Islamic supremacism: 2009 Archives


Former vice president Dick Cheney is very concerned about the failure of the White House to confront the war on terror (it won't even use the term "war on terror") seriously.

As I've watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war. He seems to think if he has a low key response to an attempt to blow up an airliner and kill hundreds of people, we won't be at war. He seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won't be at war. He seems to think if we bring the mastermind of 9/11 to New York, give him a lawyer and trial in civilian court, we won't be at war.

He seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core al Qaeda trained terrorists still there, we won't be at war. He seems to think if he gets rid of the words, "war on terror," we won't be at war. But we are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren't, it makes us less safe. Why doesn't he want to admit we're at war? It doesn't fit with the view of the world he brought with him to the Oval Office. It doesn't fit with what seems to be the goal of his presidency - social transformation--the restructuring of American society. President Obama's first object and his highest responsibility must be to defend us against an enemy that knows we are at war.

The enemy knows it's at war. Pretending that we aren't at war is a prescription for disaster and human tragedy.



Why doesn't Obama want to admit the United States is being attacked by Islamic supremacists?

doesn't Obama want to admit we're in a war we didn't choose with an enemy that has been fighting all others for 1400 years?

Why is Obama weakening our national security by treating Islamic terrorists as ordinary criminals instead of the Islamic enemy combatants they are?

Andrew McCarthy, perhaps the leading American expert on the inadequacy of the criminal justice system in fighting the Islamic supremacists dedicated to the destruction of America, devastates Obama's statements on how he has changed Muslim views of the U.S.:

Hadn't Abdulmutallab heard that we are closing Gitmo? Hadn't he heard that we're phasing out military-commissions so we can show the world that we give even the worst mass-murderers civilian trials with all the rights of American citizens? Hadn't he heard that President Obama has banned torture (yes, yes, I know, actually Congress banned it 15 years ago — details, details . . .)? Hadn't he heard that the president has called for "a new beginning" in America's relationship with the Muslim world? Hadn't he heard that this is our new, smarter strategy to safeguard the nation from man-caused disasters?

I suspect he's heard all those things.



Yuh, sure.




Even the New York Times editorial page may be waking up to the internal threat posed by immigrants from barbarian Muslim societies with values far removed from those of the West.

What's happening in Europe is an advanced stage of what can happen and is happening already in America.

Politicians ignore the danger that citIzens increasingly face from unassimilated -- and unassimilable -- Muslims.

Islam is an all-encompassing ideology demanding submissiion to its command to wage war until Islam rules the world. Its hold on its adherents inculcated from the moment of birth is difficult to break for most and impossible for many.

European politicians turned a blind eye for decades to this fact as they waved Muslim immigrants in. The result is chaos sweeping through Europe with fear, resentment and anger building among the natives. Many are pessimistic about the chances of European civilization surviving the belligerent Islamic onslaught. Political correctness and multiculturalism stand in the way of an aggressive defense.

Oddmakers are betting on Islam.

Europe’s Minaret Moment


They toasted to progress in Europe’s capitals last week. On Tuesday, the Treaty of Lisbon went into effect, bringing the nations of the European Union one step closer to the unity the Continent’s elite has been working toward for over 50 years.

But the treaty’s implementation fell just days after a milestone of a different sort: a referendum in Switzerland, long famous for religious tolerance, in which 57.5 percent of voters chose to ban the nation’s Muslims from building minarets.

Switzerland isn’t an E.U. member state, but the minaret moment could have happened almost anywhere in Europe nowadays — in France, where officials have floated the possibility of banning the burka; in Britain, which elected two representatives of the fascistic, anti-Islamic British National Party to the European Parliament last spring; in Italy, where a bill introduced this year would ban mosque construction and restrict the Islamic call to prayer.

If the more perfect union promised by the Lisbon Treaty is the European elite’s greatest triumph, the failure to successfully integrate millions of Muslim immigrants represents its greatest failure. And the two are intertwined: they’re both the fruits of the high-handed, often undemocratic approach to politics that Europe’s leaders have cultivated in their quest for unity.

The European Union probably wouldn’t exist in its current form if the Continent’s elites hadn’t been willing to ignore popular sentiment. (The Lisbon Treaty, for instance, was deliberately designed to bypass most European voters, after a proposed E.U. Constitution was torpedoed by referendums in France and the Netherlands in 2005.) But this political style — forge a consensus among the establishment, and assume you can contain any backlash that develops — is also how the Continent came to accept millions of Muslim immigrants, despite the absence of a popular consensus on the issue, or a plan for how to integrate them.

The immigrants came first as guest workers, recruited after World War II to relieve labor shortages, and then as beneficiaries of generous asylum and family reunification laws, designed to salve Europe’s post-colonial conscience. The European elites assumed that the divide between Islam and the West was as antiquated as scimitars and broadswords, and that a liberal, multicultural, post-Christian federation would have no difficulty absorbing new arrivals from more traditional societies. And they decided, too — as Christopher Caldwell writes in “Reflections on the Revolution in Europe,” his wonderfully mordant chronicle of Europe’s Islamic dilemma — that liberal immigration policies “involve the sort of nonnegotiable moral duties that you don’t vote on.”

Better if they had let their voters choose. The rate of immigration might have been slower, and the efforts to integrate the new arrivals more strenuous. Instead, Europe’s leaders ended up creating a clash of civilizations inside their own frontiers.

Millions of Muslims have accepted European norms. But millions have not. This means polygamy in Sweden; radical mosques in Britain’s fading industrial cities; riots over affronts to the Prophet Muhammad in Denmark; and religiously inspired murder in the Netherlands. It means terrorism, and the threat of terrorism, from London to Madrid.

And it means a rising backlash, in which European voters support extreme measures and extremist parties because their politicians don’t seem to have anything to say about the problem.

In fairness, it isn’t clear exactly what those leaders could offer at this point. They can’t undo decades of migration. A large Muslim minority is in Europe to stay. Persisting with the establishment’s approach makes a certain sense: keep a lid on prejudice, tamp down extremism, and hope that time will transform the zealous Islam of recent immigrants into a more liberal form of faith, and make the conflict go away.

Or least keep it manageable. Caldwell’s book, the best on the subject to date, has a deeply pessimistic tone, but it shies away from specific predictions about the European future. Other writers are less circumspect, envisioning a Muslim-majority “Eurabia” in which Shariah has as much clout as liberalism.

But even a decadent West is probably stronger than this. The most likely scenario for Europe isn’t dhimmitude; it’s a long period of tension, punctuated by spasms of violence, that makes the Continent a more unpleasant place without fundamentally transforming it.

This is cold comfort, though, if you have to live under the shadow of violence. Just ask the Swiss, who spent last week worrying about the possibility that the minaret vote might make them a target for Islamist terrorism.

They’re right to worry. And all of Europe has to worry as well, thanks to the folly of its leaders — now, and for many years to come.



Just because we have a new president who wants to be especially friendly with the Muslims of the world doesn't mean that the 1400-year war of Islam's true believers against the rest of the world has stopped. Almost every day evidence of the continuing war crops up, though often the national media doesn't report it or put it in the context of the global war that it is.

Syrian-born, but now an American doctor living in California Wafa Sultan appeared on al Jazeera television awhile ago and shocked viewers by saying straight out what is going on between Islam and the West. It isn't a "clash of civilizations" at all: It is a war between civilization and barbarism.

Today's editorial reminds us that among the 1.3 billion Muslims of the world is a significant number (15% is one estimate by a leading Muslim leader, that's 200 million) are following Mohammed's command to wage war to conquer the world for Islam. It is a war on civilization and we ignore that reality at our peril. But this is precisely what the the U.S. is currently doing with its banishment of words such as "terror" and "war on terror" and the refusal to identify who the enemy is. The nation's safety depends on knowing who is waging the war against us and acting accordingly to defend ourselves at home and abroad..

Terror: A Global War

Investor's Business Daily

Posted 12/07/2009 07:30 PM ET

GWOT: The arrest of a Danish cartoon terror plotter for an even more lethal role in 2008's Mumbai terror attack reminds us the war on terror is global. So why is this being treated as a mere law-enforcement matter?

David Copeland Headley, 49, a Pakistani-American resident of the north side of Chicago, was arrested in October for plotting the terror-killings of the editors of Jyllands-Posten, a Copenhagen-based newspaper that ran unflattering cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed in 2006.

A month later, the public learned it wasn't his first time. Headley, 49, a failed businessman and convicted drug dealer who'd changed his name from Daood Gilani, was arrested again on Monday, as an agent in the attacks at India's Oberoi and Taj hotels in Mumbai.

Headley was the advance man for the Pakistani terrorists, casing and filming Mumbai along the terror route as well as the hotels for months before they launched their multiday killing spree. The massacre that followed left 166 dead, including six Americans.

What's stunning here is that these incidents have thus far been viewed through a local lens — India's problem, Denmark's affair, America's issue, Pakistan's woe. They shouldn't be.

The same faces with the same Islamofascist motives are turning up no matter where or what sort of attack happens. It points to a ruthless enemy at war with the world, not a string of local crimes.

Yet the Danish cartoon imbroglio was viewed as an issue of civil rights and freedom of speech. The India massacre was dismissed as a function of its Kashmir dispute with Pakistan. The Afghanistan-Pakistan war is viewed as a nation-building venture rather than ground zero in the war on terror — which is what it is.

Remember 2001's shoe bomber Richard Reid? He was seen as a lone misfit from London, until it was revealed that the mosque he attended was part of a Pakistan-based Islamofascist cult. Led by Mubarak Gilani, mosque supporters murdered Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl and had links to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the 9/11 mastermind. (The Indian press reports that Gilani is a tribal name, meaning Headley could have links to this group, too.)

And just last October, a German passport belonging to Said Bahaji, a "Hamburg cell" associate of lead 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta, was among documents found by Pakistani forces in a Waziristan town used by the Taliban as a command base.

So much for the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan supposedly being about "nation building," and not about the global war on terror and hate-filled Islamic fundamentalism.

These "coincidences" only make sense when seen in the context of a global war that's centered in the region. But that's been obscured by those politicians all too eager to put their heads in the sand.

Oh, the White House pays lip service to this: "This case serves as a reminder that the terrorist threat is global in nature and requires constant vigilance at home and abroad," said David Kris, assistant attorney general for national security, in an official statement.

But why doesn't this come from a national leader? Even Attorney General Eric Holder would be a better choice to reinforce the global nature of the threat we face.

The real voice that should be heard recognizing of the fact that we are in fact at war against an implacable enemy is President Obama.

Our president will, by happy coincidence, soon be in Copenhagen, the very city where the Danish newspaper is published. He'll miss an important opportunity if he doesn't explicitly highlight the arrest in Chicago as part of a war on civilization — not a police matter.



In the aftermath of the Nidal Hasan massacre at Fort Hood, the airwaves were full of denial about what Hasan did and why. As a true believer Muslim, he did what he was raised to do -- kill infidels. Every Muslim has the duty, as set forth in the Koran and preached by Islam's founder Mohammed, to advance the cause of Islam by all means available. Being killed in the process of kiling infidels is held to be a sure ticket to the bordello in the sky.

As in any group of humans, there are those who have learned their religion and ideology and practice it and many who don't bother to learn, don't know and don't care. The indifferent Muslim in most cases is not a problem for the West. One who knows and understands the ideology of Islam is the danger. He is not a radical. He is in the mainstream of Islam. Hasan was (is) in the mainstream of Islam. As the author says:

Today's Western elites who think that Islamic militants do not represent "true Islam" are dangerously wrong. From the very beginning of the Islamic faith, the good Muslim, following the example of Mohammed, has been called to do battle against unbelievers, reject secularism, and reject any notion of the equality of faiths. In his 1998 manifesto "Jihad against Jews and Crusaders," Osama bin Laden quoted the Qur'anic injunction to "fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them" and also cited Mohammed's belief that "I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but Allah is worshiped." Osama then concluded that "The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it."

The following short essay by one who understands but rejects Islam is worth reading.

November 21, 2009
God and Government: Islam and West Are Incompatible
By Amil Imani

Western policymakers and elites in government, academia, and the media suffer from an extraordinary ignorance about the true nature of Islam. This ignorance was on display following the murder of thirteen American troops at Fort Hood, Texas by Nidal Hasan, a devout Muslim who held the rank of Major in the U.S. Army. Hasan is said to have shouted "God is Great" in Arabic as he gunned down his unarmed fellow troops.

Gen. George Casey opined that if Hasan's actions caused "diversity" in the Army to suffer, it would be a greater tragedy than the murders of his troops. President Obama stated that "no faith" justifies such actions. And Bob Schieffer of CBS News wondered if Hasan was merely a "nut," just like many of the "nuts" within Christianity.

These comments reflect a belief that Islam should be treated no differently from the various sects within Christianity. Some people go to Baptist churches, some attend Lutheran services, some attend Catholic mass, some play golf -- and some attend their local mosque. After all, we have "freedom of religion" guaranteed by the Constitution, don't we? Doesn't that extend to Islam as well?

The truth is that the Constitution's treatment of religion is premised upon concepts originating from within Christianity that are irreconcilable with the Islamic worldview. The Constitution prevents the "establishment" of a state religion. But the very idea that the state cannot or should not establish a religion is unique to Christianity. There is no parallel for this idea in Islam. The Constitution also prevents Congress from impeding the "free exercise" of religion. But the "free exercise" clause also assumes compatibility with Christian styles of worship -- for instance, one cannot engage in ritualistic human sacrifice to appease the gods and successfully claim immunity under the free-exercise clause.

Any honest evaluation of the history of Islam will indicate that it cannot be pigeonholed as if it were merely a different sect that utilizes a crescent rather than a cross as a symbol. Islam is fundamentally incompatible with Western attitudes toward religion and society.

Jesus, the founder of Christianity, explicitly rejected political and military methods to spread his religion. Mohammed, the founder of Islam, was not only a prophet, but a warrior and political leader as well. Christianity was formulated as a condition of conscience outside the realm of the state and of politics, while Islam is inherently political and spiritual.

Jesus was born a Jew in Roman-occupied Judea. The Jews understood Israel to be the Promised Land, according to the terms of the Mosaic Covenant in Exodus. They interpreted Jewish history as follows: when in violation of the Covenant, God punished the nation of Israel by sending its enemies to conquer it; conversely, when Israel complied with the terms of the Covenant, God allowed Israel to defeat its enemies and reclaim political control of the Promised Land. During the life of Jesus, the Jews were waiting for God to send a leader to militarily defeat the Roman conquerors.

Jesus rejected this interpretation. He promoted the idea of a New Covenant that included the possibility of salvation for the Roman occupiers. This was a blasphemy of the Jewish religion, so Jesus was executed as a heretic.

Jesus rejected political and military methods because he knew they would be ineffective against the Romans. His tactic was to preach and proselytize, not to seek political power. Rather than choose either religion or politics, Jesus instructed the Jews to "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto to God what is God's." When the Romans came to arrest him, he instructed his disciples to put away their swords.

From a tactical perspective, history proved Jesus correct. The Jews revolted against the Romans twice, and were crushed both times. After the second revolt, the Jews were exiled by the Romans, and many remained in exile until the founding of modern Israel in 1948.

Meanwhile, Christianity, utilizing Jesus's tactic of proselytizing, developed as a social system parallel to but independent of political authority. In the fourth century, Augustine theorized that politics was the "City of Man" and religion was the "City of God" -- two entirely independent realms with different goals and purposes. Augustine argued that Rome was merely a "great robbery." Christians should reject the goals of the "earthly city" -- power, money, and political overlordship. In Augustine's view, the only permissible reason for Christians to go to war or to kill was self-defense against an aggressive enemy.

It is from Augustine's distinction between the City of God and the City of Man that the West came to uphold "freedom of religion" apart from the control of the state.

The origins of Islam could not be more different. Its history is filled with political bloodletting and violence. Islam was founded in the seventh century when Mohammed believed that he was instructed by the angel Gabriel to convert the pagan Arabs and remedy the "errors" of Christianity and Judaism. Mohammed's preaching failed to make converts, and he was exiled from Mecca. He fled to Medina, raised an army, and returned to Mecca to convert the Meccans by force. Quite unlike Jesus, Mohammed then established himself as a political ruler. Indeed, the term "Islam" is Arabic for "submission."

Upon Mohammed's death, fitna, or civil war for control of Islam, erupted between his son-in-law Ali and Ali's rival Uthman. Both factions formed armies and engaged in open warfare and political assassination. Both Uthman and Ali were assassinated, Ali's son Hasan was poisoned, and Hasan's brother Hussein died in battle. The feud created the split between the Sunni and the Shiite factions that exists to this day.

From its origins until the early twentieth century, Islam was an imperial political force, spreading its faith by military conquest. The Abbasid Empire lasted from the eighth to the thirteenth century, spreading Islam from Spain to India. The Ottoman Empire, lasting from the thirteenth century until World War I, conquered parts of southern Europe including Greece and the Balkans; and as late as 1683, only a hundred years before the founding of the United States, the Ottomans laid siege to Vienna, Austria.

The Islamic worldview divides the world into two spheres: the non-Islamic world is the dar al-harb, or the "house of war," and the Islamic world is the dar al-Islam, the "house of peace." From the Muslim perspective, "peace" is achieved only once the enemy has been conquered and subordinated to Islam.

Throughout Islam's imperial reign, no difference has existed between civil law and religious law, or sharia. The distinction between civil and religious law is a Christian, not an Islamic, idea. "Secular society" simply does not exist with Islam properly understood. Apostasy is punishable by death within the Islamic code. Secular rulers in Muslim countries during the twentieth century were a historic aberration, a result of British colonialism. Many, like the Shah of Iran and Egyptian president Anwar Sadat, met unhappy ends at the hands of the devout.

A special condition called dhimmitude exists within the Islamic legal code for groups of non-Muslims conquered by Islamic forces who refuse to convert. Some contemporary observers view dhimmitude as an example of Muslim "tolerance," but the truth is quite the opposite; dhimmitude is a subordinate condition. The dhimmi was not allowed to attempt to convert Muslims to his religion, his house of worship was not allowed to be more conspicuous than a mosque, he was not allowed to hold political office, and he was required to pay a special tax.

(It is for these reasons that the existence of Israel is particularly grating to Muslims. Israel exists within what has historically been the dar al-Islam, but modern Israel is not in a condition of dhimmitude subservient to Muslim political authority).

Today's Western elites who think that Islamic militants do not represent "true Islam" are dangerously wrong. From the very beginning of the Islamic faith, the good Muslim, following the example of Mohammed, has been called to do battle against unbelievers, reject secularism, and reject any notion of the equality of faiths. In his 1998 manifesto "Jihad against Jews and Crusaders," Osama bin Laden quoted the Qur'anic injunction to "fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them" and also cited Mohammed's belief that "I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but Allah is worshiped." Osama then concluded that "The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it." (Even if only 10% of the world's 1.4 billion Muslims heed this call, enemy strength still amounts to 140 million).

The idea that individuals like Maj. Hasan can serve the United States and Islam simultaneously is analogous to believing that one could have been a good communist and still loyally serve the United States during the Cold War -- or patently untrue. In fact, Hasan's business card did not reveal his rank in the U.S. Army, but did bear the inscription SoA -- "Soldier of Allah."

Like Maj. Hasan, an uncomfortably large number of Islamic terrorist suspects in the West are citizens of the very Western nations they seek to subvert. Examples include "shoe bomber" Richard Reid, "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla, "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh, and Hasan's radical imam, Anwar al-Awlaki. This fact betrays the radicalizing influence of Islam itself. It is time to subject Muslims residing in the West to the same level of scrutiny that was applied to communists fifty years ago.

As these individuals have ably demonstrated, Westerners who make the mistake of treating orthodox Muslims no differently from Lutherans or Quakers do so at the West's peril. Western policymakers need to start thinking very, very seriously about what will happen when devout Muslims who are inspired by Islam's heritage of conquest have nuclear weapons at their disposal.



Charles Krauthammer has reduced to print his analysis of the absurd ratioale of Attorney General Eric Holder for moving the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to New York City.

While it seems increasingly clear part of the agenda of the Obama administration is to blacken the reputation of pre-Obama America abroad, it is also increasingly clear that the administration lacks moral clarity, sound judgment and the ability to think and speak coherently.

Thus, Krauthammer:

Travesty in New York
Charles Krauthammer
Friday, November 20, 2009

WASHINGTON -- For late-19th-century anarchists, terrorism was the "propaganda of the deed." And the most successful propaganda-by-deed in history was 9/11 -- not just the most destructive, but the most spectacular and telegenic.

And now its self-proclaimed architect, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, has been given by the Obama administration a civilian trial in New York. Just as the memory fades, 9/11 has been granted a second life -- and KSM, a second act: "9/11, The Director's Cut," narration by KSM.

September 11, 2001 had to speak for itself. A decade later, the deed will be given voice. KSM has gratuitously been presented with the greatest propaganda platform imaginable -- a civilian trial in the media capital of the world -- from which to proclaim the glory of jihad and the criminality of infidel America.

Continue reading . . .



A few voices have spoken in disgust to condemn the political correctness that is putting this nation in danger. Diana West is blunt that the spreading threat of Islam must be turned back. But do we have the spine to do it?

[T]he world of Islam -- Islam -- is at war with us, is expanding into our sphere, is extending its law (sharia) into our realm, through acts of terror, poses of victimhood, unprecedented patterns of migration, and, of course, waterfalls of oil-money. And we stand paralyzed by Islam's role in reorienting our civilization to accommodate Islamic law because it shames us, it frightens us, and it demands actions that our self-censoring and soft society cannot muster.

Read it all.

Sudden Jihad Syndrome
10 November
by Diana West

First, why do I call Hasan a "Palestinian"? Because he has identified himself as Palestinian. Why do I call him "Muslim"? Despite what dhimmi-media are not bothering to mention, or barely mentioning in passing, he is a Muslim. In this Age of Jihad, this is RELEVANT.

Elementary example: If, during World War II, a German-American Nazi had shouted "Sieg Heil" before committing a similar unspeakable act on a US base, his German-ness and Nazi beliefs would also have been RELEVANT. (Of course, had such an officer been arguing against US involvement in WWII and calling for German Nazis to "rise up against the aggressor," etc., he would have been relieved of duty if not arrested long before such an attack.)

But even as we learn Hasan shouted "Allahu Akbar" -- not "God is Great," as the media oh-so-prudishly prefers -- before mowing down dozens of brave American soldiers deep in the heart of Texas (just as Mohammed Atta, the Egyptian AIr 990 pilot, the Bulldozer killer, and more, all yelled) the military spokesmen, pundits, newspapers remain "stumped" as to his motivation.


They are unable even to speculate whether this was an act of jihad. They can't even mouth the words, certainly can't write them. Here are a couple of sample headlines in the morning papers. After reporting the death toll, they add:

"Officer Is Suspect" (NYT). Or: "Suspect Is Army Psychiatrist Who Worked at Walter Reed" (WP).

The suspect officer is a Muslim, and the headlines should have reflected this, like so:
"Muslim Officer is Suspect." Or: "Muslim Suspect Is Army Psychiatrist..."

He is what he is.

In a slightly saner world the media would explore how -- "whether" would be a start -- Islamic beliefs figured into the massacre; Congress would investigate how such a man -- someone described as happy about the jihadist attack on a Little Rock Army-Navy recruiting station that killed Pvt. William Long -- was allowed to remain in the military. And it would fall to the military and security services to own up to politically incorrect fact that at the very least combat cohesion is shot, certainly post-Ft. Hood this week, certainly post-Helmand this week (where five British troops were killed by a Taliban-linked Afghan policeman) with Muslims in the ranks.

Meanwhile, there seem to be few Muslims in the military. I am still looking for current data, but meanwhile came across this 2007 report from Newsmax which reports:

Pentagon statistics show there are more Jews and Buddhists than Muslims serving in the 1.4 million strong, overwhelmingly Christian armed forces.

In the Marine Corps, there are only slightly more Muslims than Wiccans, who practice witchcraft. And in the Air Force, Wiccans outnumber Muslims by more than two to one.
Will we continue to deny the irreconcilable differences between Islam and Judeo-Christian beliefs?

The Pentagon lists 3,386 Muslims in active service, compared with 1.22 million Christians of a wide array of denominations ....

The question is, Do we love basking in the self-congratulation of "diversity" so much that we will ask our soldiers to trust their lives to some few Muslims in the military all too prone to Sudden Jihad Syndrome? Do we love affirming the mythology of "multiculturalism" so much that we will continue to deny the irreconcilable differences between Islam and Judeo-Christian beliefs -- not to mention secular humanist beliefs -- that now fester within our military and security services? (Hasan was actually a consultant on a panel advising President Obama on Homeland Security matters.) So far, the answer is a clear and resounding "yes." Yes to Diversity over Survival. Yes to Denial over Reality. Dhimmitude Is Us.

Someone wrote me last night:

I just watched the latest military press briefing. The Commanding Officer adamantly refused to discuss anything about Major Hassan, the shooter, and I did not hear one question from the press corps inquiring if Major Hassan's Muslim faith, jihad or Islam could have had anything to do with this act.

More than that, there was not a question about how on God's Earth the C.O. can believe he can guarantee the safety of his non-Muslim troops from further acts like this.

It was almost comical, were it not so tragic, to listen to the questions and answers about the timeline, the location of the shootings, the responding units, the facility layout, the graduation ceremony close by, the coming deployment of the troops, the firearms Hassan had at his disposal, the base security now being ramped up, and anything else but the "I" word.
For we must not say it aloud. We must not whisper it. We must not think it, for if we do then we must confront the all too horrible thought that perhaps we are at war with the entire World of Islam - and that is unthinkable. So, the denial of the elephant in the room goes on.

I would rephrase that last bit to describe the "unthinkable" as rather being that the world of Islam -- Islam -- is at war with us, is expanding into our sphere, is extending its law (sharia) into our realm, through acts of terror, poses of victimhood, unprecedented patterns of migration, and, of course, waterfalls of oil-money. And we stand paralyzed by Islam's role in reorienting our civilization to accommodate Islamic law because it shames us, it frightens us, and it demands actions that our self-censoring and soft society cannot muster.

So we overlook the obvious, the Muslim-ness of the suspect. the jihadism of the act. Soon, the apoiogies will start -- and to Hasan.


Contact: Diane Bronsdon 508 945 9218
C R Facebook
To help us do our part to keep America strong and well informed, just click below. Donate Now!


Michael O'Keffe District Attorney
Leo Cakounes Barn.Cty Commish
Sheriff Cummings
Hot Air
Legal Insurrection
National Review
Power Line
Pajamas Media


Semper Fi Fund
Cape Cod Cares for Our Troops
Wounded Warrior Family Support
New England Center and Home for Veterans
Chatham Info
Monthly Archive