Segregation, ethnic cleansing, and double standards

Staying true to their separate-but-equal roots, the Democrat party has once again decided to impose different standards and different laws on different people because some people, apparently, matter a whole lot more than others.

Fresh off the heels of blocking a vote on a bill recognizing the Armenian genocide so as to not offend our pseudo-ally, Turkey, with reality or having to take responsibility for their action, the Obama administration condemned Israel for undertaking a project to build 1600 new homes in a previously undisputed part of Jerusalem, a city which is already de facto divided due to pressure from hostile nations. This, after Israel agreed to halt the building of “settlements” in Judea and Samaria for ten months just to appease them.

Not only is Israel the only nation which cannot gain and maintain territory through wars of self-defense or whose borders are perpetually negotiable, but they apparently do not deserve the means to defend themselves, either. The administration which arms and trains the PA’s military, a terror organization for all intents and purposes, diverted a shipment of bunker busters from Israel just this week.

On Thursday, Fatah dedicated a monument to a mass murderer without so much as a dirty look from the Obama administration. Can you guess who Joe Biden condemned the very next day for “trying to undermine the peace process?” Never mind that Fatah refuses to meet without ridiculous preconditions, having already been offered 90% of all disputed territory and rejected it.  They’re totally dedicated to peace.

According to Caroline Glick, Obama now wants to impose his own “peace” plan on Israel, with no real conditions for his oh-so reliable peace partner, Fatah.

First, Israel must cancel the approval of the housing units in [suddenly disputed] Ramat Shlomo.

Second, Israel must prohibit all construction for Jews in Jerusalem neighborhoods built since 1967.

Third, Israel must make a gesture to the Palestinians to show them we want peace. The US suggests releasing hundreds of Palestinian terrorists from Israeli prisons.

Fourth, Israel must agree to negotiate all substantive issues, including the partition of Jerusalem (including the Jewish neighborhoods constructed since 1967 that are now home to more than a half million Israelis) and the immigration of millions of hostile foreign Arabs to Israel under the rubric of the so-called “right of return,” in the course of indirect, Obama administration-mediated negotiations with the Palestinians. To date, Israel has maintained that substantive discussions can only be conducted in direct negotiations between Israeli and Palestinian officials.

His plan is essentially to divide Jerusalem in two, one side Judenrein and the other flooded with genocidal jihadis. Just to insult Israel’s sovereignty and demonstrate his unfathomable narcissism, he’s decided that he of all people must oversee any discussion between the only two parties involved because only he can decide what happens to disputed territory, international law be damned (when it’s inconvenient). Plus, Rabat Shlomo is now on the table simply because the administration cannot admit that they were ignorant and wrong.

This is the same man who ten months ago had no idea about the 1922 League of Nations mandate to reclaim Israel, who has no foreign policy experience, and who chose Joe Biden as his running mate because, hey, if you’re going to remake other people’s countries, it’s best to rely on someone who has literally been wrong about every single major foreign policy issue of the last 30 years. He may never be factually correct, but he does get results.

My advice to Israel is to just walk away. Take a lesson from the Serbs, on whom Joe Biden successfully imposed his “peace” in Kosovo. You stand to gain nothing from dealing with this administration. Nothing. In fact, should you repeatedly tell them to go to Hell, you might even earn their respect. Don’t let them hold you to different or higher standards than anyone else. Build a monument to King David right on top of al-Aqsa tomorrow and raise Hell anytime anyone from any genocidal terror organization so much as looks at it funny. It’s your land. You fought for it and you won it fairly and squarely.

Dear Nancy Pelosi,

Your nonsensical and transparently socialist diatribe this morning, during which you chose to call us to pray to Saint Joseph, was neither here nor there.

When it is instantly apparent to a Jew that you chose the wrong saint to invoke then it’s pretty obvious you have no idea what you’re talking about.

Saint Joseph is the patron saint of carpenters, social justice, and fathers, so a bill which kills the babies of human parasites with the tax dollars of harder-working people is exactly the last thing with which Saint Joseph should ever be associated.

We know Joseph loved Jesus. His one concern was for the safety of this child entrusted to him. Not only did he leave his home to protect Jesus, but upon his return settled in the obscure town of Nazareth out of fear for his life. When Jesus stayed in the Temple we are told Joseph (along with Mary) searched with great anxiety for three days for him (Luke 2:48). We also know that Joseph treated Jesus as his own son for over and over the people of Nazareth say of Jesus, “Is this not the son of Joseph?” (Luke 4:22).

Saint Joseph risked everything to raise a child who wasn’t his. I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t have endorsed taxpayer-funded abortion. Furthermore, as a Jewish carpenter, it is unlikely that he would have endorsed socialism in any form, being proudly self-reliant and explicitly capitalist.

Furthermore, Speaker Pelosi, Saint Joseph is not particularly revered among Italians or Italian-Americans, as you erroneously stated, nor is today the Feast of Saint Joseph the Worker, which is May 1st and was instituted expressly to counter the socialist pseudo-holiday that is May Day. It is an anti-socialist celebration in May.

Perhaps you were thinking of Saint Januarius, the patron saint of corpses and shady intercession bargains, because he is the only saint I can think of who would be appropriate to invoke on such an occasion as illegally trying to ram through JokerKare. Unlike Saint Joseph the Worker, he is actually revered among Italians, being the patron saint of Naples. He is also quite possibly the creepiest of all the saints, as Mark Twain accurately described in Innocents Abroad:

In this city of Naples, they believe in and support one of the wretchedest of all the religious impostures one can find in Italy — the miraculous liquefaction of the blood of St. Januarius. Twice a year the priests assemble all the people at the Cathedral, and get out this vial of clotted blood and let them see it slowly dissolve and become liquid — and every day for eight days, this dismal farce is repeated, while the priests go among the crowd and collect money for the exhibition. The first day, the blood liquefies in forty-seven minutes — the church is crammed, then, and time must be allowed the collectors to get around: after that it liquefies a little quicker and a little quicker, every day, as the houses grow smaller, till on the eighth day, with only a few dozens present to see the miracle, it liquefies in four minutes.

And here, also, they used to have a grand procession, of priests, citizens, soldiers, sailors, and the high dignitaries of the City Government, once a year, to shave the head of a made-up Madonna — a stuffed and painted image, like a milliner`s dummy — whose hair miraculously grew and restored itself every twelve months. They still kept up this shaving procession as late as four or five years ago. It was a source of great profit to the church that possessed the remarkable effigy, and the ceremony of the public barbering of her was always carried out with the greatest possible eclat and display — the more the better, because the more excitement there was about it the larger the crowds it drew and the heavier the revenues it produced — but at last a day came when the Pope and his servants were unpopular in Naples, and the City Government stopped the Madonna`s annual show.

There we have two specimens of these Neapolitans — two of the silliest possible frauds, which half the population religiously and faithfully believed, and the other half either believed also or else said nothing about, and thus lent themselves to the support of the imposture. I am very well satisfied to think the whole population believed in those poor, cheap miracles — a people who want two cents every time they bow to you, and who abuse a woman, are capable of it, I think.

That sounds more like your guy. He’s a fringe saint who is exploited by the Church for money and by gullible laypeople of questionable faith for personal gain. One typically bargains with Saint Januarius à la, “Caro San Gennaro, I promise I won’t smoke on Fridays if you help me get away with this one bank robbery just this one time, pretty pretty please.”

What a load of Pelosi.

Signed,

Someone with half a clue

P.S.: How well does playing the Catholic card work in San Francisco, your district?

P.P.S.: Why hasn’t the Catholic church excommunicated you yet? Excommunication was something I always admired about Catholicism and if anything warrants excommunication it’s your entire career. I’m a more devout Catholic than you are and I’m a Jew.

P.P.P.S.: How does a Polish-American instantly become an Italian-American? You said “we” in reference to Italian-Americans. What on earth was that about?

P.P.P.P.S.: President Obama keeps making the case that because he destroyed our economy and people keep losing their jobs that the unemployed are entitled to JokerKare, so what would possess you to state that this bill was for the “workers of America?” Clearly, it’s for people who don’t work at all, or at least that’s how your party has chosen to promote it from day 1.

Social networking and the jihad.

I have been somewhat reluctant to write about my encounters with Jihad Jane/Fatima LaRose because I have come to the conclusion that notoriety was exactly what she was always after, probably having given up on respect or happiness long ago. She struck me as someone whose entire life was one big, desperate cry for attention and help. It never occurred to me that she was actually dangerous, just a pathetic wannabe who wanted to be accepted by other Muslims suffering from teenage angst. I was wrong.

I was never a member of the Smackdown Corps, just someone with a YouTube account and an avatar which Jihad Jane hated with a passion. Our relationship, if one can call it that, consisted of her stalking me around YouTube for about a month last spring, when she was using her Justice4OurSisters, jihadjaneishere, and BeyondPrincess (or some analogue of BeyondPrincess) accounts. I frequently receive death threats on YouTube, so I don’t pay much attention to regular old trolls, which is what I thought Jihad Jane was at first, before her obsessive tendencies became more apparent. I already knew who she was from the Jawa Report and because she had cloned my friend’s account to smear her, but I didn’t realize it was her contacting me at first.

She started leaving messages on my channel, usually in spurts, late last April or early last May. I tend not to block users who just insult me (or whatever they think I am, which was recently a gay Persian-Zionist government in Los Angeles) or leave Nazi comments. I typically only block users who threaten me, spam me, or advocate genocide. Jihad Jane mostly came up with colorful ways to call me a Jew so I let her do her thing until she started private messaging me to call me a Jew, at which point I blocked her because I consider that spam. Then I blocked her a few more times until she went away.

Typical comments on my YouTube channel.  “Zog” means “Zionist-occupied government.”  I had to look it up.

She did not appreciate my rejection, but then again, she was always really angry at me when I ignored her, before I blocked her. I know I hurt her feelings because she went from calling me a Jew to vaguely threatening me with messages like “If I knew where you lived…” After I blocked her she must have known that I would block her again when she used her other accounts to contact me, so she probably wanted to make her last few messages count.

She was clearly off the rails by the time she started messaging me. I hadn’t realized until now that she used to write in something resembling sentences, but when she contacted me she was writing either in short very phrases punctuated only with ellipses (demonstrating an inability to hold a thought for very long) or in fairly long run-on sentences, usually ending in questions but lacking question marks, which I interpret as demonstrating a rambling, incoherent thought process. She wrote like a crazy person of functional intelligence, not your typical “,,y u insolt Holly quoran?!?!?!!!,,” sort of semi-literate Islamo-troll. I always figured she wrote the long sentences when she was depressed and the short phrases when she was manic, or even vice versa. It was obvious that she consciously threw in all the cutesy texting conventions to try to fit in with thirteen year-olds and those who hang out in certain types of chatrooms with them. That’s my semi-professional linguistic analysis of her particular brand of crazy.

I am by no means the only person whom she cyberstalked during that period of time. As I mentioned above, Jane/Fatima made an unflattering clone of my friend’s account which to which my friend would not grant me permission to link here. Jihad Jane hates my friend because she is a “crusader” (a veteran), which is apparently worse than a Jew in ehadi-land. Several members of a group I belong to received multiple love letters from Jihad Jane within a fairly short period of time, so her cyberstalking activities may have just been a short phase. I only just learned that she started raising funds for jihad about a month after the last time I blocked her.

The more I learn about Jihad Jane, the more apparent it becomes what attracted her to the jihad. She obviously has a deep-seated martyr complex. She constantly seeks attention, often of the negative sort, and her thought process consists of hatred and blame. Imagine a picture angering you so much that it would cause you to spend hours harassing another person. I can’t do it, either.

Being someone who thinks the whole world is out to get her, she set herself up for rejection over and over, each rejection angering her more than the previous one. That’s what trolls do: set themselves up for rejection to feed their martyr complexes. If you ignore them, they interpret that as rejection. If you respond and disagree with their indefensible comments, they interpret that as rejection. If you block them, that’s rejection, too. Each time you reject a troll it further supports their belief that everyone who disagrees with them is a “hater” (one of Jihad Jane’s favorite words, and a word which acquires a particularly sad tone when used by women in their mid-40s).

The jihad seemed perfect for Colleen because she is someone who tries to manufacture persecution as an excuse to hurt people, which she clearly fantasizes about doing quite a bit. The more I think about it, the more apparent it becomes that her cyberstalking of me was emblematic of her martyr complex. I am a live-and-let-live sort of person who is concerned with the truth and preserving Western civilization. The only contact I have with Muslims on YouTube aside from Iranian Green movement users consists of the occasional response to an out-there comment on my videos or my page. Nonetheless, Jihad Jane regarded my existence as mortally offensive.

Why? First, because of my avatar. Muslims on YouTube frequently write me to remind me that they “turn me in” to the proper YouTube authorities (who don’t take death threats very seriously) every single day. It is one thing for a Saudi who has lived an incredibly sheltered life to happen upon my avatar and get offended because my avatar would be grounds for execution in Shariastan. It is quite something else for an American who has known nothing but pure freedom of speech for 40+ years to suddenly become offended by a funny picture. This is quite telling, I think, because it demonstrates the sort of “persecution” radical Muslims cite as excuses to kill people. Moderate Muslims like Khalim Massoud and the Iranian users I know tend to find it funny and worry about the people getting killed by jihadis. One Iranian user told me that my avatar functions as a great litmus test within the Green movement because those who are offended by it clearly have no desire to live under secular, democratic rule.

Second, Jihad Jane really didn’t like my video of Egyptian Muslims torturing and killing the Copts’ pigs, which you may notice has been flagged. I think this demonstrates her utter narcissism because what she claimed to take issue with was my “portrayal” of Muslims in a negative light. In her mind, they didn’t torture and kill the pigs; I just made it look that way (even though it clearly says in the description that I ripped from Coptic News), even though she agreed with what they did and said that they should have thrown the Copts into the quicklime along with the pigs.

Pretty hypocritical for someone who spent all day favoriting videos of Muslims killing and torturing people. The users who post those aren’t “haters,” only kafirs who upload much milder videos qualify for that label. Muslims do this a lot, like when they claim that the Joooos were responsible for 9/11 in the same breath as they praise Osama bin Laden, or when they deny that the Holocaust ever happened while praising Hitler. They are masters of doublethink and doubletalk.

The Copts’ big-budget ruse to smear Muslims, who really love pigs.

Third, she didn’t appreciate it when I explained how tranny hookers like her would almost certainly fare much better in the West than in any Sharia state. I was only kidding about the tranny thing, but the hooker thing really bothered her because she was an actual prostitute, both before and after she became afflicted with adult onset Islam. The only difference was that after her conversion, when she traded crystal meth for jihad, she began openly soliciting tricks (Muslim “husbands”) online. As with the Egyptian pig-culling video somehow not being real but still being incredibly offensive, selling one’s body for money wasn’t prostitution in her mind; I just “portrayed” it that way (along with every dictionary and legal text in the world) and possessing a fourth-grade vocabulary is absolutely intolerable to her.

When I learned that she had been plotting to kill artist Lars Vilks, the only thing that surprised me was the fact that she made good on her trash talk. Still, for someone who inverts reality to fabricate persecution all the time, he was a pretty pathetic target. If, as she constantly claims, Muslims are supposedly being killed worldwide (by people other than Muslims, I mean) and if there is an enormous Zionist conspiracy against Islam, and if Muslims are suffering so badly (from anything other than Islam and Sharia), why choose to carry out a jihad against a cartoonist? Couldn’t she find a more worthwhile cause for which to fight and die? How does cartoon jihad serve the suffering and dying Muslims around the world?

It doesn’t, and suffering and dying Muslims were never her concern. Notoriety was. Killing Lars Wilks would get her on the news and maybe earn her a monument in Libya or something, because committing suicide by cop while killing innocent people for a ridiculous non-reason is pretty much the height of awesomeness to someone suffering from a martyr complex. Jihad Jane’s martyr complex was so severe that she thought she was being persecuted, by whom I have idea, because she had to take care of her mother in her old age. Compare her worldview to that of someone with a soul like Jim Hoft, who cared for his elderly mother for eight years:

This beautiful woman moved into my home in 2001. I was so blessed every day to watch her and care for her; to cook for her and clean for her. I was honored to serve her…It was a blessing to care for this brilliant woman.

I have no advice as to how to deal with people like Jihad Jane except to take them at their word and not dismiss them simply because they are losers and/or nutty, which we all did. We never thought she was actually dangerous. We were wrong. Rusty Shackleford, after listing all the many people who helped bring her down, wrote this:

I think we all thought of Colleen as pathetic and perhaps deranged. But at some time a year or more ago she also caught this person’s attention and they made the judgment that Colleen was also dangerous.

Dangerous people tend to be pathetic. That’s why they fabricate alternate realities in which everyone is persecuting them: so they have someone else to blame for their problems, thereby allowing them to skirt all responsibility in life. Rabidly anti-American/anti-Semitic people all live in this alternate reality which must be constantly validated because the truth continually threatens to negate it.

That’s why Islam appealed to Jihad Jane. Islam sets up a zero-sum/us-vs.-them worldview in which kafirs are always plotting against them, so Joooos, Zionists, and “haters” absorb all the blame for everything, however irrational the line of thinking behind blaming them may be. She could also claim her mother was persecuting her for becoming a Muslim, which she obviously chose to do out of rebellion, sort of like when a sixteen year-old wears very dark lipstick out of the house to irritate her father because she thinks he’s persecuting her by maliciously making her curfew too early. (11:30 really was ridiculous, though).

In retrospect, it occurs to me that they’re all potentially dangerous and more than “perhaps deranged.” People who believe in fairy tales like Zionist conspiracies, the cold-blooded murder of Muhamed al Dura, Israeli war crimes, the “great cause” of Kosovo, or the “official version” of Srebrenica are certainly crazy enough to kill because a drawing supposedly caused people to suffer somehow. Anyone who can claim that a man who raped a six year-old is not a pedophile, or that sexually assaulting a clueless six year-old is not rape, or that people who sell their bodies for money are not prostitutes, or that videos of events reported in such right-wing reactionary publications as the New York Times are fabricated through a Zionist conspiracy are all certifiably insane and absolutely immune to reality.

People who simply cannot tolerate the existence of those who think differently than they do are all potential killers because human life has no value to them. They dehumanize people. It turns out that Jane/Colleen condoned the murder of a sixteen-year-old girl for being a moderate Muslim, which to Jane meant just letting everyone live and do their thing. I’m not surprised, really, since Jane spent all day conditioning herself to the point at which human life was worthless. People who watch snuff porn all day are not mentally stable. Period.

Finally, YouTube needs to do far more to protect its users and cooperate with law enforcement because as far as I can tell they have always dismissed all death threats outright. I no longer even forward the death threats I receive to abuse@youtube.com, who apparently only respond to Prince Alwaleed bin Talal. I find it outrageous that I forwarded them Jihad Jane’s death threats such as “If I knew where you lived…,” which she sent because she hated my avatar, and they did nothing. Still think she was kidding, YouTube? She plotted to kill someone over a drawing. They are never kidding. They just lack the resources and the intellect to make good on those threats. Law enforcement should be watching all of them like a big bureaucratic hawk.

The Sira of Ibn Ishaq, containing Muhammad’s moderate decree to his followers to “[k]ill any Jew who comes under your power” (p. 369).

John Guardiano, seemingly determined to keep trying to prove without any proof his point about the existence of moderate Islam by conflating expansionist, genocidal jihad with Jewish self-defense, calling Muhammad (the man whom all Muslims by definition and without exception vow to emulate in word, deed, and thought per Sura 33:21) a caricature, and never once addressing the subject of Islam itself, now claims that Islam contains an “inherent truth” which he curiously won’t acknowledge, as David Forsmark noted.

Guardiano can’t acknowledge this inherent truth because doing so would necessarily make him (a) a Mohammedan and (b) certifiably retarded.

If you acknowledge Islam’s inherent truth then you’re a Mohammedan by definition.  Its only “truth,” which purports itself to be self-evident using cyclical logic, is that there is no sky-troll but Allah (since, if there’s only one god it’s the one to whom Allah prays in Sura 17 when he’s not busy fellating the illiterate, mass-murdering, child-molesting career parasite to whom he answers) and Muhammad is his prophet. 

That’s the Shahada, the declaration of one’s Mohammedan faith.  One cannot acknowledge this truth without actually becoming a Mohammedan.

Since the non-basis of this “truth” relies upon cyclical logic, acknowledging it also makes one certifiably retarded because the primary determiner of functional mental retardation is a lack of logical faculties, which are an all-or-nothing thing; you either have them or you don’t, like depth perception.  Furthermore, it’s not even a remotely coherent “truth” if Allah is the only god but he prays, presumably to another deity.  The language of the Koran itself rules out the possibility of monotheism, since Allah is repeatedly referred to as being a member of a group.  Islam’s “inherent truth” is utter nonsense which requires triplethink to comprehend.

I’m actually starting to question John’s logical faculties ever since he employed the relevance fallacy when he argued that because Dinesh D’Souza used to claim that moderate Islam exists, it does, even though D’Souza – sexist, Third Worldist creep that he is – now de facto admits that he was absolutely wrong.  D’Souza also argued that “traditional societies” are superior to civilization and human rights without a making a single coherent argument to back it up.  Is that true, John, just because D’Souza says so?  Should women go back into purdah and enjoy absolutely no human or civil rights whatsoever?  Because D’Souza says so, so it must be true.

Or maybe I’m all wrong and John was just referring to Islam’s “inherent truth” that 6 and 8 are the same number.

Here’s an idea, John: how about you try arguing whether moderate Islam exists using only authoritative Islamic texts and teachings like that ignorant, sloppy conservative Robert Spencer does with his breathtakingly extensive footnotes?  Hey, maybe you could actually address the topic of Islam itself instead of dealing in Mohammedanology and Daniel Pipes’ arguments for moderate slavery.  Because that’s the only way one could ever hypothetically prove the existence of moderate Islam.

Exit question: if a moderate Islam exists then why are Mohammedan females still by definition and without exception forced into sex slavery under threat of death?  I’m referring, of course, to moderate slavery of the sort promoted by Daniel Pipes in his airtight defense of moderate Islam.

The sacred institution of incestuous child rape is the very glue which binds civilized societies such as those found in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Cleveland.

Oh, this post is kinda dark and slightly sarcastic, so heads up, everyone.

David, our managing editor, had asked me a while ago to respond to David Forsmark’s post, Marriage is civilized society’s foundational contract, in which he makes the case for government enforcement and regulation of marriage contracts, because, as he claims, “marriage is civilized society’s foundational contract.” I never got around to responding because this set off a still ongoing debate with my mother regarding Constitutional law.

So I pose the question of what civilized societies are to do about Islamic “marriages,” which have little, if anything, in common with any legitimate definition of “marriage.”

Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary defines marriage thusly:

1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>

Islamic “marriage” does meet definition (2), provided that one considers the signing of a contract specifying money for sex by one of the parties involved to be a “rite.” Aside from the contract (which is not consensual, since a male family member must sign the contract on behalf of the “bride”), Islamic “marriage” (nikah) refers to the act of sexual intercourse. (The word literally means “to penetrate.”) In no way does it refer to an institution of any sort, which is why calling off an Islamic marriage (which can only be done by the husband) consists of firing or repudiating a “wife,” not divorcing her. She has a job, not a role, and that job consists of being sexually available.

Because no minimum age for “marriage” is established anywhere in any authoritative Islamic text, and because the ideal “marriage” for all Muslims for all time is the sale of little Aisha at age six to her 51-year-old uncle, a one-day-old baby girl can be “married” under Islamic law.  As a consequence, child “marriage” is quite common in the Muslim world.

Also common in the Muslim world is the practice of honor killing, in which family members murder their daughters and sisters out of a belief that they have brought shame on the family. What the neighbors think is far more important than human life, especially female human life, in Islamic culture. These “marriages,” which are traditionally arranged, are typically if not explicitly carried out under threat of death.

As mentioned above, the ideal “marriage” for all Muslims for all time was a close incestuous one. The “Perfect Man” also “married” his daughter-in-law, considered a daughter in the Arabian culture of the time. Consequently, cousin marriage and niece-uncle marriages (mostly in South Asia) are the norm among Muslims.

Demonstrating the timelessness of the Sunna of Muhammad, Al-Arabiya recently ran a story about a little Aisha, a poor Yemeni girl whose father sold her (as is required by the Sharia unless she is to be doomed to hellfire) to an old man for $1000. Both her former owner (her father) and her current owner (her “husband”) drugged and ruthlessly beat her on a daily basis so that she would be more submissive when her “husband” “married” her.

What 10-year-old Aisha did not know was that after the wedding party she would have to leave school, move to a village far from her parents’ home, cook and clean all day, and have sex with her older husband.

“He took out a special sheet and laid me down on it,” Aisha told IRIN, wringing her small plump hands. “After it, I started bleeding. It was so painful that I was crying and shouting, and since then I have seen him as death.”

Like a horse and carriage. Now Aisha is 12 and stuck in her “marriage,” having no legal recourse under Sharia. She can never escape or become an autonomous human being. She is lucky that her family has not killed her for repeatedly fleeing her “husband.”

If Aisha’s “husband” were to bring her to the U.S. tomorrow the State Department would recognize this instance of child sex slavery as a valid marriage. The institution of selling one’s 10-year-old daughter into a lifetime of being a victim of horrific violence under threat of death is perfectly kosher under current U.S. law, provided that the sale contract was agreed upon in a jurisdiction in which this actually constitutes “marriage,” or probably over the phone with someone in Pedophiliastan.

Sharia makes no distinction between sex, rape, child molestation, and incest, provided that both buyer and seller (both of whom must be men, naturally) have agreed upon the contract and the fee has been paid. It’s all “marriage,” and it’s all perfectly valid because our government endows it with legal legitimacy. I asked an Arabic-speaking friend of mine to translate one of the article’s sub-headers, entitled “Rape Not Marriage,” then I asked him to translate it in fewer than ten 140-character tweets but he couldn’t because the Arabic language and Muslim culture more generally simply lack any concept of consent on the part of a female who has been purchased or captured by a Muslim male.

Is raping one’s six-year-old niece at knifepoint “civilized society’s foundational contract?” Because Islamic “marriages” carried out abroad are legally valid in the United States, despite the fact that they meet no objective definition of marriage and every objective definition of slavery.

So should we maintain this lovely status quo simply because gubbmint sanctions it? Should we declare all marriages and other contracts carried out abroad invalid in the U.S.? Should we discriminate against Muslims and just declare marriages carried out under Sharia invalid? Or should we just all take this as the ultimate example of how and why giving government authority to dictate our interpersonal relationships just because it seems like a smart social engineering measure in theory (but is merely a way to exploit us for socialistic tax purposes in practice) is a really bad idea, relieve government of this authority, and stop allowing people to bring children to our country for the express purpose of raping them simply because a marriage/rape/incest/child molestation/penetration contract from a nation in which women and Jews don’t enjoy the legal status of people validates it?

This is why government should not involve itself in personal matters of no legal consequence: because felonies become valid institutions when government involves itself in our personal lives. Only government could turn incestuous child sex slavery into a respectable institution just by ostensibly looking out for us. On the other hand, at least it was a good idea when government got into the marriage business, back when they were in it for the sake of maintaining racial purity rather than enforcing socialism through the oh-so valid concept of “dependents.”

Thank God Mother Government is there to validate slavery contracts between incestuous pedophiles and their slaves’ fathers while invalidating relationships based on mutual love and commitment between consenting adults of the same sex. Without government to guide us, we stupid individuals might get crazy ideas in our heads, like little girls being entitled to human rights, slavery being illegal, frowning upon the forced prostitution of children (also Islamic “marriage,” called muta, urfi, or misyar), or inbreeding being a bad idea.

Those crazy Canadians are trying to stop this from happening, but no such initiative has ever been undertaken in the United States, thank goodness. We’ve got to protect society’s foundational contract at any cost. Fortunately, pedophiles are welcome to bring their purchased underage nieces and cousins to our taxpayer-subsidized universities on F-1 visas. The State department can’t issue them fast enough. Sadly, Indiana University ran out of funds or something so they no longer pay people to rape their own children (something about lawsuits), but our universities still sanction the incestuous rape of underage nieces, cousins, and half-sisters by importing them expressly for that purpose, as detailed in their “marriage” contracts. We taxpayers even subsidize cheap housing for children to get raped in on campuses all across America.  Awesome.

And of course we’ve got to look out for “refugees” from Sharia states and validate their “marriages,” because if we don’t give incestuous child molestation legal sanction people’s human rights might get violated.  Then where would little girls like Aisha go?

Beck knows America. He understands our great nation better than most, but he does not know very much about Europe. This occurred to me today when he called Geert Wilders a fascist, which, he explained, was the same as “far right” in the European context. What Glenn Beck fails to understand is that Geert Wilders defies categorization by European standards, which are so far to the left that they would require a dictatorship to enforce if Europeans weren’t complacent to the point of utter submission.

Geert Wilders is your typical liberal in the Pat Caddell/Ron Radosh sense of the term. He believes in human rights and the rule of law, but like his hero Winston Churchill, he believes in big government, the nanny state, and enormous unsustainable entitlement programs. It would never occur to him legalize firearms or privatize the medical system. He’s more Evan Bayh than Mussolini.

Here’s the key difference between Europe and America: liberty. Europe never had it. They used to enjoy basic human rights such as relative freedom of speech and freedom of religion (which Jews and Christians no longer enjoy, as Beck is aware – watch the second video below), but never the right to bear arms and anything resembling free market capitalism. The last two probably never occurred to Wilders. He’s fighting for basic human rights — against fascism.

Human rights went out the window in Europe when, out of deference to Islamic law, thought crimes became federal cases, the EU legalized pedophilia, the UK decided to enforce the sale of teenagers into incestuous sex slavery under threat of death through the court system. Wilders is fighting to bring human decency back to Europe, not fascism.

Leaders like Geert Wilders (and Sarkozy and Berlusconi) are neither European far right (fascist) nor European far left (communist). They believe in basic human rights, protecting and defending their respective countries (which is their job), and the preservation of Western civilization, but they’re way to the left of JFK. If they must be haphazardly lumped in with other European leaders please throw them in the really tiny, dusty pile with Margaret Thatcher.

Just as Glenn Beck doesn’t get Europe, so I don’t get Glenn Beck sometimes. Just a few months ago he was concerned with the plight of Europe’s Jews, who are once again in Exodus because of Muslim immigration. He seemed to care that nihilists whose god is really the almighty State (as is the case with all leftists, be they of the Mohammedan or the Marxist persuasion) wanted to destroy everything that was good about Europe. Now considering little girls, Jews, Christians, and gays to be human beings rather than jihad fuel is “fascist.”

Next time Beck decides to talk about Europe he should bring back Stuart Varney for a little perspective. Varney gets Europe.

Here’s a quick test to determine whether someone’s a fascist: if he loves Israel and America he’s not a fascist.

Responding in kind to the Obama administration’s decision to send Joe Biden, the person with the most pro-mullah record in Washington, to convince Israel that they are serious about Iran, the Palestinian Authority is planning to mark his departure on Thursday with a tribute to his foreign policy. What better way to demonstrate to Israel that the Obama administration will magically be able to put an end to terrorism in the Middle East than to mark the end of Biden’s visit with a memorial to the murderer of 36 Israelis and one American?

Palestinian Media Watch reports:

This week Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas once again honored the memory of the terrorist Dalal Mughrabi – this time by sponsoring a ceremony celebrating the 50th anniversary of her birth. Mughrabi led the worst terror attack in Israel’s history in 1978, when she and other terrorists hijacked a bus and killed 37 civilians. Present at the ceremony were Palestinian dignitaries and a children’s marching band. Earlier this year, Abbas sponsored a computer center named after Mughrabi.

The PA further glorified Mughrabi on the date of her birth when the Governor of Ramallah announced the naming of the “Dalal Mughrabi Square”.

An article by Fatah spokesman Jamal Nazal in the official PA daily defined the terrorist Mughrabi as “the heroine of Palestine’s heroines.”

Israel National News adds:

On Thursday morning, the last day of Biden’s visit, PA officials will gather in Ramallah to dedicate a square in honor of Mughrabi. Thursday will also be the 32nd anniversary of the 1978 attack led by Mughrabi, which is commonly known as the Coastal Road Massacre.

Biden should have no problem convincing Israel that the PA is a credible partner intent on bringing about nothing but peace, the Biden-backed Oslo Accords having worked out so well.

The administration’s logic in sending Biden must be that those Israelis who still believe in the policy of exchanging land for peace are likely to be the same ones who believe Joe Biden knows what he is doing on foreign policy, namely people who meet Einstein’s definition of insanity. Either that, or they think Mr. McGoo might be the only person who is naïve enough to actually believe in their surrender-everything-and-we-might-care-whether-you-get-annihilated approach.

Nobody but Joe Biden could possibly still believe that land-for-peace and appeasing the mullahs will keep Israel safe. Nothing – no facts, no events, no reality – have ever stood in the way of Biden’s foreign policy views. The man has been wrong on every major foreign policy issue over the last 35 years but nothing has ever caused him to reconsider his stances. Not the success of the Surge in Iraq, not the fall of the Berlin Wall, not the utter failure of the Oslo Accords, and certainly not the last 31 years of the Islamic Republic of Iran have ever caused Biden to change or adapt his perspectives.

If Biden could look the other way when Hezbollah killed 241 Americans in Beirut and during both Intifadas then he can look the other way as the PA dedicates a memorial in Judea to a woman who killed 37 Jews. If he could believe that the Muslim world will break out in peace just as soon as he feeds it to the mullahs then he could certainly believe that the PA is a true peace partner as well. If he could propose cutting Iraq into three countries and then take credit for the Surge which he opposed at the time, then he can return to Washington and declare success after nothing happens besides the Palestinian Authority’s terrorist-dedicated bon voyage.

It’s protest season in the University of California system! Yes, folks, it’s that time of year when spring’s first green shoots begin to sprout, the birds fly back north, and moonbats imagine persecution and celebrate terrorism en masse on California campuses.

On Tuesday, students gathered at a “speak-out” rally in front of the administration building at UC Irvine in support of the “Irvine 11,” the group of thugs, organized by the Hamas-linked Muslim Students Union, who disrupted Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren’s speech on February 9th. Students, organized by the Black Student Union, the Muslim Students Union, and Students Fighting Against Tuition Hikes and Worker Layoffs, sported keffiyehs, carried Hamas flags, and shouted nonsense about how Israel’s being the only free country in the Middle East is racist or something, the term “racist” being, of course, a substitute for logic.

Did I mention that it’s Israel Apartheid Week? It must have gotten somewhat upstaged at UCI by all the other incoherent protests taking place and just opted to meld with them.  Then again, Israel Apartheid Week is the only “week” which is 14 days long (for consistency with moonbat logic), so maybe it’s just getting started.

The protest was ostensibly held – seriously – to oppose the administration’s statement that the February 9th arrests were unrelated to the racist incidents at other UC campuses which took place later and really were unrelated. 

The “speak out,” sponsored by the Black Student Union but organized by a “coalition” of different student groups, protested a recent statement issued by University of California President Mark Yudof that condemned the Michael Oren protest alongside the recent racist incidents at UCSD and UC Davis including the “Compton Cookout.”

Student organizers objected to the statement, signed by the chancellors of every UC campus, claiming that the “Irvine 11″ protest is unrelated to the acts of racism at Davis and San Diego and involves completely different issues.

“They are trying to draw a connection between the ‘Irvine 11′ and racism,” said Marya Bangee, a UCI alumni and member of Stand with the 11, an advocacy group for the arrested protesters, “(The Irvine 11 issue) is about free speech and student activism.”

The first speaker apparently didn’t get the memo, because he (I think) tried to make the administration’s case for them. Whatever, so long as it’s anti-Israel. His only remotely sensical statement was his admission that he provided material support to terrorists. How is he not in prison?

Tuesday’s protest was so well-organized that Jim Lafferty from the terrorist defense organization the National Lawyer’s Guild came to speak out against free speech under the guise of free speech, claiming that the Irvine 11’s free speech rights were violated because they were unable to end the speech entirely. Then he spouted tired old anti-Semitic clichés about how Jews control the media, yada yada. When you have to portray anti-Semitic support for genocidal terrorists as anti-racism, you call the masters at the NLG, who – surprise – happen to be defending the Irvine 11.

A coalition of Jewish groups protested peacefully across the street:

Students then held a die-in on Wednesday, at which they protested incidents which took place at other UC campuses.  They also whined about how taxpayers should pay all of their tuition, about how separate restrooms for men and women are sexist and “heteronormative” (who knew their intended purpose was for having strictly heterosexual sex?), and, of course, how Israel still exists.

What do Israel, restrooms, racist incidents at other UC campuses, and communist education have to do with one another? Nothing, aside from the fact that anti-Semitism, communism, and apparently restrooms can all be protested against under the banner of “anti-racism,” although feigning death does seem a bit over-the-top when decrying the horrors of heteronormative restrooms.

The racist incidents at the other campuses were obviously a very weak pretext to protest capitalism, Israel, and apartheid restrooms. The Irvine 11 are no more victims than students who have to pay tuition because the world, unfortunately, does not owe them everything they want in life. They chose to behave like barbarians and try to force their intolerant views on everyone because they are fascists and that is what fascists do. They are indefensible, and that has nothing to do with race. Or restrooms.

While these kids whine about how Israel has a wall to keep out the same genocidal terrorists that Jordan and Egypt have walls (American-bought, in Egypt’s case) to keep them out for the very same reason, they ignore the actual apartheid taking place in the Palestinian territories, be it the ongoing exile of the native Christian population or the increasingly severe gender apartheid in Gaza–because it was never about apartheid, or race, or the Palestinians who are presumably better off under Hamas’ rule, or anything except anti-Semitism, the only thing the Black Student Union and the pro-Darfur genocide Muslim Brotherhood front group MSU have in common.

“We were louder than the Zionist voice,” said Ryan Davis, a UCI student and one of the leaders of the pro-Palestinian crowd, which outnumbered the pro-Israeli students.

What is the point of being loud if you don’t make any sense, you don’t have facts on your side, and you are unsure what you are protesting?

I wonder what their dear friends and terror ties in Hamas would think of unisex restrooms.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) has been a man on a mission since 2003, when he embarked on his crusade to destroy the myth of ManBearPig and the Democrats’ associated agenda to redistribute wealth as a tribute to Gaïa. ManBearPig may have gone out with quite a bang, but Cap-’n-Tax went very quietly into the night last Saturday, when it was pronounced dead on arrival by Sen. Lindsey Graham. Do not expect Sen. Inhofe to accept his victory with the same discretion as Cap-’n-Tax’s exit from the congressional agenda, for he is well-versed in the very Alinsky tactics by which ManBearPig was propagated, grossly exaggerated in importance, and altered to fit whatever the current “truth” might have been at any given moment.

Inhofe so successfully exploited Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals that he actually perfected them by weeding out the rules which would ultimately prove futile in the end. He is not a community organizer, so not all the Rules were useful for his purposes. He was in it for the long haul and he was largely on his own, as opposed to his well-organized opponents, who were only interested in radical change itself rather than any larger principle like freedom, capitalism, or the truth.

Since he did not have to fake the appearance of power or numbers, Rule 1 did not apply. He had facts on his side and his own truth squad, which were all he needed.

Rules 6 and 7 were useless to Inhofe because his far-sighted approach was ultimately the reason he prevailed. The science was rather boring and it seemed that it was Inhofe against the world, a man on a mission, long before any of his colleagues had heard the term “cap and trade.” As for Rule 8, he kept “the pressure on” without much shifting of tactics, as he recounts:

“When I called anthropogenic global warming a hoax in 2003, while in Milan for the U.N.’s climate-change negotiations, people said I was nuts,” says Inhofe. “These e-mails show, however, that this is a hoax being perpetuated not just by the far-left extremists like George Soros, Michael Moore, and the Hollywood elite, but by the scientists. Their agenda is not just to stop America’s progress but to hide the data. It’s just an extraordinary and unfortunate situation.”

He never had the opportunity to employ Rule 2 (“Never go outside the experience of your people”) because none of his people have had the opportunity to experience global warming. Going outside the experience of his opponent (Rule 3), however, proved quite useful whenever he cited the work of honest scientists, as opposed to the corrupt frauds of NASA and the IPCC who for so many years were the arbiters of truth. Post-Climategate, none of his “opponents” have a leg to stand on.

Rule 4 (“[making] opponents live up to their own book of rules”) was where Inhofe really shined, long before he lived to see Barbara Boxer and Lisa Jackson throw the IPCC and NASA under the bus and effectively concede that they were selling us nothing but hot air. He has repeatedly called Al Gore on his ridiculous carbon footprint and, just to underline his hypocrisy, introduced the Personal Energy Ethics Pledge. Holding his opponents to their claim that “the science is settled” ultimately proved to be their undoing.

There is now a veil hanging over the IPCC,” says Inhofe. “The EPA must begin to back off using its reports in its policies. Billions are at stake here. The CRU cooked the science, now we must make sure that truth, not climate spin, wins out.”

The truth did win out, largely because Inhofe acted as an albatross, following ManBearPig and his cronies all over the world for years.

In addition to Inhofe’s ridiculing (Rule 5) of Gore mentioned above, he more recently challenged Gore to a snowman contest and built him an igloo with his son while Washington was shut down due to inclement weather. But Inhofe is no longer joking; he is calling for Gore to be stripped of his Nobel Prize and investigated by Congress over his role in Climategate.

As for the threat being worse than the thing itself (Rule 9), only time will tell, but his opponents sure are running scared.

Having a plan (Rule 10) was a no-brainer, since the entire crisis was fabricated in the first place and we have plenty of carbon-emitting natural resources right here of which to make use. Inhofe merely had to establish that the climate was never broken so fixing it was therefore a non-issue.

Inhofe picked his target and isolated him (Rule 11) very early on. While he never lost sight of the scope of the ManBearPig conspiracy, he never forgot who his primary target was, either, nor is he likely to now. He forced Gore into the shadows at Copenhagen, challenged him to a debate, and built him an igloo. Inhofe is now polarizing his target by calling for an investigation of Gore’s role in Climategate, which will pit Congress against Gore and the junk science he has been pushing all these years.

Inhofe has been so successful at driving Gore underground, in fact, that some have been asking where he went. He was last heard from in an op-ed printed in some failing newspaper, rambling almost incoherently about how ManBearPig lives and how two minor errors (!?!?!) do not undermine his ManBearPig religion, never once admitting to the existence of an enormous conspiracy to falsify data or the other 17 bogus studies* on which his claims are based.

Inhofe was last seen dancing on Cap-’n-Tax’s grave, which I hear is located just beneath Al Gore’s igloo. Keep an eye on his YouTube channel for video.

*Update: Make that 18 other bogus studies.

So Ben Stein told Wolf Blitzer on the Situation Room today.  And so it was with public education, Medikare, Medikaid, Social Security, and every other federal entitlement program once upon a time.

He’s right.  Socialized medicine seems to be supported almost exclusively by those who believe that those who are more successful than they are owe them reparations.

• Percentage who approve of Jokerkare: 40%
• Percentage who do not pay taxes: 43.4%

Those two statistics are not so close by mere coincidence.  A mere three percent of taxpayers support Jokerkare, and they probably all own stock in insurance companies.

The solution?  Take the vote away from those who neither pay taxes nor serve their country.  They were never intended to be able to vote.  Only men were able to vote before 1920, during the Progressive Era, Leninism, and the birth of the welfare state, when the idea came into vogue that government should extort us for our earnings in order to provide inferior goods and services (and any good or service which is consumed outside of the free market is necessarily inferior) to those who cannot afford respectable free market goods and services.  Women did not pay taxes, nor did they tend to serve in the military, hence their disenfranchisement.

Do I believe in the disenfranchisement of entire groups of people?  Not on the basis of identity politics or genetic characteristics, but on the basis quantitative qualifications.  Those who do not pay taxes or serve their country already sponge off of the taxpaying class  when they make use of public schools, roads, law enforcement, and the air which government for some reason thinks they have the right to tax.  The vote is not a natural right.  It is something which should be earned by contributing to one’s country, however unwillingly.

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot lift the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer. You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot establish security on borrowed money. You cannot build character and courage by taking away men’s initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.

-William Boetcker

Our founding fathers had an app for that.  Just because it had some bugs doesn’t mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Hat tip: Hot Air Pundit.

Rashad Hussain is not a liar if you ignore the evidence.

Daveed Gartenstein-Ross posted a piece at the Long War Journal today claiming that Rashad Hussain, Obama’s new Muslim Envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, did not say what he admitted to having said after Josh Gerstein unearthed damning audio evidence.  Gartenstein-Ross has been making the case, I believe in good faith, that Rashad Hussain was, in fact, misquoted, therefore he did not lie.  At least one moonbat at Foreign Policy is ecstatic.

Hussain was alleged to have made two controversial statements at a 2004 Muslim Students Association conference: that Sami al-Arian was the victim of “politically motivated persecutions,” and that prosecutions of domestic terrorists such as al-Arian have been “used politically to squash dissent.”

Gartenstein-Ross at first ruled out the possibility that Hussain could have made the second statement, which Gerstein points out was not on the tape, which cuts off before the question and answer period of the speech.  He then updated his post, admitting that since the tape is incomplete, Hussain may very well have said it.  I am inclined to believe that he did, since Shereen Kandil, the author of the scrubbed Washington Report on Middle East Affairs article which quoted Hussain as making the controversial statements, was the only honest player in the whole ordeal before the tape was released.  If anyone should get the benefit of the doubt in this matter it is Shereen Kandil because she is the only one involved (including the White House) who still maintains even the slightest shred of credibility.  In any event, one can not rule out the possibility that he said it, as Gartersteen-Ross now admits.

Gartenstein-Ross then claims that Hussain was misquoted as saying that al-Arian was the victim of “politically motivated persecutions,” and that he actually said that al-Arian was the victim of “politically motivated prosecutions,” which is a valid distinction to make.  Hussain, however, was absolutely not misquoted.  He did say that al-Arian was the victim of “politically motivated prosecutions.”  He said it twice, around the 36 second mark in the video below and around two minutes, thirty-six seconds.  But he also said that he was the victim of “politically motivated persecutions” at the 56 second mark, in the same sentence as the first reference to “politically motivated prosecutions.”

Rashad Hussain is, in fact, a liar, as even he admits.

Gartenstein-Ross closes his post by congratulating himself for his patience and diligence in investigating the three-minute tape:

I waited quite a while to weigh in on whether Hussain was lying. And I’m glad I did, because when I carefully read through all the available information, it seems that the case that he clearly lied is the least sustainable. I hope that objective readers will likewise come to realize this.

Next time, maybe wait another fourteen seconds or so before weighing in.  The “case that he clearly lied” is absolutely irrefutable.

He condemned the United States for prosecuting just about everyone who was under indictment on terror charges at the time.

Obama’s newly-named Special Envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Rashad Hussain, came under fire last week for statements he made in defense of Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s leader in the US, Sami al-Arian, as well as for having initially lied about making them. Hussain had said that al-Arian, who pled guilty to providing material support to a designated terrorist organization, was a victim of “politically motivated persecutions,” then claimed that Laila, Sami’s daughter had made the statements, not him.

The cover-up itself is interesting for a couple of reasons. First, it was large. The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs deleted two paragraphs from a 2004 article – the two paragraphs quoting Hussain – and then claimed that Archive.org was lying and implied that anyone who wonders what happened to the article is a bigot. The White House then erroneously echoed Hussain’s claim that Laila al-Arian had made the statements. Then, last Friday, Hussain came clean and admitted to having said it all, while the White House admits nothing.

Second, the cover-up is intriguing because the reason why Hussain admitted to making the statements was not out some sense of duty or honor, especially after having shifted the blame to another person, but because he got caught red-handed. Josh Gerstein of the Politico obtained audio from the 2004 Muslim Students Association conference at which he made the remarks.  (Hat tip: Creeping Sharia.)

Gerstein’s article also reveals (although the audio above does not) that Hussain’s defense of al-Arian was part of a much broader condemnation of U.S. terrorist prosecutions, which should not be surprising since his speech took place at a conference for Muslim Brotherhood front group and he was a law student at the time. What is surprising is that he stuck up for just about every individual under indictment on terrorism charges at the time.

Hussain cited:

— The court martial of Capt. James Yee, a Guantanamo chaplain initially suspected of treason and later charged with adultery. All charges were eventually dropped.

— The case of Jose Padilla, who was held without charge for more than three years as an enemy combatant on suspicions of trying to detonate a radiation-laced “dirty bomb” in the U.S. In 2006, more than a year after Hussain spoke, Padilla was charged in a terrorist plot unrelated to the dirty bomb allegations. He was convicted by a jury in 2007 and sentenced to 17 years in prison.

— The imprisonment of Yaser Hamdi, who was captured in Afghanistan, held as an enemy combatant and released to Saudi Arabia weeks after Hussain spoke.

— The prosecution of an imam and a pizzeria owner in Albany, N.Y., for conspiring with an informant in a fictitious plot to use a missile launcher to attack a Pakistani diplomat. The men were convicted in 2006 and sentenced to 15 years in prison, though their lawyers claimed the pair were entrapped.

— The prosecution of a Somali man, Nuradin Abdi, in 2004 for plotting to blow up a shopping mall in Columbus, Ohio. He pled guilty in 2007 to conspiring to support terrorism and was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

— The imprisonment of an Oregon lawyer, Brandon Mayfield, who was jailed for more than two weeks in 2004 as a material witness on suspicion of involvement in the Madrid train bombings that year. He was never charged with a crime, received an apology from the FBI, which said it misidentified his fingerprints, and brought a lawsuit that led to a reported $2 million settlement from the government in 2006.

— The prosecution of four men as alleged members of a Detroit-based Al Qaeda “sleeper cell” plotting an attack. Two of the men were convicted on terror charges in 2003 but the convictions were thrown out at the government’s request after evidence emerged of prosecutorial misconduct and an unreliable informant. The prosecutor was charged criminally with concealing exculpatory evidence but later acquitted.

He then backtracked, calling his remarks about al-Arian “ill conceived.” He did not, however, retreat in his condemnation of the prosecution (or his perceived motivations for prosecution) of nearly every individual indicted on terrorism charges between September of 2001 and September of 2004, when he made the statements, nor has he repudiated any of his many troubling ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, a genocidal organization whose stated purpose in the U.S. is to undermine our government and replace it with Sharia law. He spoke at a leadership summit hosted by a roll call of Holy Land Foundation unindicted co-conspirators as recently as last May.

The case of Rashad Hussain is disturbing on too many levels. One should not surprised that Obama appointed someone like Hussain as Special Envoy to the OIC, which seeks to outlaw free and honest discussion of Islam and undermine the national sovereignty of free nations. His counterrorism approach (why are lawyers crafting approaches to combating terrorism?) is one which essentially bends over backward to avoid dealing with the Islamic texts and tenets which call for violence, and which is pacifistic and appeasing in response to violent jihad both at home and abroad.

Van Jones may be a 9/11 Truther who defended a Marxist cop killer, but he never defended any leaders of explicitly genocidal international terror organizations or attempted mass murderers like Jose Padilla, and Jones’ ties to terror organizations pale in comparison to Hussain’s. Jones seems as innocuous as Opie from the Andy Griffith Show next to Rashad Hussain, yet, given the extent of the Obama administration’s dealings with individuals and entities affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, and given the fact that Obama appointed an envoy to the fascist murderers of the OIC at all, I do not expect Rashad Hussain to quietly resign in the middle of the night any time soon.

The Obama administration is apparently more committed to the UK model of counterrorism than was previ0usly believed.  One would never know it from the White House’s website, but Obama’s Counterterrorism Czar’s  speech to Islamic law students at NYU last weekend was actually a “meeting” “facilitated” by Muslim Brotherhood front group ISNA.

But don’t take my word for it.  Ask Louay Safi and Mohamed Elsanousi.

(Washington, DC – February 16, 2010) The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) facilitated a meeting with John Brennan, Assistant to the President on National Security for homeland security and counter terrorism. The meeting was intended to start a dialogue between government officials and Muslim American leaders to explore issues of national security, including the important role the Muslim American community plays to thwart security threats and improve the deteriorating relationships with Muslim countries. The meeting, organized by the White House under the title “A Dialogue on Our Nation’s Security,” was co-sponsored by the Islamic Center at New York University, the Islamic Law Students Association at NYU, and the White House Office of Public Engagement.

The dialogue was held on Saturday, February 13, 11 a.m., at the School of Law, New York University. Dr. Ingrid Mattson, ISNA president, delivered the opening remarks and welcomed Mr. Brennan. Dr. Mattson underscored the challenges terrorism poses to all of us in the United States, appreciated the efforts made by law enforcement agencies to protect all Americans including Muslims, and acknowledged the difficulties and concerns faced by the Muslim Americans in post 9/11. “The terrorist attacks of 9/11 shocked all of us,” she pointed out, “and left us feeling vulnerable, confused and angry.”

Dr. Mattson went off-script a bit when she declared that “Al-Qaeda and other terrorists … consider us at worst apostates and collaborators.”  Because what could be worse than an apostate except for a “collaborator?”

Can you imagine if, during the Cold War, the head of an ostensibly-upstanding-but-still-quite-unsavory advocacy group for liberal socialists declared that “the Soviets and other communists consider us at worst capitalists and collaborators?”  Can you imagine Reagan sending John Poindexter to a meeting with this group?

Mattson’s speech ends (at the 6 minute mark in the first video) where the White House’s video (the second in the playlist) begins:

Why did the White House’s Ministry of Information Office of Public Engagement not only toss down the memory hole edit out Dr. Mattson’s introduction, but fail to note anywhere on their website that she introduced Brennan at all, or that ISNA “facilitated” the speech/meeting?  Could it be because the OPE, who co-sponsored the event, might have considered just how horrifying it might be to the American people that the President’s Counterterrorism Czar meets with and panders to proudly anti-Semitic, Hamas-linked unindicted co-conspirators in historic terror funding trials?

One runs across some interesting stuff when searching for “Islam” on YouTube.

Many thanks to Barry Goldwater for this post’s title.

Let me preface this by saying that I have absolutely no military experience.  I am a linguist by trade, a libertarian, and an armchair counterjihadist with more experience in the service industry than I care to admit.  Believe it or not, this gives me an interesting perspective on the issue of repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell which is obviously completely different from the one offered in John R. Guardiano’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and Don’t Even Pretend to Be Fair series.

I personally know several Arabic and Persian linguists who were kicked out of the military for being openly gay.  I would rather have them serving my country and guarding my safety than the corrupt stealth jihadists we have now.

DADT simply must be repealed, if only because we need linguists.  As a linguist I am telling you (America, not John specifically) that I have never in my life seen, met, heard of, or read about a single heterosexual male linguist who specialized in Arabic, Persian, Urdu, or Pashto.  I know of no evidence that any have ever existed.  There is a reason why ‘Orientalist’ has for centuries been a euphemism for ‘gay.’  We need those ‘Orientalists‘ in our military.

Most of the former military linguists I know were booted out for being openly gay around a bunch of other openly gay military linguists.  One must understand that in that context they were not even so much gay as they were typically linguist-y.  (Say that five times fast.)  They did not dress up like the Village People or frequently break into show tunes.  They were just  who they were: decent, respectable specialists in high demand who proudly served their country.  They bothered nobody and they certainly did not endanger anyone.

Homophobia may still have a place in the military, but it is as welcome in field of linguistics (military or otherwise) as it is in theater, hairdressing, or the service industry, where, oddly, I have also come to know a few former military linguists.

Speaking more in terms of ideology than practicality, I cannot understand how anyone can discriminate against a group of people based on identity politics and call himself conservative.  Granted, I have no military experience and I am writing about principle, but DADT just seems so antiquated.

I realize how revolutionary it was once upon a time, but booting gays out of the military for being openly gay is like having a law forbidding showing pregnant women on television.  It is a throwback to a much less tolerant, much more uptight, and much more ridiculous time in our history.  Plus, we are the last real country to discriminate against gays in our military.  Only horrible dictatorships do that anymore.

I would rather be more like this this country, which has an amazing military:

She might be a lesbian but nobody cares

than this country:

Gays in Iran's military tend to stay in the closet

Our military needs more gay linguists and fewer jihadis.  As far as I am concerned, anyone who is more concerned with keeping gays out of the military than with keeping jihadis out of the military has his priorities all out of whack.  Gays are not known for killing American troops.  Well, American gays aren’t known for killing American troops.

Many folks have been wondering of late why on earth Obama’s national defense review failed to mention Islam, jihad, or the threat of a nuclear Iran and focused instead on ManBearPig. Those folks are small thinkers who merely need to heed the advice of one John Podesta, a sage man whose writings explain it all. Thank Gaia his brilliant scholarship so obviously informs the policies on which our very safety depends.

John Podesta’s Unified Hope Theory allows all of the fundamental political forces (money, demographics, power, etc.) between all of the things from which we desperately need government to save us to be written in terms of a single hope. By “hope,” I refer, of course, to a belief which will certainly be proven true one day if you’re not too ignorant to “get it” and if we just keep throwing money at biased programs which serve to confirm these hopes. Podesta’s Theory is the mother of all hopes. Our future is so dependent upon this hope, in fact, that the fact that it was crafted in 2007 and serves to inform major policy decisions for 2011 is irrelevant because it is just that progressive.

Every failing state’s eventual demise can be explained by some facet of the Unified Hope Theory, which is fortunate, because otherwise Islam and communism would just be failed forms of government and that would be seriously inconvenient.

Cap and Tax is but one part of John Podesta’s Unified Hope Theory, and it has everything all on its own: collectivism, high taxes, redistribution of wealth, government larger than anything one could ever hope for, third worldism, guaranteed regression, and a sense of purpose derived from both stealing from the rich to make everyone poor forever and performing a continuous pagan sacrifice to Gaia with real, first-world dollars.

But Unified Hope Theory’s crown jewel is almost too delicious to be true, which must be why it seems so implausible. ManBearPig really is a national security issue, or at least it will be one day, inshallah. Our greatest national security threat in 2050 will be ManBearPig-induced jihad. No, really.

Invasion from nations which are hostile to us is unavoidable, it seems, so we have to give them our money now so they can have better weapons when they invade. This is so certain that we have no choice but to craft 2011’s national defense decisions around this scenario, which of course must take precedence over all other threats facing us today.

The problem of dependence on foreign oil is useful when making vague references to national security. Dismissing outright domestic production of oil and natural gas due to the peak oil hope, Podesta stresses the necessity of investment in new forms of energy which do not really work for anyone yet.

How and why dependence on foreign oil is an issue is rather problematic because presumably we should take issue with the transfer of wealth to nations from whom we currently buy oil, yet, under a cap and trade system, we would give them our money anyway, just without receiving anything in return.

Our enemies will unite with us when we have a common enemy which will cause them to invade our countries: ManBearPig. In the meantime, we should not develop our own resources, not buy anyone else’s, and just invest, invest, invest in a green future which will magically work out somehow. Our future overlords will be grateful for our tax dollars and they will be nicer to us because of them.

Sure, Iran is enriching uranium now to kill us as soon as possible, but imagine how nasty the mullahs will be when they become climate refugees. They will eventually abandon their nuclear program once they realize that nukes are powerless against MannBearPig, the greatest security threat facing us all.

So our national defense program for 2011 is essentially modeled on a plan for a Waterworldesque future in which radical Muslims, having been driven out of their countries by ManBearPig, will all have long since invaded all the nations which just happen to be developed, Western nations today. That we are to arm them in the meantime for a future in which they subjugate us is a given.

It is a tad eerie that the mullahs’ vision of the end of times is very similar to the logical consequences of John Podesta’s ideas in action, but I digress.

That climate change will likely bring us all under Islamic law is the reason why radical Islam is not mentioned even once in either the Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review or its sister document, the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review. Bangladesh, where al-Qaeda will somehow eventually end up, will invade India (p. 118). ManBearPig will cause such great “political and economic turmoil” in East Africa in the coming years (p. 119) as to eclipse any reason for concern about al-Shabaab. One need only consider what MannBearPig did to Darfur (p. 20) to understand the gravity of the situation.

Since ManBearPig is the primary force behind Islamic radicalization, and since the Islamic invasion of Europe is apparently inevitable, throwing money at the problem will somehow magically help Europe’s future invaders assimilate. It says so on page 20:

Because most African and South Asian migration will be internal or regional, the expected decline in food production and fresh drinking water combined with the increased conflict sparked by resource scarcity will force more Africans and South Asians to migrate further abroad. The result is a likely surge in the number of Muslim immigrants to the European Union, which could exacerbate existing tensions and increase the likelihood of radicalization among members of Europe’s growing and often poorly assimilated Islamic communities.

Already, the majority of immigrants to most western European countries are Muslim. Muslims constitute approximately 5 percent of the European population, with the largest communities located in France, the Netherlands, Germany, and Denmark.24 Europe’s Muslim population is expected to double by 2025, and it will be much larger if, as we expect, the effects
of climate change spur additional migration from Africa and South Asia.

This is why, for instance, we need to develop Pakistan so that the Taliban can just blow everything up (p 44). We cannot waste defense dollars on weapons because we have to worry about assimilating the Taliban for when they take over Europe. Think big.

Those of you who do not understand the wisdom in ignoring the threat posed by radical Islam and throwing our defense budget into combating ManBearPig are small thinkers. Quadrennial Defense Reviews are supposed to be based upon apocalyptic scenarios is which not only have we lost the War on Terror Man-Caused Disasters, but Man-Caused Disasters have lost the War on ManBearPig.

Those who wish to destroy us today will be climate refugees one day, so we must socialize them to prepare for a future in which we really are all victims of economic and industrial development. See? It all makes sense if you just conflate the present with the future, jihad with ManBearPig, nature with inimical ideologies, and Al Gore’s fantasies with national security.

One day we will all be one world, united by socialism, hope-science, and government. Gaia will be supplicated with our future and the futures of our children. Sure, we will all be slaves or dhimmis but our ancestors were evil so we must act now. So come on. Let’s all follow John Podesta to his horrifying end-of-the-world scenario. Don’t forget to bring your tax dollars and your children’s tax dollars. Leave your weapons. They are no match for ManBearPig.

Normal, sane Democrats want their party back. They are tired of electing moderates who turn out to be socialists.  They want quality candidates who will do what is best for America and they know that in order to get them elected they will need to defeat the corrupt Democrat machine, something they understand in a way that we on the right we never will.

They are going to need a lot of armchair tea partiers. A few more Matthew Vadums might also be a good idea.

For those who are unfamiliar with the gentlemen of Hillbuzz, they are Democrats from Chicago who worked on the Hillary campaign, helped launch the PUMA movement, and were and continue to be horribly defamed and persecuted by radicals on the left (mainly the Nutroots). They are the modern equivalent of Reagan Democrats. They recognize that their party is now dominated by a Tiny Minority of Extremists and they want them voted out, starting with a handful of incumbents who they feel have betrayed the American people (not just their party).

Surely many on the Right can see this as a noble endeavor. The Hillbuzz boyz are a radical progressive’s and a fake Blue Dog’s worst nightmare.  They understand Chicago politics and the inner workings of the Democrat party.  They know how to defeat them.  Their plan is not perfect, nor is it likely to be sufficient in and of itself, but it is doable and, if executed well enough, it just might work. So set your ideological purity aside and read on:

Keep your eyes peeled for the current president’s repeated call to DNC donors to pony up more cash.

We’ll let you in on a little secret: the reason these donors give to the DNC is not because they actually believe in what the DNC is doing. They give money because they want things, and most of what they want is pictures of them with famous people to hang on their walls at home, or in their offices. Whenever we do special events here in Chicago, the houses we go to are filled with snapshots of the owners with every Democrat imaginable over the last 20 years. 95% of these pictures are taken at $1,000 a person photo-op meet and greets. Those political evenings feature weak drinks and room temperature cheese. Occasionally, here in Chicago, there are hot waiters in little tuxes, passing mediocre spinach puffs. If you are lucky.

We think something unprecedented could be mounted by the coalition of moderates, independents, and conservatives that comes here to HillBuzz, using our own fundraising background and knowledge of this scene, to drive a temporary wedge between Democrats and their donors.

It worked in 1980 and it can work again.

We’ve organized these fundraisers before. We know how quickly panic mode sets in. If you are running a meet and greet for 300 people, and it’s two weeks out and you have not booked 200 for the event, then national gets on your case in a big way. If it’s a few days out, and you are not oversold, man alive, you are in trouble.

Very few of the people who attend these events want it know they are attending them. They’re there for the pictures, only, not so much the cause. So, using FEC records to identify the top donors to the 60 Democrats in the Senate currently, then organizing letter writing, email, and telephone campaigns to ask these top donors, politely, to stop donating to these Democrats will severely curb DNC fundraising efforts in 2010.

Then Obama will have to campaign harder for candidates, only to see them lose like the Colts and everyone else who gets his endorsement.

What you need to understand is that these big donors bring many smaller donors to the parties with them. If Mrs. Smith isn’t coming, neither are her assistants, or their friends, or all the people who want to usurp Mrs. Smith some day as the grand dame of the Chicago fundraising scene.

Who are these people? They sound like Cruella DeVille’s handlers.

Now, our goal is to make a dent in their fundraising. We know we won’t ever take down their machines completely. But, we guarantee a dent will be noticed by national. If people who operate in shadows and attend these events just to get pictures on their walls suddenly start getting a thousand letters a week telling them to stop supporting Liberals, these people will stop going to these events, we guarantee. And that will cause panic in Senate offices…and that panic will be telegraphed to the DNC…and all Hell will break loose all over the place.

Who’s ready to see Howard Dean’s head explode?

Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld is, in my refined and sophisticated opinion, one of the best and most underrated programs on television.  The in-jokes, ironically formulaic production, and all-over surreal quality are simply perfect at 3 a.m., plus the Gregalogue is consistently profound yet snarky.  They’ve even had some really good guests lately, like John Bolton, Thaddeus McCotter, and Oderus Urungus from GWAR via satellite from space (of course).

David Shuster, on the other hand, is an annoying little troll.  He constantly talks over his guests to the extent that nothing gets said (or heard) and Bill O’Reilly is a fantastic interviewer by contrast.  Hearing his voice also feels like what I imagine it would feel like being mildly tasered.  It’s painful in a dull, but sickening way.  There is something truly, deeply wrong with any network which gives that voice an hour five days a week.  That’s Mitch Albom’s old time slot.  Sure, his show was also awful, but at least he had a soothing voice.

So I’m quite objective.

Anyway, Shuster appeared on Red Eye Robot Theater (my favorite, which I often think about posting here but then decide it’s just too weird and creepy).  Then he wrote in to thank Red Eye for featuring him, so showed up in Red Eye Robot Theater again.

I love Red Eye Robot Shuster and it turns out that real-life David Shuster isn’t annoying at all in written thank you notes.  Way to go, Red Eye.  I never thought would be a Shuster fan, but I guess I sort of am now.

“He’s a good man,” according to Evan Bayh (D-IN), the king of equivocation, in response to Chris Wallace’s question about the kind of job Attorney General Eric Holder is doing, particularly with regard to fighting terrorism. Bayh squirmed on yesterday’s Fox News Sunday as he barely managed to answer Wallace’s question about whether he would vote to fund the 9/11 trials in New York City. (He said that he would not, because the trials would be too costly.)

This is the senator who was “agnostic” about the public option (until he voted for it), so one should not expect a straight answer from him to any question. Still, amidst calls for Holder’s resignation and/or firing, this is the best defense one can offer for Holder’s job performance: “He’s a good man?” Even if Holder were a good man, which I do not believe him to be, that is not a qualification for the post of Attorney General.

Lamar Alexander (R-TN) called for Holder to testify before Congress regarding his decision to Mirandize Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab and try him in civilian court. Oh, and he also called for Holder’s resignation.

Let’s see: so far Eric Holder has dismissed the most flagrant case of voter intimidation in modern history, his Justice Department has systematically spammed and libeled bloggers, he turned the War on Terror into a law enforcement issue by trying enemy combatants captured on the battlefield in civilian court, he chose to try KSM in New York City, right near Ground Zero, he embarked on a crusade against the CIA, and he has consistently shirked any and all accountability for his actions.

Eric Holder has had a year to do something – anything – right, or even anything defensible. When Senator Can’t-Utter-an-Unkind-Word is incapable of coming up with anything resembling a solid defense of the Attorney General, it is time for a new one.

David Axelrod didn’t do a much better job defending Holder than Bayh did yesterday, and that’s his job: to make him appear defensible. If AG Holder’s actions are, in fact, defensible, he should have no problem testifying about them before Congress.  Maybe he can defend himself better than Bayh and Axelrod.

No, really. They are running them on YouTube and getting lots of hits. They must have caved in and adopted a “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” strategy of backhanded support, since the more they critique Fox the higher Fox’s ratings go.

Check out this clip, in which O’Reilly says that the South Side of Chicago is “like Haiti.”

This was presented without comment, so Media Matters must agree. If they were to present this as a critique (as they are purportedly a media watchdog group) they probably would have called O’Reilly on his ridiculous understatement. Chicago’s murder rate is more than 50% higher than that of Haiti (18/100,000 vs. 11.5/100,000 in Haiti).

Then they released this clip, in which O’Reilly says that we should waterboard Reid and Pelosi, again, presented without comment.

If only O’Reilly were that “bold and fresh” on his show, instead of saving all the great soundbites for Dennis Miller.

The Bold Fresh Tour looks fantastic. I had been completely uninterested before Media Matters ran these excellent ads. Too bad it’s sold out. I can’t wait for their ads for Beck. He tends to make controversial statements from time to time, you know.

Related posts:

1. Media Matters: Why be critical of Glenn Beck for pushing against the extremists?
2. Media Matters gloats because Beck's ratings are… exactly the same
3. Beck's "Musings" Were a Joke, but Media Matters Didn't Get It

For over a week the city of Jos, Nigeria, and its surrounding areas have been gripped with violence. Hundreds have been killed. Thousands have been displaced. A church was set on fire while congregants worshipped inside. It is a true human tragedy and it does not seem to be over. Shouldn’t reputable news agencies have their own correspondents to report on stories like these? Because they all seem to be relying on Saudi-funded, anti-Christian, anti-Israel Human Rights Watch, who don’t seem to be too concerned with the loss of Christian life.

Human Rights Watch has issued two reports on the recent violence, both of which are very one-sided. This is par for the course when it comes to coverage of violence in the area, but HRW’s reports are particularly slanted in favor of the Muslim perspective, filled with hearsay and condemnations of security forces for subduing the riots and “roving gangs.”  To read their 2009 report on Nigeria one might easily assume that Boko Haram were a group of radical Christian missionaries.

HRW’s press release from January 23 begins thusly:

(Dakar) – Nigeria’s vice president should order an immediate criminal investigation into credible reports of a massacre of at least 150 Muslim residents of a town in central Nigeria, Human Rights Watch said today.

Their January 19th press release was rather different:

According to credible reports from civil society leaders, and national and international media, the violence was carried out by sectarian mobs armed with guns, bows and arrows, and machetes. Roving gangs are reported to have burned and looted houses, cars, and shops, as well as several churches and mosques. There are also several credible reports that the military and police used excessive force in responding to the violence.

Muslim leaders reported that 80 of the dead were taken to the central mosque in Jos on Tuesday for burial, in addition to 71 buried during the first two days of clashes. One Christian official reported that by Monday, 50 Christians had died in the violence and another 15 were killed on Tuesday. The three days of clashes have forced at least 5,000 people from their homes. On Monday the state government deployed additional military and anti-riot police units to the streets of Jos and on Tuesday morning imposed a 24-hour curfew in the city. Witnesses interviewed by Human Rights Watch said that gunshots could still be heard around the city in the late afternoon, and smoke was seen billowing from the worst-affected neighborhoods.

When violence is committed against Muslims, HRW immediately calls upon the vice president to investigate, but when Christians are the victims of “sectarian mobs” the police and the military are asked to use restraint, as if to discourage holding the perpetrators accountable.

Furthermore, nobody else besides the Muslim Brotherhood has reported on the alleged burnings of mosques, which is the heart of the problem. Every reputable news agency has chosen Human Rights Watch as its only source for this story:

• BBC
• AFP
• AP
• Reuters
• Bloomberg
• CNN
• FOX
• Al Jazeera

Pretty much everyone but VOA and CBN.

Human Rights Watch is at best incredibly biased, at worst utterly corrupt. They have a long, disgraceful history of ignoring violence committed by Muslims while condemning Christians and Jews for merely defending themselves. And every news agency but VOA accepts their perspective to the exclusion of all others, despite its admitted basis in hearsay from partisan sources?

You can do better, big media. If you can stalk Sarah Palin at a book signing you can send a correspondent to Jos, Nigeria and report fairly and accurately on the events taking place there.

Related posts:

1. United Nations Launches Investigation of Human Rights Abuses in the United States
2. Will the Lamestream Media Once Again Ignore the Jihad Against Israel and the Jews?
3. Chuck Colson Excoriates the U.S. Media For Ignoring Islamic Crimes Against Christians