Buddhist Temples Torched in Bangladesh

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/muslims-torch-loot-buddhist-holy-sites-in-bangladesh-over-alleged-facebook-photo/

Hat tip to The Blaze.

To make an historical comparison, I have to think that in the last three or four years Muslims have destroyed more non-Muslims houses of worship than early Christians ever did in all their years when they turned on Greco-Roman temples or Germanic and Celtic oak-groves in northern Europe.

Not to justify the acts of early Christians, but at least part of their frustration had been due to the periodic persecutions that they had suffered.

The trigger for the destruction of at least 10 Buddhist temples, with two of which dating back 300 years?

It was a  photo of a burned Koran that had been posted on Facebook.

Although I have often criticized the Koran, Mohammed  and Islam, I am personally against destroying Korans or making major public pronouncements in a manner that is likely to result in people being attacked or houses of worship being targeted. I know that I am mincing words, but I try to walk the fine line of getting the facts out while doing my best to avoid acting in a manner that may result in someone or something being destroyed by proxy for what I did.

That is why I tore Koran-burning pastor Terry Jones apart:

http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2011/10/koran-burning-pastor-terry-jones.html

The main point of the above posted link is that Jones, if he really was a man and wanted to make a splash for burning a Koran, should have traveled to a Muslim-majority country for his act and taken his lumps there. Instead, he did it while safely ensconced in the US with, for example, some Coptic girl in Egypt getting gang-raped for what he did.

What we do need to ensure is that the US does not move to pass hate speech laws, which will prohibit us from saying anything derogatory about Islam. Such laws the goal of those who destroy and attack. They are like abusive spouses who terrorize their partner and blame the victim for making them act that way.

Again, there is no such thing as incitement unless one walks up to a Mosque or a Muslim guy's home and tells him what Mohammed was. If one does so and gets punched in the nose, then that is his problem and he can pursue legal measures. No act can "incite" someone to harm an innocent or an uninvolved non-Muslim house of worship. Any claim to the contrary is a lie.

These acts of terror by supposedly insulted Muslim are those of base cowards.

The Absent American President

As I have began working on a book, my posts will tend to be short until I can bring the work to completion.

Hat tip to American Thinker.

The link below is to a post concerning Obama's lack of work ethic, his disinterest in the sheer load of details in lawmaking and governing, a basic apathy, or a combination of any of these. He seems to want to be the guy at the top that does not to do much real work because, well, he's the guy at the top.

Many of us have had a boss with a similar appetite for doing as little as possible while taking all of the credit.


http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/09/empty_chair_leadership_obamas_history_of_shirking_duty.html

Official Suppression of Free Speech in NYC MTA

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/conservatives-anti-jihad-subway-ad-leads-to-new-policies-nyc-authority-can-now-ban-ads-that-could-incite-or-provoke-violence/

As they say down South, the blind man saw this one coming a mile away.

We have noted that at some point, free expression was going to be suppressed due the the violent reactions of Muslims who hold that their religion has a special place and therefore cannot be criticized. The easiest and most cowardly manner in which to deal with this is to create a law or policy that prohibits or restricts any speech or communication that may incite violence.

The pro-Israel advertisements on the NYC subways, which are only there after the successful completion of a lengthy battle waged by their supporters, may now be targeted. Earlier this week, a Leftist-minded thug defaced both signs and a person who placed her body between the thug and a sign to prevent any damage.

Now, the MTA may employ the terribly vague Orwellian concept of "likely to incite violence" to blackball any sign that may be targeted for violence or vandalism by Leftists or Muslims (They generally being the only ones who do such things). The Left and Muslims, by acts of violence and destruction  will thus be rewarded for their actions.

We are approaching the last act of the play.

"On Friday, TheBlaze spoke with a spokesperson who confirmed some of the details surrounding the case, while clarifying the new changes that passed on Thursday. As noted, one of the emergent provisions that was added into the public company’s advertising standards in the wake of the Geller debate allows the MTA to deny ads it believes could incite violence (this was not mentioned in the press release the agency put out about the changes)."
"As previously noted, a document, reflecting yesterday’s changes, was provided by the MTA to TheBlaze this morning. It highlights the transit authority’s advertising standards and reads, in part, “The licensee (‘advertising contractor’) shall not display or maintain any advertisement that falls within one or more of the following categories.” One of the category sections reads:"

                      "The advertisement, or any information contained in it, is directly adverse to the commercial or administrative interests of the MTA or is harmful to the morale of MTA employees or contains material the display of which the MTA reasonably foresees would incite or provoke violence or other immediate breach of the peace, and so harm, disrupt, or interfere with safe, efficient, and orderly transit operations."

Aside from calling one's wife, mother, sister, or girlfriend a bad name, there is essentially no such thing as inciting violence by free expression. If the MTA starts putting these policies into effect and therefore prohibit advertisements that support Israel, pro-Life groups, or any other entity or cause against which Leftists or Muslims may oppose, we will have officially given into mob rule. Only in this case, it will not be the mob proper but very small groups of vicious people who seek to bully others into submission.

Netanyahu - "We will never be uprooted again."

After failing in repeated attempts to get the Obama administration to draw a line in the sand on Iran's program to develop nuclear weapons, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has taken his argument to the United Nations.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/27/netanyahu-will-never-be-uprooted-again/

Of particular note was the following quote made by the Prime Minister:

"Throughout our history the Jewish people have overcome all the tyrants who sought our destruction," he said. "The Jewish people have come home. We will never be uprooted again."

I noted in a previous post that I truly believe that we are experiencing a greater threat of a world war, one that may well involve the use of nuclear weapons, than we did during the Cold War.

I understand that tensions ran high during periods such as the Cuban Missile crisis, but at no point were any of the nuclear powers headed by an individual that has repeatedly called for the destruction of an opposing nation. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a Twelver Shiite who believes that, to hasten the arrival of the Hidden Imam and thus usher in  the final stages of worldwide Islamic rule, big things have to happen.

The Iranian President appears to have every intention of being the guy who gets the ball rolling.

The last thing that I want is an invasion of yet another Islamic nation unless the goal is to disarm these nations completely. A military strike on their nuclear facilities would be the best option, but it would behoove the US and any other concerned nation to obtain some degree of consent from Russia. Russia has previously made it clear that an attack of Iran will not be tolerated. I hope that the US has been in communication with Putin on this issue. I also hope that Putin realizes the fact that the world cannot have an Iran that has the ability to destroy Israel. Such a move, a crime enough in itself, could easily be another assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. We all know how that turned out.

One thing that we do know is that the Israeli leadership will not shrink from decisively, brutally and remorselessly taking action by themsleves if the world community does not step up.

Tahir Square Sex Crime Victim Defaces Pro-Israel Signs

I have little time to type tonight, so please use the Jihad Watch link to get the story.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/09/mona-eltahawy-called-her-egyptian-jihadi-attackers-beasts-but-spray-painted-sign-that-called-them-sa.html

In short, the NYC Metro subway authority had only allowed the pro-Israel advertisements after being forced to do so. They had originally allowed only anti-Israel signage to be displayed.

A woman who has terribly victimized in the Egyptian protests in Tahir square has apparently come full circle and is applying Leftist thuggery to suppress free expression.

Two things comes to mind when I read about these types of events.

The first is that the Left will do whatever they can, even if it is patently illegal, to stop those with opposing views from expressing themselves.

The second is that Leftists are far more likely to come out in favor or show a bizarre sympathy for the most vicious of people. In this particular case, the victim has made herself the defender of the coreligionists of those who assaulted her - Stockholm Syndrome in action.

For those who are not up on the settlement issues with Israel and the West Bank, the below post will provided several very good links.


http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2012/04/israel.html

The Sickness of the West - Part 7 of "The Bee and the Lamb"

Hat tip to Gates of Vienna.

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-bee-and-lamb-part-7.html#more

Takuan Seiyo is a contributing writer for Gates of Vienna. Linked at top is Part 7 of his The Bee and the Lamb" series of posts. 

Seiyo is a tremendously gifted, knowledgeable and inspired writer. His series concerns Western Civilization  and the internal and external threats to it. He dissects the sick and envious motivations of the Left and leaves the carcass exposed. 

Of note is his call for a renaissance of sorts in which the people of Western Europe and the daughter nations return to the virtues and industry of those who preceded them. 

The entire series should be read by anyone who has suspected that there is something clearly wrong with the West but cannot put his finger on it. Seiyo's genius is to link so many personalities, movements, and events from the past, present, and future together. In doing so, he is able to allow the reader to see the big picture; no mean feat when Western Culture id being assailed from every angle.

At the bottom of the post are links to the rest of Seiyo's pots, including Parts 1-6 of The Bee and the Lamb.

British Girls Raped - Cops Knew for Years and Did Nothing

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2012/09/south-yorkshire-police-and-rotherham.html

As the ethnic British victims were raped by Muslim men, they and the rest of the British people were being raped by their own system.

The post (At top) from Gates of Vienna was written by Paul Weston. It exposes the extent to which the Police and other persons responsible for protecting children went , not to protect the girls, but to protect the Leftist-inspired Multicultural system.

The accounts are beyond comprehension even for someone who has been aware of the ongoing rape-fest of indigenous European girls and women. In several cases, the victims were charged with offenses such as disorderly conduct while the animals who abused them were not even questioned. In one instance, the father of one of the victims, unable to retrieve his daughter from a house where she was being held by the animals, was himself charged with racial  harassment. Keeping in accordance with the Leftist Multicultural concept of avoiding anything that will annoy Muslims, the cops also charged the victim with the same charge.

When you think of a father that was unable to get inside a house to remove his daughter or even have the criminals bring her out, one wonders exactly what spark will ignite the powder keg. The Danish Civil War post, linked below, illustrates in a fictional future how just one step too far at the wrong (Or right) time can cause a people to rise up and defend themsleves and their nation. This is like the rape of Lucretia that lead to the revolt of the Romans against the Etruscan Kings.
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/11/danish-civil-war.html

The story takes a while to get started, but the reader will see just how one single event can lead to big changes in the attitudes of a frustrated people.


For the Leftist, all Western Europeans are by descent guilty of crimes of colonialism, etc, so therefore we must turn a blind eye to all acts of violence that are committed against them. The Left also gets to destroy the sense of dignity and self-worth of all of these pesky Western Eurpeoans whose individualism prevents the Left from establishing their Marxist Utopia. To reach that end, a few hundred Bristsh girls will have to be horribly victimized. They are just collateral damage as the goal of a Marxist Britain and World is too good to pass up.

The most obvious consequence of the failure of the cops to charge the animals and removed them from society is that, not only the victims about which they knew, but also countless others continued to be victimized.

I will be straight - the cops responsible cannot plead that they needed to protect their jobs, promotions, and pensions  They had to become whistleblowers to bring these policies to light and they failed to do so.

Any cop that failed to do his job should fall on his sword.

Italian Politicians Celebrate National Downfall With Toga Party

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/9559618/Toga-party-outrages-austerity-hit-Italians.html

Hat tip to Gates of Vienna for all of the stories/links on this post. All of them came from their newsfeed.

Friends, Romans, and Countrymen, let us party hard as the system collapses.

Although the organizer of the wildly expensive and risque toga party, attended by Italian politicians and presumably other notables, asserts that the event was not billed to the taxpayers, austerity-hit Italians did not appreciate the extravagant display.

From the top link:

"Party-goers dressed in tunics, centurion helmets and flowing white robes were photographed drinking from amphorae and feeding each other grapes, in a lavish party which critics compared to the excesses of the Roman Empire.

Fittingly the party, which was attended by around 2,000 people and cost 30,000 euros, was held in Rome.

Under the theme, “Ulysses returns and confronts his enemies”, party-goers drank expensive Champagne and cocktails while dressed as gods, goddesses and mythical heroes.

It has become the focus of a scandal over the lavish spending of taxpayers’ money by politicians that threatens to bring down the regional government of Rome, dominated by Silvio Berlusconi’s People of Freedom party."...............................

As the economy teeters on the edge, the political leaders embark on a celebration of their national past. If they had chosen to emulate the virtues and the better practices (Yes, I know - no slavery, gladiators, etc.) of the Roman Republic, the party may not have been such a bad idea. The austere, frugal, religious, and determined Romans of the Early Roman Republic would have been a better choice. It is clearly time for leaders to hearken back to the best of what made their civilization. 

Instead, they chose to mimic the worst of Rome,one that which we would associate with the Late Republic and Empire. Glorifying the excesses and decadence of a society that had lost its cultural base, they remind us that the West is now in a similar predicament. Sexual license and conspicuous consumption typifies our present society; this while we conveniently forget the virtues that allowed our civilization to reach its current level of prosperity (Albeit one that may soon end). It is as if we are aware that the elephant is in the room but pretend to ourselves and each other that we don't see it.

We want to brag of the achievements of those who preceded us, but we have no intention of following their example. I recall a scene in the movie My Big Fat Greek Wedding in which the father of the bride-to-be, expressing his displeasure at his daughter's choice of a non-Greek finance, states "My ancestors created philosophy while yours were swinging in trees". I looked past the mean and crude put-down of the father and  noted that too many of us want to hang our laurels on our past but make no effort to improve on it or even imitate it. I got no impression that the father spent any time reading the works of the Greek philosophers - he just wanted to imply that his people were better because guys from well over two thousand years ago accomplished great things. Not that dancing is a bad thing, but it seemed to me that his family's idea of expressing its Greek culture was by dancing in a manner that seems to have been taken directly from the hundreds of years of Turkish rule of his homeland.

In all fairness, this could just as easily apply to any other Western European society or the US, Australia, Canada, or New Zealand. You can't brag about the greatness of your past unless you are ready to follow the best of the examples of those who made it.

To add fuel to the fire, Italy is being deluged with unskilled immigrants, many of which hail from Muslim-majority nations:

http://www.agi.it/english-version/italy/elenco-notizie/201209191239-cro-ren1023-oecd_migrant_flow_to_italy_is_continuing_unabated

"The flow of immigrants to Italy is continuing unabated. Not even the global economic crisis, which slowed the pace in other OECD States in 2010, has stopped increasing numbers of foreigners from deciding to start a new life in the peninsular. The proportion of foreign citizens out of the total number of residents (Italians and foreigners) is continuing to increase and was 7.5% on 1 January 2011, up from 7% a year earlier......................"

I avoid citing examples of natural disasters as heaven-sent evidence that we are heading for a fall, but the recent earthquakes that have hit Italy, followed by the report that the blood of Saint Gennaro, the patron saint of Naples who was martyred during the persecutions of Diocletian, has again liquefied, lead me to wonder if we are being warned.

http://www.agi.it/english-version/italy/elenco-notizie/201209191013-cro-ren1014-miracle_of_st_gennaro_s_blood_materializes_stirs_naples

"(AGI) Naples - The prodigy of St. Gennaro's blood has come about once again. The announcement was made at 9:11 AM Wednesday morning by Naples Archbishop Cardinal Crescenzio Sepe who told the believers rallied in the Duomo of Naples that "the blood had already liquefied when the shrine was taken out of the safe". The Archbishop's words were accompanied by a long applause. . . "

It is noteworthy that, even though the Republic was long gone, Diocletian was the first to actually be a true Emperor and style himself and his court in the manner of an Eastern potentate. Paying homage to Diocletian was like doing the same to a similarly-robed Persian king and the palace had scores of eunuchs. There was little difference between the government in Rome and that of Persia. He froze the economy and prohibited people from working in occupations into which they were not born. The economy was taxed to the uttermost to pay for the armies that were needed to protect the people, who were far past possessing any of the martial spirit or sturdiness of their forebears. Rome had become a locked-down despotism.

Maybe Saint Gennaro is sending us a message; straighten out yourselves and your nation or face the onset of a new despotism.

Father Pontifex on Gay Haters and Those Who Extol Sexual Culture

Hat tip to The Blaze.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/priest-delivers-spoken-word-video-lambasting-reckless-anti-gay-pastors-clarifying-the-churchs-stance-on-homosexuality/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXq4izbFgAM

Father Claude Burns goes by the name Father Pontifex in his rap videos that are strikingly concise, accurate in thought, and so far are yet to be refuted by any prospective opponents.

His two most known videos* concern the both claims by Christian Fundamentalists that their particular version of Christianity is not a religion and the just as bizarre belief by Atheists that their denial of the existence of God is based on the intellect.

In his most recent video, which can be accessed on both links at top, Father Pontifex slams the extreme and tragic views of the opposing ends of the gay lifestyle debate. He rightly begins with the rebuking of vicious Churches and their members who treat homosexuals as people who are hated by God. He clearly notes that the positions of these people are not in keeping with Christian thought and takes them to task for failing to reach out in a Christian manner to those who need God. Following that, he correctly assails the sexualized culture, one that is so pervasive today, in which people are under the impression that any sexual behavior can be not only practiced without check but indeed should be the identifying factor for a person.

The video is quite powerful. I for one detest those who so horribly treat they who are victimized by our culture of sex without limits. God is against all sin, and none of us are without sin. We must not fail to be aware of that fact when we address cases of immorality.


*The videos that refute the "Christianity is not a religion" position and the claims of Atheists can be accessed on the below link.
http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2012/06/catholic-priest-rips-atheistic-thought.html

Islamist Purge Trials for Turkish Military

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/09/21/330-officers-convicted-in-turkey-military-coup-plot/

Hat tip to Fox News. The report came from the Associated Press.

Many in the West are still under the impression that Turkey is a secular nation and that it continues to follow the plan of Kemal Ataturk, who after WWI founded modern Turkey on the ruins of the Ottoman Empire.

So enduring is this belief that even a Doctor of Studies at my son's High School, who recently returned from a summer trip to Turkey, was completely unaware of the fact that  Recep Tayyip Erdogan's government, which has controlled Turkey since 2003, is Islamist. While meeting with her during the summer, I briefly mentioned that Erdogan's Islamist party has been steadily rolling back the restrictions on the place of Islam in the nation. In response she, apparently under the impression that I had not learned about Ataturk's system  back in middle school, noted that Turkey's government is secular in nature. 

As one can imagine, I run into this sort of thing quite often. 

One wonders what goes on in a person's mind that forces him or her to ignore anything new. The very fact that I noted what was going on in Turkey should have caused her to assume that just maybe I was aware of something of which she was not. As happens all too often when a regular guy is meeting with a high-ranking academic, what information is offered by the former is essentially ignored by the latter.

The people of Turkey, weary of having a reasonable amount of freedom, elected Erdogan as Prime Minister in 2003. His Islamist party has run the show since then. The secular Turkey that is held up in the West as a shining example of what a moderate Muslim-majority nation could be has ceased to be anything of the sort.

Turkey's leading military men, not always the nicest guys themselves, on more than one occasion have asserted control to enforce the secular-styled laws put into place by Ataturk. In 2003, a large number of military leaders were charged with taking part in a plot to overthrow the Islamists. I remembered reading about this when it happened. At the time, I wondered if Erdogan's boys had falsely charged the leaders in an attempt to purge the military of the old guard and install younger Generals and Admirals. Promoting officers who may be more sympathetic to the idea of a Turkey in which Islam plays a major part would be a political victory for Erdogan.

Today it was reported that the verdicts and sentences are in. The trial was almost a decade in the making. A lot of Turkish officers were found guilty and some will serve quite a bit of time in prison. From the beginning, many of the accusations did not appear to be legitimate to me. 

At this point, I would be very surprised if Turkey has any appreciable chance of avoiding the decline into a fully Muslim state. With the military likely being run by Islamist officers, there will be little chance for the secularists to defend their way of life. Calls* have even been made for Hagia Sophia, the great 6th Century cathedral of Constantinople, to be to returned to Mosque status. It had of course become a Mosque immediately following the sack of Constantinople in 1453 (presumably after the raped nuns had been ushered out), but Ataturk had it turned into a museum after the fall of the Ottomans.

* http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2012/06/renewed-call-to-again-make-hagia-sophia.html

* http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2011/11/hagia-sophia-in-istanbul-en-route-to.html

-From Fox News-

"ANKARA, Turkey – A Turkish court on Friday convicted 330 military officers, including the former air force and navy chiefs, of plotting to overthrow the Islamic-based government in 2003, state television reported, in a case that has helped curtail the military's hold on politics.

A panel of three judges at the court on Istanbul's outskirts initially sentenced former air force chief Ibrahim Firtina, former navy chief Ozden Ornek and former army commander Cetin Dogan to life imprisonment but later reduced the sentence to a 20-year jail term, TRT reported. The three were accused of masterminding the plot.

The court also convicted 327 other active or retired officers for involvement in the conspiracy, sentencing some to as much as 18 years in prison. Thirty-four were acquitted while the case against one was postponed for health reasons.

The officers were expected to appeal the verdict.

The trial of the high-ranking officers -- unconceivable a decade ago -- has helped significantly to tip the balance of power in Turkey in favor of civilian authorities.

Turkey's generals have staged three coups since the 1960s and forced an Islamist government to quit in 1997. But Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's government has grown ever more confident with each of its three electoral successes since 2002 and has been drawing reins on the powers of the armed forces which have long seen themselves as the guardians of Turkey's secular traditions.

Erdogan's government has hailed the trial which began in December 2010, and other similar ones as a break with a tradition of impunity and a move toward greater democracy. But the officers' case -- dubbed "Sledgehammer" after the alleged conspiracy -- has been marred by the suspects' long confinement without a verdict and some judicial flaws, including allegations of fabricated evidence. The government's secular critics have denounced the coup plot trials as a ploy to intimidate opponents.

Prosecutors accused the 365 defendants in the trial of plotting to depose Erdogan by triggering turmoil in the country that would have paved the way for a military takeover.

They claimed the plotters, taking part in an army seminar in 2003, drew up plans for a coup which included bombings of mosques, the downing of a Turkish fighter plane and other acts of violence that would have allowed the military to intervene on the pretext of restoring order.

The defendants reject the charges. The military has said officers taking part in the seminar discussed a fictitious scenario involving internal conflict, but that there were no plans for a military coup."

Fjordman - Islam Is Not Compatible With the West

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2012/09/why-islam-does-not-belong-in-western.html


Hat tip to Gates of Vienna.

Peder Jensen, who employs the nom de plume Fjordman in his books and posts, was the individual who had the largest target on his back following the Breivik murders last year.

Unlike the US, citizens in much of Western Europe do not have the full rights of free speech. Charges of hate speech and inciting  violence are not uncommon in the part of the world that gave birth to our society. It is the same climate of legal intimidation to create political impotence that organizations such as CAIR and the OIC seek to have implemented in the US.

After Breivik's attacks, Mr. Jensen, who up until that point was still known by most only by his pseudonym, was cast as the main subject of interest for Norwegian authorities. The Socialist elite wanted someone to pay for the massacre, and they also wanted to strike a blow against anyone who dared to question their Socialist and Multicultural agenda. Prosecuting such an individual would be a useful means to force some into silence and to mete out the same treatment to those who would not be cowed into submission.

Knowing that the cops wanted to talk to him, Jensen came forward voluntarily and agreed to speak with them. Desperate as they were to find someone to blame for inciting Breivik, Jensen's house was then searched and his computer seized.

The next few months were a source of anguish for Jensen as he waited to find out if he was going to face charges. Ultimately, no charges were filed against him, but he did incur substantial legal fees.

The post of Jensen/Fjordman that is taken from the above Gates of Vienna link treats a common topic of mine - the incompatibility of Islam and Western Societies. He correctly notes that calls for a 16th century Europe-style Reformation in Islam are of no value. To reform a religion as the Protestant reformers set out to do is to bring a religion back to its roots. Protestants desired to erase what was at the time over 1,400 years of Christianity with (For them) too much Catholic thought and practice and therefore return to a simpler 1st century Christianity. To do so in Islam can only bring the reformer back to Mohammed, and nothing that Mohammed did or said can be excised from Islam.

No serious Christian would attempt to excise any teachings or recorded acts of Christ. He would not need to do so anyway as Christ did not institute anything like that which was promulgated by Mohammed. The latter has as parts of its core violent Jihad and the requirement that the entire world submit to Islam or Islamic rule. To remove these may be an admirable plan, but striking these from Islam leaves a religion that is cannot be referred to as Islam. I will leave out child brides and other awful parts of Islam for now.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jensen's post appears after the below link. This link will take you to the archives of Jensen's/Fjordman's posts. They are categorized by year and subject and are very well written and rich in information.
http://chromatism.net/fjordman/fjordmanfiles.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-Jensen's post:
Bolding is added. The entire post can be accessed in the top link.

"Why Islam Does Not Belong in the Western World
by Fjordman

Many observers in the press thought that I would disappear as a writer after I stepped forward with my real name during the Breivik case.

They were wrong.

I will continue using Fjordman as a pen name, but I have no intention of changing my views as Peder Jensen, either. I started out writing about Islam. I later diversified to include other subjects, too, since there are many things wrong with the modern West, but I do not regret what I have written about Islam previously. I told the truth then, and will continue to do so in the future.

The fact is that the much-vilified Islam-critics and so-called “Islamophobes” have been entirely correct in their comments and analyses for years. Political leaders and media commentators throughout the Western world keep telling us that Islam is at heart a peaceful religion which is being abused by “extremists” and that continued Muslim immigration to our countries is good and should continue. They are not telling the truth.

Yes, mass immigration can be a problem by itself, also of non-Muslims, but Islam is a uniquely aggressive and violent creed. No other major, established religion on this planet stipulates the death penalty for criticizing or mocking its founder and its teachings. Traditional Islamic law does. That’s why no other religious community on Earth behaves the way Muslims are doing globally this September, attacking Western embassies in multiple countries over a single, somewhat amateurish movie most people had never even heard of. Attacking embassies can easily be seen as an act of war. The people and groups doing this have already declared war on us and our societies, whether we like this or not.

Needless to say, movies, cartoons, novels and other objects merely constitute convenient pretexts as targets for the eternal Muslim rage and aggression against the rest of humanity. What these riots and threats are really about is imposing dhimmitude on the West, as Bat Ye’or has prophetically warned. Muslim leaders — from the Prime Minister of NATO member Turkey, via the Western-backed Muslim Brotherhood President of Egypt, to the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the largest voting bloc at the United Nations — are pushing for national and international laws or speech codes banning any criticism of Islam, its founder and its teachings. Although Western mass media virtually never explain this to their audiences, this would essentially imply submission to Islamic law and Islamic rule.

For over a thousand years, Islamic teachings have stipulated only three options for non-Muslims: Convert to Islam, submit to Islamic rule as a virtual hostage in your own country, or fight. Once you start kneeling to Islam, though, there is no going back. You will have to live on your knees every single day for the rest of your life, and your children and grandchildren will be condemned to doing the same, under an eternal shadow of fear of Muslim abuse, violence and aggression.


Islam means “submission.” If you are not willing to submit to Islam or Islamic rule then Islam is your mortal enemy, always has been and always will be. Yes, Islam itself. Not “radical Islam,” “militant Islamism” or “evildoers abusing the peaceful teachings of the Koran.” Islam.

Islamic culture is incompatible with all of the best aspects of European civilization. No form of Islam as it exists today belongs in any Western country.

If you think the above statement sounds “extreme,” this is only because you have been fed a steady diet of misleading nonsense for decades by Western media and academia. I don’t have the time or space to provide a detailed theological explanation for my statements here, but I can do so whenever I need to. I intend to complete a book next year about precisely this issue. Spending years studying Islamic teachings and history and partly living in the Middle East has only convinced me of one thing: Islam cannot be reconciled with our way of life. It is incompatible with any civilization worthy of that name, Eastern or Western.

Any discussion of an Islamic “Reformation” projects a Western European phenomenon, the Protestant Reformation, onto a totally different religion with more violent core teachings and religious texts than all other major religions on the planet combined. If by “reformation” we mean to imply a peaceful, tolerant religion with no Jihad and secular laws, then no, it is very unlikely whether such a form of Islam will ever exist. There are a few types of what we might term “diluted Islam” that are slightly less violently aggressive than the mainstream version of it, but these are all marginal in the greater scheme of things and are frequently persecuted precisely because they deviate from traditional Islamic practices.

If by “reformation” we simply mean a return to the earliest practices of the religion then we have already had a Muslim Martin Luther: the terrorist leader Osama bin Laden. He was a violent Jihadist because the earliest followers of Mohammed were also violent Jihadists. You can base a peaceful Christian religion with secular laws on the peaceful example of Jesus and his disciples as contained in the Christian Gospels. In Islam, however, such an example can only be found in the early Mecca period. As long as the example of Mohammed and his followers in Medina remain in force, along with the chapters of the Koran supposedly introduced there, any form of Islam based on traditional Islamic texts is bound to be potentially repressive, aggressive and violent. You may successfully question whether the story of Mohammed as told in traditional text is historically accurate. It probably isn’t. But if you abandon traditional sources and state that Mohammed as we think of him never existed, Islam may not be reformed, but could collapse instead.

Another factor which usually isn’t brought up in discussions is that the Protestant Reformation was no picnic when it happened. It caused generations of turmoil and war, even though it was mainly confined to Europe at the time. An Islamic reformation is unlikely to materialize, but even if it did, it would probably be a very turbulent and messy affair with global consequences in an age of nuclear weapons. On the other hand, if Islam cannot be reformed, the result will be a continuation of the violence we see today.

We are currently mass importing this very conflict to all of our major cities, a process which is already well underway. It is criminal negligence on the part of our so-called leaders to continue this madness and conduct a dangerous Multicultural experiment with hundreds of millions of people as guinea pigs. This needs to end. Now.

If you believe that this analysis is correct then you are left with only one possible conclusion: We must physically separate ourselves from Islam and Islamic culture as much as is practically possible. The American essayist Lawrence Auster has dubbed this strategy “separationism,” which is not a bad term.

We cannot continue as we are today, or our freedoms will slowly be eroded and our societies gradually destroyed. We need to halt Muslim immigration to all Western countries on a permanent basis. Any agreements or charters that prevent such a policy from being implemented must be changed. This probably means that Westerners in return have to accept less freedom of movement in Muslim majority countries, but given that these are becoming more dangerous and less hospitable year by year, the age of mass tourism there may soon be over, anyway.
The idea that Islamic violence and aggression is somehow caused by “poverty,” a notion that has been echoed by Western politicians from Tony Blair to Hillary Clinton, is a Marxist-inspired fallacy. Mohammed Bouyeri did not murder film director Theo van Gogh in the streets of Amsterdam because he was poor, but because his religious beliefs commanded him to wipe out those who criticize or mock Islam. Islamic aggression is caused by Islamic teachings.
Those who harbor the belief that Muslims will somehow “like” us more if we give them money are deluded and fail to grasp Islamic mentality. To Muslims, anything good happens because Allah wills it. If they feel gratitude to anybody it will be to Allah, not to worthless and inferior infidels. Besides, according to sharia law, non-Muslim dhimmis who retain their lives are supposed to pay protection money —jizya — in “willing submission” to Islamic rule. Non-Muslims giving Muslims money is the way Allah has ordained it. Muslims will feel no gratitude to us for doing this. On the contrary, they may in fact become more aggressive, because they will interpret your behavior as a sign of submission.
Is separation a viable long-term strategy in the twenty-first century? It’s not yet possible to supply detailed answers about how such a policy can be successfully implemented in an age of rapid global communications, but I see the urgent need for us to implement as much of it as possible if we want our societies to survive and remain free. Perhaps separationism will not be sufficient to deal with a nuclear-armed Iran, for instance, but it is the very minimum we as a civilization can live with.

For the record: If any Multiculturalists want to charge me with “hate speech” or “racism” for what I have just written here, come and get me. I will repeat the same statements in court and make sure that millions of people hear this message. When faced with the dangerous and escalating wave of Islamic aggression we are now witnessing, we can no longer afford to hide behind convenient lies. Our children will never forgive us for the mess we leave behind if we do nothing substantial about the threats we face."

Climate of Fear in Islam - Join the Mob or be Prosecuted

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/09/19/pakistani-accused-blasphemy-over-prophet-film/

Note that the title is not a mistake. I did not mean persecuted.

Hat tip to Answering Muslims.

I have noted in previous posts that Islam creates a climate of fear. While many attribute honor-killings, female genital mutilation, child brides, the restriction of unaccompanied women to their homes, and marrying their daughters to their rapists to the evil patriarchal* structure, the fact is that Islam is not patriarchal at all.

*As an aside, we should ask ourselves how the matriarchal system is working out here in the West. We of course pay lip service to equal decision making among parents, but in practice it is the Mother of the household that tends to force the decisions with the family in our era. Men are supposed to step aside and just kind of be there for window dressing.

Anyway, in many earlier posts I have held that it is not just angry Muslims who join the mob whenever a cartoon is made or a Koran may have been dropped in Kalamazoo, Michigan. It has been my assertion that, in a Muslim-majority country, the man is not free to decline to participate in any anti-Western demonstration mob.

Like the practices noted in the opening paragraph, Muslim men are in no position of authority within their homes or society. They are automatons who must apply Sharia or other Islamic practices or face, at best, ostracism from their peers. A Muslim man who allows his daughter to remain free of mutilation and have young men respectfully court her will quickly become the laughingstock of his community. Just as probable is the terrible treatment that the daughter will receive at the hands of jealous men, both unmarried who see her as a female of ill-repute to be hurt, and other fathers who fear that their daughters will demand the same privileges. The Muslim man has no authority whatsoever.

I have held for a long time that many participants of these mobs are only there because they have no choice. It is either join the mob or face the consequences for failing to uphold the honor of Islam. Here is one incident that illustrates my point. In this case, the guy go go to jail.

From the top link:

"Pakistani officials say they have opened an investigation into a businessman who has been accused of blasphemy after refusing to join protests over an anti-Islam video and allegedly trying to convince others also not to take part.

Police officer Munir Abbasi says that hundreds of protesters in the city of Hyderabad who rallied against the film that mocks the Prophet Muhammad demanded businessman Haji Nasrullah Khan shut his shops in solidarity.

When Khan refused, one of his tenants said his decision supported the film.

City police chief Fareed Jan said Wednesday the protesters claim Khan insulted the Prophet.

Jan said there's no evidence to suggest this happened and said police were pressured by the mob to open the case.

Blasphemy is punishable by life in prison or death in Pakistan."

In a Muslim-majority nation or region, there is no refuge for a person who desires to be a moderate Muslim.  These can only exist when Islam is a small minority, As soon as that group becomes large enough to assert some political power, as has happened in Western Europe, the climate of fear sets in.

Vote Obama Pledge Required by Professor

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/09/professor_allegedly_required_students_to_sign_pledge_to_vote_for_obama_and_democrats.html


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/college-prof-on-leave-after-forcing-students-to-sign-pledge-to-vote-for-obama/

For all I know at this point, this could be a hoax.

We are aware of the tremendous pressure that is all too often put on students to walk the chalk line of Leftist doctrine. We have also heard and read reports of professors who jump through flaming hoops in order to belittle students who do not support the Party with a sufficient degree of loyalty or motivation. To obtain even passing grades in classes, let alone A's or high B's, many a student has had to practice discretion as opposed to valor just to make sure that he or she did not waste a semester's worth of time and money. The student sometimes has no choice but to affect to hold positions that are in line with those of their judges. It is the professors who have the ability and power to, if not wreck someone's chances at a chosen career, at least delay it for some time.

We have come to, if not accept this travesty, at least be unsurprised by such doctrinal bullying in larger universities. This event, however is reported to have occurred in a community college.

I don't think poorly of County/community colleges. In fact, I have my Associates in Criminal Justice from such an institution. They are great places for a young person who is not sure what field to study, desires to save some money, and wants to be able to commute from home while still holding a job. Many adults take advantage of the night classes. Having young children at the time, night classes at a college close to home  made it possible for me to obtain my degree.

The march through the institutions has been one of the major successes of the Left. Colleges that teach actual history and are committed to the education, rather than the indoctrination, of the student are becoming a small minority.

When a person signs a pledge, he or she is giving his word. That may not mean nearly as much as it once did, but it still has to have some effect on a student's sense of dignity. To require that someone pledge to do something that may be against his or her principles is an awful thing to do. When the particular act that the pledge requires involves taking part in the wrecking of a nation and its prosperity, the wrong is even greater.

Stockholm Train Track Robber Caught

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2012/09/blood-on-tracks.html

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2012/09/update-on-stockholm-metro-robber-we.html

Hat tip to Gates of Vienna.

By now, some may have heard or read about the man who, while lying drunk on the train tracks in the Stockholm Metro, was robbed of his wallet, jewelry and cellphone. The robber, being unwilling to bring himself to at least move his victim from the tracks, then left the scene. Shortly after, the victim received severe injuries when the train arrived and ran him over.

Well, the cops have their suspect. He is from Tunisia and entered Sweden illegally. Following the maxim of Archie Bunker from All in the Family (I got news for you Edith, almost everything a mugger does is illegal), the enricher of culture apparently figured that since he was illegally in Sweden in the first place, he might as well go ahead and help himself to some free stuff.

What frame of mind allows someone to walk away from anyone who is in danger of being killed when all that is necessary is to move him a couple of feet? The fact that the one who left him there to possibly die also robbed him first only serves to illustrate how badly things have gone in Western Europe.

In other news, the US has begun talks aimed at the possible transfer of the Blind Sheikh Abdel Rahman of the 1993 World Trade Center infamy, to Egypt. I guess that will help, albeit temporarily, appease our Muslim friends until we find a way to prohibit any speech, writings, or other works that aggravate the followers of Islam.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/source-obama-administration-in-talks-to-transfer-blind-sheikh-to-egypt/

While we are on the topic of suppression of speech, take a gander at this ultimatum from Egypt's Prime Minister:

Below are excerpts from the flowing link.

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2012/09/peace-in-our-time-egyptian-style.html#more

"In an interview with BBC Arabic, Mr Qandil said it was “unacceptable to insult our Prophet” but also not right for peaceful protests to turn violent.

Mr Qandil said the film had been made by “wicked” amateurs, but that while it was “unacceptable to insult our Prophet” it was also “unjustifiable to have a peaceful demo turned violent”.

“Egyptians, Arabs, Muslims - we need to reflect the true identity of Muslims, how peaceful they are, and talk to the Western media about the true heart of the Muslims, that they condemn violence,” said Mr Qandil.

-That's why they murder people; they are so peaceful that any statements to the contrary enrage them.
Here comes the call for suppressing free speech.

“At the same time we need to reach a balance between freedom of expression and to maintain respect for other peoples’ beliefs.”

When asked whether he thought the US should change its laws governing freedom of speech laws, he replied: “I think we need to work out something around this because we cannot wait and see this happen again.”

“This is a small number of people doing irresponsible work and everybody’s paying the price.”

He also called on the US, and other governments, to “take the necessary measures to ensure insulting billions of people, one-and-a-half billion people and their beliefs, does not happen and people pay for what they do, and at the same time make sure that the reflections of the true Egyptian and Muslims is well in the Western media.”

Left unsaid, Only remarks that we like are accurate - anything else is inaccurate

Norwegian Cop on "Innocence of Muslims" Film

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2012/09/police-dhimmitude-in-oslo.html
Hat tip to Gates of Vienna.

When I watched this video, one phrase came to mind.

"Oh calm, dishonorable, vile, submission."

Those words, spoken by Mercutio in Romeo and Juliet, sum up the groveling for which we in the West have jostled each other to be the first or the most profusely apologetic whenever Muslims commit acts of violence in response to insults, be they real or perceived.

Mercutio, unaware that his cousin was already married to Juliet and therefore now related to Tybalt (Also unaware of the nuptials), uttered this phrase after witnessing Romeo speaking kindly to Tybalt, who has been insulting him. The doomed newlyweds had not made their families aware of the marriage. Thinking that Romeo was acting cowardly towards Tybalt, Mercutio is disgusted with Romeo's responses to Tybalt's insults such as "Though art a villein". 

"What are you doing Romeo? You are making us look like a family of cowards!"

In the video in the link at top, a Norwegian police official sees fit to appear before a group of Muslim men and make it clear that he and his colleagues "reject" the film "Innocence of Muslims. I did not see anything in the translation that looked like and actual apology, but the point is the same - someone aggravates Muslims, and others have to step forward to placate them to prevent bloodshed and destruction of property.

The situation has become ridiculous. The Islamic mindset sees such acts not as conciliatory but as signs of weakness. The idea is that, by making it clear that they will kill people for saying things about their religion or prophet that they do not like, they can force others into silence or to be supplicants who beg for mercy. By doing so, they are effectively the conquering party.

In ancient Greece, it was understood that the side that requested a truce after the battle to recover the bodies of the slain was admitting to be the losing party. The winning side held the battlefield, so it was their decision to allow or deny the collection of the dead.

Every instance of apologies, disassociating from anti-Islamic drawings/movies/writings, or rejections of those acts brings us closer to a worldwide prohibition of any offensive speech. None of this endears us to the House of Islam. To the contrary, it emboldens them. They will still be able to denounce Christianity and Judaism, while we will face civil or criminal penalties for such actions - all this because we are afraid of their reactions.

 I am not a Muslim, therefore their is no reason why I or any other non-Muslims cannot say or write anything derogatory about Mohammed or Islam. If the US adopts any legislation that prohibits such free speech or allows civil lawsuits due to such speech, there is no limit to what else can be prohibited.

I fear for the Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians who live in Muslim-majority countries and have to suffer the consequences of Islamic tolerance as a result of the film. If Russia* does not step in to protect these people, then she and/or other majority-Christian nations (Orthodox in particular come to mind) need to help evacuate them and give them new homes. It will be immeasurably better and appropriate to do so than to import hordes of Muslims into the same countries, where they will expect more apologies and proskenesis. It would be a sort of reverse of the uplift of the Ethiopian Jews; instead of bringing Jews back to their homelands, the minorities will be removed from their homelands.

Then we can close all of our embassies and other diplomatic offices in Muslim-majority nations. Let them go bananas among themselves.

-On my call for Russia to take the lead in protecting Christians and others in the Near/Middle East.
*http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2012/08/time-for-russia-to-protect-christians.html

Video of 1529 Ottoman Siege of Vienna

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-first-siege-of-vienna.html

Hat tip to Gates of Vienna.

On previous posts, I have mentioned the 1683 siege of Vienna by the Ottomans as an example of how close the Islamic threat to Central Europe is to our own time period - it was exactly one hundred years before the United States was officially recognized as a sovereign nation by Great Britain.

The video on the Gates of Vienna link is short but quite good. In our era of bad-mouthing everything and anything about the Western World and the (False) depiction of Islam as tolerant, open-minded, and peace-loving, it is a pleasant surprise to find a work that gives us the real picture.

I found it to be inspirational. The bravery and resolute actions of the citizens and soldiers who defended the city against Suleiman the Magnificent (That's what they call him) are worthy of emulation.

Thatcher Hated by Left Because She Proved Them Wrong

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2202406/The-Left-hates-Margaret-Thatcher-reminds-wrong-everything.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rule of the mob (Or the mob that was used as a screen by organized terror groups) in Libya and Yemen has been all over the news, so I will avoid treating this subject other than to say that Hillary Clinton made sure that she condemned the Mohammed film that may or may not have been the trigger. Clinton has been involved with Muslim groups who seek to pressure the US into adopting hate speech legislation for some time now. As noted in yesterday's post, the Muslim world has every intention of bringing the US into the "can't say bad (Almost always true) things about Mohammed or Islam" orbit to which much of Western Europe has already acquiesced.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[9/15/12 - I forgot to tip my hat to Gates of Vienna. It was from there that I picked up the Daily Mail article]

In the top-linked post, UK politicain Daniel Hannan, who several months back sternly warned the US that we are fast approaching the moribund state of Socialism that has gripped Western Europe for a long time.

He cites the recent gloating among Leftists at the prospect of a passing of an old and sick Margaret Thatcher. This Prime Minister took over the UK at a time when the heavily subsidized industries of her nation were about to collapse. Her reforms are compared by some to those of Ronald Reagan, her American counterpart and friend. Both are excoriated by the left today - Reagan mostly through - word of mouth among Leftists in the US, and Thacher not only through the same venue but by the school system.

In the case of Thatcher, they just can't wait for the Iron Lady to die.

I hold that Western Civilization will eventually triumph despite the intensive and relentless efforts of the Left. If I am proven to be correct, Thatcher's name will live on as an example of imperishable fame (I think that the Greek is Chlaos). Those who join in on the demagoguery-driven mob of Leftism will be remembered as nothing more than how we think of the gullible and easily-bribed and persuaded Roman and Athenian mobs and even those who were incited by their superiors to howl for the execution of a First Century Jewish teacher.

The Left suffers from a terrible and permanent state of envy. Their polices have been utter failures in every nation in which they were implemented. This has not stopped them from continuing to advocate for their preferred system. What is even more disturbing, the hatred that they feel for those who, more than opposing them, prove them wrong by their success. Neither Thacther's nor Reagan's name cannot be uttered by them without a tone that conveys the act of spitting the word.

I am reminded of the hatred that the late Christopher Hitchens professed to have for Mother Theresa. He made his hatred for her work very clear and did not shrink from using that actual word when her spoke of her. He would lambaste her for the decisions that she made to use the funds that were given to her organization. Like some Hindu radicals, many who like Hitchens were content leaving the destitute as they were, would resort instead to attacking Mother Theresa for building new convents to house the swarms of nuns who joined her order to help the poor. It meant nothing to those who would sit on their hands while people starved - they just wanted to find fault with someone who helped those that they would not.

The same mindset applies to the Left - they would rather have industrial workers content for today - this while the very levels of wages and benefits they (Labor) now command will essentially guarantee that their children will not have a job. The rest of the world will understandably undercut the West on labor costs. The Left has convinced too many workers that they are in it for them, while at the same time they ensure that Western industry will dance on the brink of collapse.

Envy is more than just jealousy, it can also mean the pure anger and hatred for someone who has accomplished something that you, those you support, or your favorite system never could. Pride is often a basic component of this mindset. If you have spent years advocating a non-workable system, and someone else proves that it can be done better as long as your plans are ditched, one's hubris or superbia can easily persuade you to ignore the facts and feel hatred for those who are successful.

It is a perfect storm of narcissists who also have an inferiority complex.

Conservative commentator Sean Hannity is very much a regular guy. He is a straight-shooter, has worked hard all of his life, and to my knowledge has never hurt a single soul, yet I have met many a Liberal who will readily state "I hate Sean Hannity". My response is that the hatred is simply a response to the fact that Sean is correct. It is not Sean that they hate, it is the awareness that their system does not succeed as well as his that eats away at them. Refusing to come to grips with this, they resort to hate.

When you read the excerpts below or the full post linked at the top, try to imagine how much hate these people would actually feel if only they sit down and compare Thatcher's system versus that of Labor's (The British Left). I hold that they would feel no hate at all and that what they now affect to be their target of hatred is just a scapegoat for their inner indictment of their own beliefs.

Bolding is added.

"On sale at the TUC Conference, before a storm of protest forced their withdrawal, were T-shirts glorying in the eventual death of Margaret Thatcher.

‘A generation of trade unionists will dance on Thatcher’s grave,’ says one, emblazoned with the image of her tombstone.Another is wrapped in a bag printed with the words: ‘In the event of Thatcher’s death, open bag and wear T-shirt immediately.’ The T-shirt has a picture of the former prime minister’s Spitting Image puppet, with the slogan: ‘Hey ho the witch is dead.’

Unbelievably, the ‘unemployed’ workers who produced them are taxpayer-funded.Stop and think for a moment about what these T-shirts are celebrating.

Lady Thatcher is a frail and elderly grandmother. Yes, she was a strong-willed, divisive politician — and thank heaven she was.
A more conciliatory figure would almost certainly not have made the changes necessary to rescue Britain from the mess we were in by the late Seventies.
But what does it say about someone’s mindset that they slide so easily from disagreeing with Lady Thatcher’s politics to gloating over the idea of her death?

It’s not just one T-shirt seller at the TUC. You get the same sentiment on Twitter, internet comment threads, even on BBC comedy programmes.

To a generation too young to remember the Thatcher governments — let alone the calamity that had preceded them — she is less a living, breathing woman than a symbol of evil, somewhere between Lady Macbeth and Cruella de Vil.

So hostile to Thatcherism is the cultural climate, so preponderant the Billy Elliot view of the time (with the musical’s line ‘Merry Christmas Maggie Thatcher/We all celebrate today/Cos it’s one day closer to your death’), that young people must wonder how the lady won a single vote, let alone three general elections.

When I speak to sixth-formers [I assume that these are sixth-graders in the US, which means that twelve year-olds are being indoctrinated to despise those who do the the right thing] in my constituency — teenagers born long after she had left office — they often tell me, with breezy certainty, that the Eighties were years of unmitigated greed punctuated only by corruption.

When I ask them how, then, they explain the results of the ballot box that saw Thatcher re-elected twice, they look uncomfortable and declare there must have been lots of nasty people in Britain.

I am just old enough to remember the end of the Seventies: power cuts, three-day weeks, constant strikes, price and income controls, inflation.

Worst of all, I remember the sense of despair, the conviction that Britain was finished.

I don’t believe you can grasp Margaret Thatcher’s achievement without the context of what she displaced.

Throughout the Sixties and Seventies, this country had been outperformed by every European economy. ‘Britain is a tragedy — it has sunk to borrowing, begging, stealing until North Sea oil comes in,’ said Henry Kissinger. *

*Note that I have no respect for Henry Kissinger. This man has been a longtime supporter of the elimination of national sovereignty and the institution of one world government. It was he who stated that, one day, Americans would be relieved to have foreign troops on US soil.

Islamic Anger Strategically Applied to Curb First Amendment

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/more-than-a-movie-experts-claim-real-reason-for-u-s-embassy-attacks-is-much-more-sinister/

The article linked above a very good read.

While Muslims are allowed to say anything that they wish about Judaism and Christianity*, the institutional fear and oppression inherent in Islam provides for a pretence to call for everyone to refrain from speech that does not compliment the religion of tolerance. The oppression part is obvious. The fear part is more insidious; the fear of being perceived by one's coreligionists as insufficiently Muslim causes even lukewarm devotees to join in on the most violent of rampaging mobs


*In the English commentary on the Koran (If it is not in Arabic then it cannot be a Koran), the reader is met with numerous footnotes, one of which states that the Trinity is a "Christian superstition". Can you imagine the howls if a footnoted Bible mentioned Islam at all? The Koran itself contains many passages that denigrate Christians, Jews and their beliefs.


I once had a next-door neighbor who was a Christian Evangelical who had the similar mindset but his was more geared towards winning at everything. He did fear, though, refutations of his anti-Catholic claims. Being that he threw these out on a regular basis, his frustration increased month-by-month as he was stymied at every turn. His win everything attitude got so bad that I found myself having to race him down our street to prove to him that I could beat him in a footrace. For the record, I won.

If the idea of prohibiting speech that offends the followers of a religion sounds like lunacy, that is a good sign.

The problem is that there is a significant movement behind this very idea. The concept on the Islamic side is to incite the mob every time an accurate portrayal of Mohammed is made, Islam is criticized, or a Koran is damaged in any way (Or rumored to have been so). The next step in for a Muslim leader to speak out against the resulting violence and then add that the causes (Whatever was done to aggravate them) must be addressed. In this way the West is treated like the battered spouse; "I'm sorry  hit you, but you have to stop making me rage".

Watch for any seed that gets planted by the media. If any suggestions are made to the effect that, to create a safer world for Americans either here, there, or both, we need to pass legislation that bars speech that offends any religious group, the red flags must go up immediately. Hate speech, offensive speech - it can come under different labels. If this occurs, then we must fight this one tooth and nail. If we are restricted from free speech, then it is all over.

9/11 and Our Blindness to Islam

We started the day like everyone else did.

I was still a Law Enforcement in New Jersey at the time - I had a full nine years left to my retirement.

I was told by a passer-by that a plane had crashed into the World Trade Center. We turned on the radio and were fortunate to find that the radio announcers on 95.5 WPLJ in NYC were able to see what was going on. As they were discussing the smoke, confusion in the streets, and Emergency Response, a got-wrenching cry went out - "Oh my God, another plane just hit the South Tower!" . After more lamentations, one of the announcers stated, in manner that clearly indicated that there was no doubt, "New York City is under attack.".

By then our department had taken measures to increase our security in areas under our our jurisdiction

The announcers continued to broadcast as the towers burned. In abject anguish they described the people exiting the tower, the increasing flames that were consuming the structures, and the last acts of defiance of the people trapped in the floors above the fire who, refusing to wait for the inevitable, leaped to their deaths.

Shortly after, one of ours officers was on his cellphone, presumably with his wife. He kept asking  in an incredulous manner "They hit the Pentagon?"

The announcers, in disbelief, told us that the South Tower was collapsing. The pain in their words was unmistakable. There was no doubt that not only has people still in the tower died, but that many on the ground had been killed in the falling debris.

As the minutes ticked away, the expected happened. The grieving announcers informed us that the North Tower too had collapsed.

Our agency had dispatched officers from our response units to head for the crime scene - State jurisdictional issues would have to be ignored for the time being.

Being a Bomb Technician, I was dispatched to several locations that had received bomb threats and where people had noted suspicious packages and vehicles. We worked through the night, but there was no doubt that our tasks were nothing compared to those who were in the Hell of Lower Manhattan. It was while en-route to the first call that I was able to pick up from the radio about a plane that had crashed in a rural section of Pennsylvania. While I was traveling Northward to the first scene, the smoke cloud had become so massive on the horizon that, even being almost 30 miles away, it would cause a person who knew nothing of the attacks to think that all of Manhattan was ablaze.

Two days later, I drove my youngest, who was five years-old at the time, to a high point not far from our home from where he could see the smoke that was rising from what was formerly a beautiful skyline. I asked him to remember what he was seeing and, echoing what I had told him on 9/12, stated that very bad people had taken over planes from the pilots and crashed them into our buildings in New York (He was too small to understand flight 93 or the Pentagon). Some who have assumed the sheep mentality and hold that children should be shielded from such horror will think awful things about me, but I am on the opposite side of that argument. My son is a High School Junior, is well-adjusted, is on his HS wrestling and Baseball teams, avoids trouble like the plague, and desires to be a Marine Officer.

In the months following, I served to rotations with my National Guard Unit assisting the Port Authority Police with security at the NJ?NY bridges and tunnels. While packing for the second tour, I kept noticing that, no matter how many socks or underwear I packed, they were gone when I returned. Trying again, I caught sight of the boy running away with a pair of socks; in an effort to prevent me from being able to leave, he had been hiding my clothing. I spent almost an hour with him on my lap as I explained why some people have to go for a while to help the whole community. He plead with me that the "Policemans" could do the work. When I respond that the cops were doing that already and that they were busy with other work, he tearfully offered the 'Firemans" as a solution.

After talking to him for some time, I found that he was not in any way fearful of any danger to me, he just wanted his Dad to be home. I told him about all the other kids his age who will never see their Dads and Moms again because they were killed by the bad people. I added that I would call home often and be back home in a few weeks. Reasonably satisfied, he then went to his room. Later, I found a green Power Ranger action figure protruding from one of the pockets of my tactical/load-bearing vest. I still have that Green Ranger.

The child never forgot the importance of service to his people and nation and that bad people must be stopped. Despite the propaganda in the schools, many young people know more than their elders.

To rewind a bit, I spoke to an attorney a few days after 9/11. This was a nice person whom I would see often in the course of my duties. We always spent a few minutes speaking about current events. This time, after he mentioned the terrorists, I noted that we needed to start talking about what Islam is. Apparently thinking that he was in agreement with me, he interjected, "It's a religion of peace.'" I paused and gave the Islam 101 as briefly as I could as we were both at work. He mentioned the Crusades. I explained Militant Christianity 101. Here it is:

In the early Church, the question was whether or not a Christian could even remain in the army without being in conflict with his faith.

St. Augustine of Hippo, who came almost four centuries later , was the first to synthesize the concept of a "Just war".

It was another four centuries until the Western Church began to advocate employing Christian soldiers in acts of warfare for the faith. Charlemagne had forced conversion on the Saxons (The ones in Germany - not in England) in the eighth century, but this was clearly an act of defense of a political realm as the Saxons had repeatedly engaged in terribly brutal attacks inside the boundaries of the early French Kingdom.

Conquest by vicious warfare, with slave-taking, acquiring of loot, and murders of polytheists and those who refuse to become Dhimmi, are a central part of Islamic doctrine - they are in the Koran.  Militant Christianity only developed as a response to that of Islam. It is not part of the core of Christian beliefs, and there were those of the Church did not accept the concept of a Crusade.

The Crusades were relatively a blip on the radar of history, while Islamic conquests have gone on for 1,400 years. The Crusades were also ultimately mostly unsuccessful, so Muslim have no real room for complaints. The Bible holds that the State possesses the sword and that it is responsible for necessary military actions. The Church, realizing that little was being done by the Western Euroepan powers, stepped in to exhort the peopleof Europe to take action.

Militant Christianity has no comparison to that of Islam.

The attorney had to go to court, so I never learned whether or not that fact sunk in.

Katyn Forest Massacre Covered up by US

Before the post, I must note that after ten years, we still will not admit the existence of the threat of Islam. I plan to have that as my topic tomorrow. Since I was a law enforcement officer and a NJ National Guardsman at the time, I will detail some of my experiences with that period.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/09/10/memos-suggest-us-hid-evidence-soviet-massacre-during-wwii/?test=latestnews

This one is very ugly.

It appears that the US went far out of its way to hide from the world the knowledge of what happened in the Katyn Forest. In this Soviet-occupied region of Poland, over 20,000 Polish Army officers were shot. I recall reading some details many years ago about the mega-crime.

If my memory serves me correctly, it was actually in Reader's Digest. Don't laugh too much - their willingness to print credible reports that the mainstream media would not earned a cameo of a parody on Fox's The Simpsons. In an episode that finds Homer discovering the joys of reading, he gets hooked on a fictional periodical "Reading Digest". As he flips through one of the issues, the viewer gets a brief flash of an article titled "Can We Trust Bermuda?"(It was hilarious).

The actual Reader's Digest was almost alone among periodicals aimed at the general public that dared to report that daily life sucked in the USSR of the 70's and 80's. While Marxist-sympathizers in the US claimed that the quantity of shopping lines in the Soviet Union were a consequence of too much discretionary spending money in the hands of the Soviet worker (Eerily like what the Progressives/other Leftists do today with other Socialist nations), Reader's Digest was straight about the facts. Food lines amounted to strict food rationing; a line to order, a line to pay, and a line to get your food. Lines for toilet paper were not faked, they regularly occurred in the worker's paradise. The place was barely existing and fast approaching its ultimate collapse.

The Katyn Forest article report (The old one) that the system for killing the most qualified and educated of the Polish Officers was brutally efficient. To prevent damage to the pistols used to liberate the Polish people from their class oppressors, they were rotated after a few shots on order to allow the barrels to cool down. It seems that, once the Geramns advanced into Poland and Russia, Stalin and his boys grew quite concerned that people were going to discover the scene of the crime. This is exactly what happened:

-From the Fox News article:

Bolding is added.

It was May 1943 in the Katyn forest, a part of Russia the Germans had seized from the Soviets in 1941. A group of American and British POWs were taken against their will by their German captors to witness a horrifying scene at a clearing surrounded by pine trees: mass graves tightly packed with thousands of partly mummified corpses in well-tailored Polish officers uniforms.

The Germans knew that they would be balmed and there fore needed to create some witnesses. They also probbaly hoped that the US would realize that Uncle Joe wasn't such a nice ally after all. 
The Americans — Capt. Donald B. Stewart and Lt. Col. John H. Van Vliet Jr. — hated the Nazis and didn't want to believe the Germans. They had seen German cruelty up close, and the Soviets, after all, were their ally. The Germans were hoping to use the POWs for propaganda, and to drive a wedge between the Soviet Union and its Western Allies.

But returning to their POW camps, the Americans carried a conviction that they had just witnessed overwhelming proof of Soviet guilt. The corpses' advanced state of decay told them the killings took place much earlier in the war, when the Soviets still controlled the area. They also saw Polish letters, diaries, identification tags, news clippings and other objects — none dated later than spring of 1940 — pulled from the graves. The evidence that did the most to convince them was the good state of the men's boots and clothing: That told them the men had not lived long after being captured.

Stewart testified before the 1951 Congressional committee about what he saw, and Van Vliet wrote reports on Katyn in 1945 and 1950, the first of which mysteriously disappeared. But the newly declassified documents show that both sent secret encoded messages while still in captivity to army intelligence with their opinion of Soviet culpability. It's an important revelation because it shows the Roosevelt administration was getting information early on from credible U.S. sources of Soviet guilt — yet still ignored it for the sake of the alliance with Stalin.

One shows head of Army intelligence, Gen. Clayton Bissell, confirming that some months after the 1943 visit to Katyn by the U.S. officers, a coded request by MIS-X, a unit of military intelligence, was sent to Van Vliet requesting him "to state his opinion of Katyn." Bissell's note said that "it is also understood Col. Van Vliet & Capt. Stewart replied."
MIS-X was devoted to helping POWs held behind German lines escape; it also used the prisoners to gather intelligence.

A statement from Stewart dated 1950 confirms he received and sent coded messages to Washington during the war, including one on Katyn: "Content of my report was aprx (approximately): German claims regarding Katyn substantially correct in opinion of Van Vliet and myself."
The newly uncovered documents also show Stewart was ordered in 1950 — soon before the Congressional committee began its work — never to speak about a secret message on Katyn.

Krystyna Piorkowska, author of the recently published book "English-Speaking Witnesses to Katyn: Recent Research," discovered the documents related to the coded messages more than a week ago. She was one of several researchers who saw the material ahead of the public release.

She had already determined in her research that Van Vliet and Stewart were "code users" who had gotten messages out about other matters. But this is the first discovery of them communicating about Katyn, she said.

Another Katyn expert aware of the documents, Allen Paul, author of "Katyn: Stalin's Massacre and the Triumph of Truth," told the AP the find is "potentially explosive." He said the material does not appear in the record of the Congressional hearings in 1951-52, and appears to have also been suppressed.

He argues that the U.S. cover-up delayed a full understanding in the United States of the true nature of Stalinism — an understanding that came only later, after the Soviets exploded an atomic bomb in 1949 and after Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe were already behind the Iron Curtain.

"The Poles had known long before the war ended what Stalin's true intentions were," Paul said. "The West's refusal to hear them out on the Katyn issue was a crushing blow that made their fate worse."

The historical record carries other evidence Roosevelt knew in 1943 of Soviet guilt. One of the most important messages that landed on FDR's desk was an extensive and detailed report British Prime Minister Winston Churchill sent him. Written by the British ambassador to the Polish government-in-exile in London, Owen O'Malley, it pointed to Soviet guilt at Katyn.


Starting with the ignoring of Stalin's purposeful creation of the Ukrainian famine and later picking up speed, with FDR and right on through the 50's and later, the US was far from a champion of liberty and freedom, most notably when it came to Leftist regimes.  

While the US was portrayed as overcome with anti-Communist hysteria, and McCarthyism was applied as a term of denigration, the reality was that of a US government that was staffed by many high-ranking (Including FDR) admirers or sympathizers of Marxism and the Soviet Union. This situation continued decade after decade and may have not reached its full extent even with the Leftist horror-show that runs the asylum today. The Cultural Revolution is almost entirely ignored, the Khmer Rouge genocide is paid lip service from time to time, and Stalinist Russia gets for the most part a free pass.We actually have had an avowed admirer of Mao working directly for Obama.

It is time that we recognize the influence of Progressives ad other Leftists in our government. Note that the situation has gotten so out of hand that people who will insist that Sean Hannity (Of all people -he is a regular guy of regular guys) is a radical rightist and somehow have the gall to describe themselves in mild terms as Left-of-center. The latter term in modern parlance means a half-step below full-blown Communism.