Bush's Dhimmis

I blew it up so you can see these clowns (click on image).

FROM JIHADWATCH.

Makeshift hijabs were the order of the day for Bush's female staffers, but there is one lone dissenter in the background. ("Dhimmi diplomats" just because they covered their heads? No.) Reuters' caption:

Senior White House staff members attend the rededication ceremony of The Islamic Center in Washington June 27, 2007. From L-R are: Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Frances Townsend, White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten, and Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Karen Hughes. REUTERS/Larry Downing (UNITED STATES)
They really needn't have gone to the trouble to cover their heads. If they hadn't, their friends at unindicted terror co-conspirator CAIR could have just photoshopped the hijabs on.

The Final Roll Call - Know Your Enemies, Know Your Friends

FINAL ROLL CALL: 46-53.

RINOS (THE ENEMIES OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY): Graham (R-SC), Gregg (R-NH), Hagel (R-NE), Kyl (R-AZ), Lott (R-MS), Lugar (R-IN), Martinez (R-FL),McCain (R-AZ), Snowe (R-ME), and Specter (R-PA).

(OUR FRIENDS IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY) Hats off to the Dems who voted agains this crap: Bayh (D-IN), Bingaman (D-NM), Brown (D-OH), Byrd (D-WV), Dorgan (D-ND), Harkin (D-IA), Landrieu (D-LA), McCaskill (D-MO), Nelson (D-NE), Pryor (D-AR), Rockefeller (D-WV), Sanders (I-VT), Stabenow (D-MI), Tester (D-MT) and Webb (D-VA).

It should be noted that the following Republicans switched their vote for “Yea” to “Na” from the bill earlier in the week. They include: Bennett (R-UT), Bond (R-MO), Brownback (R-KS), Burr (R-NC), Coleman (R-MN), Collins (R-ME), Craig (R-ID), Domenici (R-NM), Ensign (R-NV), McConnell (R-KY), Murkowski (R-AK), Stevens (R-AK), Voinovich (R-OH) and Warner (R-VA)

There'll be no signing, King Jorge

You will recall a few weeks ago, Bush defiantly said to the opponents of the Shamnesty Bill, "I'll see you at the signing." No, King Jorge, you will not have a bill to sign. Now as you sit alone in your grand oval office, all alone except for your sycophants, you have no friends left. You have alienated everyone. You have blown that precious 'capital' that you said you had earned and intended to spend. Now you are truly a lame duck, a clay pigeon blown into a billion bits. Long live America! The Emperor has no clothes.

Have You Signed Sen. Inhofe's Petition SecureBordersNow.com ?

Inhofe Secure Our Borders Now Petition.

Here's Sen Inhofe Discussing the Petition. Great Senator who actually LISTENS to his constituency.

Are these King Jorge's Peeps Too?

FROM L.A. Times

1. 40% of all workers in L.A. County ( L.A. County has10.2 million people) are working for Cash and not paying taxes. This is because they are predominantly illegal immigrants Working without a green card.

2. 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens. !

3. 75% of people on the mos t wanted list in Los Angeles are
illegal aliens!

4. Over 2/3 of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on
Medi- Cal , whose births were paid for by taxpayers.

5. Nearly 25% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican
Nationals here illegally.

6. Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages.

7. The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely
Illegal aliens from south of the border.

8. Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.

9. 21 radio stations in L.A. Are Spanish speaking.

10. In L...A. County 5.1 million people speak English, 3.9 million speak Spanish.
(There are 10.2 million people in L.A. County ).

(All of the above are from the Los Angeles Times)

Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops, but 29% are on welfare.

Over 70% of the United States annual population growth
and over 90% of California , Florida , and New York results from immigration.

29% of inmates in federal prisons are illegal aliens.

Why Islamic terrorists are above criticism

By the Anti Jihadist

News about Islamic terrorism is impossible to avoid these days, even in the sanitised Malaysian media. Unfortunately, it's highly unusual for Muslims in Malaysia to ever criticise their co-religionists, no matter how outrageous their actions are. Muslim terrorists regularly murder women, children, civilians, and non-combatants alike. They execute captured prisoners after the most vicious torture. Terrorists acting in the name of Islam also blow up mosques, murder imams, and even violate oaths taken on the Quran, such as when the Taliban captured the Afghan village of Qala Mussa earlier this year, after having sworn on the Quran to engage in negotiations with the local elders. And yet, there is rarely a hint of outrage in the Muslim world. Malaysia is no exception to this pattern.

For a Malaysian example of this bizarre behaviour, let’s review the Malaysian reactions to the recent (2005) passing of Dr. Azahari Husin, the notorious Malaysian terrorist, committed jihadist, and chief bombmaker for terrorist group Jemaah Islamiyah. Dr. Azahari, as you may recall, was directly implicated in the Bali bombings (both 2002 and 2005), the Australian embassy bombing in Jakarta, and the JW Mariott hotel bombing also in Jakarta. Azahari was in fact an unrepentant mass murderer, responsible for the deaths of hundreds of innocent people. But, as his family and the Malaysian media would have it, he was also supposedly a ‘genuinely warm and caring kind of guy’.

Here is the kind of spin his family put on their ‘fondly remembered’ Doctor Azahari, as was published verbatim in a Malaysian newspaper at the time:

…in his family, he was a respected big brother whose skills in Maths and zest for sports were a source of inspiration to his nine siblings. Azahari Husin’s sister, Suraya, 45, recalled that her brother loved cowboy movies and thought girls were "soppy".

He loved the outdoors and once hitchhiked on a lorry from the premier Malay College (in) Kuala Kangsar, where he studied, to his home in Jasin as a teenager. When he studied in Australia, he took motorcycle excursions across the desert. He loved orchids and sports cars.

The remainder of this media puff piece continues on in the same insufferable vein. And while the family finds plenty of wonderful memories to share with the all-too-willing Malaysian media, there is nary a trace of condemnation of the late doctor's multi-year murder spree.

Azahari's family eventually had this to say about the terrorist Dr. Azahari:

“… our family and friends never interfered with what my brother did. That’s the integrity of our family,” said (a younger sister of Dr Azahari Husin.)

“People can say what they want, but I know my brother,” she said when pressed for comments by newsmen at her house in Jalan Chin Chin here yesterday.

The woman, who lives a few kilometres from her parent’s house, said her father Husin Yaakob, 78, had left home for the time being, to live with one of her siblings, in anticipation of media interest in Dr Azahari’s family.

Azahari also received a hero’s send-off at his funeral in his hometown of Jasin in Malacca state. The ceremony attracted some 600 well wishers, who repeatedly screamed ‘Allahu akbar’ as his coffin was lowered into the ground. Many present at the funeral also voiced scepticism of Azahari’s role as a top terrorist. “Azahari will always have friends here. We shouldn't be asked to believe what is written about him in the newspapers,” said one man who identified himself to reporters only as Yusri.

These are very curious reactions all around, at the very least. Given the multiple opportunities to condemn terrorism, and to pronounce how un-Islamic all this terrorism supposedly is, Azahari’s family, friends and neighbours all refused to so state. Rather the opposite, actually—in particular, Azahari’s sister said for the record that family and friends “…never interfered with what my brother did”. This is a disturbingly noncommittal thing to say about a man intimately involved in carrying out mass murder, and for conspiring to commit even more mass murder. Indeed, it could even be construed as approval.

Compare the (at best) tepid response of the Azahari family to the response of another family that had one of its own become a mass murderer—the family of Cho Seung Hui. Cho, as many no doubt remember, was a Korean American who murdered 32 people just a few months ago at a university in Virginia before taking his own life. In the aftermath of this devastating tragedy, the family issued a powerful and eloquent statement to the world and to the relatives of the victims. This statement reads, in part:

On behalf of our family, we are so deeply sorry for the devastation my brother has caused. No words can express our sadness that 32 innocent people lost their lives this week in such a terrible, senseless tragedy. We are heartbroken.

…

We pray for their families and loved ones who are experiencing so much excruciating grief. And we pray for those who were injured and for those whose lives are changed forever because of what they witnessed and experienced.

Despite their shock, grief and unimaginable horror, the Cho family managed to compose and release this brief, but articulate public statement. In no uncertain terms, it makes it clear how the Cho family felt about the actions of their loved one, a loved one who, like Azahari Husin, mercilessly slaughtered so many. And still, this one simple statement is light years ahead of anything ever spoken by any of the family or friends of Dr. Azahari.

Why, indeed, did the Azahari family choose to not say anything even remotely similar to this? And for another example, why didn’t any of the families of the 9-11 hijackers issue statements like the Cho family? Why do all of these Muslim families to this day steadfastly refuse to denounce the unspeakable crimes of their loved ones?

It’s not hard to understand why. While a lot of Muslims may talk of peaceful co-existence, they tacitly approve of Islamic terrorists killing non-Muslims. More often than Muslims like to admit, these terrorists, either living or dead, are lionized as heroes in the Islamic world.

Many Muslims know that these attitudes will not play well in the West. Thus, the official policy of Muslim countries like Malaysia is to condemn Islamic terrorism. When need be (often right after a spectacular Muslim terrorist attack), Muslim countries and organisations are quick to release generalised, pro-forma, and mealy-mouthed condemnations of ‘all kinds of terrorism’. Strangely enough, however, they can never get around to disavowing Hamas, Hizbullah, Al Qaeda, etc. specifically and by name. Yet all the while, the mass media and much of the general public in Muslim nations, as seen in the Malaysian media coverage of Azahari’s death, are rather sympathetic to these cold-blooded killers.

Many Westerners believe that all this pro-terrorist talk will go away once economic prosperity comes to the Islamic world. Perhaps. However, it’s important to point out that many, if not most middle and upper class Muslims, share these pro-terrorist attitudes. So let’s just face the fact that, if you are a kafir (and most people on the planet are), a whole lot of Muslims want you dead or converted to Islam…unless you're Jewish, in which case, only dead will do.

But don’t just take my word for it. You can look it up…in the Muslim media.

Clay Pigeon for the Dodos

Tonight, the bundled amendments (the 'clay pigeon') was released. Michell Malkin's site has an indexed copy. It's 387 PAGES LONG! And get this. It is in pure legaleze format 'subtitute this', 'substitute that' "change : to ;", etc. You have to have the original side by side to even understand what these 387 pages reference to. Now tell me how in the world any Senator can reconcile this with the bill and understand it in the next 36 hours. This is an awful sham. It is so deceitful. If I was a Senator, I would have a fit. How can any Senator agree to vote yes for something he has been given with no time to digest. Not to even mention the public's right to know. Let me remind you that this shamnesty bill adds 40 million to 100 million legal permanent residents to America, and the vast majority will be Mexican. It is the greatest demographic shift America will ever experience, even greater than what has happened in France and Netherlands and in 1/4 of the time - 10 years. You think diversity and multiculturalism are oppressive today, you haven't seen anything yet.

I did notice in the boilerplate stuff at the rear of this amendment tomb they allow the Oath of Allegiance to be changed significantly if an immigrant's religion does not allow an oath that places the state above his religion. Wonder who that's for? Oh and it creates a huge commission to determine 'remedies' for the unjust treatment of 'latin americans of japanese descents.' They get their 'reparations' and then it's on to the next aggrieved group. There are so many little 'items' in this bill, so much bureaucracy to create. It really is breathtaking. How can anyone understand this bag of goodies. It is 20 bills wrapped into one.

This bill creates a brand new and enormous government organization to handle the amnesty. It is too painful to read. It is government out of control.

I will never forgive Bush for this monstrosity and I will never forgive the Senators and Congressman that attempt to pass this abomination. Stupidity and evil converge.

Here are some of the defects of this shamnesty bill from RedState:

Top 10 Defects of the Amnesty Bill
RedState.com ^ | 6/26/07 | Bluey
Posted on 06/26/2007 3:25:56 PM EDT by rhema
The immigration bill is back on the Senate floor today. To help opponents of the legislation educate their senators about its disastrous consequences, I’m sharing this list of the bill’s Top 10 defects. You’re welcome to use it however you’d like -- share it with family, friends, co-workers, whoever.
1. It repeats the mistakes of the 1986 immigration law.
• Like the 1986 law, this immigration “reform” measure grants amnesty immediately while promising security and enforcement in the future.
• Actually, the old law was tougher. Back then, illegals had to show they had lived in the United States continuously for five years. The new bill would give amnesty to anyone who lived here for the last six months.
• This isn’t fair to those who have “played by the rules” to enter the country illegally. Nor is it fair to those who are currently waiting proper authorization to enter the country.
There are nine more defects on the jump. Read on ...
2. U.S. VISIT exit program is not included in the bill.
• The new immigration bill does not require a border “check in/check out” system that uses biometric proof of ID like fingerprints.
• This check-in/check-out system was first required by Congress in 1996. Its implementation date is well past due.
• Without the U.S. VISIT exit program, the United States cannot ensure that individuals do not overstay their visas.
3. It spends and shuffles money to no apparent purpose.
• To buy support for the amnesty provisions, bill backers sweetened the pot by adding $4.4 billion in new spending—purportedly for enforcement purposes.
• The need for such tremendous additional spending is unclear. Nearly all the money needed to fund the bill’s security features has already been appropriated.
• The extra money must be spent in five years—a hurry-up schedule that all but assures wastefulness.
• Despite the rhetoric, the funds aren’t restricted to security and enforcement uses. They can just as easily be spent on fast-tracking the amnesty bureaucracy required by the bill.
4. It provides precious little additional security.
• Except for a new worker verification program, the proposal essentially reauthorizes security resources and programs already been approved by Congress.
• The bill calls for “100% operational control” of the border, but there is no measurable definition of what that really means. One man’s “100% operational control” is another man’s leaking sieve.
• The bill’s original requirement that DHS get the border under control “within 18 months of enactment” has been changed to “as soon as practicable.”
5. It increases federal intrusion into the workplace.
• The bill requires employers to submit biometric, financial and other personal information about every employee to a new mega-database to be maintained by the Department of Homeland Security
• Every worker in the U.S.—all 130 million of us—will have to be certified by DHS as eligible to work.
• We will have to be DHS-recertified as eligible to work every time we change jobs.
• The new certification process—the Employment Eligibility Verification System (EEVS)—is based on the much more modest PILOT system, which has proved to be flawed and unreliable.
• It’s ridiculous to think that a program that doesn’t work well now will somehow work better when it’s radically expanded to encompass every employer and employee in America.
6. It makes the temporary worker program a mess.
• The bill’s numerous regulations on employers undermine labor market flexibility—the very thing needed to make the program economically viable.
• As a sop to unions, the bill requires employ¬ers to pay temporary guest workers the “prevailing competitive wage” – something that, in many areas, will be higher than the minimum wage offered citizens.
• The program is held hostage to amnesty. Legal temporary workers will not be allowed in until those currently in the country illegally are given amnesty..
• The program is too small and is, itself, temporary. It ends in five years, and is limited to 200,000 participants per year.
7. It will increase “chain migration.”
• Under this bill, the number of people entering via “chain migration” – the practice of immigrants bringing relative after relative into the country behind them – will triple until 2016.
• Though a merit system for immigrants begins immediately, it will not increase the percentage of high-skilled immigrants coming to the United States until 2016 – eight years after enactment.
• The merit system does not apply to Z visa holders.
8. The amnesty section creates a host of problems.
a) It gives a general grant of amnesty.
• An immigrant’s legal violations are waived up front, as a condition of eligibility.
• As in the 1986 legislation, various penalties and requirements do not mitigate the grant of amnesty.
• A “touchback” with a guaranteed re-entry does not mitigate amnesty.
b) The “temporary” Z-Visa may be renewed ad infinitum.
• Legal status is granted 180 days after enactment.
• There is no cap on the total number of people who can get Z visass.
c) The Z-Visa process is highly susceptible to fraud and abuse.
• People can apply for amnesty as long as 18 months after enactment. This long “grace period” will only encourage more people to cross the border illegally so they can “get in” on the amnesty.
• Amnesty is contingent on people presenting “documentation” showing they entered the country sometime before Jan. 1 of this year. But the documentation requirements are laughably lax (e.g., an affidavit signed by a non-family member). The result: new opportunities for criminals and terrorists to “get legal.”
• In the 1986 amnesty, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) discovered 398,000 cases of fraud. With so many more seeking amnesty this time, the number of fraudulent applications likely will be at least four times larger.
d) It gives the feds next to no time to screen visa applicants.
• Under Section 601(h)(1), the bill allows the government only 24 hours (one business day) to conduct a background check to determine whether an applicant for a probationary Z Visa is a criminal or terrorist.
• DHS can expect to receive, on average, 43,000 applications per day. Good luck with that.
e) It requires no health checks for visa applicants.
• Foreigners visiting our country on legal visas must first meet basic health standards. Yet the only health check required in the Senate bill is restricted to those applying for Legal Permanent Resident status—and they don’t have to undergo the check until eight years after enactment.
• This could allow someone carrying a highly dangerous and contagious disease – TB, bird flu, smallpox – into the country without any real record of where this person entered the United States, where he’s been since entering.
f) It makes gang members and absconders eligible for amnesty.
• Gang members can get amnesty. How? They must renounce their gang membership. [Section 601(g)(2)]
• Absconders—the 630,000+ illegals who have ignored deportation orders and remain in hiding—can gain amnesty by demonstrating that departure from the U.S. “would result in extreme hardship to the alien or the alien's spouse, parent or child.” Section 601(d)(1)(I)
g) It suspends immigration law enforcement.
• If a federal agent apprehends an alien who appears to be eligible for the Z visa (in other words, just about any illegal alien), the agent cannot keep him in custody. Instead, the alien must be released and allowed to apply for amnesty. [Sections 601(h)(1, 5)]
• Same for immigration judges. They must close any proceedings against aliens and offer them an opportunity to apply for amnesty if they are "prima facie eligible" for the Z visa. [Section 601(h)(6)]
• These provisions (and others) will create endless litigation – tying up a legal system that’s already swamped.
h) Illegal immigrants “skate” on back taxes.
• Last year’s bill required long-term illegal aliens to prove they had paid at least three of their last five years’ worth of taxes.
• This year’s Senate bill doesn’t payment of any back taxes owed.
i) It lets illegal immigrants get tax-subsidized college tuition rates.
• Section 616 allows all states to offer in-state tuition rates to any illegal alien who obtains the Z visa and attends college.
• It effectively repeals a 1996 federal law (8 U.S.C. § 1623) that prohibits states from offering in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens unless the state also offers in-state tuition rates to all U.S. citizens. (Ten states are currently defying this federal law with seeming impunity.)
9. It doesn’t help immigrants assimilate into American culture.
• Z-visa holders need not learning English until they seek a second renewal of their visa—8 years after enactment.
• It creates a new bureaucracy, the “New Americans Integration Councils,” which stresses life-skills training (such as how to catch a bus) rather than civics education.
10. It imposes too great a burden on immigration officials.
• For example, it vastly expands the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services’ workload, but does little to increase the agency’s capacity to handle the task.

What is Islam--the video

ALIEN NATION Statistics and Bush's Peoples

I was at the local Mexican supermarket buying some fresh corn and greenbeans. All of the young Mexican girls were pregnant or had a new anchor baby. No one spoke English anywhere. As I was in line, a middle aged liberal female buggied up behind me and said cheerfully 'shopping here is like another world.' I said sarcastically, 'yeah, the third world.' You should have seen her face. She mistook me for a liberal. I know I look like one but don't hold it against me! I turned around, paid for my corn and beans, and left snickering to my self. You know I burst her bubble and I'm glad I did.

Bush says we can't have enforcement unless we give him his peeps. We'll see about that.


Are these the people Bush wants?

INS/FBI Statistical Report on Undocumented Immigrants

2006 (First Quarter)
95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.
83% of warrants for murder in Phoenix are for illegal aliens.
86% of warrants for murder in Albuquerque are for illegal aliens.
75% of those on the most wanted list in Los Angeles, Phoenix and Albuquerque are illegal aliens.

24.9% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally
40.1% of all inmates in Arizona detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally
48.2% of all inmates in New Mexico detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally

29% (630,000) convicted illegal alien felons fill our state and federal prisons at a cost of $1.6 billion annually
53% plus of all investigated burglaries reported in California, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona and Texas are perpetrated by illegal aliens.
50% plus of all gang members in Los Angeles are illegal aliens from south of the border.
71% plus of all apprehended cars stolen in 2005 in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and California were stolen by Illegal aliens or "transport coyotes".

47% of cited/stopped drivers in California have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 47%, 92% are illegal aliens.
63% of cited/stopped drivers in Arizona have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 63%, 97% are illegal aliens
66% of cited/stopped drivers in New Mexico have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 66% 98% are illegal aliens.

BIRTH STATISTICS
380,000 plus "anchor babies" were born in the U.S. in 2005 to illegal alien parents, making 380,000 babies automatically U.S.citizens and, under our laws, entitled to invite the rest of their family to join them.
97.2% of all costs incurred from those births were paid by the American taxpayers.
66% plus of all births in California are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal whose births were paid for by taxpayers.

The Time for a New Social Contract in Malaysia is Now

My latest column for Malaysia Today.

By the Anti-Jihadist

Much hay has been made as of late in regards to Malaysia’s fabled “Social Contract”, which is essentially the basic laws and bedrock assumptions that underpin Malaysian law and society. Having been in place for some 50-odd years now, this ‘contract’ has assumed something akin to sacrosanct proportions in the minds of Malaysian politicians and the public alike. Touching it is now the ‘third rail’ in Malaysian politics—if you touch it, you will die.

But since when is a contract a suicide pact? When it is plainly obvious that a contract is no longer working, or workable, why should anyone continue to adhere to it?

Malaysia’s much-ballyhooed economic growth is now nothing like it was in the heady days of the 1980s or 1990s, and it is hard to continue placing the blame on foreign speculators like George Soros. The brain drain of the nation’s best and brightest to greener pastures overseas continues apace. Intellectual life is stagnating, as is the country’s education system. As the Lina Joy case and other cases clearly shows, the Syariah courts have in essence supplanted the civil court system as the country’s supreme law. As the destruction of temples and churches amply demonstrates, creeping Islamisation has eroded the rights and benefits to non Muslims and non Malays, who have never had much say in their own affairs in the first place. Now they have even less.

Discontent is rising, tensions are increasing, provocations are coming hard on the heels of each other, and this train seems to have no brakes.

I say it’s time for some drastic surgery--it’s high time to tear up the current dysfunctional social contract. If the present contract ever had its day in the sun, clearly those days are long over.

So what might a new, more modern ‘social contract’ for Malaysia look like? To this end, I humbly submit this baker’s dozen of ideas:

1. Have one set of laws that applies equally to everyone, regardless of skin colour, race, or religion. No more ‘bumi’ privileges, and no more official or unofficial racial quotas—a strict meritocracy should be in place at all levels of government, and eventually Malaysian society in general.

2. Ban all race-based organizations, including race-based political parties.

3. The current ‘dual-track’ legal system needs to be abolished. Civil courts must have the final say in all legal matters. Syariah courts should be minimized, or better yet, completely eliminated. If 20 million Muslims in Europe can live without Syariah courts, then why can 15 million Muslim Malays not make do without them?

4. End NEP and any programmes like it, now and forever. If the government is going to hand out welfare, it should be based on need, not on race or ethnicity.

5. Dump the official faith. Governments have no business running religious affairs or legislating morality. Eliminate funding for all religious-based activities and departments. This would, of course, entail the dissolution of all religious police and religious entities such as JAIS and JAKIM at all levels of government.

6. Freedom of religion must be real and guaranteed for all, rather than just being given pro forma lip service. And get rid of the ‘religion’ field on ‘MyKad’ and any other official ID, so there are no more ‘Lina Joys’. A person’s faith, or lack thereof, is not the business of any earthly authority!

7. Make English an official language of the country, and print all government documents in this language.

8. Make English language classes compulsory for all Malaysians starting from Standard One. Teach all subjects in this language, except for Bahasa Melayu/Malaysia, Tamil, Mandarin, and other languages.

9. Establish English departments at all state-run institutions for higher learning. And open a college in Malaysia specifically for training English teachers. Malaysia desperately needs qualified ones, as the current system is totally incapable of creating enough of them. Bring in as many foreign English teachers as required to accomplish these and other goals.

10. Loosen the rules for foreign business and allow increased foreign investment.

11. Phase out all subsidies. The oil is running out, and so will the largess that allows the government to continue these subsidies. Better a soft landing via a phase-out than a brutal price spike that is otherwise inevitable just a few short years from now.

12. No racial preferences or race-based treatment when awarding government contracts.

13. Practice complete freedom of speech—no more censorship or banning of books, TV shows, magazines, movies, or other media.

Malaysia’s current social contract is in fact fatally flawed, because no country that has built its society on envy, coercion, and racial division can ever succeed in the long term. Malaysia is now at the point where radical surgery is required, or this country will fall not just further behind, but out of the race altogether.

And after all, the global race to compete is a race that countries opt out of at their own peril.

US Army v. Jihadists in Iraq

WARNING-- Graphic violence shown.

This is your brain on Islam

'Nuf said.

Keep Your Powder Dry! There Is No Rapprochement to Be with the Muslim World!

Beheadings, lapidations, amputations, suicide-bombings, honour-killings, flag-burnings, effigy-burnings – Is there nothing to which these mentally-deranged, half-baked, quasi-pious people won’t stoop?

These misdeeds, of course, are carried out in the name of Allah and his prophet, the prophet Muhammad. Not in God’s name, you understand! But in the name of Allah, the false god, the false deity, in the name of Muhammad, the false prophet.

Muslims believe that Jesus was not the Son of God, for they believe that God begat not, and was not begotten. They believe that Jesus was a mere prophet – a man, like you and me. Further, they believe that Jesus was not crucified, despite plenty of historical evidence to prove that he was. To Muslims, Jesus was simply the penultimate prophet of Allah (not God), and although he was a fine man (and all that), He was inferior to the superior and ultimate prophet of Allah: Muhammad.

The West, in recent decades more especially, has embarked on a journey to liberate people. We have liberated women, bringing them away from the kitchen sink; and we are in the process of liberating homosexuals, bringing them away from the closet. We have given blacks rights, we have given women rights, and we are in the process of giving homosexuals rights, too.

Compare this situation with the deplorable state of women in the Muslim world, a world in which women’s lives count for nothing. They are mere chattels. They exist for the sexual pleasure of men. They have few rights, and even fewer chances of a decent life in this world. They must cover themselves up, and must not leave the home unless they are given permission to do so by their guardians: men!

If someone draws a cartoon of their beloved prophet Muhammad, then Muslims are up in arms. If a woman falls in love with a man that the family deems unfit for her love, then she is killed for the sake of honour. If a man happens to be homosexual (through no fault of his own – naturally God made him that way), then he is thrown off the nearest minaret to a certain death, or if he happens to live in Iran, then he is hanged on a rope. Whichever way it happens to be, it is a grim death.

You tell me how these two worldviews can be reconciled! You tell me how there can be a rapprochement! Fact is our two worlds are headed on two divergent and separate paths: The West is headed in the direction of light; the East is headed in the direction of darkness, even darker than the world they already inhabit!

Last year, we witnessed the furore over the innocuous drawings of the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad in Denmark; in recent days, we have witnessed the furore over the knighthood of Salman Rushdie by Queen Elizabeth II. In Pakistan and in other parts of the Middle East, flag- and effigy-burnings are taking place. And those effigies are of no less a person than our beloved Queen! And they talk of wanting to receive respect. If they really want respect, then it is high time that they showed some!

The truth of the matter is this: Our two worlds are on two separate journeys. We, in the West, want to liberate people; they, in the Muslim world, want to place people in chains. So how can there be a meeting of our two cultures? How can there be a rapprochement? How can there be a coming together? There cannot be, of course.

That is why I say to you today that as sure as night follows day, there will soon be – nay have to be – a clash of these two cultures, ein Zusammenprallen. How can we expect anything else?

We are being led by incompetent fools! This is no time for prissy, pretty little leaders – leaders who worry more about their image than about affairs of state.

Today, we worry about green issues, we worry about whether people smoke or not, we worry about health issues (when, actually, people are unhealthier than they have ever been), and we worry about the ecology. We worry about all kinds of things; but we do not worry about what is important: Our civilisation!

To be candid with you, I would prefer to vote for a man who smokes, or for a man who has a lover, or for a man who is gay, as long as he is capable of getting us out of this mess with Islam, as long as he is capable of winning the culture war. He can puff away as much as he likes, he can screw himself to death. Just get us out of this mess with Islam!

Let’s get our priorities right.

It should be clear to all good-thinking people by now that there is no meeting of the East and West to be. We must fight for our survival. We must fight for our beliefs. We must fight for our values. As far as I am concerned, war is what they want, and war they will get. I am ready and willing and prepared to make the sacrifice. Are you? I hope your gun powder is dry. If it isn’t, it ought to be. There are tough times ahead of us.

©Mark Alexander

All rights reserved

Myths & Movements

All great social movements ... have come about by the pursuit of a myth. To analyze a myth or to inquire whether it is true - even to ask whether it is practicable - is meaningless. For it is essentially an image that can evoke sentiment and that supplies the cohesion and drive to release revolutionary energy. A political philosophy is not a rational guide to action but an incitement to fanatical determination and blind devotion. ... Conceived as a myth[,] philosophy is a vision of life but not a plan, and still less is it a theory that depends on reason. It is rather a release of the deep-lying instincts of a people, inherent in the "life-force" itself, or in their "blood" or "spirit". - Georges Sorel, French Social Philosopher [Source: A History of Political Theory by G. H. Sabine]

I came across this some time ago. It jumped out of the page at me, since it fits Islam to a T.

Muhammad, the prophet, understood much about the ways of the world. He understood very well the above theory put forward by Georges Sorel. He knew how to create a myth, so he set about creating one; he knew the effect that myth would have on the world if people would only start to accept the myth as fact and true, so he fought the people till it was accepted as true. A myth was created, and the rest, as they say, is history!

In Muhammad's case he would retire to a cave, where the Archangel Gabriel is said to have descended upon him, requesting him to recite in the name of the Lord!

People were simpler back then. They must have been able to believe such a myth. Imagine coming home to your own spouse or family member saying that the Archangel Gabriel had visited you in a cave, asking you to recite in the name of the Lord! I know what my family would do! They'd call the doctor to ask him to commit me! My guess is that yours would probably do the same. Alas, way back then, they obviously didn't; otherwise we wouldn't be where we are today: with a great struggle on our hands. We wouldn't be left with the task of rolling back the frontiers lest we be subsumed into Dar ul Islam!

Islam is, however, a very clever myth, since it portrays itself as the perfection of religion for man for all time, deen al kamal. You've got to hand it to Muhammad, he invented something which many find difficult to refute. He also included all the other prophets that went before him, so as to try not to alienate the other believers. That didn't quite come off, but still, the movement has grown around the world like Topsy. There are said to be way over 1.2 billion Muslims worldwide, and we're still counting! This, despite the gruesome nature of attacks on infidels! It never ceases to amaze me what people will fall for.

But then we know that people are gullible and gregarious. Therein lies one of Islam's strengths. I dare say that Prophet Muhammad was well aware of these characteristics of human nature.

These days, the myth has been given a new lease on life because of the oil wealth generated for the home of Islam: the Middle East. Our businessmen, of course, ever ready to make a fast buck, and having little understanding of our own civilization, still less any respect for it, happily and willingly curry favour with the movers and shakers of the oil-rich desert fiefdoms of the desert. One could almost say that they suck up to their masters there. I've seen the fawning that goes on. It's a sickening sight to behold!

The politicians and the businessmen - these are the people who are selling us short. These are the people who lack the spine to behave with more dignity, and, as a result, give away more of our freedoms by the day. Weakness, I tell you, abounds! These people simper and fawn and suck up. It's a case of yes, sir, no, sir, three bags full, sir. After all, the businessman's bottom line - profit - and his bank balance are far more important to him than anything else.

We're in a mess, though, aren't we? A right old pickle! Moreover, it's going to take a complete U-turn to change direction and win back what we have already lost. And it won't come cost-free either.

Isn't it strange how Western leaders have changed in just a few decades? It was less than sixty years ago that we, in Great Britian, were being led by Winston Churchill. He took a dim view of the strictures of Islam. Not so our leaders today. Now they do nothing to keep Islam at bay; instead, they do everything in their power to integrate the Islamic world into our own world, and there are syncretist forces at work to meld our two religions. But this, of course, will not work. Never will they manage to do that! Muslims, for a start, will not allow their message to be changed in any way. They are rigid. Extremely rigid!

Christianity, too, is based on a traditional story, or myth (myths don't have to be untrue): the story that Jesus was the Son of God, and that He was crucified to save our souls, to redeem us. And inasmuch as this was done to Him, He became our Saviour.

This has been an exceedingly powerful story for us, guiding us for over 2000 years. The problem today is that many have ceased to believe in the story, or if they haven't ceased to believe in it, they have become indifferent to it. Because of this, the development of the West, based as it is on this story, is losing steam. As it continues to lose its steam, it will decelerate and weaken. We simply cannot have it all ways. For, as Sorel says: ...it is essentially an image that can evoke sentiment and that supplies the cohesion and drive to release revolutionary energy.

In Islam, the image is still exceedingly strong; in Christianity, it is considerably weakened. We shall, however, have to find a way of strengthening it again, or else we will have nothing to 'fight' for, nothing to 'fight' to maintain, nothing to hold us together! The story of Christ was the buckle that bound us. It was our guiding light, so to speak. Modern day secularism will not be strong enough to stand up to the onslaught of Islam, since it is hard - very hard - to become passionate about a 'nothing'! To my knowledge, no great movement, either religious or political, in the history of the world, has been founded on a non-story. The myth is all important! No myth, no movement!

©Mark Alexander

All rights reserved

Shamnesty Bill Would Entitle 193 Million More Immigrants

If anyone needs anymore proof of the idiocy of this Bush Amnesty BIll, consider the immigration rights this bill will give to the 12 million legalized plus their family immigration rights plus the other increases in other immigration categoies. That's 193 million. And doesn't even include the additional ILLEGAL immigration that this Shamnesty Bill will absolutely cause. This bill must be stopped. If you aren't calling your Senators, I want to know why.




Bill permits 193 million more aliens by 2026
By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
May 16, 2006

The Senate immigration reform bill would allow for up to 193 million new legal immigrants -- a number greater than 60 percent of the current U.S. population -- in the next 20 years, according to a study released yesterday.
"The magnitude of changes that are entailed in this bill -- and are largely unknown -- rival the impact of the creation of Social Security or the creation of the Medicare program," said Robert Rector, senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation who conducted the study.
Although the legislation would permit 193 million new immigrants in the next two decades, Mr. Rector estimated that it is more likely that about 103 million new immigrants actually would arrive in the next 20 years.
Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican who conducted a separate analysis that reached similar results, said Congress is "blissfully ignorant of the scope and impact" of the bill, which has bipartisan support in the Senate and has been praised by President Bush.
"This Senate is not ready to pass legislation that so significantly changes our future immigration policy," he said yesterday. "The impact this bill will have over the next 20 years is monumental and has not been thought through."
The 614-page "compromise" bill -- hastily cobbled together last month by Republican Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Mel Martinez of Florida -- would give illegal aliens who have been in the U.S. two years or longer a right to citizenship. Illegals who have been here less than two years would have to return to their home countries to apply for citizenship.
Although that "amnesty" would be granted to about 10 million illegals, the real growth in the immigrant population would come later.
As part of the bill, the annual flow of legal immigrants allowed into the U.S. would more than double to more than 2 million annually. In addition, the guest-worker program in the bill would bring in 325,000 new workers annually who could later apply for citizenship.
That population would grow exponentially from there because the millions of new citizens would be permitted to bring along their extended families. Also, Mr. Sessions said, the bill includes "escalating caps," which would raise the number of immigrants allowed in as more people seek to enter the U.S.
"The impact of this increase in legal immigration dwarfs the magnitude of the amnesty provisions," said Mr. Rector, who has followed Congress for 25 years. He called the bill "the most dramatic piece of legislation in my experience."
Mr. Rector based his numerical projection on the number of family members that past immigrants have sponsored.
Immigration into the U.S. would become an "entitlement," Mr. Sessions said. "The decision as to who may come will almost totally be controlled by the desire of the individuals who wish to immigrate to the United States rather than by the United States government."
....

The Shamnesty Effect on McCain's Race to be President

I like going to the intrade site and look at the options betting on the Presidential candidates. A freeper posted the latest McCain, a chart only a conservative could love. McCain should pay them a visit, but I think he doesn't really care because HE KNOWS HE IS RIGHT and we, the backward, stupid, narrowminded Republicans, don't. Et tu, fatuity McCain. Click on image to enlarge.


Intrade.com President Contracts

How HiTech Firms Screw American Citizens for Cheap Immigrant Hitech Workers

On YouTube today there is some video from the Cohen & Grosby law firm on how they conspire with America's corporations to deny American citizens high tech jobs and import cheaper workers. I think this says it all how Corporations conspire to shove this new SHAMNESTY bill down our throats. It is really shocking.

PERM Fake Job Ads defraud Americans to secure green cards


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

Thanks for the Weapons!

The Hopeless Ralph Peters Still Doesn't Get It

Ralph Peters is a hit or miss type of journalist on Islam and the Middle East. He comes close, but misses in the end.

In his closing of his article In Gaza's Shadow regarding the Gaza disaster and the sobering facts about the civil war we are in the middle of in Irag, he writes "We're stuck in Iraq, and it sucks. But were we to leave in haste, far more blood than oil would flow in the Persian Gulf. The disaster in Gaza's just a rehearsal for the Arab-suicide drama awaiting its opening night in Iraq. "

First of all we are not STUCK in Iraq. Bush has decided to stick us there. We can leave anytime we want. Second, when we leave, why should we care how much MUSLIM blood will flow? What's with all this altruism? That we must sacrifice more American lives and pay more jizya; is that what is right, Ralph Peters? Bush got us into Iraq because he refuses to understand Islam. Ralph Peters wants to keep us there because he refuses to understand Islam.

Islam is the enemy, these fatuitous 'experts' on the Middle East can't see the obvious because their brain is in a box, a political correct, multicutural moral equivalency box. To admit Islam should be treated as nazism, mocked, ridiculed and circumsribed, that goes too far. And that is why we will have to put up with the misery Islam causes in the world, and the belligerence and demands of the fifth column that have colonized dar al harb and the sudden jihad outbursts derived from having a Muslim presence in the West.

IN GAZA'S SHADOW
IRAQ & THE ARAB SUICIDE CULT June 14, 2007 -- WONDER what Iraq would look like if we left to morrow? Take a look at Gaza today. Then imagine a situation a thousand times worse.

We need to stop making politically correct excuses. Arab civilization is in collapse. Extremes dominate, either through dictatorship or anarchy. Thanks to their dysfunctional values and antique social structures, Arab states can't govern themselves decently.

We gave them a chance in Iraq. Israel "gave back" the Gaza Strip to let the Palestinians build a model state. Arabs seized those opportunities to butcher each other.

The barbarity in Gaza has become so grotesque that not even the media's apologists for terror can ignore it (especially since Islamist fanatics began to target journalists).

Over the weekend, Hamas gangbangers-for-Allah grabbed a Fatah functionary and dropped him from the roof of a high-rise to check out the law of gravity (the only law that still obtains in Gaza). Tit-for-tat, Fatah gunmen grabbed a Hamas capo and gave him the same treatment.

Thereafter, cooler heads prevailed and both sides returned to their everyday routines of kidnapping, torturing and assassinating each other's leaders, gunning down teachers and doctors and, of course, murdering women, children and stray pedestrians.

Educated Palestinians flee, if they can. Civilians cower, wondering where the next rocket-propelled grenade will hit. And, amid the carnage, students risk death to take their final exams so they can qualify to study abroad - and get out. The indiscriminate violence is the Palestinian version of democracy: Every citizen gets a chance to be killed.

And there's humor in Hell: The Islamist madmen behind Hamas call Fatah fighters "the American Jew Army." We've come a long way, boychick, when fellow Arabs anoint the late Yasser Arafat's thugs as tools of the Great Satan and the Lesser Satan.

In Iraq, terrorists returned to Samarra to finish the job of destroying the Golden Mosque - the 2006 bombing of which ignited months of gruesome Shia-Sunni violence. Under attack from fellow Sunnis disgusted with their excesses, al Qaeda-in-Iraq sought to get the Shia fired up again to force a return to Sunni unity.

Meanwhile, back home, the get-out-now crowd pretends that, if only we pull out our troops, Iraqis will magically settle their internal grievances (presumably, the way the Palestinians have).

The left doesn't care how many Iraqis die, as long as President Bush can be humiliated. Four years ago, the neocons fantasized about a post-Saddam Age of Aquarius. Now the Murthacrats insist that, once we bail out, Atlantis will rise from the Tigris and Euphrates. The willful naivete is identical. The only differences are the timing and who gets blamed.

Look at Gaza, at the orgy of self-destructive savagery, the macho idiocy, the junkyard-dog religion and the murder-suicide cult sweeping Arab civilization. Then note that, barring a few fringe players, only two sides are fighting in the Gaza Strip.

In Iraq, we have foreign terrorists fighting everybody, Sunni Arabs fighting Shia, Shia fighting Shia, Sunni fighting Sunni, Christians and other minorities persecuted by Sunni and Shia, Kurds struggling to preserve their patch of civilization, with American troops and our allies in the middle . . . on a quiet day.

Of course, not only the Arabs are to blame: We went to Baghdad with a fantasy instead of a plan; Israel tried to compromise with genocidal killers; media commissars abetted terrorists, and our generals placed more emphasis on ducking blame than on defeating our enemies. But for all that, it's the Arabs who failed themselves, again and again and again.

When Lebanon tried to achieve a semblance of democracy, Syria embarked on a killing spree that, to this day, has had no tangible consequences for the Assad regime.

When elections came to the Palestinian territories, the Palestinians voted for terrorists. When elections came to Iraq, the Iraqis voted for ethnic separatists or demagogues.

And while Prince Bandar reportedly was raking in billion-dollar bribes between tennis matches with U.S. pols, our Saudi "pals" were spending their oil wealth to ensure that no Muslims will ever live under a tolerant government that regards women as human. Is there any good news at all?

Yes. Earlier this week, Capitol Hill saw a small miracle: A U.S. Army general told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. As fine an officer as we've got in uniform, Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey refused to pander to anyone. Instead, he laid out the grim situation in Iraq and detailed the minimum commitment required for any hope of even a flawed success.

Dempsey placed integrity, our country and our troops above self-interest. He described the padded payrolls in Iraq's national police, the sectarianism of local police forces and the long-term effort needed to get the Iraqi army on its feet and fit to fight (think years, not months). Security requirements demand 50,000 more Iraqi soldiers and cops-this year alone.

The general even pointed out that some Iraqis are nostalgic for the order of Saddam's regime: We failed to deliver the No. 1 good, security.

The testimony was sobering, to say the least. And therein lies reason for hope. After years of obfuscation and outright lies from the Rumsfeld-era generals, our troops are finally led by officers who realize we're at war-and that winning is more important than promotions.

We're stuck in Iraq, and it sucks. But were we to leave in haste, far more blood than oil would flow in the Persian Gulf. The disaster in Gaza's just a rehearsal for the Arab-suicide drama awaiting its opening night in Iraq.
Ralph Peters' new book, "Wars of Blood and Faith," hits stores July 25.

It Just Didn't Click.

You know, I think Bush has this problem. His brain doesn't 'click', it may clicketyclack but it just doesn't click. Isn't it amazing how defense attorneys will just go on and on, clicketyclacking long after the game is up. mmmm....that sounds like King George....



Disiplinary committee finds Duke prosecutor broke ethics rules
The Associated PressPublished: June 16, 2007


RALEIGH, North Carolina: A North Carolina prosecutor broke several rules of professional conduct during his disastrous prosecution of three white Duke University lacrosse players falsely acussed of raping a black stripper, a disciplinary committee ruled Saturday.

The committee must now decide if the longtime prosecutor, who tearfully pledged Friday to resign his post as district attorney, should be stripped of his law license. That decision was expected later Saturday.

"My community has suffered enough," Nifong said Friday at his trial. [boo hoo]

State prosecutors would later conclude the three players innocent victims of a rogue prosecutor's "tragic rush to accuse."

The North Carolina State Bar alleged Nifong withheld DNA test results from the players' defense attorneys, lied to the court and bar investigators and made misleading and inflammatory comments about the three athletes who had been charged with raping a stripper at a team party in March 2006.

The committee, after deliberating for a little more than an hour, unanimously agreed with the bar on almost every charge, including the most serious allegations — that Nifong's actions involved "dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation."

Nifong's attorneys admitted Saturday that their client made "multiple, egregious mistakes." But they insisted none of his mistakes were made intentionally.

"It didn't click," Nifong's attorney, Dudley Witt, said as he tried to explain away one of Nifong's errors. "His mind is just his mind. That's the way it works. It just didn't click."

Bar prosecutor Douglas Brocker told the disciplinary committee that "Mr. Nifong did not act as a minister of justice, but as a minister of injustice."

Nifong on Friday said he wanted to own up to his mistakes, but that he did not make all the mistakes alleged by the bar. [li'l late for that, don't you think.]

"I will go to my grave being associated with this case. And that's OK," Nifong said.

Nifong said he regretted some of his statements, including a confident proclamation that he would not allow Durham to become known for "a bunch of lacrosse players from Duke raping a black girl."

The DNA tests found genetic material from several males in the accuser's underwear and body, but none from any lacrosse player. Aware of those results, Nifong pressed ahead with the case and won indictments against the players.

Bush and Condi's $60 Million in Arms to Fatah in Gaza Are Now in Hamas Hands

Clueless Condi and King Jorge insisted that the US give $60 millions in arms, vehicles and other millitary goods to Abbas to defend Abbas and Fatah in Gaza. That was in April of this year. Condi assured Congress that this arsenal would not fall into the hands of Hamas (..she wanted $89 million but was only 'confident' that $60 million would not fall into Hamas hands). Bush pushed for this and the appeasing Congress went along. Sound familiar? Bush is now telling lies about his shamnesty bill. Will America be fooled again by the Continentalists?


Condi and Georgie Give $60 Million To Hamas - Tammi Bruce

Just this past April, Condi and the geniuses in Congress thought it would be a grand idea to send $60 million dollars to terrorist group Fatah so the "president" of the so-called Palestinians could improve his security structure. That's now got to be the joke of the year. How long did it take Hamas to destroy Fatah and take over the entire Gaza Strip? 48 hours? I noted my disgust at this insane act by Congress back in April, with the post, Congress Funds Terrorists But Not Our Own Troops.

So, the geniuses in Washington decided that pouring $60 mil down the terror hole would make some sort of a difference. Well, it will now. Hamas will be able to kill more Jews than ever before. This is also another glaring indication of the absolute failure of any reliable international intelligence we have on anything going on in the Middle East. We approved and sent this money just two months prior to the complete route of Arafat's terrorist Fatah group by Iran's terrorist Hamas group. We had no clue, 8 weeks prior, that such a violent and complete takeover was being planned and would be implemented.

We can pretty much guess that millions in cash went into the pockets of various Fatah "officials" (including top terrorist Abbas) and the rest, a cash and weapons treasure-trove, is now securely in the hands of one of the world's most vicious terrorist death squads.

Great effing work Condi and Georgie! Great effing work.

....

What would Mohammed Do?

In response to my previous column at Malaysia Today, one Muslim left this comment:

“…if Muslims who followed Prophet Mohamed was [sic] in charge, anyone including theantijihadist would be unrestricted in raising their voice.”

So, if I understand this commenter correctly, in his views, the ideology founded by Mohammed, i.e. Islam, enshrines freedom. In particular, he alleges that Islam values and protects freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of skeptical enquiry and the freedom to question authority. The commenter, of course, does not provide any evidence or support to back up his claims.

However, it seems the Muslim who made this comment has views that are not universally accepted by Muslims.

Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed, an open supporter of Osama bin Laden and a preacher of armed jihad in the UK for many years, had this to say:

“…in Islam, God said, and the messenger Mohammed said, whoever insults the prophet, he must be punished and executed” (emphasis added) [1].

The British Jihadist group Al-Ghurabaa published a similar statement, referring to incidents in Mohammed’s life to justify its position:

At the time of the Messenger Mohammed (saw)[2] there were individuals like these who dishonoured and insulted him upon whom the Islamic judgment was executed. Such people were not tolerated in the past and throughout the history of Islam were dealt with according to the Shariah (Islamic law). Shortly after these incidents the people began to realize that insulting the Messenger of Allah (saw) was not something to be taken lightly and doing so could get you killed, a concept that many seem to have forgotten today. [3]

Al-Ghurabaa is quite specific about Mohammed’s example:

Ka’ab ibn Ashraf was assassinated by Muhammed ibn Maslamah for harming the Messenger Muhammed (saw) by his words, Abu Raafi’ was killed by Abu Ateeq as the Messenger ordered in the most evil of ways for swearing at the prophet, Khalid bin Sufyaan was killed by Abdullah bin Anees who cut off his head and brought it to the prophet for harming the Messenger Muhammed (saw) by his insults, Al-Asmaa bintu Marwaan was killed by Umayr bin Adi’ al-Khatmi, a blind man, for writing poetry against the prophet and insulting him in it, Al-Aswad al-Ansiwas killed by Fairuz al-Daylami and his family for insulting the Messenger Muhammed (saw) and claiming to be a prophet himself. This is the judgment of Islam upon those who violate, dishonour and insult the Messenger Muhammed (saw). [3]

When Mohammed entered Mecca as conqueror in A.D. 630, he also had Abdullah bin Khatal executed, whose crime was apostasy; al-Huwayrith bin Muqaydh, who had insulted Mohammed, and some others. [4]

Simply put, the claims that Mohammed was a man who valued, or practiced freedom, are not in accord with the facts of Mohammed’s life.

1. “Cleric calls on Mohammed cartoonist to be executed,” The Telegraph, Feb 6 2006
2. ‘Saw’ stands for “Salla Allahu aalayhi Wasallam,” which translates as “May the blessing and the peace of Allah be upon him.”
3. “Kill those who insult the Prophet Mohammed (saw),” Al-Ghurabaa, http://www.alghurabaa.co.uk/articles/cartoon.htm
4. Muhammed Ibn Ishaq, “Sirat Rasul Allah” 550-551

Burn The Radios! Trent Lott

From FreeRepublic comments Click on image to enlarge.-

Islamic Fascism

Mark Alexander

Jorge Bush - The New Hoover

William Gheen at ALIPAC wrote an incredibly incisive article about King Jorge Bush today. It is a must read. We will fight them in the Senate, and if we cannot defeat the Continentalists there, we will fight and destroy their evil child in the House. We will not fail. This abomination will be stopped.


Exclusive: The Great Illegal Immigration Depression. Bush is Hoover!
Posted on Thursday, June 14 @ 17:03:13 CDT
Topic: George Bush President immigrants
The Great Illegal Immigration Depression. Bush is Hoover!
June 14, 2007

by William Gheen
President, Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC)
www.alipac.us

It is my belief that America's illegal immigration crisis is happening because large corporations have used their influence on the Bush administration to open our borders and practically suspend the existing immigration laws of the United States.

It leaves one to wonder what other regulatory laws designed for the protection of American citizens Bush has decided not to enforce. Could this same deprivation of self-governance be a factor in the high gas prices and the toxins being imported in our food?

By unilaterally choosing to suspend, under-enforce, or pretend to enforce our existing immigration laws, President Bush is in violation of his oath of office and the US Constitution.

In fact, when the President does not enforce the popularly-supported laws that exist, every Congressional election has been nullified and every American’s vote has been rendered meaningless. This country’s illegal immigration crisis is the sign of a deeper constitutional crisis that goes to the very heart of our nation!

That is why so many Americans are calling the president "King George," and that is why the words "traitor," "treason," "impeach," and "resign" are flowing freely on the web and talk radio. These expressions show the deep sense of betrayal that Americans of all races, genders, and political persuasions feel at this moment in history.

Illegal aliens are being used as a lever in an attempt to force all Americans into a way of life and a ruled subservience to corporate powers. We are being told we must accept this because the illegals are “here and not going anywhere.” The examples of this corporate-sponsored and corporate-facilitated invasion make the news regularly, and they are violations of federal law.

For those Americans who actually made the mistake of voting for George W. Bush – myself included – we miss the days of the Lewinsky scandal. How nice it would be to return to something as harmless as that. This crisis makes many of us long for the days of Richard Nixon's resignation. Bush’s resignation would be greeted with loud applause and cheers from the American public. In fact, we would all prefer to be talking about a break-in versus the mass invasion of America by corporate-sponsored illegal aliens who are coming by the millions!



Before this is all done, President Bush will go down as either the most despised president in the history of the United States or as one of the last presidents of the United States!

His polling numbers are racing to the bottom, joining Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid, who has reached levels of 19% or less. He is also joining Sen. John McCain, who has plummeted to the back of the GOP pack in the presidential contest. Numbers for Congress are falling like a stone as the conspirators and traitors in Washington push for the final measures of their "SPP," "North American Union," "North American Community," or whatever you want to call this plan.

Should the American Republic survive this assault – and we all hope and pray it will – our citizens will have to look through history to find a president as unpopular as Bush is becoming. We will have to look to the days of President Herbert Hoover because our illegal immigration crisis is the largest corporate and presidential scandal in American history!

This is no surprise to me.

History repeats itself, and the actual study of how history repeats itself is called phylogeny.

I believe that for history to repeat itself, those who are living and remember the horrible mistakes of the past must depart this world. The living memory and living history must pass.

And that is the situation today with those who were alive and old enough to remember the Great Depression, the things that caused it, and what was done to prevent another from ever happening.

When the Republicans came to power in 1994, they worked behind the scenes to dismantle many of the economic regulatory laws that were put in place to prevent another Great Depression in America.

It all started when the federal government had to shut down in the spring of 1996 during the budget impasse between President Bill Clinton and the Republican Congress and Senate. I remember how the stock market took off for the sky!

For the next five years, the stock market ballooned much faster than our real economic growth because the global corporations knew they could get almost anything they wanted from the federal government and ignore many of the Federal laws because the government would either not enforce them or rewrite them to suit the corporate elite!

Does this sound familiar? It should, because this is exactly what the supporters of Scamnesty Bill S. 1348 are doing today. They are not enforcing existing laws and rewriting them to please Global corporate elites! These corporations are no longer happy with the de facto amnesty, open borders, SPP, and North American Community provided by President Bush.

The Big Money is unhappy because over 35 states have passed laws to crack down on illegals and hundreds of cities and towns are moving to protect our communities by doing the same. The big corporations need S. 1348 to try and stamp out the political revolt on the local level.

Americans are in a state of political revolt against the sellouts in Washington and the US Chamber of Commerce that are trying to force a continental economic union upon the unwilling American electorate!

These big corporations as well as many smaller companies are addicted to illegal immigration because of the increased consumerism and cheaper labor the illegals bring to them. To hear them cry about immigration enforcement, they speak as if their companies would die and the crops would rot in the fields without the illegals.

These companies sound like alcoholics, drug addicts, and smokers trying to quit. They will not perish without illegal immigration, but there will be pain. That pain is preferable to the death of this nation, and that will be the end result if we do not stop their evil plans for us all!

By 2000, the economic reading in America reached a level not found since the 1920s just prior to the stock market collapse of 1929. The Q-Value of the markets (real worth vs. trading prices) was more out of balance than at anytime in American history except for the late 1920s. The economic correction heading toward America due to these economic excesses was blamed on the 9/11 attacks, when in fact we were overdue for “The Big One”.

Even Former US Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has confirmed my theory by stating that without illegal immigration, America would be in the midst of another Great Depression!

I believe that corporate America and their puppets in Washington have been intentionally opening the borders and under-enforcing our existing immigration laws to try to prevent the full collapse of the American economy, which is due to their actions.

By hyper-inflating consumer and labor markets, they are propping up the banks, the housing market, and many other industries.

While this may seem like a great short-term fix for the economy and the corporations, it is against the law, against the US Constitution, and against the will of the vast majority of America's legal citizens. They are importing millions of people that do not like America!

President Bush occupies the same place in the repeats of history as President Hoover, however we have a boogeyman to blame for the economic failures instead of the politicians and corporate elites in America.

Just like President Hoover, Bush is going to blast the GOP back to the place they were in during the 1930s.

When Bush was elected in 2000, this was the first time since the late 1920s that the Republicans controlled the Presidency, Congress, and the Senate.

There is a reason for this. People blamed the Republicans for what happened in the 1930s just like American citizens are rightfully blaming President Bush and his top Republican allies in the Senate for illegal immigration.

The Democrats dominated American politics for the next 50 years in what was called the “FDR Coalition”!

The problem today is that American citizens have no arms to run to with the Democrats. The Democrats have abandoned their progressive economic messages of the past. They no longer stand up for the American worker, a progressive tax structure, or the little guys and gals in America. Democrats are too focused on gender, sexual orientation, and race issues while abandoning their populist economic policies of the past!

President Franklin D. Roosevelt deported a huge amount of illegal aliens from America who had come in during the 1920s, just like we have today. Does anyone think that Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama will crack down on illegal immigration like President Roosevelt or President Dwight Eisenhower?

The answer to that question is a resounding NO!

So where are Americans to go now that the Democrats as a party are not a viable solution and the upper echelons of both parties are bought off by big business?

The pressure is growing and we must all find a place for that pressure to go because we are at a very dangerous time in American history, which resembles the Great Depression.

We could call it the Illegal Immigration Great Depression, and George Bush could be President Hoover II.

Top Ten Reasons The SHAMNESTY BILL MUST DIE

The Ten Reasons:

10. Awards Amnesty -- Offers amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants.

9. A Favor to Mexico's Government -- Amnesty deal follows the U.S.-Mexico Social Security Totalization Agreement.

8. Cuts Border Security in Half -- Last Congress, we promised the American people 700 miles of fence and today only two miles of that fence have been constructed. What's even more troubling is that this new amnesty sellout is going to cut that border security promise in half to less than 400 miles of fence.

7. That's Trillion with a "T" -- Heritage Foundation President Robert Rector estimates the total cost of the bill to be in the TRILLIONS of dollars.

6. No Assimilation Required -- There is no requirement that illegal immigrants know a word of English to get amnesty.

5. Fails to Address Anchor Babies -- For a so-called 'comprehensive' fix, this legislation fails to address the major problem of illegal immigrants crossing our borders to have children that become automatic U.S. citizens.

4. Amnesty for Absconders and Gang Members -- Bill gives amnesty to dangerous criminals and repeat offenders

3. Invites Fraud -- Z Visas Invite Document Fraud and Create a False Sense of Security

2. Reduces Job Opportunities for Working Class Americans

1. The LARGEST Single Increase in the Government Welfare State in American History -- Illegal immigrants will get Social Security numbers, which will in turn permit them to use entitlement programs available to law-abiding Americans.

http://www.floridatoday.com/blogs/brevardwatchlist/2007/06/feeneys-terrible-top-ten-on-immigration.html

The Bush White House Now Considers Talk Radio Its Enemy

And now we come full circle. The White House continued its attack against talk radio this weekend. Does the White House not seen the bitter irony of their traitorous action? The one media that consistently protected him, defended him, helped put Bush IN the White House is now their enemy. On Tuesday, the Republican Senators must choose. Do they give into Bush and agree to limited and token amendments to this amnesty abomination and assure the destruction of the Republican Party and America, or do they tell him there will be no immigration bill. It will be decided by the next adminstration. Do they dare tell him? Do they believe they are 'conservatives' or are they globablists just like Bush?

Calling a Spade a Spade

My latest Malaysia Today column. Apologies for the length:

From the Anti Jihadist--Calling a Spade a Spade

In one of my past columns at Malaysia Today, I quoted one Ghazi al-Qusaibi, a former Saudi ambassador to London, and who is now a senior minister in the Saudi government. If you recall, he said:

“…flogging, stoning, and amputations are, in Muslim eyes, the core of the Islamic faith.”

Of course, as frequent Malaysia Today writer Mr. Farouk Peru would have it, this minister’s opinion on his own religion is simply the mad, misguided ravings of a lone nut case. Certainly, says Mr. Farouk, how could Mr. al-Qusaibi ever get such quaint, misguided ideas about Islam?

Very well then. Let’s consult the opinions of other well-known and respected authorities in Islam, and see what they have to say about their own religion.

Let’s start with Ayatollah Khomeini, revered and beloved by millions of Muslims.

“We are at war against infidels. Take this message with you. ‘I ask all Islamic nations, all Muslims, all Islamic armies, and all heads of Islamic states to join the Holy War. There are many enemies to be killed or destroyed. Jihad must triumph… Muslims have no alternative… to an armed Holy War against profane governments… Holy War means the conquest of all non-Muslim territories. It will be the duty of every able-bodied adult male to volunteer for this war of conquest, the final aim of which is to put Quranic law in power from one end of the earth to the other.’”

Khomeini, if you remember, was the supreme leader of Islamic Republic of Iran from 1979 until his death in 1989. This is the country where ‘Death to America’ is not just a catchy slogan, it’s official policy. And how many times has the OIC, the Arab League, or any other Muslim organization censured Iran for their decidedly ‘extremist’ positions and rhetoric? Zip, zero, zilch, nada. Quite the opposite, actually.

Now consider this quote from the Saudi ruling family’s favorite imam, al Buraik. He’s a prominent Muslim cleric who, among other things, helps to raise money for the families of terrorists. Prior to a recent telethon hosted to enrich the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, this esteemed cleric said:

“I am against America. She is the root of all evils and wickedness on earth. Muslims, don't take Jews and Christians as allies. Muslim brothers in Palestine, do not have any mercy or compassion on them, their blood, their money, or their flesh. Their women are yours to take, legitimately. Allah made them yours. Why don't you enslave their women? Why don't you wage jihad? Why don't you pillage them?”

This distilled hatred was spewed by a senior licensed cleric in Saudi Arabia, the home of the Two Holy Mosques. Do you think he’s misunderstanding his holy book, his religion as well?

And then there’s Dr. Ahmad Bahar, the acting Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council, who had this to say earlier this year on official Palestinian TV:

“… our people was afflicted by the cancerous lump, that is the Jews, in the heart of the Arab nation… Be certain that America is on its way to disappear, America is wallowing [in blood] today in Iraq and Afghanistan, America is defeated and Israel is defeated, and was defeated in Lebanon and Palestine… Make us victorious over the infidel people… Allah, take hold of the Jews and their allies, Allah, take hold of the Americans and their allies… Allah, count them and kill them to the last one and don’t leave even one.”

Let’s hear from Dr. Ahmad Abu Halabiya, Rector of Advanced Studies at the Islamic University in Gaza and a member of the Sharia Rulings Council. Surely this man, so educated in the ways of the Quran and Islam, would agree with Mr. Farouk, yes? In an official televised sermon in October 2000, Dr. Halabiya said:

“The Jews are Jews, whether Labor or Likud, the Jews are Jews… They do not have any moderates or any advocates of peace… They are all liars… They must be butchered and must be killed… The Jews are like a spring as long as you step on it with your foot… it doesn’t move but if you lift your foot from the spring, it hurts you and punishes you.”

So, I ask you, have *all* of these well-known and learned Islamic scholars, leaders, and clerics somehow misinterpreted their own religion, Islam? Have they all somehow tragically misunderstood the teachings of their purported holy book and prophet? Mr. Farouk would certainly like you to think so.

Are there any Muslim leaders, or organizations, anywhere, that are willing to go on the record to condemn these statements or confront the barbarous, retrograde and primitive ideology behind these statements? Is there any organized Muslim opposition to armed jihad?

MR. FAROUK: I hereby, clearly and unequivocally condemn all acts of terrorism by Muslims… I even go further to say that, Quranically, these people are not muslims (sic).

Yes, there are *so many* misunderstanding Muslims out there. And not just the average “Mohammeds” in the streets of Gaza, Cairo, or Karachi, but learned and powerful Muslim leaders too. What would happen if Mr. Farouk went to his Palestinian brothers and tried explaining to them that their lust to kill Jews and other sundry infidels is “against the Quran”? Do you think the Palestinians would suddenly ‘see the light’ and change their minds about armed jihad? Regardless, I’m not expecting Mr. Farouk to jump on a plane to go enlighten his wayward Muslim brothers in the Middle East anytime soon.

Strangely enough, Mr. Farouk has found ample time in his writing here at Malaysia Today to criticize, in his words, the ‘Bush Regime’ (the use of that word, ‘regime’, tips his hand as to where his real sympathies lie) and other foreign policy decisions of the US that he disagrees with (i.e. Iraq). But there’ve still been no words from him at all against any terrorists by name—i.e. Bin Laden and his ilk. None! And 9-11 happened almost six years ago.

So, Mr. Farouk, are you only NOW going to finally get around to condemning specific Muslim terrorists and terror groups? Do you mean to tell me (and the readers) that you, with all your education and study and debating others with similar viewpoints to mine, that the idea of you publicly condemning specific ‘misguided’ Muslims never, ever occurred to you before now? Not even once? Well, no need to rush to do it now on my account!

Why is Mr. Farouk so quick to criticize, nay, insult questioning sceptical infidels (i.e. yours truly), or infidel leaders, but only reluctantly promises to condemn his murderous Islamic brethren by name? Well, once you yourself have confronted the uncomfortable and unpleasant truth about Islam, you’ll stop wondering.

I say Mr. Farouk should put his money where his mouth is. After all, talk is cheap! Here’s an idea for Mr. Farouk. The next time an apostate risks appearing in one of Malaysia’s civil courts--or worse yet, one of the Shariah courts--to beg for permission to be recognized as a non-Muslim, Mr. Farouk should show up at the trial himself to speak on behalf of the apostate’s rights. Or better yet, he should do not only that, but also contribute generously to help pay for the apostate’s legal costs, all openly and publicly. Of course, Mr. Farouk and his pals somehow missed the chance to do this with Lina Joy during her *seven year* legal battle… but rest assured, other apostate cases are already wending their ways through Malaysia’s convoluted legal system. So fear not, Mr. Farouk, there will be other opportunities for you to tangibly demonstrate your bona fides. Actions, as we all know, speak louder than words.

MR. FAROUK: What we should wonder is why this SEEMS SO to you. The day after 9/11, there was a rally for ‘peace and justice’ by Muslims in the town where I work. The day after 7/7, there was a protest by a local mosque near where I live… I actually witness Muslim anger at terrorism.

A rally for “peace and justice”? Is this the best you can do? Is this supposed to be how Muslims demonstrate against Islamic terrorism, against armed jihad? Unlike the low-key Muslim ‘anger at terrorism’ (assuming it’s genuine) I clearly recall the many well-publicized and well-attended Muslim demonstrations against whatever mischief the evil infidels were supposedly up to--the American intervention in Iraq, for instance. And we cannot forget the worldwide rage Muslims everywhere rapidly mobilized against the Motoons, Abu Ghraib, the alleged Quran flushings, etc. etc.

But perhaps Mr. Farouk is right, and that there really is Muslim anger at ‘terrorism’. The better question to ask here is how do Muslims define ‘terrorism’?

For a clue to the answer to this question, let’s examine the record of the “Perdana Global Peace Organisation”, a Malaysian-Muslim-leftist ‘anti-war’ group that enjoys favorable publicity and quasi-official backing from the Malaysian authorities. Perdana has had lots of things to say about Western leaders like Bush, Blair, and Howard—calling them ‘war criminals’ and worse. Well, fair enough, I cannot deny them the right to say these things. So, have the Perdana folks condemned anything done by Bin Laden, Mullah Omar, or Ahmadinejad? Bin Laden’s deliberate targeting and mass murder of civilians? The Taliban’s deliberate destruction of schools and use of civilian shields? Ahmadinejad’s repeated calls for genocide? In response to these heinous acts, Perdana has only silence… not uttering one word against them, not even one perfunctory public statement. But don’t take my word for it…go to their website and look for yourself.

In fact, Perdana has a curious one-way slant to their ‘anti-war views’. If Muslims commit an atrocity (i.e. terrorism, persecution of the kuffir, armed jihad, etc.), Perdana not only doesn’t talk about it, it’s completely off their moral radar. Some nearly 10,000 Muslim terrorist attacks in the past six years (by one estimate), and this doesn’t worry Perdana in the slightest! As far as they’re concerned, it seems that Muslims can do no wrong…and even when they do, it’s the infidels’ fault. And it’s not just Perdana that has these myopic views, but many other ‘anti-war’ or so-called ‘peace’ groups as well. ‘Terrorism’, according to these people, is an exclusively infidel activity.

Now, Mr. Farouk refers to the Muslim quest for ‘peace’. So, naturally, one wonders what the Islamic notion of ‘peace’ may be. To shed some light on this, I will quote the following from an anonymous writer, a long-time resident of the Islamic world who (wisely) wishes to remain anonymous:

After much research and thought, I have come to understand the Islamic concept of peace as something like this:

Peace comes through submission (Islam). This submission, of course, is submission to Muhammad and his concept of Allah in the Quran, in other words, Islam.

Theoretically, peace exists inside Dar ul-Islam, the House of Submission. I say theoretically, because we all know that Muslims, even though they are not supposed to, do fight fellow Muslims… recent examples are the civil war in Afghanistan between the Pushtuns on one side and the Northern Alliance (Uzbeks, Tajiks, etc.) on the other… the Iraqi attack on Iran, the Iraqi attack on Kuwait, the West Pakistani attack on East Pakistan which subsequently became Bangladesh, the Yemeni Civil War with Egypt and Saudi Arabia interfering, the civil war in Algeria, the war between Morocco and Algeria over the Saharan Republic, etc.
…
To say that Islam is a religion of peace is not true. Islam is committed to war by both the example of Muhammad who fought on until he subdued Mecca and then other tribes, and by the Quranic teaching itself, plus numerous references in the Hadith.

The Quran, by the way, teaches that Muslims are never to initiate war. But Islam has a strange way of explaining this. For example, Muslims are supposed to offer non-Muslims an opportunity to embrace Islam. If the non-Muslims refuse, the Muslim thinking is that they have committed aggression against Allah and Islam. Therefore, the Muslim is allowed to fight these aggressors against Allah and Islam until they become Muslims or are killed.

Perhaps the greatest proof that Islam is not a religion of peace is the interpretation of Quran 4:89 that says if anyone wants to leave Islam (turns renegade) he is to be put to death. This makes it the religion of fear, not peace.

There will be war in the world as long as people believe in Muhammad, his example and his teaching.The Islamic concept of peace, meaning making the whole world Muslim, is actually a mandate for war.

Now that we all have a better idea what the Islamic notion of ‘peace’ is, is that really peace? Is that the kind of peace you want for yourself, or for your family?

MR. FAROUK: Why do you then keep saying Islam and Muslims without mentioning these exceptions to that opinion? Isn’t that like saying ‘all members of a race are so and so’ without mentioning exceptions?

Islamic apologists like Mr. Farouk frequently point out that Islam is not a monolith and that there are differences of opinion. That is true, but, while there are differences, there are also common elements. Just as Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant Christians differ on many aspects of Christianity, still they accept important common elements. So it is with Islam. One of the common elements to all Islamic schools of thought is jihad, understood as the obligation of the Ummah to conquer and subdue the world in the name of Allah and rule it under Sharia law. The four Sunni Madhhabs (schools of fiqh [Islamic religious jurisprudence]) -- Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, and Hanbali -- all agree that there is a collective obligation on Muslims to make war on the rest of the world. Furthermore, even the schools of thought outside Sunni orthodoxy, including Sufism and the Jafari (Shia) school, agree on the necessity of jihad. When it comes to matters of jihad, the different schools disagree on such questions as whether infidels must first be asked to convert to Islam before hostilities may begin (Osama bin Laden asked America to convert before Al Qaeda’s attacks); how plunder should be distributed among victorious jihadists; whether a long-term Fabian strategy against Dar al-Harb is preferable to an all-out frontal attack, and so on.

MR. FAROUK: …‘al-kaafiroon’… refers to people who create mischief in the land… These individuals are not people do not call themselves Muslims but rather criminals, troublemakers etc.
What exactly is the meaning of ‘mischief’ and who, to Muslims, are ‘troublemakers’ or ‘criminals’ exactly? This is left unsaid. So, let us look at the Islamic world today, and see what sort of acts that Muslim countries have deemed illegal. What sort of ‘mischief’ do Muslim countries consider a crime? What sort of ‘troublemakers’ do Muslims fight?

In Malaysia, it’s illegal for non-Muslims to proselytize to Muslims. In Iran, it’s unlawful for non Muslims to hold most positions in government. In Pakistan, blasphemy against the Quran is a capital crime. In Egypt, the government has essentially banned all repairs on churches. The mere holding of a passport issued in Israel is enough to be banned from entering most Muslim countries. In Saudi Arabia, Christianity is forbidden. Even trying to take a Bible into the Saudi kingdom is a crime. In Turkey, converts from Islam to other faiths face up to three years in jail. Algeria punishes proselytizing to Muslims with fines of US$7,000 to $14,000, and prison terms of two to five years.

Then there’s Sudan. Sudan’s Islamic government engages in ruthless oppression of Christians and animists, the widespread destruction of hundreds of churches, the forced conversions of Christians to Islam, placing non Muslims in concentration camps, the systematic rape of women, enslavement of children, torture of priests and clerics, burning alive of pastors and catechists, and the crucifixion and mutilation of priests. The governing Sudanese jihadists are so systematically brutal, that they make their Sunni terrorist brethren in Iraq look like mere amateurs.

How many Muslims have even known about these atrocities, these miscarriages of justice, let alone protested them? Why are no Muslims objecting to any of this? When is the next scheduled protest going to be held at the embassies of any of the above mentioned offending countries? Funny how Muslims in Malaysia keep going to the same embassies on Fridays to protest one thing or another—but their destination is almost always the American one, the Australian one, or the British one. You think Mr. Farouk would be able to scrape together at least a few friends to go stand outside (for example) the Saudi embassy on Jalan Ampang to protest that country’s barbarism in the name of his religion. But alas, Mr. Farouk, or any other Muslims, can never seem to get around to doing it, for one excuse or another.

So, isn’t it obvious who Muslims collectively consider the real ‘troublemakers’ and ‘criminals’ to be?

MR. FAROUK: It is sad that from your little hole, you only spout what the hate-mongers tell you.

If there’s one piece of evidence in this whole exchange that I find particularly damning, it’s Mr. Farouk himself. Mr. Farouk’s whole attitude in his columns against me can only be summed up as patronizing, arrogant, and defensive. He has labeled me personally, and repeatedly, ‘a racist’, ‘a hatemonger’, ‘a fascist’, and so on, and has insinuated less than charitable things about my intelligence. You might think, since Islam is supposedly tolerant and peaceful, that Mr. Farouk would welcome any and all such questions such as mine, that he would relish the opportunity to prove his benevolence and the goodwill of his faith. Instead, there is an unmistakable whiff of condescension about Mr. Farouk in his dealings with me. Can you imagine a senior religious leader of, say, the Catholic Church acting like Mr. Farouk? Can any of you visualize (for instance) the Pope viciously calling someone a ‘racist, fascist, hatemonger’ etc. etc. because that person did not agree with Catholicism or Christianity? The very idea is laughable. A Christian, when confronted with such a person who disagrees with them, will most likely say something to the effect of, “I’ll pray for you,” and leave it at that.

But Muslims get away with Mr. Farouk’s kind of name-calling and ad hominem attacks, time and time again. Not only do they get away with it, but when Muslims act like Mr. Farouk does, they are proclaimed to be ‘moderate’ and ‘peace-loving’. I think not!

At least I’m one ‘najis kufir’ who is willing to call a spade a spade.

Traitor Mel Speaks

Bush Must `Get to Work' on Immigration, Martinez Says (Update1)

By James Rowley (Bloomberg)

June 8 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush must ``roll his sleeves up and get to work'' to revive stalled immigration- overhaul legislation that is a centerpiece of his domestic agenda, said Florida Senator Mel Martinez, a leading Republican sponsor of the plan. [Yeah, el Bushe has LOTS of goodwill with the Republicans after 6 years of fiascos and liberalism.]

....

Martinez, who also serves as the party's chairman [ When can we get rid of this clown? Bush appointed him! But we need him out of the RNC chairmanship NOW.], said he was optimistic the Senate would eventually enact the legislation because there is ``great determination'' by its bipartisan supporters ``not to just let the moment pass, but to insist that we get this done.'' [It's like a goddamn vampire with its sychophants gathereed around it, trying to breathe life into it again.]

Bush drew criticism from Democrats for failing to show political leadership on the issue and from some Republicans for attacking the measure's opponents as fear-mongers. While defending Bush's efforts, Martinez said the president needed to do more to make immigration overhaul a legacy of his presidency.

``No doubt that he needs to roll his sleeves up and get to work with us,'' Martinez, 60, said on Bloomberg Television's ``Political Capital with Al Hunt.'' Success ``now requires close monitoring and everyday contact'' to rescue the measure, Martinez said. ``I think that's what we need for him to do, contact members and be involved.''

Candidates

Martinez also criticized Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Rudolph Giuliani for assailing the Senate legislation without saying ```here is how I will solve the problem.'' Such leadership on immigration by Republican candidates is necessary if the party hopes to win the presidency next year, Martinez said. [ Can you believe this crap? Romney and Guiliani are stronger by being AGAINST this madness, but Traitor Mel can't see that at all. ]

``On this issue they are falling short,'' he said. ``They're wrong in just criticizing'' and ``need to stake the step beyond'' by ``offering a solution.''

If Bush can't persuade enough Republicans in Congress to allow enactment of immigration overhaul, the party will pay a political price, including losing the White House in next year's presidential election, he said. [ Let me get this right. Because Bungler Bush, Globalist Bush, Liberalist Bush has destroyed the Republican Party and alienated everyone who voted for him, it's the Party's fault?]

``I worry about that a lot,'' Martinez said. ``We paid a political price in the last election cycle. If we get the same type of Hispanic support in the next election cycle than we did in the last, there's no way we could elect a Republican president'' in 2008. [Like 40 millian new Mexican citizens are going to save the Republican Party as they are going to love the Republicans for giving them legalization. This man is clueless. An agent of Republican destruction planted deep witin the party. ]

Open Party

Republicans should follow Bush's lead on immigration because it's ``very important that our party be viewed as a party with an open sort of attitude to people of all races and colors,'' said Martinez, himself an immigrant from Cuba.

Martinez also faulted Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid for trying to limit debate on the legislation before Republican opponents had a chance to try to change the measure by amendment. Reid pulled the legislation after he failed to get the 60 votes needed to conclude debate.

``Reid rushed the system, rushed the process,'' Martinez said. There was ``no reason'' for the Democratic leader ``to pull the bill down,'' he said.

There was no urgency, particularly because ``when we go back into the Senate'' on June 11 ``we're going to go to a censure of Al Gonzales,'' Martinez said, referring to Reid's plans to start debate on a resolution of ``no confidence'' in Bush's embattled attorney general. [Deos it not strike Traitor Mel funny that his ally in creating Bush's "LEGACY" wants to hurry on and destroy Bush's Administration? No? No irony Traitor Mel? ]
G-8 Summit

Bush's trip to the Group of Eight summit in Germany this week made it harder for administration officials to marshal support for the immigration measure, Martinez said.

``Undoubtedly, his help here in the last few days would have been very helpful,'' Martinez said. ``But I think he will reengage next week.'' [Only 18 more months of miserable reengagement. ]

Bush called three Republican senators today about the immigration bill while flying on Air Force One from Gdansk, Poland to Rome. Senators Jon Kyl of Arizona, Trent Lott of Mississippi and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky ``expressed optimism'' that the debate would continue and the measure would pass, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said. [ Kyl and Lott are traitors too, McConnell reads the tealeaves much better, but Kyl and Lott just don't get it. ]

Republicans don't deserve all the blame for obstructing the legislation ``because a lot of Democrats took their shot at this issue during the past week's debate as well,'' Martinez said. ``It's a bipartisan failure.'' [It's a failure of this Bush Administration and RINOs like you for betraying the Republican Party.]

The vote to end the protracted debate failed 50 to 45; it required 60 votes to pass, or 15 more than it received. Democrats voted 38 to 11 for cutting off debate, while only seven Republicans, including Martinez, voted to proceed with the bill and 38 opposed it. THE SEVEN TRAITORS TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY ARE Traitor Mel (R-FL), Lindsay Gramnesty (R- SC), Lugee Lugar (R-IN), Rat Hagel (R-NE), Lame McCain (R-AZ), Loser Spectre (R-MI) and Loser Voinovich (R-OH).

To contact the reporter on this story: James Rowley in Washington at jarowley@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: June 8, 2007 17:29 EDT

Shamnesty Stabbed But Not Dead Yet

Today America was saved from the disgraceful Bush/McCain - Kennedy/Kyl/Graham 'Destroy America' amnesty bill. It can still raise its evil head but the momentum and alliance is shattered. Praise be to America and its citizens who care. As the MSM whines about the 'tragedy', Americans can breathe a sigh of relief. The war to save America is not over, but hopefully the committed globablist Jorge Bush is. He is truly a lame duck.

The internet had a lot to do with defeating this bill. It is power to the people. The NY Times has failed. It is not America's guiding light although they continue to pretend. The internet compresses time. This bill was destroyed in 2 weeks because the internet let the truth be heard and seen. It was transforming. Ironically, here is today's Friday, June 8th TIME front cover. Oh, the irony, the irrelevance.

When Butchery Masquerades as a Religion

My latest Malaysia Today column:

From the Anti-Jihadist—When Butchery Masquerades as a Religion

My antagonist Mr. Farouk says he opposes terrorism. He even says he opposes Islamic terrorism. Well and good Mr. Farouk. Now, are you willing to show your true bona fides and condemn Islamic terrorists specifically by name? Here at Malaysia Today or anywhere else?

What, you don’t remember any of the names? Let me help you with that. Here is just a short list of a few of the names of some active Islamic terror groups:

-Hamas
-Al Qaeda
-Kumpulan Mujahidin Malaysia
-Moro Islamic Liberation Front
-Hezbollah
-Abu Sayyaf
-Al-Aqsa Martyr’s Brigade
-Ansar al-Islam

This is but a small sampling. The US State Department presently lists a total of 29 Muslim/Islamic/Islamist terrorist groups. And new ones are being founded all the time, like that newly emerged group that’s causing all sorts of troubles right now in Lebanon.

So Mr. Farouk, you won’t condemn Islamic terror groups by name? OK, how about some specific individual Muslim terrorists by name? Oh, you need some help with that? Alright, here’s a short excerpt from the American FBI’s current list of wanted terrorists:

-Osama bin Laden (instigator of 9-11, numerous other attacks, thousands killed)
-Adam Yahiye Gadahn (American, indicted for treason)
-Abdelkarim Hussein Mohamed Al-Nasser (Khobar Towers bombing, 1996, 20 dead)
-Fazul Abdullah Mohammed (US embassy bombings, 1998, 225 dead)
-Ahmed Mohammed Hamed Ali (US embassy bombings, 1998, 225 dead)
-Fahid Mohammed Ally Msalam (US embassy bombings, 1998, 225 dead)
-Jaber A. Elbaneh (providing aid and support to terrorists)
-Ali Saed Bin Ali El-Hoorie (Khobar Towers bombing, 1996, 20 dead)

Interesting how so many of these thugs and mass murderers seem to have the same one recurring name, isn’t it?

As of the time of writing, you won’t find a single mention of any name, either of terrorist groups or terrorist individuals, anywhere on Mr. Farouk’s website (www.jidal.org). Now, why is that, Mr. Farouk? Since you can compose a column in response to me in less than 24 hours, and make numerous comments too, you obviously have the time. So, why do you refuse to specifically condemn groups and individuals who are supposedly defaming your religion?

It’s very telling that not even a few hundred Muslims are willing to protest en masse the ongoing bloodbath committed, by their co-religionists, all around the world, in the name of their faith. There have been no Muslim mass protests against any acts of Jihadist terrorism, anywhere in the world. Not even once. Does anyone ever wonder why this is?

Now, Mr. Farouk has asked me for some answers to his questions.

FAROUK: (1) Do you acknowledge the existence of divergent opinions in Islam? If so, can you please tell us why you refuse to mention these scholars who REJECT the apostasy law?

Islam, to say the least, is not known for its encouragement of dissent or different opinions. That’s why the media is state controlled throughout the Islamic world…and this includes Malaysia, as any media outlet in Malaysia that runs afoul of the (Muslim) authorities can quickly have its license to operate suspended or revoked. This was shown in the ‘Motoon’ brouhaha in 2006, when a newspaper in east Malaysia that published one of the cartoons (The Sarawak Tribune) was forced to shut down permanently. The government suspended three other media licenses as well in 2006.

As I said before in my last column, the majority of Islamic scholars have always agreed that apostasy is a capital offense. This means scholars who don’t want to kill apostates out of hand (which apparently includes Mr. Farouk) have always been in the minority. Because of “Prophet” Mohammed’s example, this state of affairs isn’t likely to change anytime soon. If ever. After all, when it comes to the quixotic task of ‘reforming’ Islam, the smart money isn’t on the reformers.

Even if one says that apostates should not be executed, this is hardly the same as saying that Muslims should be free to leave Islam, or that apostates should not be persecuted. If there are any Muslim-majority countries where ex-Muslims are free to openly follow faiths other than Islam (or no faith), without threat, fear, or harassment, I haven’t heard of it. Even in the West, apostates from Islam are not completely safe from Islamic retaliation.

So, having covered the issue of apostasy, one wonders if there are any ‘divergent opinions’ in Dar al Islam on these other salient topics and questions:
-The need to uphold and spread Sharia law throughout the world
-How can the barbarous act of stoning adulterous women be justified? Why are adulterous men not stoned?
-Must the Islamic punishment for homosexuality be death?
-Why must Muslims be afraid of other faiths that may proselytize to Muslims?
-Are armed jihad attacks ever called for against infidels? If yes, who decides?
-Is more “Islam” ever the solution to any problem? When has this ever worked?
-Is virtue enforced a virtue worth having?

FAROUK: (2) Do you acknowledge that the Quran has a provision for people who inherit God’s revelation but no uphold it? If so, why do you continue to associate Quranic teachings with the acts of Muslims?

I suppose the answer to this depends on what one’s idea of a ‘revelation’ is. In my humble opinion, ‘Allah’ is but the imaginary friend of a 7th century Arab paedophile, which means the Quran has nothing to do with God (assuming there is one in the first place). Mohammed’s vile behavior as a warlord, brigand, thief, and terrorist completely discredits him in the eyes of many, and without him, there is no Quran and no Islam. This renders this whole nonsensical question moot. Nevertheless, I continue to hold that Muslims act as they do not in spite of the Quran, but because of it. In my view, greater Muslim adherence to the Quran would increase their sufferings, of not just the Muslims themselves, but for anyone that lives in their midst as well.

FAROUK: (3) What do you mean by ‘virtually every Muslim country’ in numerical terms? Kindly provide evidence (statistical, not anecdotal which anyone can make up) to show the ‘overwhelming degree’ which you stand by?

For the answer to this question, let’s turn to Freedom House. Freedom House is a well-known and respected organization that measures the progress of freedom in nations and territories worldwide. Freedom House releases a report annually that gives every country in the world a ranking from 1 to 7 (7 being the worst) in civil liberties and political rights. These rankings are classified into three categories: Free, Partly Free and Not Free.

Using Freedom House’s data from their 2006 Annual Report (the most recent report available), we find that Muslim nations are categorized as follows:

Muslim-majority countries-3 free, 20 partly free, 23 not free
Muslim-majority countries a decade ago-1 free, 13 partly free, 32 not free

The 2006 Freedom House report shows ratings for the period from December 1, 2004 to November 30, 2005. During that time, Mali, Senegal, and Indonesia were the only Muslim-majority countries to earn a “free” rating, though none of them received the best possible “free” rating of ‘2’ (adding the civil liberties and political rights rankings together). Canada, Costa Rica, Taiwan, Germany, and the U.S. are examples of countries that earned a ‘2’ ranking on the 2006 report.

So, is there a relationship between the kind of Freedom House rankings a country earns and the percentage of Muslims in that country? The results from the 2006 report are striking:

Countries that are 51%-70% Muslim earn an average combined ranking of 9.1.
Countries that are 71%-90% Muslim earn an average combined ranking of 9.6.
Countries that are 91%-100% Muslim earn an average combined ranking of 10.4.

To put this in perspective, remember that the best possible ranking a country can receive is a ‘2’. Looking at these figures for Muslim-majority countries, you see that on average, the higher the percentage of Muslims in a country, the worse the civil liberties and political rights rankings earned by that country. These results are not terribly surprising. Moreover, Freedom House statistics reveal that Muslim-majority countries, although they have made progress toward greater rights and liberties over the last ten years, nevertheless lag well behind every other major region in the world. Indeed, Islam and liberty do not mix!

Of course this is only a generalization, and there are exceptions, like Mali. Mali is 90% Muslim and earned a combined civil liberties and political rights score of 4, which, though not a 2, is still good enough to put it in Freedom House’s “free” category.

So why is there such a huge ‘liberty lag’ in the group of Muslim nations? To a significant degree, these results are due to the totalitarian character of Islam.

FAROUK: (4) Do you acknowledge that the Quran calls itself ‘the criteria’? If so, please comment on the contradictory information which you have put forth from Sahih al-Bukhari and Abu Dawood?

The Quran can call itself whatever it wants. As far as I’m concerned, it’s a deeply-flawed work that is highly suspect, to say the least (see my answer to the next question) and has, at best, only literary and historical interest. As for Mr. Farouk’s specious ‘differing translations’ defense, as I have said before, the Quran says pretty much the same thing no matter who has done the translating.

FAROUK: (5) When the Quran calls to fight ‘al-kaafiroon’, who is it referring to?

‘Al Kaafiroon’ means ‘the disbelievers’ and is also alternatively spelled in English ‘al-kafirun’. It’s also the name of the 109th Sura or chapter of the Quran. This name, ‘al-kaafiroon’, is not a compliment. In Malaysia in particular, calling someone a ‘kafir’ is almost always taken as an insult. The Quran spends much of its length condemning unbelievers (i.e. non Muslims) in one way or another, calling them various unflattering names like the one discussed here.

So, exactly how much of the Quran talks about the Kuffar/Kufr/Kaafir (unbelievers)?
Here’s a statistical study of the Quran to help answer this question. This study took 201 randomly selected verses from the Quran as they were listed verbatim on a pro-Islamic website. The study’s sampling gives every sura a certain minimum representation, and the larger Suras have a larger representation in the total statistical sample of 201 verses.

Here is the specific breakdown of how these Quranic verses can be classified:

106/201 (52.7%) is hatred aimed at kaafir (infidels), defined as-
*Threats towards infidels either in the after life or this life
*Degrading infidels by calling them evil, stupid, thankless, blind, deaf, liars, and so on
*Calls to fight against them
*Verses that say "except the believers" when wishing death on nonbelievers were counted as hatred, since avoiding death is not a positive to believers
*The threat or insult can be aimed at infidels in general or any specific infidel

50/201 (24.9%) Deals with believers, defined as-
*Mentioning them *Saying they are righteous
*Saying they will get good things
*Any mentions of one of the prophets were put into this category too

23/201 (11.4%) deals with Allah-
*Who he is
*That he is almighty
*Any of his creations 10/201 (5%) deal with the ‘Day of Doom’ or the ‘Day of Judgment’-
*Either the ‘Day of Doom’ when destruction is sent on the earth or *’Day of Judgment’ when all are judged before Allah
*Any message pertaining to how God records what men do was assigned to this category

4/201 (2%) are anti-woman-
*That it’s okay to beat a woman
*Women and slaves get married off but have no choice in the matter, and are very self-serving to Mohammad or men in general.

4/201 (2%) deal with giving to the poor in some way

2/201 (1%) deal with some kind of Muslim custom or etiquette-
*How to divorce your wife

1/201 (0.5%) disapproves of a man who murdered someone, but only because it was for the wrong reason to kill someone.

1/201 (0.5%) actually says it is okay for people to have their religion while Muslims have theirs

As seen here, analysis shows that over 50% of the Quran (52.7%) deals with nothing but hatred aimed at infidels.

FAROUK: (6) In your system of ethos – which you are employing to judge the Quran and Islam-is it not ethical for people to fight against those who fight them and to fight for people who are calling for help?

By Mr. Farouk’s logic as posited here, that means countries under attack, like Israel, or Iraq’s democratically elected government, for example, should be helped to resist their aggressors (who in these two cases happen to be Muslim). Isn’t that right, Mr. Farouk? Don’t forget that Spain and the UK were also brutally and deliberately assaulted in recent years by Islamic terrorists in a string of bombings on civilian targets. For another example, the attacks on 11 September 2001 were without a doubt a massive Jihadist attack on an unsuspecting United States. In the aftermath of those atrocities, America’s closest allies like the UK and Australia stood firmly by their American friends as the US retaliated. How about Malaysia? Did Malaysia offer troops to help the US attack the Taliban, the government that was helping to shelter the guilty parties behind 9-11?

So, which is more ethical? Helping free nations who are attacked, or helping Muslim tyrants and dictators who shelter or support Islamic terrorists? Then again, Mr. Farouk’s ethical universe seems to be unable to contemplate the idea of Muslims being aggressors.

FAROUK: (7) You claim that there is ‘nothing even remotely from God in Islam’. This statement presupposes that you know what is close to God or Godly. Can you please expound for us what Godliness is?

Maybe I didn’t spend ten years studying in Mecca, but I know what ‘godliness’ is not. ‘Godliness’ is not enforced ‘virtue’, as Shariah plainly is. ‘Godliness’ is not the stoning of adulterers, second-class citizenship for women and dhimmis, the cutting off of hands and feet of thieves, or the execution of homosexuals. How can any god demand this?

But Mr. Farouk asks for my opinion on what ‘godliness’ is, so I shall elucidate. Godliness, I am convinced, is best encapsulated in the Golden Rule. This is expounded in the Bible thusly:

*Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. (Matthew 22, 38)

Now, does Islam follow the Golden Rule? Islam today claims the right to manifest its religion and belief. This is done by threats, coercion, intimidation, litigation, and disinformation. Islam also employs terrorism and mass murder, virulent anti-Jewish racism, and virulent religious bigotry against Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, and all others who are not Muslim. “Religious freedom for us,” Muslims say, “but no religious freedom for you—our religion forbids it.” Sunni Islam today claims the right to manifest its religion by killing Shias, and Shia Islam by killing Sunnis, as they have off and on for centuries, in a 1400 year-old blood feud that never ends. Plainly, Islam does not follow the Golden Rule.

As shown in Freedom House’s grim statistics, and honest appraisals of the Quran, Islam today teaches and practices the exact opposite of freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Islam today wants civil law throughout the world replaced with Sharia law. Islam today is diametrically opposed to religious freedom and intellectual freedom—it seeks religious hegemony, a theocratic Islamic super-state called the ‘Caliphate’, a region first, and eventually a world, of religious totalitarianism.

So, is Islam or its Quran ‘godly’? I suppose that depends if you believe in a God of Love and Compassion, or a God of War and Deceit. Which god is Islam’s god? I think most free-thinking people have the courage to know the answer.

Having answered Mr. Farouk’s questions, I now look forward to him answering my own.

My latest salvo at Malaysia Today

My Muslim jihadist apologist counterpart over at Malaysia Today (MT), "Mr. Farouk", is still gamely at it. Of course, that necessitated another reply, which is posted at MT. You can see my latest there or just keep reading here.

Enjoy!

The Anti-Jihadist Responds- “Respect Works Both Ways”

This response is aimed at ‘Farouk Peru’ in response to my previous comments.

At the outset, I would like declare that I do not condone the acts of Muslims which go against the teachings of Prophet Muhammad.

Cold comfort indeed, once a person becomes acquainted with the actual words, deeds, and teachings of that alleged prophet, Mohammed. Mohammed has been hailed by fourteen centuries of Islam as the perfect soul, the model of behavior that every Muslim must strive to emulate. So what did Mohammed spend his one life on earth doing? According to authentically Islamic sources, here is what Mohammed did in his lifetime:

- He had political opponents murdered (source Bukhari)
- He murdered prisoners of war, sometimes after the most brutal of torture (source Ibn Ishaq)
- He seized the women and children of his victims, using them for sexual favors, taking them as wives and concubines, selling them into slavery for profit, or sometimes all of the above (source Bukhari)
- He was violent with his pre-teen wife and struck her (source Muslim)
- He and his followers stole anything and everything they could get their hands on, in order to finance their movement and obscenely enrich themselves (source Bukhari)
- He had apostates executed on his explicit orders (source Bukhari)
- He and his followers had repeated sexual intercourse with children (source Tabari)

Are these the actions of a ‘godly’ man?

‘Theantijihadist’ is unable to appreciate the existence of Muslims with differing opinions to the fundamentalist type, so intent is he on condemning an entire pan-race and socio-culture.

Wrong. I am in actuality condemning an ideology founded by a 7th century child-molesting psychopathic megalomaniac. If that somehow constitutes ‘racism’ in your mind, so be it.

This is quite typical of anti-Islamic fascists. Instead of analysing how the Quran itself lays the foundational structure of information, they choose to dictate to Muslims how Islam should be.

Hogwash. As a ‘najis kufir’ (the Muslim term for non-Muslims, literal translation ‘dirty unbeliever’), how can I possibly be in any position to dictate to Muslims what Islam should be? I’m not at all interested in telling Muslims how to be Muslims. I am simply reporting the truth on the ideology called ‘Islam’ and the actions taken by many of its followers in its name. My audience, however, includes Muslims and non Muslims, as everyone deserves to know the truth. Whoever you are, you are free to judge my information based on its merits, or act on it however you please.

The fact of the matter is, there is not a single newspaper, television station, or book publisher in Malaysia that would dare reproduce my words here, or any other column I’ve written, for that matter. The same sort of censoring of any sort of criticism of Islam can also be found in every Muslim country—including the supposedly ‘moderate’ ones. So, I ask you, if the ‘truth’ about Islam supposedly only does Islam credit, why are the Muslim authorities everywhere so deathly afraid of it?

Now, Mr. Farouk wants to analyze the Quran, and talk about that tome’s “world-view”. Anyone who has ever sat down to read the Quran has my deepest sympathies. It is an extremely boring, mind-numbing and repetitive book. The Quran, essentially, is nothing but one long vitriolic speech aimed at infidels: saying that they are dumb, blind, stupid, thankless, liars; that they will have boiling water poured on them; that they will be sent to hell where they will be choked with food and without any friends; that Allah hates them; and also loves those who fights against them.

Have you personally visited these countries and met everyone from a Muslim socio-culture who rejected Islam? I’ve personally met Christian converts from Turkey , Morocco and Tunisia who have had no problems becoming Christian in their home country. Indonesia has no such issue either.

Websites such as www.apostatesofislam.com and www.faithfreedom.org are filled with the personal horror stories of apostates from Islam. These are people from all walks of life, ex-Muslims from all over the world, who have in one way or another left Islam (either converting to other faiths or in some cases choosing to be non-religious). I’ve also had the honour of personally meeting some of these brave souls. The persecution suffered by these people at the hands of Muslims is overwhelming and irrefutable. I invite the readers of Malaysia Today to go to these websites and read for yourself the powerful testimonies of these courageous people.

Mr. Farouk, you specifically mentioned Indonesia. Fine, let’s talk about Indonesia. In West Java recently, Islamic thugs forcibly closed another Christian church. Typically, a mob of Islamic militants will invade a church, during services, and desecrate the place. They drive the worshipers out, and attack any clergy, all the time shouting Islamic slogans. Not surprisingly, police investigations into these attacks have gone nowhere. In the last three years in West Java, at least 30 Christian churches have been forced to close in this way. Of course, I’m sure you already knew about all this, so please show me your previously-published statements that condemn Muslim persecution of Christians in Indonesia.

When Abdul Rahman was facing a trial and capital punishment for apostasy in Afghanistan last year, I don’t recall hearing any Muslims calling for him to be treated with leniency. How many Muslims were publicly calling for his release? How many Muslims spoke of his rights to practice his chosen faith in peace? The only Muslims that were on the record speaking about Rahman were the ones that were baying for his death. So, Mr. Farouk, you and your ilk had a chance to publicly call for leniency for Rahman, and you blew it. Furthermore, did you speak up at any time in support of Lina Joy during her six-year legal battle? I rather doubt that, too. Well, I won’t be holding my breath, waiting for you or other ‘moderates’ to speak up on behalf of the persecuted apostates when the next apostasy case comes up.

Are there any Muslim countries on this planet where apostates from Islam can live in freedom and security, free to practice their new faiths—or no faith—as they wish without harassment, bigotry or discrimination? Name one.

And if you feel the Quran implicitly calls for the punishment of apostates, kindly bring forth your evidence. I have written an article about it if you care to answer it.

As previously discussed, Mohammed’s teachings (from reliable ahadith) show quite clearly that apostates should be killed. This is why the majority of Islamic scholars have always agreed on the ‘justness’ of that retrograde Islamic apostacy law (leaving folks like you in the minority—i.e. ‘let’s not kill apostates’—for 14 centuries). So, for the countless apostates murdered by Muslims, the views of Mr. Farouk and others like him are sadly irrelevant. How can Muslims argue against Mohammed himself having apostates executed?

Do you feel that the Quran does not deserve to be quoted in the correct manner?
How would you respond if I said that the verses you quoted are taken out of context?

Islam apologists, including Muslims like Mr. Farouk, have gotten very good at thwarting people from reading and understanding the Quran. They do so in the most effective way possible—by appealing to your respect for intelligence. Whenever you cite verses in the Quran, without skipping a beat, they will cry that you “took the verse out of context.” This appeals to people’s sense of having a full, conceptual of understanding of any given thing. If you notice though, they never actually put the verse in context. This is not an appeal to conceptual understanding, as it seems to be, but is used to make you believe that somehow, someway, the verses around a particular verse will change said verse’s identity. They will also tell you whenever you quote a verse from a Quran that you have the “wrong translation.” On some level this appeals to people’s respect for those who take the time to learn another language. But it is utterly ridiculous to think that only those people can judge the Quran—there are many, many translations of the Quran, all of which say essentially the same things. These are nothing but silly, awkward, and for some unknown reason an often effective method of controlling information as to control thought.

Once again, if you pay careful attention, you will find that I condemn evil, no matter who performs it. I have no notions of the so-called ‘Muslim brotherhood’ as an ideology because the Quran talks about the oneness of the ummah of humanity.

Farouk manages to contradict himself in the space of two sentences. First, he says he has no notions of “Muslim brotherhood”, and then right after that mentions the ‘ummah’ which of course, means the ‘community of believers’, i.e. Muslims only. This necessarily excludes those who are not Muslim, i.e. the majority of humanity.

I invite the reader to please scrutinise the racist nature of this individual’s discourse. He quotes one man (Ghazi al-Qusaibi) and then proceeds to say ISLAM justifies. In other words, whatever Muslims speak against barbarisms (and be sure that there are many, including myself), ‘Theantijihadist’ chooses not to hear them…

I could quote 50 or 100 different people who all agreed on what Qusaibi said, and no matter what, I’m sure you would raise the same objection. I do know that Mohammed himself, the one man that matters most to all Muslims, committed many barbarisms in his own lifetime, as I detailed at the beginning of this essay.

So where are all these Muslims who are so eager to criticize the cutting off of hands, the stoning of adulterers, the beheading of apostates, or all the other barbarisms committed by Muslims in the name of Islam? Why are Muslims eager to frenzy over some cartoons (“Motoons”) printed in an obscure Danish newspaper or Abu Ghraib (a series of regrettable incidents where no one died), but are comparatively silent over (for instance) Al Qaeda bombings in Algeria or (another instance) the killing of Christians by Muslims in Nigeria? Where is the Muslim outrage when the Tamil Tigers kill Muslim civilians by the score in Sri Lanka, as happened earlier this year, or when government-supported Janjaweed militias kill tens of thousands of Muslims and displace millions of other Muslims from their homes in Darfur? For all of these atrocities, there is nary a whimper of protest from the OIC, or any other Muslim organization, for that matter. Draw a cartoon of Mohammed, and Muslims call for your death. Muslims slaughter tens of thousands of fellow Muslims, and it’s not a problem.

Overall, I find that Muslims are eager to speak against barbarism so long as it can be somehow plausibly blamed on non Muslims, specifically the so-called ‘Great Satan’ (USA) and the ‘Little Satan’ (Israel). Conversely, I’ve never seen or heard of PAS or UMNO hold a demonstration to protest 9-11, or Beslan, or 7-7, or any other Muslim terrorist attack. But Motoons and alleged Quran flushings were more than enough to send the outraged protesters pouring into KL’s streets (usually right after Friday prayers).

You’re a racist not for attacking Islam but for condemning an entire civilisation based on your scant (if that) research into the corpus Islamica.

Islam may be a culture, a society, and a political ideology, but it is not a civilization. It is not civilized. And why? It is because Islam rejects the one core principle, the one irreducible principle, the one necessary element of civilization, the one idea without which civilization does not and cannot exist: treat others as you would like them to treat you. Respect their freedom, their lives, their right to be different from yourself, to think and believe differently and live differently. This, civilization does. This, Islam does not do.

Having responded to Mr. Farouk again, I would like to end this tract with the following questions about the Quran, which I hope the esteemed Islamic scholar would be kind enough to answer for us:

1. Is it true that 26 chapters of the Quran deal with jihad, a fight able-bodied believers are obligated to join (Surah 2:216), and that the text orders Muslims to "instill terror into the hearts of the unbeliever" and to "smite above their necks" (8:12)?

2. Is the "test" of loyalty to Allah not good acts or faith in general, but martyrdom that results from fighting unbelievers (47:4) — the only assurance of salvation in Islam (4:74; 9:111)?

3. Are the sins of any Muslim who becomes a martyr forgiven by the very act of being slain while slaying the unbelievers (4:96)?

4. Are those unable to do jihad — such as women or the elderly — required to give "asylum and aid" to those who do fight unbelievers in the cause of Allah (8:74)?

5. Does Islam advocate expansion by force? And is the final command of jihad, as revealed to Muhammad in the Quran, to conquer the world in the name of Islam (9:29)?

6. Is Islam the only religion that does not teach the Golden Rule (48:29)? Does the Quran instead teach violence and hatred against non-Muslims, specifically Jews and Christians (5:50)?

I would like to thank Mr. Farouk for his time and I look forward to reading his answers.

Europe's White Elephant

This is the A380 (superduperjumbo capable of carrying 700+ passengers packed like sardines, doublestacked) taxiing to the gate in Paris. Doesn't that look like a fat rich target for Muslim jihadists? Prediction: When one of these obese monsters crashes, will that be the end of the A380?

Bucks for Bush

An Open Letter to an Anti-Semite

Charlotte Kates is the pro-terrorist law student at Rutgers Univ. who organized the pro-Palestinian conference and defends suicide bombers.

The following letter was written to the President of Rutgers State University by an Israeli citizen after reading Kates' published comments on the Israeli/Palestinian situation.

Dear Ms. Kates,

I think you are a remarkable woman. You are neither an Arab nor a Jew, you do not study the Middle East, or any associated subject, and correct me if I am wrong, but you have never visited this region. Therefore, I am somewhat astounded at your expertise and to your comments on Israel being an "Apartheid" state.

I have lived in Israel for many years, and I would be delighted to take you on a little virtual tour of our country. Let me first give you a couple of minor points. Israel occupies 0.1% of the landmass of the Middle East and it is the only Jewish state, not only in this region, but in the world, and surrounded by 22 Arab states

Let us begin your virtual tour!!

You have already been through immigration at Tel Aviv Airport with your boyfriend, whom we shall call Ken. You will have filled out a visitors form. This form will not ask you, as it will in many of the countries that surround us, what is your religion, and it will certainly not ask you, as they do in Saudi Arabia, for a "certificate of religion".

The day is Sunday! You will want to attend a church service. No problem in the Apartheid State of Israel. We tolerate, and freely allow, worship for all religions. This is more than can be said for all of the surrounding 22 Arab nations. In fact many of them would not even have a single church, let alone a synagogue.

After a lovely service you and Ken would head for a leisurely lunch- maybe at one of the lovely beachfront restaurants in Tel Aviv. You would most likely have returned to your hotel and put on a very casual outfit, as befitting the very hot Israeli summers. This could be a pair of shorts and a tight fitting skimpy t-shirt. No problem in the Apartheid state of Israel. In Israel we allow freedom of dress, especially for women, who are not made to wear bulky long robes, a veil to cover their face, and, wouldn't it be a pity if you had to cover that lovely coiffed hairdo, as you would probably have to in the surrounding 22 Arab states.

During lunch Ken could gaze lovingly into your heavily-painted eyes, complete with a good application of black mascara. He would be free to lean across and kiss your lips-finely painted with lip liner, 2 shades of burgundy lipstick and gloss. People would probably think you were in love, especially as Ken has proudly displayed a good wine on the table. Public displays of affection and consuming alcohol in the Apartheid state of Israel is nothing unusual, and its not even scorned upon. That's more than can be said for most of the surrounding 22 Arab states, where your glossy lips would be considered whorish and alcohol is forbidden.

But, Ken, being a little flirtatious, pinched one of the young waitresses, while you went to reapply your lipstick. It was harmless and luckily for the young girl in the Apartheid State of Israel, her father and 6 brothers will not take her to the family pool in the evening and drown her, or slit her throat-as they would in the surrounding 22 Arab states.

After lunch you and Ken drive around. You are even allowed to drive. It is not forbidden in Israel. You stumble across a kindergarten. The children are running around and enjoying themselves. They are not made to sit for hours reciting by rote, pages from religious books. Their games are in the sand pit or on the swings. They are not infested with hate or told the only honor to their lives will be in death.

In the Apartheid state of Israel we rejoice in life and living. We do not promote murder and violence by brainwashing our children with hatred, as they do in the surrounding 22 Arab states.

By the end of the day you and Ken come across a political rally. Many thousands have turned up. In the Apartheid State of Israel all the citizens, men, women, Jew, Arab and Christian are free to vote. We are allowed to openly criticize the government and our media, including the T. V. and newspapers, offer, without prejudice, a choice of opinions. Every person has the right to openly agree with, or condemn, the government. This can certainly not be said for any of the surrounding 22 Arab states- ruled as they are by oppressive dictators, where any dissent is met with dire consequences.

Of course, most of the 22 surrounding Arab countries can't offer you a good old-fashioned homicide (suicide) bombing as a tourist attraction. This can only happen in the apartheid state of Israel, surrounded as we are, by so many hostile countries, all determined, as you are to wipe us of the face of the earth. Where else can you get on a crowded bus, often packed with children and come face to face with some poor, plighted Palestinian ghoul who thinks life isn't very jolly, having been fed, and brainwashed, by evil organizations like Hamas, to believe that the only way forward is to murder innocent people. This dehumanized creature will have been fed on a 24/7 diet of lies and hate incitement; he will have been coaxed with the reward of 72 virgins waiting for him in Paradise. His demonic mother will be dancing in the street waving her $10,000 check.

While Israelis are scraping their dead children off the sidewalks, the Palestinians will be lighting fireworks, and dancing in the street to honor this mass murderer as a hero- often to their children who are being systematically nurtured to be the next generation of mass murderers.

The Apartheid State of Israel. Forgive me, Ms. Kate,s but you seem somewhat confused as to the meaning of the word. It usually refers to segregation. Its funny, isn't it, that a large section of the Jews who live in this apartheid state had to flee for their lives from nearly all of the surrounding 22 Arab states. These countries not only have no tolerance for Jews, they refer to anyone who is not a Moslem as an "Infidel" and an "enemy". I find it somewhat curious that you find nothing "apartheid" about these countries. Maybe you should do a project on how many churches there are in Saudi Arabia. Let me help you; there are none. It would not be tolerated.

I am proud to live in this Apartheid State. In 55 years we have become one of the most technologically advanced nations on this planet, with many innovations that have made Israel a true leader in many fields. It is tragic that we have to live in a region that feels threatened by our achievements. Israel is not an apartheid state and it is appalling that a so-called intelligent, and thinking, person like you can go around finding feeble excuses for mass murder.

Ms. Kates, there is no justification, in any society, for getting on a crowded bus, often packed with children, detonating an explosive belt, often packed with nails and shrapnel, and destroying innocent lives. This is not a freedom fighter, or a person seeking justice, but a chronically and irreversibly evil human being.

I can only assume that one day in the near future, Ms. Kates, you will chip off that heavy layer of make up and discover your conscience

ARMOND SCHIFF

Finally some good news!

June 1, 2007 - 9:47 PM SWISS INFO
Bern city says no to Islamic cultural centre

A project to build one of the largest Islamic cultural centres in Europe in the Swiss capital, Bern, will not be realised, it was announced on Friday. The Bern authorities said they had other plans for the zone, a former abattoir area in Wankdorf, in the northern part of the city.

The 23,000 square metre centre, the concept of which had been proposed by Umma, a Bern-based Islamic coordination centre, would have comprised a museum on Islam, a mosque, a convention centre, offices and a four-star hotel.

The plan was revealed in a Swiss newspaper in April. Supporters had said that central to the project was "the prospect for a differentiated dialogue with Islam".

Announcing their decision, Bern city officials said the land, part of the development project called "Wankdorf City", had been set aside for a regional medical centre. City official Barbara Hayoz said that for the moment Bern did not have any other land available on which to house the Islamic centre.

She stressed, however, that the city wanted to encourage intercultural dialogue, as seen by its support of the House of Religions. Work on that building is set to begin in early 2008.

Noted with regret

Umma said in a statement on Friday that it had noted the decision with regret and that it was the city's right to decide on such projects. But it added that it would have preferred a closer examination of the proposal and an exchange of views before the decision was made.

The centre would have cost an estimated SFr60-80 million ($72-96 million) and would have been named the Avicenna Centre after a Persian philosopher and scientist who lived 1,000 years ago.

Organisers had hoped the centre would attract a similar level of interest and acclaim as the Paul Klee Centre, a museum dedicated to Swiss painter Paul Klee, which is also located in Bern. There are about 310,000 Muslims in Switzerland, mainly from the Balkans and Turkey, representing up to five per cent of the Swiss population.

Background information:

Switzerland is currently having a debate on minarets, the distinctive architectural features of mosques. Moves to block the construction of minarets are underway in various regions.
A committee that includes parliamentarians from the rightwing Swiss People's Party has also announced an initiative aimed at blocking the construction of minarets. Currently only two mosques in Zurich and Geneva have a minaret.


First time in a long time that I can actually applaud to a decision taken by my city's government!! Thank you, there is a ray of sunshine!

Getting under the Muslims' Skins

Many in our reading audience are aware of the recent high-profile court case in Malaysia, where a convert from Islam to Christianity (Lina Joy) was denied permission to remove the word "Islam" from her national ID card.

This miscarriage of justice has generated a lot of interest in a lot of corners of cyberspace, not to mention a huge amount of (richly deserved) negative PR for Malaysia. Some of the articles in response to this case have been in the infamous Muslim-apologist vein. You know the drill..."Islam is freedom and really doesn't call for apostates to be persecuted and slaughtered." Well, having read one of these, I fired off a verbose comment in reply, and wouldn't you know it, this really peeved the Muslim author. He returned fire with this article.

The battle is joined. I have written the following piece in reply to my opponent:


The Anti Jihadist Responds to Mr. Farouk

I’m humbled by the ironic honor of having aroused the indignation of one Farouk Peru. Of all the dozens and dozens of comments left at the original post in question, he has decided to respond at length to mine.

Very well; this battle is joined. I will now respond to Mr. Farouk and the various issues/charges he has written about.

My response:


1. First out the gate, my opponent is correct. Islam is not just the Quran. The Quran cannot be understood in a vacuum. Islam can and must be judged by other sources besides the Quran, such as the Hadith, the actions of its followers, and most of all, the actions of its founder. This range of sources can give critical insight into the worthiness of the ideology that Mr. Farouk holds so dear.


2. Mr. Farouk talks about (in his words) the ‘apostasy law.’ This is an interesting euphemism for a barbaric law that calls for the outright murder of people solely on a religious pretext. In a massive ongoing and unchallenged violation of human rights, ‘only’ six Islamic countries officially engage in the execution of apostates. One of these six is Saudi Arabia, the heart of Islam and the location of the two holiest sites to Muslims, and also the home of some of the most revered and highest authorities in Islam. These clerics and other Saudi scholars have always called for apostates to be put to death if they do not recant their kafir beliefs. What a delightful state of affairs this is!

As for the other 51 countries in Dar al Islam, it is a fact that apostates in virtually every Muslim country face sanctions of some kind, official and/or unofficial (including Malaysia). These sanctions against apostates range from fines, imprisonment with or without trial, torture, discrimination, forced exile, financial ruin from loss of livelihoods, loss of property, death threats and intimidation. Clearly, being an apostate from Islam in an Islamic state is very dangerous indeed.

This universal Muslim persecution of its apostates exists for a reason. The teachings of Islam are very explicit on this point. According to Bukhari (volume 9, book 88, no. 6922), Islam’s prophet ordered flatly, “Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him.” Also, there is another hadith text that says, “It is not lawful to kill a man who is a Muslim except for one of the three reasons: Kufr (disbelief) after accepting Islam.....” (Abu Dawud). Perhaps the Quran doesn’t explicitly call for apostates to be murdered, but the actions of Mohammed, his example, clearly show otherwise. In addition, all five major schools of Islamic jurisprudence agree that a sane male apostate must be executed. A female apostate, it turns out, gets a break. Some schools say female apostates should only be imprisoned for life.

3. Now, on to Islam’s bloody-minded manual for endless war, the Quran. I submit these Quranic verses for your consideration:

Everything Those Infidels Have Everywhere In the World Already Belongs to the Muslims; Take It

Qur’an 33.27 And He made you heirs to their land and their dwellings and their property, and (to) a land which you have not yet trodden, and Allah has power over all things.

Qur’an 21:44 Do they see Us advancing, gradually reducing the land (in their control), curtailing its borders on all sides? It is they who will be overcome.

About Those Annoying Non-Believers (Infidels, Pagans, Jews, Christians, etc.)

Qur’an 9:123 “murder them and treat them harshly”

Qur’an 3:56 “As for those disbelieving infidels, I will punish them with a terrible agony in this world and the next. They have no one to help or save them.”

Qur’an 8:12 cp. 8:60 “Instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers”; “smite above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them”

Qur’an 2:191 “...kill the disbelievers wherever we find them”

And Terrorize and Terrorize Those Infidels

Sura 3:151 Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers for that they joined companions with Allah for which He had sent no authority: their abode will be the fire; and evil is the home of the wrong-doers!

Sura 8:60 Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power including steeds of war to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies and others besides whom ye may not know but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah shall be repaid unto you and ye shall not be treated unjustly.

I could go on, but you can see the entire list here. There are hundreds more verses just like these.

I’m positive that Mr. Farouk will argue that these verses are ‘taken out of context’, or aren’t translated correctly, or some other such nonsense. Since I’m just an ignorant infidel, how dare I judge his precious Quran? Well, judge it I do and judge it I will continue to do. And I am not alone in this; that I can promise you.


4. Mr. Farouk brings up Mr. Hitler, whose tome continues to sell rather well in the Muslim world to this day. Herr Hitler was also a good friend of the Mufti of Jerusalem, and of course the instigator of the (first) Holocaust. Iran, a Muslim religious dictatorship and friend of Malaysia, has repeatedly stated its wish to destroy the ‘Zionist entity’ and is diligently working towards the development of weapons that will make the next Holocaust possible. Of course, these developments don’t seem to concern Muslims very much—instead, they are much more likely to fly into a murderous rage over some cartoons.


5. Islam is the religion that justifies in its name some of the most horrible inhumanities imaginable, such as these:

In Saudi Arabia:

- Women must cover themselves from head to toe in public or else.
- Non-Islamic religious teachings or places of worship are not allowed.
- The possession of alcohol is punishable by death.
- The hands of thieves are amputated.

In Iran:

- Do not take pictures of regime property or else.
- Members of the Baha'i faith are openly discriminated against.
- Adultery is punished by stoning to death.
- Homosexuals are publicly hanged.

Ghazi al-Qusaibi, the former Saudi ambassador to London and currently a senior minister in the Saudi Government, says “flogging, stoning, and amputations are, in Muslim eyes, the core of the Islamic faith.”

Call me judgmental if that pleases you, but these actions don’t seem like very ‘godly’ to me. How can any amount of (alleged) Islamic charitable works make good horrors such as these? And how many Muslims dare criticize these actions of their fellow co-religionists like the ones listed here? Do you condemn these actions, Mr. Farouk? The silence is deafening.


6. As usual, Mr. Farouk plays the ‘race’ card upon anyone that attacks his ‘faith’. So, I’m a racist by attacking Islam, even though “Islam” is not, repeat not, a race (and this even Mr. Farouk freely admits). Is fascism a race as well? Plus, he thinks I actually want Muslims to have or enforce their barbaric apostasy laws. Wow, what a novel argument for an esteemed scholar like Mr. Farouk to present! Why not just accuse me of supporting various Islamic terrorist attacks like Bali, London, Madrid, 9-11, etc. etc while you’re at it. Cognitive dissonance on an epic scale.


7. Usually, the accusations of being a ‘Nazi’ or ‘fascist’ follow almost immediately before or after we’re called ‘racists.’ It’s all part of the script when Muslims respond to any attacks on their beliefs. And here, Mr. Farouk does not disappoint. Ad hominem attacks do not an argument make. But what else can we expect from the self-appointed defenders of Islam?


I think that about covers my rebuttal of Mr. Farouk’s rebuttal. And yes, I’ve perused Mr. Farouk’s websites, which proclaim to the skies that Islam is supposedly all about freedom. So, if Islam is supposed to be all about ‘freedom’, why are the Muslim countries among the least free in the world? Why do Muslims demand freedom for themselves and deny it to others? Why have the shariah courts of Malaysia, over 50 years, only allowed one person to officially leave Islam (and a dead woman at that)?

“By their fruits ye shall know them,” says the Bible. And Islam’s bitter fruits are out in the open, for all to see.

UPDATE: Now this tract (minus the many links) has been published at Malaysia Today.

Just HOW Bad is the Bush/Kennedy/McCain/Kyl/Graham "Comprehensive National Suicide and Amnesty Bill"?

Just how bad is this piece of garbage Bush is pushing, calling Republicans bigots, racists, nativists, ignorant, xenophobic for not going along?

JD Hayworth Lists 26 Reasons to kill this bill. Bush will go down in flames. Match anyone? Burn this bill and purge all Senators that support it.

26 Reasons To Kill The Bill Now!!!!!!!!!

1. Security doesn’t come first in this bill. This bill would immediately legalize illegal aliens that are currently in the country. The only way Congress will actually see to it that the border security and enforcement provisions in the bill will be implemented is if they have to do them before they even consider an amnesty for the people who are here.

2. Illegal aliens won’t have to pay back taxes — where do we get the same deal? The whole idea that illegal aliens shouldn’t have to pay the taxes they already owe for working in the United States is utterly and completely offensive because it actually gives them a privilege that American citizens aren’t getting: forgiveness for taxes owed to the IRS.

3. If passed, this bill will make taxpayers pay the legal bills for illegal aliens seeking amnesty. Tucked away is a provision that would allow lawyers in the federally-funded legal services program to represent illegal aliens, which they are presently barred from doing.

4. This bill rewards illegal aliens for breaking our laws. There are tens of millions of people who respect our laws and our country, waiting patiently, in line, often in their home countries, to get a chance to come here. Under this bill, illegal aliens will immediately be eligible for a “Z Visa” which allows them to work, go to school, and — this is important — stay here for the rest of their lives if they so choose because there is no limit on the number of times it can be renewed.

5. The bill gives the government only one business day to conduct a background check to determine whether an applicant is a criminal or a terrorist. It is impossible, of course, to determine in a single day whether someone is a terrorist or a criminal.

6. In the bill Section 601(g)(2), illegal-alien gang members would be eligible for amnesty merely by signing a “renunciation of gang affiliation.”

7. Gang-bangers and other criminals, who have been ordered to leave the United States by an immigration judge but defy the ruling, are called absconders. Section 601(d)(1)(I) permits U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to grant an absconder a Z visa anyway if he can show that being forced to leave the United States “would result in extreme hardship” to the alien, his spouse, parent or child.

8. The bill effectively shuts down our immigration-court system. If an alien in the removal process is eligible for the Z visa, the immigration judge must close the proceedings and offer the alien the chance to apply for the amnesty.

9. If ICE officials apprehend an alien who appears eligible for the Z visa (in other words, just about any illegal alien), they can’t detain him. Instead, ICE must help him apply for the Z visa.

Rather than initiating removal proceedings, ICE will be initiating amnesty applications. It’s like turning the Drug Enforcement Agency into a needle-distribution network.

10. To qualify for the Z-visa amnesty, an illegal alien need only have a job (or be the parent, spouse, or child of someone with a job) and come up with a scrap of paper suggesting he was in the country before Jan. 1 of this year. Any bank statement, pay stub, or similarly forgeable record will do.

Expect a mass influx unlike anything this country has seen before, once the 12-month period for accepting Z visa applications begins. These rules are an open invitation to sneak in and present a fraudulent piece of paper indicating that you were already here.

11. As promised, the bill will legalize most of the 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens now in the country via a new “Z visa.” Each would pay $5,000 - only slightly more than the going rate to be smuggled into America. This is not up front. They will have eight years to pay it back.

12. Supporters of the bill call the Z visa “temporary” - neglecting to mention that it can be renewed indefinitely until the visa holder dies. Thus, we have the country’s first permanent temporary visa. On top of that, it’s a super-visa - allowing the holder to work, attend college or do just about anything else.

Are you a law-abiding alien who’s interested in switching to this privileged status? Sorry. Only illegal aliens can qualify.

13. The bill increases legal migration by at least 50 percent over the next decade by granting green cards to all the remote relatives who are in the chain migration categories, a number estimated at 750,000 to 900,000 a year. That is triple the current number of 250,000. Giving green cards to millions of additional relatives ensures that legal immigration will continue to grow as this larger pool of permanent residents brings in spouses.

14. The bill claims that bench marks must be met before amnesty/guest-worker provisions go into effect. But the bench marks fail to require that the U.S.-Mexico border be closed, fail to require that the border fence be completed as mandated by Congress in October and fail to require that the Department of Homeland Security implement the entry-exit visa system so Americans can know if visitors and guest workers actually leave.

The border security part of the bill calls for a 370-mile-long fence on the U.S./Mexico border. That is only half as long as the 700-mile-long fence ordered by the Secure Fence Act passed overwhelmingly by Congress and ostentatiously signed by the president in front of TV cameras just before the November 2006 election.

15. Another bench mark is that “tools” will be provided to prevent illegal immigrants from getting jobs, including requirements for identification standards and an employee verification system. But the bill lacks a requirement that anybody actually use the tools.

16. The costs of the Senate immigration bill are mind-boggling. Unbelievably, the Senate has made no attempt to estimate this costs or how to how to pay them. The Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector puts a potential price tag on this bill of $2.5 trillion, which is five times the cost of the Iraq war.

17. At least 60 percent of illegal immigrants lack a high school diploma, which means they will work low-wage jobs, pay little or no income tax, and be heavy users of our schools and means-tested social benefits such as Medicaid, school lunches, Women, Infants and Children Program, subsidized housing, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and free legal counsel.

18. Fiscal costs would go up dramatically after amnesty recipients reach retirement. Each elderly low-skill immigrant imposes a net cost - that is benefits minus taxes - on U.S. taxpayers of about $17,000 per year, according to the Heritage Foundation. These costs would hit Social Security and Medicare at the very time Social Security is expected to go into crisis.

19. Section 413 calls on Congress to “accelerate the implementation” of the Security and Prosperity Partnership - announced by Bush in Waco, Texas, in 2005 - so that the United States can “improve the standard of living in Mexico.” Do U.S. taxpayers want to take on the awesome economic burden of solving poverty problems in Mexico?

20. The Senate immigration bill states that the United States want to increase access to credit for “poor and under-served populations in Mexico,” and expand efforts “to reduce the transaction costs of remittance flows” from the U.S. to Mexico now running at $23 billion a year. That is money made in the US but transferred out of our economy.

21. The Senate bill also puts the United States into a “partnership” with Mexico for “increasing health care access for poor and under-served populations in Mexico,” for “assisting Mexico in increasing its emergency and trauma health care facilities,” and for “expanding prenatal care” in the border region. Do U.S. taxpayers want to take on the awesome economic burden of solving problems in Mexico?

22. The Senate bill authorizes 4,000 new Border Patrol agents, but doesn’t require that they be trained or deployed.

23. Illegal Aliens will receive instate tuition. Illegal aliens would receive a taxpayer subsidy worth tens of thousands of dollars and would be treated better than U.S. citizens from out of state, who must pay three to four times as much to attend college. In an era of limited educational resources and rising tuitions, U.S. citizens, not aliens openly violating federal law, should be first in line to receive education subsidies.

24.Health standards ignored – Z-Visa holders are not required to be given medical examinations and immunizations. Z-Visa applicants and permenant residents are two peas off the same pod. Both can live in the USA as long as they want. Permenant residents are required to be given a medical examination and immunized but Z-Visa holders are not. All aliens, including Z-Visa holders should be required to be given medical examinations and immunized. They are living and breathing in our country just as permanent residents. The health and safety issues are one and the same. TB or Leprosy anyone?

25.“There are no serious assimilation components to the legislation.” Dual citizenship, naturalized Americans voting here and overseas, non-English classrooms and multilingual ballots all thrive, despite the bill’s “comprehensive” scope. “Assimilation” appears only once in this legislation.

26. The amnestee doesn’t have to know squat in English to get probationary status or a Z visa. After four years when seeking to renew the Z visa the first time, he only has to take — not pass, just take — the naturalization language test or be on a waiting list for English classes. “Learn English” only happens after eight years, and then it’s not actual mastery of the language.