all men.”  This is also known as “relational evangelism” or “friendship evangelism.”
More completely, the verse reads:

“I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. ²³I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.”     
1 Corinthians 9:22-23

The motive of  Paul’s application of this method is fantastic.  There is no higher goal.  To him, obviously the end justifies the means.
On a secular level, good salesmen in any industry use this method all the time to drum up business:  They relate to their customer in any way they can so they can gain their confidence, build trust, earn a customer and earn an income.
Personally, I have become suspicious of such tactics.  To me, this reeks of hypocrisy and delusion.The result for many is expectation of friendship, only to discover they have been used.
The same abuse can result when sharing the gospel using this method.  While we are urged to have “pure motives” while becoming “all things to all men”, pure motive alone does justify a false front or deceptive behavior.  Paul may have mastered this technique.  Perhaps this “technique” fits his personality and his “gift” for relating to people.  This is certainly part of the gift of evangelism:  The ability to relate to people in a sincere way with pure motives without getting caught up in beliefs and behaviors contrary to what we understand to be Godly standards.
But not all of us have this “gift.”  Not all of us are fitted with the same skill set as Paul.  Certainly even Jesus himself was not “all things to all people.”  He never compromised His principles to “fit in with the crowd.”  He certainly dialogued with sinners (all of us are sinners in one way or another).  But he never led people to believe he would become a hooker or a corrupt tax collector or a money changer so that he could gain their confidence and convert people to His way of thinking.
Being “all things to all men” is not the only way to express God’s desire to those people we encounter.  It was Paul’s way.  And some of may choose to mimic that “method.”  But those of us who cannot relate to that method should not feel or be considered inferior.   For example the apostle John had a variety of ways of conveying the truth of God’s words.  In his gospel he emphasized  the love of God and forgiveness.  In his last book, Revelation, he focused on God’s final judgment.   In that book John made no attempt to win friends and influence people ala Dale Carnegie.
What other ways are there to get our message across?  Here are a few:

• Lifestyle evangelism:  Being an example so that others see Christ in you.
• Service evangelism:  Assisting others in need via personal service, food kitchens, helping neighbors, missions, etc.
• Focused evangelism:  Short of being “all things to all people” focus on a group of people you can sincerely relate to.  Luke focused on the Jews.  An attorney may focus on other attorneys.  A former Muslim may focus on current Muslims.
• Topical evangelism:  Focus on topics you know about which will be of interest to other people.  Write or speak about political or moral issues from a Christian perspective that may garner interest.
• Evangelism via apologetics:  Using logical reasoning with people
• Direct evangelism:  This might be through church initiated  visitation, street or door to door evangelism or discussions with friends and neighbors you already relate to.

Indeed, attempting to be “all things to all men” has its limitations.  Some, like me, may be suspicious of that method.  They may be more open to logic and evidences (apologetics) such as in Josh McDowell’s 1970’s Evidence That Demands a Verdict books.  Others may be receptive only to hitting bottom, losing everything, with no place else to turn except to God.
Above all, genuine, as opposed to feigned, sincerity is essential.  The end does not always justify the means.  If it did, you would make a good Muslim or Communist.