Sunday, October 31, 2010

Think Again: A double standard for Islam

Think Again: A double standard for Islam

Hate speech laws are applied in West against those critical of Islam, but never against Muslim imams who mock Jewish, Christian infidels.

Islamists everywhere demand respect for Islam, the prophet and the Koran, and threaten murderous mayhem should that demand not be honored. At the same time, they do not hesitate to express their contempt for other religions and their adherents, as well as the system of democratic rights protecting the freedom of religion.

Nor are those threats to be taken likely. More than 50 people died in violence triggered by the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s 1989 edict against Salman Rushdie, author of The Satanic Verses, and all those connected with its publication or distribution. Dozens of Europeans are now in hiding or under police protection because of death threats from Muslims.

Sadly, the West has to a shocking degree acquiesced in this double standard. The Washington Post removed from its website a cartoon including the words “Where’s Muhammad,” even though it contained no depiction of him; South Park’s producers edit episodes mentioning Islam but not those ridiculing Christianity; Yale University Press deleted all the actual cartoons from a book on the Danish cartoon controversy. Australian preachers were fined for quoting the Koran, and leading Dutch politician Geert Wilders was put on trial for his strident criticism of Islam.

Hate speech laws are applied in Europe against those critical of Islam, but never against Muslim imams who mock Jewish or Christian infidels. Even here, Tatiana Susskind was sentenced to two years in jail for posting a cartoon of the face of Muhammad on the body of a pig, but preachers from the Islamic Movement can broadcast what they want about Jews and Judaism.

The double standard conveys to the Islamists two dangerous messages. First, violence works; the West is terrorized. Second, Islam is the one true religion: Behold, even Westerners treat it with a deference not shown to Christianity or Judaism.

INTELLECTUALS AND cultural elites have played a major role in fostering the West’s acceptance of voluntary dhimmitude by manipulating the level at which the debate takes place whenever it touches issues of Islam. In part, intellectual attitudes are motivated by fear; in part by a refusal to acknowledge a civilizational struggle between the West and expansionist Islam. For some, the frisson of seeing their own bourgeois society under attack contributes to the fun.

The recent uproar over the threat of an obscure Florida pastor to burn the Koran provides a classic example of the different ways the debate is framed depending on whether Islam is perceived as the “aggressor” or the “victim.”

The Koran burning would undoubtedly have been protected “symbolic speech” under settled First Amendment doctrine. Burning the American flag, another highly charged act, has been protected by the Supreme Court. At the same time, it must be conceded that the Koran burning is highly offensive to Muslims and has no purpose other than to offend.

Let’s compare the response to the threatened Koran burning to another recent hot-button issue: the Ground Zero mosque. In discussing the proposed mosque, President Barack Obama focused, or at least claimed to focus, on the impermissibility under the First Amendment of banning only mosques from a particular area. He expressed, or claimed to express, no opinion on the propriety of the project.

The issue of the propriety of the project or the implicit message it would convey to the broader Islamic world was beyond the pale of legitimate discussion, proclaimed New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg. He professed to be totally uninterested in the fact the project’s initiator, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, is an advocate for the spread of Islamic law (Shari’a) or that he has assigned America part of the blame for 9/11 or that he initially described the site of the mosque as so close to Ground Zero that debris from one of the hijacked airplanes fell on it. That the building of the mosque will be viewed by Islamists worldwide as an example of Islamic religious structures replacing those of the conquered infidels is irrelevant.

Pastor Terry Jones, by contrast, was immediately condemned by Obama (“un-American”), Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (“disgraceful”) and Supreme NATO Commander in Afghanistan Gen. David Petraeus. The latter argued that the Koran burning would endanger allied troops and make the Taliban’s recruiting easier.

In short, critics of Jones – just about every single person in America – framed the discussion of his proposed action in terms of its propriety or impact, and ignored its protected status under the First Amendment, while defenders of the Ground Zero mosque talked only of the First Amendment, and ruled out of court issues of propriety or the boost the mosque would give to the Islamist narrative of Islam triumphant.

Even more striking is the contrast of the calumny heaped on Jones, with the public discussion of grossest offenses to Christianity. Christians who protested the taxpayer-supported Brooklyn Museum of Art’s display of a picture of Jesus’s mother on a background of buttocks and female genitalia or the use of a National Endowment of the Arts grant to produce a jar with a plastic crucifix in urine (Piss Christ) found themselves pilloried by their cultural betters as philistines and lectured on the privilege of living in a society in which even the most transgressive art can find a public forum.

Only transgressive art that might rile notoriously irritable Muslims gets a pass. US Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer seriously entertained the idea, in response to a question from George Stephanopoulos, that Koran-burning might be compared to shouting fire in a crowded theater if Muslims in Afghanistan would go on murderous rampages in response. He thereby treated Muslims as possessed of rage response instinct that completely bypasses all higher brain function.

THE DISPROPORTIONATE media attention focused on Jones served the Islamist cause by giving credence to the charge of Islamophobia, which is constantly used to exclude discussion of Islam from the free marketplace of ideas. New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, for instance, felt compelled to “apologize to Muslims for the wave of bigotry and simple nuttiness directed at you.”

Yet Islamophobia is largely a fiction. Jones, one person in a nation of more than 300 million, did not constitute a wave of anything. Hate crimes against Muslims are exceedingly rare in America – even after 9/11, the Fort Hood massacre, the attempted Times Square bombing and a dozen other foiled terrorist attempts. Hate crimes against Jews and Jewish institutions are eight times as common as those against Muslims.

The Western media consistently downplays the scope of Islamic threat, perhaps in an effort to calm its fears. The overwhelming majority of Muslims worldwide are peace-loving fellows, we are assured, and only a handful of bad apples spoil the image of the rest. Ignored are the worldwide network of Saudi-sponsored Wahhabi mosques and the vast number of Muslim Brotherhood-inspired offshoots – not just al-Qaida and Hamas, but groups in Western countries promoting Shari’a as the only legitimate system of law.

Endemic problems in virtually the entire Arab and Muslim world are ignored. On a Freedom House scale of freedom (on which seven is the least free) the median for Arab nations is 5.5. For the rest of the world it is 2.5. Whether it is child brides in Gaza, institutionalized selection of dancing pre-pubescent boys as mistresses by older males in Afghanistan or widespread clitoridectomy in much of the Muslim world, the media take a pass. All these phenomena deserve more attention than Jones’s antics.

When Khomeini pronounced it the duty of every Muslim to kill Salman Rushdie and all those promoting his book, British intellectuals rallied to his defense. Recently, when Mollie Norris, a cartoonist for a Seattle alternative weekly, had the misbegotten idea of promoting “Draw Muhammad Day,” she was advised by the FBI to change her identity and go underground. Her own paper contented itself with a laconic announcement, “Mollie Norris no longer exists.”

The story of an American journalist fearing for her life in America received scant coverage.

No wonder Paul Berman titled his recent book on Western responses to Islam The Flight of the Intellectuals.

The writer is the director of Jewish Media Resources. He has written a regular column in The Jerusalem Post Magazine since 1997, and is the author of eight biographies of modern Jewish leaders.

Muslim Cleric: "The Flag of Islam will one day fly over the White House"


UK jihadist: Muslims "may say one thing to you in front of CNN," but behind your backs they support jihad

thanks to Robert again at JihadWatch for this,,

FRACK you Choudary!!!

Anjem Choudary must be some kind of Islamophobe: "This is something, you know, the Muslims around the world, I don't think would differ with. They may say one thing to you in front of CNN. But I can assure you behind your backs, in every masjid and every community center, they are standing with their Muslim brothers and sisters saying, We hope the Americans and British are pushed out of our countries, and we can implement the Sharia."

Qur'an 3:28 warns believers not to take unbelievers as "friends or helpers" (َأَوْلِيَا -- a word that means more than casual friendship, but something like alliance), "unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them." This is a foundation of the idea that believers may legitimately deceive unbelievers when under pressure. The word used for "guard" in the Arabic is tuqātan (تُقَاةً), the verbal noun from taqiyyatan -- hence the increasingly familiar term taqiyya. Ibn Kathir says that the phrase Pickthall renders as "unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them" means that "believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers" may "show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda' said, 'We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.' Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, 'The Tuqyah [taqiyya] is allowed until the Day of Resurrection." While many Muslim spokesmen today maintain that taqiyya is solely a Shi'ite doctrine, shunned by Sunnis, the great Islamic scholar Ignaz Goldziher points out that while it was formulated by Shi'ites, "it is accepted as legitimate by other Muslims as well, on the authority of Qur'an 3:28." The Sunnis of Al-Qaeda practice it today.

(Video thanks to Brian.)

Print this entry | FaceBook | Email this entry | Digg this | | Buzz up!

Pierre Rehov: Suicide Killing -- Proliferation

Thanks to Robert over at JihadWatch,,

A new film is coming from the great Pierre Rehov:


Billions have been invested by Saudi Arabia in US universities in the last years. At the same time, our western values have been eroded by moral relativism. This leads an entire generation to believe in new mythologies such as: a genocide is perpetrated against Palestinians, Suicide Killers are kamikazes, or freedom fighters, Cho, Eric and Dylan, the murderers of Virginia Tech and Columbine are a typical product of our repressive society, the US army is an occupation force in Iraq, and many other relativist revisions of history, leading to a path to darkness.

Pierre Rehov's latest film "Suicide Killing - Proliferation" has led him to investigate those mythologies, and takes us to Japan, to meet with WW2 former kamikazes, to Iraq, where he was embedded in the US Army's 4th Cavalry, into Gaza and the West Bank. And for the first time, he documents the step by step religious brain washing of a candidate to suicide-terrorism, including the rituals preceding his criminal act, and much more. Pierre also has a close encounters with families of suicide killers, and local Imams.

Following the acclaimed "Suicide Killers", "SUICIDE KILLING - PROLIFERATION " will take us for a journey deeper into the mind of terrorists, while debunking the dangerous mythologies propagated among our new generation.

Print this entry | FaceBook | Email this entry | Digg this | | Buzz up!

Saturday, October 30, 2010

Are Our Educational Efforts Self-Defeating?

Are Our Educational Efforts Self-Defeating?

Are Our Educational Efforts Self-Defeating?

Posted: 29 Oct 2010 02:26 PM PDT

A FRIEND OF MINE said it doesn't help us defeat Islamo-fascism (as he called it) to know more about Islam. He feels that animosity toward Muslims is fueling a division between Muslims and non-Muslims, and our best bet would be to side with those Muslims who are against jihad.

Basically, he is saying that our educational efforts to make non-Muslims aware of the teachings of Islam ultimately defeats our purposes by making "peaceful Muslims" side with orthodox Muslims (politically active Muslims) because animosity towards Muslims causes peaceful Muslims to take sides, and the side they will take is the Muslim side. To summarize his point of view:

Non-Muslims who express their dislike of the hateful teachings of Islam will cause peaceful Muslims, who also do not like those hateful teachings, to side with Muslims who like the hateful teachings.

So therefore, if we don't know the purposes and methods — if we don't know the ideology of the Islamo-fascists — we will be better at defeating them.

It sounds absurd, but he might be right. It is possible that animosity toward Muslims will cause peaceful Muslims or "Muslims in name only" to side with more politically-active, less peaceful, more orthodox Muslims. It's possible.

Does that mean we should stop educating our fellow non-Muslims about the doctrines of Islam? My friend says yes, we should stop. And what should we do instead? His suggestion is to strengthen and support the Muslims working toward peace. He thinks we should support Muslims who are actively working to reform Islam. There aren't a lot of them. Most Muslims who are not politically-active are not reformers; they are simply apathetic about Islam. They were born Muslims so they consider themselves Muslims, but they don't really care about following the teachings of Islam.

But there are a few Muslims who are working to reform Islam, to expunge it of the intolerant, supremacist teachings in the Islamic doctrine, and my friend's answer is to support those people.

There may be some validity to this point of view. But it is also true that many Muslims that we would call "peaceful" still have a supremacist Islamic political agenda, and they work to accomplish that agenda through more peaceful means (and sometimes stealthy means) and those who know nothing about Islamic doctrine can be easily taken in by this kind of "peaceful" Muslim.

This means that by following my friend's suggestion, the ultimate agenda of Islam's prime directive would be fulfilled — aided and abetted by non-Muslims working to stop Islam's prime directive from being fulfilled.

This is yet another example of why an ignorance of the basic doctrines of Islam is counterproductive to the ultimate goal of neutralizing the politically-aggressive orthodox Muslims.

One of the biggest problems with the whole idea of "supporting peaceful Muslims" is that apathetic Muslims are apathetic. They are not active. They are not politically assertive. They don't care about any of this. They just want to go on living their lives. And the Muslims actively seeking to reform Islam to expunge the hateful, politically-aggressive, violent, intolerant content of Islamic doctrine are a very small percentage and have almost no following in the Muslim world, regardless of how big their following is in the non-Muslim world.

So the most popular and by far the most active Muslims are the orthodox Muslims, the politically aggressive Muslims.

Apathetic Muslims, or
Muslims-in-name-only, will never dominate no matter how much support and encouragement and money we give them. They're just not interested enough.

This means that aggressive Muslims — politically-active Muslims, orthodox Muslims — will only be stopped by non-Muslims educated in Islamic doctrine. This education is the one thing that needs to be done. My friend's political idea sounds good on paper, but it only sounds good to people who don't know anything about Islamic doctrine. And that's the point.

Sharia Law for Non-Muslims Chapter 5-The Kafir

Sharia Law for Non-Muslims

Chapter 5—The Kafir

Until now we have looked at the big picture of Sharia and then the position
of women in Sharia. We now come to a new subject--the unbeliever or non-Muslim.
The word "non-Muslim" is used in the translation of Sharia law, but
the actual Arabic word used is "Kafir". But the word Kafir means far
more than non-Muslim. The original meaning of the word was "concealer",
one who conceals the truth of Islam.

The Koran says that the Kafir may be deceived, plotted against, hated, enslaved,
mocked, tortured and worse. The word is usually translated as "unbeliever"
but this translation is wrong. The word "unbeliever" is logically
and emotionally neutral, whereas, Kafir is the most abusive, prejudiced and
hateful word in any language.

There are many religious names for Kafirs: polytheists, idolaters, People of
the Book (Christians and Jews), Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, and pagans.
Kafir covers them all, because no matter what the religious name is, they
can all be treated the same. What Mohammed said and did to polytheists can
be done to any other category of Kafir.

Islam devotes a great amount of energy to the Kafir. The majority (64%) of the
Koran is devoted to the Kafir, and nearly all of the Sira (81%) deals with
Mohammed's struggle with them. The Hadith (Traditions) devotes 32% of the
text to Kafirs1. Overall, the Trilogy devotes 60% of its content
to the Kafir.


Amount of Text Devoted to the

The Sharia does not devote nearly that much
to the Kafir since Sharia law is primarily for Muslims. Besides, the Kafir
has few rights, so there is little to expound on.

Religious Islam is what Muslims do to go to Paradise and avoid Hell. What Mohammed
did to Kafirs was not religious, but political. Political Islam is what is
of concern to Kafirs, not the religion. Who cares how a Muslim worships, but
every one of us is concerned as to what they do to us and say about us. Political
Islam should be of concern to every Kafir.

Here are two Sharia references about Kafirs:

w59.2 [...] And this clari?es the Koranic verses and hadiths about
hatred for the sake of Allah and love for the sake of Allah, Al Walaa
wa al Baraa
, being unyielding towards the Kafirs, hard against them,
and detesting them, while accepting the destiny of Allah Most High insofar
as it is the decree of Allah Mighty and Majestic.

Hatred for the sake of Allah and love for the sake of Allah is called Al
Walaa wa al Baraa,
a fundamental principle of Islamic ethics and Sharia.
A Muslim is to hate what Allah hates and love what Allah loves. Allah hates
the Kafir, therefore, a Muslim is to act accordingly.

40:35 They [Kafirs] who dispute the signs [Koran verses] of
Allah without authority having reached them are greatly hated by Allah and
the believ
ers [Muslims]. So Allah seals up every arrogant, disdainful

h8.24 It is not permissible to give zakat [charity] to a Kafir,
or to someone whom one is obliged to support such as a wife or family member.

Here are a few of the Koran references: A Kafir can be mocked--

83:34 On that day the faithful will mock the Kafirs, while they
sit on brid
al couches and watch them. Should not the Kafirs be paid
back for what they did?

A Kafir can be beheaded--

47:4 When you encounter the Kafirs on the battle?eld,
cut off their heads until you have thoroughly defeated them and then take
the prisoners and tie them up firmly.

A Kafir can be plotted against--

86:15 They plot and scheme against you [Mohammed], and I plot
and scheme against them. Therefore, deal calmly with the Kafirs and leave
them alone for a while.

A Kafir can be terrorized--

8:12 Then your Lord spoke to His angels and said, "I will
be with you. Give strength to the believers. I will send terror into the Kafirs'
hearts, cut off their heads and even the tips of their fingers!"

A Muslim is not the friend of a Kafir--

3:28 Believers should not take Kafirs as friends in preference
to other believers. Those who do this will have none of Allah's protection
and will only have themselves as guards. Allah warns you to fear Him for all
will return to Him.

A Kafir is evil--

23:97 And say: Oh my Lord! I seek refuge with You from the suggestions
of the evil ones [Kafirs]. And I seek refuge with you, my Lord, from their

A Kafir is disgraced--

37:18 Tell them, "Yes! And you [Kafirs] will be disgraced."

A Kafir is cursed--

33:60 They [Kafirs] will be cursed, and wherever they are found,
they will be seized and murdered. It was Allah's same practice with those
who came before them, and you will ?nd no change in Allah's ways.


Muslims tell Christians and Jews that they are special. They are "People
of the Book" and are brothers in the Abrahamic faith. But in Islam you
are a Christian, if and only if, you believe that Christ was a man who was
a prophet of Allah; there is no Trinity; Jesus was not crucified nor resurrected
and that He will return to establish Sharia law. To be a true Jew you must
believe that Mohammed is the last in the line of Jewish prophets.

This verse is positive:

5:77 Say: Oh, People of the Book, do not step out of the bounds of truth in
your religion, and do not follow the desires of those who have gone wrong
and led many astray. They have themselves gone astray from the even way.

Islamic doctrine is dualistic, so there is an opposite view as well. Here is
the last verse written about the People of the Book (A later verse abrogates
or nullifies an earlier verse.). This is the final word. It calls for Muslims
to make war on the People of the Book who do not believe in the religion of
truth, Islam.

9:29 Make war on those who have received the Scriptures [Jews
and Chris
tians] but do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day. They
do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden. The Christians
and Jews do not follow the religion of truth until they submit and pay the
poll tax [jizya] and they are humiliated.

The sentence "They do not forbid..." means that they do not accept
Sharia law; "until they submit" means to submit to Sharia law. Christians
and Jews who do not accept Mohammed as the ?nal prophet are Kafirs.

Muslims pray five times a day and the opening prayer always includes:

Koran 1: 7 Not the path of those who anger You [the Jews] nor the path
of those who go astray [the Christians].


Since the original Arabic word for unbelievers was Kafir and that is the actual
word used in the Koran and Sharia law, that is the word used here for accuracy
and precision.

It is very simple: if you don't believe Mohammed and his Koran, you are a Kafir.

Publication notice: this book is now available to buy on our website HERE.

You can see the entire book on pdf HERE.

Bill Warner, Center for the Study of Political Islam


copyright (c) CBSX, LLC Use and distribute
as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.

This message was sent from Bill Warner. It was sent from: Political Islam . com, Suite 500
3212 West End Av
, Nashville, TN 37203.

Email Marketing by

iContact - Try It Free!

JIHAD...IN OHIO ELECTION - a JOEL MOWBRAY expose' (Please Forward)


Investigative expose' by JOEL MOWBRAY

When George Soros, the Ohio Democrats and stealth Jihadi's join together to attack Marine combat veteran JOSH MANDEL, you know there is desperation in Ohio!


"While the news this election cycle has been focused on horse races and high-wattage personalities like Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell, one of the most important races in the country has slipped below the national radar—despite the fact that one of the key figures involved has a nasty habit of mingling with Islamic extremists."






State Representative, JOSH MANDEL, Iraq Marine Combat Veteran


OCTOBER 30, 2010

FLORIDA SECURITY COUNCIL, 2200 4th Avenue N #3, Lake Worth FL 33461,

[ news] Chicago synagogues warned to watch for suspicious packages

Chicago synagogues warned to watch for suspicious packagesBy the CNN Wire StaffUPDATED: 06:08 AM EDT 10.30.10Chicago, Illinois (CNN) - Synagogues across metropolitan Chicago, Illinois, began taking "appropriate precautions" Friday after a warning by security officials to watch out for suspicious packages from abroad, according to a Jewish Federation spokeswoman.President Obama said that two packages that apparently contained explosive materials were bound for two synagogues in Chicago.While there were "no identifiable or specific threats," an FBI official in Chicago said suspicious packages addressed to U.S. destinations found on cargo planes abroad warranted the precautions."Since two of the suspicious packages that were intercepted were addressed to religious institutions in Chicago, all churches, synagogues and mosques in the Chicago area should be vigilant for any unsolicited or unexpected packages, especially those originating from overseas locations," said FBI Special Agent Ross Rice.The Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago was contacted by federal officials Friday morning to urge the organization to be on alert for suspicious packages, spokeswoman Linda Haase said."We are taking appropriate precautions, and we are advising local synagogues to do the same," Haase said.The Anti-Defamation League said it alerted synagogues across the United States to increase mailroom security after federal security officials informed the organization of "a reported threat to Jewish institutions in the form of packages mailed from overseas, particularly Great Britain, Yemen and Saudi Arabia."Haase said she had not heard reports of Chicago congregations altering plans for services on Friday evening, the beginning of the Jewish Sabbath."We generally pay careful attention to packages coming to the synagogue, accepting only those we're expecting or from a known sender," Steven Bob, the rabbi at a synagogue in the western Chicago suburbs. "Today we were extra careful."Bob said that there was plenty of email and phone traffic among Chicago Jewish leaders responding to news of the plot on Friday but that he didn't think worshippers would be deterred from Friday services."We live in a world that contains some people that are hostile to us and we want to respond to that hostility with caution," said Bob, who leads Etz Chaim in Lombard, Illinois. "At the same time, we're not going to go hide in the basement.""I may say a word or two about this tonight, but I don't think it's worthy of a sermon," he said Friday. "What am I going to say, that I'm opposed to terrorism?"Lucille Price, a receptionist at Anshe Emet Synagogue, said Chicago police made them aware of the reports and asked them to keep an eye out for suspicious packages among any deliveries that arrived Friday.Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, California, said that if synagogues were indeed the intended recipients of the packages, "this is just another indication of the dangerous world we live in where Jews are the principle target."But congregation leaders at two prominent Chicago synagogues, Temple Sholom and Chicago Sinai Congregation, said they were not made aware of any attempts to ship bombs or hazardous material to them.

Daniel Greenfield article: Friday Afternoon Roundup - A Storm is Coming

Daniel Greenfield article: Friday Afternoon Roundup - A Storm is Coming

Link to Sultan Knish

Friday Afternoon Roundup - A Storm is Coming

Posted: 29 Oct 2010 02:17 PM PDT

If you've ever seen a movie in which a boat is caught in a storm. At first the waves are distant and the crew ignores them. Then suddenly the storm has swept in and everyone is running for cover, doing anything they can to prepare for a storm that's already here. And that's the left wing of the Democratic party right now, too slow to recognize the storm because of its media cocoon and now rushing to throw anything they can at it, from voter fraud to scandals and smears.

As it emerges, the nation's "first black President", William Jefferson Clinton was instrumental in trying to get Meek to step down in favor of Crist.
Meek is black, Clinton as it turned out, was not. As Jim Hoft points out, this is also the third time that the Democratic party (hurrah for multiculturalism) have tried to get a black candidate to step out of the way of a white candidate.

But it's not just the perverse racial politics at work here. Meek wasn't told to step down in favor of another Democrat, like Greene was, but in favor of Charlie Crist, who until recently was a Republican. In Rhode Island, the Obama Administration tried to nudge out Frank T. Caprio, the Democratic candidate, who then told Obama to shove it... in favor of Lincoln Chaffee, also formerly a Republican.

Complicating matters further still, both Meek and Caprio were Hillary Clinton supporters. Which means the Obama Administration is sabotaging the Democratic party by choosing to back liberal Republicans over Clinton supporting Democrats. Why Bill Clinton chose to go along with it in the Meek case, when he's actually been out there championing Democrats who supported Hillary, is a little more confusing.

But not that confusing, because while Bill Clinton may play the loyalist returning favors to his old pals, the Clintons are actually in bed with Crist. Hillary Clinton's senior adviser Mark Penn is helping Crist. So why would the Clintons sell out Meek? Because Meek has no real shot at winning, and the Clintons need to show that they can pick and shepherd along winners, if they're to regain their stature in the party. And Florida remains a key state in any Presidential election. Hillary Clinton has not given up on her Presidential ambitions. And if Crist were to win and hold out as a two term governor, Florida would be friendly territory for Hillary in 2016.

It's a gamble, but it's not a dumb gamble. Bill Clinton is playing the long game. He's preparing the ground for 2016.

But that takes us over to the voter fraud. There are too many incidents to list altogether, though the situation in Arizona is right up there. It's safe to say that there will be extensive voter fraud, but that means Republicans need to win by a higher margin. Close races are much easier to swing with some last minute "missing ballots" delivered straight from the animal shelter or the Bahamas. But the bigger the margin of victory, the harder it is to just waltz up with some new numbers, unless you're Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The Democrats however are preparing the ground with accusations of fraud and intimidation. A major target has been
Bill Randall, a black conservative, who is has been smeared by Brad Miller's campaign. Bill Randall has come a long way, and like most black conservatives, is seen as a particular threat. The resurgence of the smear campaign against Clarence Thomas is a sad reminder of just how much that's so.

Randall-Miller debate held echoes of the O'Donnell-Coons debate, with Miller following the elitist liberal playbook by sneering that he doesn't understand what Randall is saying.

The big difference
of course is in the money.

U.S. Rep. Brad Miller, a Raleigh Democrat, has a huge money advantage over his Republican challenger Bill Randall, according to the latest campaign finance reports filed with the Federal Election Commission.

Miller had $441,393 in his campaign kitty as of Sept. 30, compared to $23,084 for Randall. Randall also reported $43,822 in campaign debts, while Miller reported $14,007 in campaign debts.

Overall, Miller has reported raising $805,072 for his campaign, while Randall reported raising $165,548 for his campaign, including money he raised in his hard-fought primary. Randall was a tea party candidate, but there is little evidence that he has received any help from the national tea party, which apparently does not see the 13th House District as a winnable target.

But the Democrats and their pet media lapdogs are still threatened by Randall enough to begin smearing him with accusations of poll intimidation. This during a week where it finally emerged that the New Black Panther party thugs got a deliberate pass from the Obama Administration. A decision that says it's not about race, as much as it is about liberalism.

If we are ever going to get out of this mess, electing leaders like
Bill Randall will be crucial in that regard.

Moving on to Mr. Aqua Buddha himself, the Rand Paul mess is predictably just that. The Paul campaigns have always drawn their share of assorted thugs, truthers, anti-war activists and the like.

The media has tried to cynically paint Mike Pezzano, one of the attackers, as a conservative, but he's nothing of the sort--
as Lisa Graas has exposed.

Meetup interests include legalizing pot, bashing Bush, Democratic Underground, opposition to globalization-- in other words, Pezzano has more in common with the protester he attacked, than with normal Republicans. He's part of a libertarian fringe whose only overlap with Republicans is an endorsement of smaller government. But if that's all it takes to be considered a conservative Republican, then Lyndon LaRocuhe's followers would qualify too. And that's clearly wrong.

By carrying water for the likes of Pezzano, conservative bloggers are playing into the hands of liberals, who want to use him to define the Tea Party and conservatives. Lisa has pointed out
that is not a Tea Party issue. Considering George Soros just dumped a million on Pezzano's favorite cause, they're not all that far apart.

The Pauls are not conservative. They have more in common with LaRouche and their campaign attracts lunatics and thugs. Which is natural when you're pandering to people who think that the United States is controlled by a secret conspiracy of bankers and that Bin Laden is a CIA agent. But instead of treating them the way both parties have treated LaRouche, Rand Paul got the welcome mat from the Republican party. He might win, but what his victory will cost the Republican party is a whole other story. This latest incident is a small taste of what's to come.

Finally the media is desperately touting Jon Stewart as a national figure, talking up his influence and his rally.

It's hard to find a more pathetic act of desperation than turning your party leadership over to a comedian. Early on, the Democrats began spreading the meme that Rush Limbaugh is the real head of the Republican party. Now the Democrats have decided to go one better by making Jon Stewart the head of the Democratic party.

And that completes the transition of the Democratic party to a joke. An unfunny joke, but a joke nonetheless.

Stewart's heavily hyped Daily Show interview with Obama
barely managed to pick up 3 million viewers.

About 2.8 million people tuned in for President Obama’s interview on “The Daily Show” Wednesday night.

It was the first visit by a sitting president to the news satire show, and it was worth almost an extra million viewers for the program, which normally averages about 1.9 million viewers for its 11 p.m. airing.

Wow. A whole 3 million. And despite the big man with the big ears from the White House coming on down, Stewart couldn't even beat Bill O'Reilly. Now that's influence, gang.

Going international now, Elder of Ziyon
has a rather disturbing idea supposedly being floated out of Washington D.C.

According to the sources, the agreement that the US is pushing involves recognition of a Palestinian Arab state exactly along the 1949 armistice lines in return for Palestinian Arab agreement to lease parts of "Arab" eastern Jerusalem and the Jordan Valley to Israel for somewhere between 40 and 99 years.

This is an American proposal, coming in response to Israeli insistence that the US adhere to the letter that George W. Bush sent to Ariel Sharon that large settlement blocs would remain under Israeli control.

The wickedly clever part of this is that it would mean a complete abandonment of Israel's territorial rights, without the need for an immediate expulsion and ethnic cleansing of the Jewish population. But from a legal standpoint, such territory would be part of the PA.

I don't imagine that Netanyahu would ever sign on to this, as it would essentially strip Israel of much of its territory and create the potential for some ugly havoc to be played at the international level. Yet I suspect that a Barak or a Livni would find such a proposal politically seductive. The real roadblock here might come from the Arab-Muslim side.

And what would this mean for Jews? It would mean a return to Dhimmi status, living as an oppressed second-class minority among Muslims.
The Point of Return blog has some reminders of just what that was like. (Hat tip Solomonia)

In the Farhud, the anti-Jewish riots in Iraq in 1941, 180 Jews were murdered and 700 were injured. In the course of violent demonstrations that flared in Egypt in November 1945, 400 Jews were hurt, and much Jewish-owned property was looted and damaged. Rioting in Libya, also in November 1945, was much more costly: 130 Jews were murdered and 266 were injured. The December 1947 riots in Syria left 13 Jews dead (eight of them children ) in Damascus, and 26 wounded. In Aleppo, 150 houses were damaged, five schools and 10 synagogues were torched, and there were dozens of Jewish casualties. At the same time in Aden, Yemen, 97 Jews were murdered and 120 were injured; some Jews who experienced these events deem them "the holocaust of Yemenite Jewry."

These are a few of several dozen anti-Jewish attacks and massacres perpetrated in Arab states during the course of the 20th century. What do most teachers and pupils in Israel know about these events? Nothing.

And things have not gotten better since then. They have only gotten worse. As David Horrowitz aptly reminds us...

The Islamic terrorist organization Hamas makes no secret of this agenda. Its Egyptian founders and Palestinian inspirers were active followers of Adolf Hitler and enthusiasts of the Nazi Holocaust. The founding charter of Hamas, which promises that “Islam will obliterate Israel,” memorializes the Egyptian admirer of Hitler, Hassan al-Banna, as “the martyr…of blessed memory.” The same document contains the genocidal incitement of the Prophet Mohammed to “kill the Jews,” to hunt them down “until they hide behind the rocks and the trees, and the rocks and trees cry out ‘O Muslim, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.’”

In 2006, these Islamic Nazis took possession of the Gaza Strip, which is unoccupied except by Hamas and is Jew-less (because the Palestinians would kill any Jews that moved in their state). Hamas has turned Gaza into a terrorist fortress, launching rockets into Israeli schoolyards, hospitals, and townships, and launching them from Palestinian schoolyards, hospitals, and townships to ensure that the maximum number of civilians – both Jews and Muslims – would die for their cause. They will win the Armageddon they are planning, they boast, because “the Jews love life and we love death.”

Why not just give up Jerusalem to the KKK or Charles Manson. If anything it would be safer.

To that end let me conclude with
Herbert Zweibon's A History Lesson for Friends in the new Outpost

Do they know that Jordan is an Arab Palestinian state carved out of 82% of the land promised to the Jews for their state in all of Palestine? Are they even aware that Jordan illegally annexed Judea and Samaria (the so-called West Bank) and East Jerusalem after Israel’s war of Independence in 1948, and this was recognized only by two states, Pakistan and England? Any bets?

Have they looked at a map? Do they see Israel’s narrow waist in the old Green Line (to which the peace processors would have her return) and how easily her population centers could be overrun?

Would these legislators dream of giving up strategically valuable portions of our southern states to accommodate enemies whose stated intention was to destroy America? Well, that answers itself.

These are patriots and decent people who have been misled by a biased media and academy and Jewish organizations and yes, the bludgeoned-by-Obama Israeli Prime Minister, all peddling the perverse illusion that this tiny territory would satisfy the blood lust of Israel’s enemies.

It is not only Ahmadinejad that threatens Israel with genocidal jihad. Shmuel Katz put it best: the conflict indeed has a root cause and it is “the determination of the entire Arab nation, under the inspiration of Islam, to rule over the whole area from the Persian Gulf to the Atlantic Ocean and the southern border of Turkey to the southern border of the Sudan.” The Arabs’ liquidationist designs are rooted in Arab history and woven into the very fabric of the Islamic faith.

And that's all there is to it. Except the ultimate mission goes well beyond that and to the world itself.

The Latest from National Terror Alert Response Center

The Latest from National Terror Alert Response Center

Link to Homeland Security News

DoD Alert – Marine Marathon Could Be Target

Posted: 29 Oct 2010 06:15 PM PDT

Senior officials are worried that the person responsible for at least three military-related shootings near the nation’s capital could target Sunday’s Marine Corps Marathon in Washington, saying in an alert Friday morning that the recent shootings “are a cause for concern” and could be build-up to a Sunday attack. The FBI has confirmed that the [...]

This story comes to us via Homeland
- National Terror Alert. National Terror Alert is America's trusted
source for
homeland security news
and information.

DoD Alert – Marine Marathon Could Be Target

Suspicious Packages From Yemen Test Positive for Explosives

Posted: 29 Oct 2010 02:34 PM PDT

In the initial tests, suspicious packages from Yemen intercepted in Dubai and England have reportedly tested positive for explosives, according to President Obama, addressing the nation Friday afternoon about what he now calls “a credible terror threat.” Read More This story comes to us via Homeland Security - National Terror Alert. National Terror Alert is [...]

This story comes to us via Homeland
- National Terror Alert. National Terror Alert is America's trusted
source for
homeland security news
and information.

Suspicious Packages From Yemen Test Positive for Explosives

Suspicious Packages Reported On UPS Cargo Flights and Truck

Posted: 29 Oct 2010 10:14 AM PDT

Department of Homeland Security is reportedly investigating suspicious packages originating in Yemen reported aboard international UPS cargo flights landing at Newark, N.J., and Philadelphia airports, and a UPS truck in NYC; authorities circulate photo of toner-cartridge device with wires found aboard a UPS flight in the UK. Read More From NY Daily News Authorities are [...]

This story comes to us via Homeland
- National Terror Alert. National Terror Alert is America's trusted
source for
homeland security news
and information.

Suspicious Packages Reported On UPS Cargo Flights and Truck