Powell turns his back on America

Former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, appearing this morning on Meet the Press, formally lent his endorsement to Senator Barack Hussein Obama's leftist campaign for the presidency on the basis, in Powell's words, that Obama "has the ability to inspire." No, I'm not making this up. But it gets worse:

President Bush's first secretary of state criticised his own party for allowing the campaign to turn negative.

"I'm also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the [Republican] Party say... such things as 'Well, you know that Mr Obama is a Muslim'.

"Well the correct answer is, 'He's not a Muslim, he's a Christian, he's always been a Christian'. But the really right answer is, "What if he is?' Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer is 'No', that's not America."

Mr Powell said he remained a Republican though he thought his party was moving too far to the right.

The Republican party is moving too far to the right? You must be kidding me! If the Republican party isn't moving far enough and fast enough for you to the left, Mr. Powell, then I'd suggest, sir, that you abandon it as you've done your country and officially join that other party where you belong. And take McCain with you while you're at it, eh?

Oh, and let's not neglect the minor issue of Powell's Islam-embracing dogmatism which states that America is not America that prefers Christian leaders over Islamic ones. Thus Americans who prefer Christians over Muslims, according to Mr. Powell, are not true Americans.

Here's the irrefutable evidence for Powell's betrayal of America, he could have refused to endorse either candidate, yet he chose to officially endorse Barack Hussein Obama and all the leftist anti-American baggage he carries with him. Not to mention that he states in no uncertain terms that even if Obama were a Muslim, he would still endorse him for POTUS.

Look for a Powell appointment in an Obama administration. And look out America, the Muslims have their agents and infiltrators everywhere, at all levels of government.

**********

On further reflection I think I get it now. I was initially looking at Powell's statement about the Republican party moving "too far to the right" as separate from his statements about America not being America unless it fully embraces Islam to the extent that it would elect a Muslim president. But the two statements work hand-in-glove. That's really the only way they make any sense considering the obvious fact that the Republican party is increasingly moving to the left, not to the right as Powell asserts. As Powell sees it, however, the Republican party is moving in the opposite direction, and here's why -- he sees that a growing segment of the Republican base is finally opening its eyes to the fact that Islam ain't all that president Bush has cracked it up to be, i.e., a great and peaceful religion hijacked by radicals. Since Republicans constitute the vast majority of folks who are finally beginning to see the light about Islam, and beginning to speak more openly about it, which is a danger to Islamic influence in America, Powell therefore concludes that the Republican party is moving too far to the right. With this covert agent of Islam it's about America's attitude toward Islam. It's all becoming very clear to me now.

Or is it simply Powell's sense of relative motion that causes him to see the Republican party as moving too far to the right? In other words, is Powell himself moving to the left at a faster pace than the bulk of the Republican party thus creating in him the relative sense that the Republican party is moving to the right, when in reality it is Powell that is moving to the left, as I said, at a velocity exceeding that of the Republican party?

Note to Mr. Powell: It was long ago discovered that the earth is not the center of the universe, if you catch my drift.

Read More

GoV supports CAIR's mission?

Am I picking fights unnecessarily with those who are largely in agreement with me on the issue of Muslims in the West? I don't believe so, but maybe you do.

Under this GoV thread Auster pointed out that Dymphna had wrongly asserted that many Muslims are American citizens of several generations, showing that in point of fact few Muslims are American citizens of several generations. Like Auster, I had also picked up on the falsity of Dymphna's statements, and intended to respond, only to find that I had been railroaded by Mr. Auster who beat me to the punch. ;-)

Nah, as I've written before, one of the fundamental tenets of CAIR's mission -- openly announced in so many words in each and every of their articles -- in America is to empower American Muslims. And as I've questioned, rhetorically, before, how are Muslims in America to do this, and to what purpose do they seek empowerment? The answers to those questions are very obvious to my mind.

But the implications of Dymphna's statements to the effect that we cannot even discuss removing Muslims, and thus the Muslim threat, from America and the West because they are already well established third and fourth generation citizens here, when in truth they are not, are what compelled me to respond the way I did in the thread. As I said, when you boil it all down to its fundamentals, what Dymphna is basically saying is that she supports a permanent Muslim presence and empowerment of Muslims in the West; what her position means, if followed, is that while her statements are false at the moment, they will become truthful a couple of generations down the road, at which point our progeny will be in a much weaker position to deal with the Muslim threat than we in our generation are.

What is fundamentally different, then, about Dymphna's position as she stated it in the thread, and that of CAIR as they incessantly state it under every article they post at their site? Both positions lead to the very same results -- a permanent empowered Muslim presence in the West -- which is, from any truly conservative pro-Western perspective, unacceptable.

Read More

Empowered Muslims asserting themselves

Back on December 5, 2007 I wrote about the mission of CAIR to empower Muslims in America. In a July 7, 2008 CAIR story posted at the CAIR website entitled CAIR-WA Welcomes Police Memo on Religious Ethnic Profiling, one can readily see what an organized and empowered Muslim community in America begins to do with its growing organization and empowerment.

From the July 7 article:

(SEATTLE, WA, 7/7/2008) - The Washington state chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-WA) today welcomed an internal memorandum from Seattle’s police chief cautioning against the use of religious or ethnic profiling in training programs.

In his memo to department captains, Chief of Police R. Gil Kerlikowske wrote:

The purpose of this message is to provide guidance to commands regarding assigning personnel to training courses. Recently there was some concerns expressed by community members regarding a training course. The Seattle Police Department has a commitment to unbiased policing and building trust with the community we serve. It is critical that training designed to detect illegal or possible illegal behavior serve a legitimate law enforcement function. Associating behavior with religious, racial, or ethnic affiliation will mislead law enforcement and cause us to spend time on what might not be a genuine threat. It is therefore, imperative that we carefully review the appropriateness of these courses prior to approving such training for our officers.

Chief Kerlikowske’s memo comes after CAIR-WA called on Port of Seattle Police to ensure that a recent two-day training course, titled “The Threat of Islamic Jihadists to the World,” offered a balanced perspective on Islam and Muslims. Local Muslims leaders had expressed concerns that the course would promote stereotypes and religious and ethnic profiling. (all emphases mine)

If you've never been to the CAIR site and read their articles, I recommend you take the time to do so. One thing I've noticed in reading their articles (and I do so fairly regularly) is that they're extremely careful to use seemingly innocuous very non-offensive, non-threatening language. But you know what they say "you can't fool a fooler." In other words, I ain't buyin' it.

In the excerpt from the CAIR article above, a typical CAIR article, we see statements like "CAIR welcomed the memorandum," "local Muslims had expressed concerns," and so forth, all carefully crafted non-threatening language to make it seem as though CAIR is not what it actually and really is. I'd lay down good money that the whole truth of the matter is that rather than local Muslims merely expressing concerns about internal Seattle police training policies, that there was rather outrage expressed to CAIR-WA representatives who then, empowered Muslims that they are, proceeded to dictate (not negotiate) terms to the Seattle PD on threats of legal action in the event the SPD refused to comply with CAIR's demands. Then of course the Seattle Police Department buckled under the pressure resulting in the situation we have now -- A police force at a major port of entry on America's West coast rendered virtually impotent in preventing terrorist activities on American soil by Muslim terrorists. What a wonderfully inclusive and tolerant country we now live in.

The article also lists several other recent cases at other major cities in the U.S. where the same results were effectively obtained on the same pretenses.

Read More

Credit Where Credit is Due

I hate to say it, but I'm going to have to agree with Rick Darby when he says he has to hand it to the Muslims. I don't like it anymore than he does, but he's also right that Western liberal politicians buckle at the knees at the mere threat of Islamic violence. Indeed, often it doesn't even amount to an actual threat, but an implied threat or the mere thought that an action might result in a threat.

Mr. Darby writes:

I've got to hand it to European Muslims, I really do. They are running rings around the governments of countries like Britain and Holland. Muslims clever; non-Muslims stupid.

What are they doing that's so smart? Well, either by a planned strategy or just an instinct for gnawing at the infidel's soft bits, they have figured how to advance Islamization in slices. Instead of one big confrontation, a thousand small ones.

I personally don't quite know what to make of it. Either it's the strategy of a genius or it's just dumb luck, as Rick suggests, that the Muslims have happened on the right combination here to dhimmify the European contintent in small slices. Whatever it is, though, it's definately working. Muslim world conquest continues unabated.

And, of course, this ties right into Auster's formulation that Mohammed was a Successful Hitler. Mr. Auster actually refers to Allah's prophet as "one of the great geniuses of history.":

Truly, Muhammad was one of the great geniuses of history, a successful Hitler as I have said, to keep getting people, even fourteen centuries after his death, voluntarily to embrace his program of self-abnegation, the willing surrender of their mind and identity....

And he notes some of the same disturbing phenomena that Mr. Darby recognizes in his entry. Whatever you do, don't miss either of these excellent articles.

Read More

Cause of Islamic violence: Free Speech

Free speech only goes so far, as we've been told so many times. Apparently in Britian not only can you not yell "fire!" in a crowded auditorium when there is actually no fire, but neither can you yell "Danger!, Islam!" on the blogosphere, even when it is so thoroughly documented that Islam IS and always has been the cause of "Islamic Extremism." This, of course, is inciting Islamic violence, and the only way to stop it is to incarcerate and silence those who dare to speak plainly about the violent nature of Islam; those who dare to say that Islam is incompatible with the West.

In America what we oughta be yelling at the top of our lungs and from every roof top is this: Danger! Cowardice! otherwise known as Liberalism! Can there be any question that we in America, if we do not wish to end up like our British brethren, must relegate the destructive ideology of liberalism to the far corners, as has been said numerous times here and elsewhere?

Read More

Dhimmicrat answers tough questions from CAIR Representative

At the Heartland Presidential Forum in Des Moines, John Edwards, Dhimmicrat Presidential contender answered the question of Ahmed Rehab in the following manner, as reported by CAIR:

John Edwards:

… we've got to stop this racial profiling that's going on in the United States of America.

(APPLAUSE)

And we've got to change the entire atmosphere. Here's what I'll do as president: I will close Guantanamo, which I think is a national embarrassment.

(APPLAUSE)

We will have no more secret prisons, no more rendition, no more -- and I use this word intentional -- no more illegal spying on the American people by the president of the United States of America.

(APPLAUSE)

And then, finally, finally, it is so heartbreaking that we have a debate in America about what kind of torture is permissible. I have an answer to that: No torture is permissible in the United States of
America. And those are all things that I would do as president.

I like Edwards's answer to the torture question, though I don't think Rehab mentioned torture, Edwards just took it on himself to address it, it being so heartbreaking and whatnot that we even talk about torture in this country.

If I were on Edwards's Presidential Campaign team I would recommend that he denounce the use of torture in stronger terms. For instance I would advise that he say something to the effect of "under no circumstances whatsoever is torture ever permissible in the United States! If life or death information cannot be extracted from a militant Islamist short of the use of means, the mere thought of which makes feminine America cringe, then I choose death and destruction to America, and I call on all Americans to choose death and destruction to America ... for the children; it's all about the children!

(APPLAUSE)

Read More

Did Darwin Prepare us to Worship at the Altar of Allah?

This used to be one of the main themes that I constantly hit on. Well, not in those exact terms. Let me explain:

The idea was, or so I thought, that the result of Darwin, once accepted as pretty much uncontested scientific fact which only needed reconciliation with some kind of a higher power which we'd identify as "God," that this Darwin god, being so much different than the biblical-Christian God would corrupt our conceptions of the almighty being to such an extent that we'd begin entertaining ideas of God, foreign ideas of God, that are simply incompatible with Western ideas of God man and government. It is, you see, our conceptions of the deity which form our conceptions of ourselves and the societal construct best suited to govern us.

And this is where I think (and have thought for a long time) Darwinianism is largely responsible for our finding ourselves in such a corrupted spiritual state collectively that we now accept, with little or no reservation, that Allah and the God of the Bible are essentially the same being; the same God. And if they are the same god, according to our Darwin based conceptions of the supreme eternal being, then why shouldn't we allow Muslims to come into our country and enjoy, automatically upon entry here, equal protections under our first amendment? Muslims are just like us, right? They believe in and worship essentially the same god that we do, right?

So Western liberalism prepared the way for Darwinism. Darwinism, in turn, prepared the way for the reception of an arbitrary chaotic unknowable self-contradicting he-can-do-anything-including-the-impossible deity we must all embrace and worship with our brethren from every corner of the earth. Sounds a whole lot like Allah to me. Is it any wonder we warmly welcome Muslims into the West preparing the way for our own dhimmitude, which, Darwinian evolutionism and sexual selection might just as well define as "freedom."

Read More

FrontPage interview with Bruce Tefft

More on the incompatibility of Islam with the West

I was over at VFR earlier scanning Auster's new articles when this one caught my attention. Certainly I was compelled to go over to FrontPage Mag. and read the entire interview with Mr. Tefft, so I did, and here's something intriguing that I found and thought I would share. At one point in the interview Tefft concludes his answer to an FP question in the following manner:

Tefft:

... But I'm an ex-spy, not a theologian -- from the spy-war aspect, the best thing the West can do in this war with Islam is to publicize and support morally and monetarily the apostates and ex-Muslims. They know the evils of Islam better than any outsider.

When I read this at first it sounded good and reasonable and made a lot of sense to me. Certainly a Muslim apostate/ex-Muslim who has renounced the religion of Islam would know much more than an outsider about the evils of, and inherent to Islam. And it cannot be bad, if Islam is so evil, for a Muslim to come to the light and renounce his faith in the religion of Mohammed, can it? Therefore we should publicize and fund these people, right? Then I came to my senses and recalled the Islamic principle of Taqiyya, or religious deception. In fact, earlier in the interview Tefft makes light of the practice of this principle in Islam when he states:

For a Muslim to pledge allegiance to a non-Muslim nation state would be either hypocritical or blasphemous -- something a true Muslim would not, or could not do. This is the case unless he was under a special jihadist dispensation from an Islamic cleric (as the 9/11 hijackers were) to infiltrate enemy territory and to act as the enemy does, in order to perform his mission. (italics added)

But further explanation of the principle, how it may be used and to what extent, may be found in Gregory M. Davis's excellent summation on the principles of Islam, Islam 101.

Mr. Davis writes:

Historically, examples of taqiyya include permission to renounce Islam itself in order to save one's neck or ingratiate oneself with an enemy. It is not hard to see that the implications of taqiyya are insidious in the extreme: they essentially render negotiated settlement -- and, indeed, all veracious communication between dar al-Islam and dar al-harb -- impossible. It should not, however, be surprising that a party to a war should seek to mislead the other about its means and intentions. Jihad Watch's own Hugh Fitzgerald sums up taqiyya and kitman, a related form of deception. (italics added)

So, what are we to conclude from this? Well, the conclusion I draw from it is that it would be virtually impossible to determine for sure whether you were dealing with a legitimate and sincere apostate/ex-Muslim given this principle of taqiyya in Islam to deceive the enemy in pursuit of victory over him. I mean, if the supposed apostate, working under the principle of taqiyya as described here is going to, in Tefft's words, "act as the enemy does," then he's going to dress like him, talk like him, groom himself like him, and most importantly rail against the evils and injustices of his true faith in accordance with his underlying purpose of accomplishing his mission, is he not?

So what is the answer to this dilemma? If we have no way of knowing who we're dealing with, friend or foe acting as friend, due to the deceitfulness authorized of his religion/former religion when we meet up with an "ex-Muslim"/"apostate," then what should be our approach to him? Is the answer not lying within the principles of separationism? Is it not to be skeptical of and distrust him to the point that we materially restrict his ability to harm us by his deceit, should he be operating under the principle of taqiyya or kitman -- the principle of deceiving his enemy in any way he can to accomplish his mission? Should we not thwart his mission before his mission ever gets underway?

Read More

Breaking down the "religion of peace."

Over at the AFB, Mike Tams has put up this entry providing the appropriate links to the articles of which he speaks where we may find such statements as this:

"The Quran's commandments to Muslims to wage war in the name of Allah against non-Muslims are unmistakable. They are, furthermore, absolutely authoritative as they were revealed late in the Prophet's career and so cancel and replace earlier instructions to act peaceably. Without knowledge of the principle of abrogation, Westerners will continue to misread the Quran and misdiagnose Islam as a "religion of peace.""

And this:

"Because Muhammad is himself the measuring stick of morality, his actions are not judged according to an independent moral standard but rather establish what the standard for Muslims properly is." (emphasis mine)

And this:

"There is no separation between the religious and the political in Islam; rather Islam and Sharia constitute a comprehensive means of ordering society at every level. While it is in theory possible for an Islamic society to have different outward forms -- an elective system of government, a hereditary monarchy, etc. -- whatever the outward structure of the government, Sharia is the prescribed content. It is this fact that puts Sharia into conflict with forms of government based on anything other than the Quran and the Sunnah."

And finally a couple of concluding paragraphs:

"It is paramount to note, however, that, even if no major terrorist attack ever occurs on Western soil again, Islam still poses a mortal danger to the West. A halt to terrorism would simply mean a change in Islam’s tactics -- perhaps indicating a longer-term approach that would allow Muslim immigration and higher birth rates to bring Islam closer to victory before the next round of violence. It cannot be overemphasized that Muslim terrorism is a symptom of Islam that may increase or decrease in intensity while Islam proper remains permanently hostile."

"It must be emphasized that all of the analysis provided here derives from the Islamic sources themselves and is not the product of critical Western scholarship. (Indeed, most modern Western scholarship of Islam is hardly “critical” in any meaningful sense.) It is Islam’s self-interpretation that necessitates and glorifies violence, not any foreign interpretation of it."

Go check out the article which concludes with a list of FAQs including the following:

a. What about the Crusades?

b. If Islam is violent, why are so many Muslims peaceful?

c. What about the violent passages of the Bible?

And etc...

Read More

In case you missed it

Be sure to check out Wednesday's VFR entry, They're coming to take our country and we must stop them. Particularly Leonard K.'s comments, followed by LA's reply, both added to the entry sometime after its intial posting.

As Auster concludes in his reply to Leonard's thoughts:

Muslims topple the World Trade Center, then get the Empire State Building lit up in their honor. This epitomizes America’s response to 9/11.

Sad but true.

Read More

How to accomodate a 30% Arab-American/Muslim population

This story first came to me via Don Wildmon's AFA Action Alert. After doing a rather hasty internet search to verify the story, I ran across this from Free Republic, and this story from CBS 2 Chicago, the latter of which tells of the 30% figure.

Thoughts?

rest of post here

Read More