I can’t wait to see the Soros elves at MMfA scramble to spin this:

Remember Glenn Beck’s fuzzy math, which calculated that 10% of Muslims are actually terrorists? Well, according to one of those WikiLeaked diplomatic cables, the man may have been wildly underestimating. At least when it comes to British Muslim students, one-third of whom “believe killing in the name of religion is justified,” according to a survey reported in the Daily Mail.

(more…)

To the Editor:

Yesterday’s feature, “Monitoring America,” by Dana Priest and William Arkin, intentionally distorts the role of outside experts training local law enforcement in matters related to terrorism.

In an effort to smear the Center for Security Policy, Arkin and Preist erroneously describe the Center’s book, Shariah: The Threat to America, as “expanding on what [Walid] Shoebat and [Ramon] Montijo believe.”

This is false. In fact, Shariah: The Threat to America is an independent work of nineteen national security experts, including the former Director of Central Intelligence, former directors of military intelligence agencies, a former counterterrorism agent in the FBI, experts in Shariah law, and many others. Each of the authors is an expert in his own right on a diverse array of national security issues; in that capacity, they can authoritatively address the nexus between America’s national security and Islamic law, called Shariah.

The study of Shariah is important to the nation’s national security because America’s Islamist enemies—from the inhabitants of al Qaeda-linked training camps in Yemen and Pakistan to homegrown American “lone-wolf” bombers—declare, above all other concerns, that they fight to install Islamic law and in furtherance of its explicit dictates.

Shariah: The Threat to America demonstrates that the mainstream legal code understood by many of the world’s Muslims to be divinely sanctioned law (Shariah) is a knowable system of law, making the practice of Islam possible in an organized way.  Its foundational rulings—on issues like jihad, relations with non-Muslims, mandatory punishments for adultery and apostasy, and more—are objectively knowable. The book takes great pains to present the most mainstream Islamic sources, like the classic of Shafi’i law, Umdat Al-Salik (or Reliance of the Traveller: The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law) and, in describing the tenants of Shariah, use texts written by Muslims for an Islamic audience.

(more…)

In classic the New York Times style, they found a way to paint the overwhelming majority of a Midwestern state as crazies, loons, and bigots.

In a piece written by James C. McKinley Jr. entitled “ Oklahoma Surprise” the author details the ongoing fight between extremes and rational moderates, like CAIR.  The subject is Oklahoma’s Constitutional Amendment that would ban Islamic law or any other international law from being used in an Oklahoma court.

Mr. McKinley laments that “In Oklahoma, many conservative Democrats from rural areas lost, sounding a death knell for the state’s famous Blue Dogs, who have wielded power since the 1930s”.

Due to the loss of these heroic folks, it is the extreme “right-wing” that pushes things like English as the state’s official language and proposals that mandate the showing of picture ID to vote.  Mr. McKinley frames these measures as outlandish.

In mentioning that in the article, it’s obvious that the author is attempting to frame a racists vs. moderates, a.k.a. liberals, clash.

He bemoans the law by distortion, “Muslim leaders in Oklahoma said the amendment felt like a slap in the face. They worry that marriages, wills, divorces and contracts — often drawn up between parties under Islamic principles then submitted to a court for approval — will no longer be valid.”

(more…)

Over to you: “We believe the Shariah is the solution of all of these problems.”

Wonder what the MSM will say about this?

This is not about religion — this is about culture, law, tradition and a way of life.

Whose side are you on, liberals? Western Civilization’s or a savage desert ideology’s? It’s time to choose. (more…)

Well, the bad news is that we’re a bunch of racists.  The good news, though, is that our liberal overlords are understanding.  Due to their boundless capacity for empathy, they understand that we just can’t help the inherent bigotry that characterizes us.  But with a little firmness and a good talking to, they’ll set us back on the progressive path.

At least, that seems to be the strategy du jour for the left and their mainstream media meat puppets.  Apparently realizing that their cacophonous chorus of innuendos and outright epithets excoriating the wayward bourgeoisie for its myriad sins was not having the desired effect – astonishingly, the know-nothings who make up the bulk of American society actually found being called “racists,” “sexists,” “homophobes,” “Islamaphobes” and all manner of other “-ists” and “-phobes” annoying.  With the polls tanking, it was time to try a new approach.

That new approach rolled out Sunday as columnists Nick Kristoff and Cynthia Tucker tried out the new, kinder/gentler scold mode. Kristoff’s New York Times piece, delightfully titled “America’s History of Fear,” generously allows that maybe – just maybe – a virulent hatred of Muslims is not the only reason one might oppose the Ground Zero mosque.  No, he doesn’t quite say that perhaps some people might find a terrorist apologist putting up a mosque on the site of where other Muslins, acting explicitly as Muslims, murdered nearly 3,000 folks to be, at best, unbelievably tacky and insensitive.  Instead, those expressing feelings are “worriers” acting out because of their irrational fears: (more…)

Stop the presses! This just in: The Associated Press “standards center” has issued a “staff advisory” on covering what is to be known from here on out as “the New York City mosque.” From now on, the AP “staff” – and, therefore, everybody who still actually reads newspapers that still actually use the wire service’s copy – is supposed to conform to what amounts to the Muslim Brotherhood narrative about the Islamic cultural center formerly known as the “Ground Zero mosque.”

AP’s Deputy Managing Editor for Standards and Production, Tom Kent, sent this “guidance” out to his colleagues, with inputs from Chad Roedemeier in the New York bureau and Terry Hunt in Washington: “We should continue to avoid the phrase ‘Ground Zero mosque’ or ‘mosque at Ground Zero’ on all platforms. (We’ve very rarely used this wording, except in slugs, though we sometimes see other news sources using the term.) The site of the proposed Islamic center and mosque is not at Ground Zero, but two blocks away in a busy commercial area. We should continue to say it’s “near” Ground Zero, or two blocks away.”

Interestingly, among those who formerly used the now-proscribed descriptor “Ground Zero mosque” is none other than Feisal Abdul Rauf, its imam and chief promoter. He called it that even though the proposed venue has always been two blocks away from the World Trade Center site.

Perhaps Rauf used this moniker because his planned location for the mosque was part of the real estate attacked and damaged on 9/11 – the home of the Burlington Coat Factory until it was struck by a landing gear from a plane that struck one of the Twin Towers. Perhaps he used that term to brand his “Cordoba House” because body parts from the victims of those attacks have been found all over Lower Manhattan, including the old Burlington factory area, making it part of the hallowed ground.

Or perhaps, Imam Rauf called his project the Ground Zero mosque because he wanted to associate his 15-story, $100 million complex as closely as possible to the location where nearly 3,000 Americans and other innocent people – precisely because they were murdered there by people who wanted, as he does, to “bring shariah to America.” (more…)

President Obama called the murder of a soldier in Little Rock by a self-proclaimed jihadist “a senseless tragedy.” The Christmas bomber, “an isolated extremist.” The Ft. Hood shooting, a “horrific outburst of violence.” Daniel Pearl’s beheading, an act which “captured the world’s imagination” (truly the most repugnant euphemism possible for such barbarism), he magically transformed from an act of Koran-mandated Jew-hatred to a “free press” issue. At every turn, the Obama administration feeds us maddening and relentless disinformation, parroted by a credulous and/or complicit press, that terrorism carried out in the name of Islam has nothing to do with Islam.

Andrew C. McCarthy begs to differ. A contributing editor at the National Review Online, McCarthy is a former New York prosecutor and author of Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad. He knows a thing or two about Muslim fundamentalism, having put away the Blind Sheikh and fellow conspirators involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and a plot to destroy other New York landmarks. And his new book clarifies exactly how that Islamic threat has not only metastasized under the radar since ‘93, but has partnered itself with the Left toward a common end.

In The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left are Sabotaging America, McCarthy wastes no time driving home the point of his subtitle. He opens by revisiting Obama’s jaw-droppingly subservient bow before the Saudi king in England, correctly attributing the emblematic gesture to the pair’s “shared dream” of bringing about the collapse of American political, economic, and cultural values. “With their collectivist philosophy,” McCarthy writes, “transnational outlook, totalitarian demands, and revolutionary designs, Islamists are natural allies of the radical Left.” (more…)

The media’s reaction to the Faisal Shahzad story was quite telling.  It began with many clamoring for the idea that the would-be bomber had to be a rightwing nutjob.  It ended with many  drawing a curiously sympathetic picture of an enemy of everything we believe in.

As the narrative went, Shahzad fell on tough times due to the recession and grew ever more insular.  So he picked up the Koran and devoted himself to Islam, and then up and left for Pakistan to train with al-Qaeda.  Surely this is the natural reaction to being short the month’s mortgage payment.  I find it more plausible that it was the plight of the New York Mets that drove him to attempt to blow up a car bomb in Times Square.

Which is to say that the rationalization by the MSM for why Muslims are driven to carry out terrorist attacks is utterly incoherent.  Equally as dumbfounding is the MSM’s tortuous attempt to humanize those who would carry out the most inhuman of acts. (more…)

We sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed.

That was the arrogant declaration of victory from the Organization of the Islamic Conference nearly two years ago, regarding the shrewdly orchestrated Muslim mayhem around the world protesting such infidel abominations as the Danish Muhammad cartoons and Geert Wilders’ short film Fitna.

“Red lines” indeed – a phrase chillingly reminiscent of Samuel Huntington’s famous observation that “Islam has bloody borders.” Except that the red lines the OIC is referring to aren’t geographical – they are the ever-tightening limits that Muslim fundamentalists are imposing to choke off our freedoms.

The influential OIC is the world’s largest Muslim assembly, consisting of 57 member states (you know, the same number of U.S. states candidate Obama campaigned in). Its primary aim is “conducting a large-scale worldwide effort to confront Islamophobia.” (As I’ve written here before, Islamophobia is a mythical beast that the OIC and collusive groups like CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, use to intimidate us into craven appeasement.) Their goal is to abridge our free speech by making criticism of Islam an international crime; their strategy works because the West has been so emasculated by multiculturalism that we’d rather embrace cultural suicide than offend the tender sensibilities of such violent barbarians as the Danish cartoon rioters. (more…)

Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris has declared May 20th “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day,” in defense of Matt Stone and Trey Parker. All freedom-loving Americans should get behind this. While initially I thought it was an ironic joke that South Park was censoring everything related to Mohammed in their last episode, obviously we have seen over the last few days that against the creators’ will, Comedy Central cowered in the face of a thinly veiled Muslim threat.

In fact, submission, the definition of Islam, is the apt word to describe Comedy Central’s cowardice.

The bottom line is that the First Amendment guarantees free speech including criticism of all peoples. We are an equal-opportunity offense country. To censor ourselves to avoid upsetting a certain group (in a cartoon no less) is un-American.

It is especially egregious because it represents dhimmitude. We are sacrificing our law and our heritage to Sharia. The law of our land is the Constitution and beyond that the natural law granted to us by our divine creator.

(more…)

A girl flees from her home in fear for her life – and law enforcement goes after the people who helped her.  That’s the situation in the Rifqa Bary case.

The Columbus Dispatch reported this about Rifqa’s friend Brian Williams:

An Ohio minister accused of driving a teenage runaway to a bus station last year has retained a lawyer as police say they’re investigating whether anyone broke the law in helping the Christian convert leave home for Florida.

And why did she flee to Florida? Because, she says, when her devout Muslim father found out she had become a Christian, he said to her, “I will kill you.” And with Islam’s death penalty for apostates, she had to take that seriously. But her father is not in danger of being prosecuted. Brian Williams is. (more…)

There are many things on the World Wide Web that are not suitable for public viewing but that should be required viewing for journalists and political figures to alert them to the horrors that exist in some parts of the world. This should not be to incite but rather to rinse away their naïveté in dealing with a hostile culture and our potential enemies.

It is apparent that the mainstream media has no interest in covering stories that shed an unfavorable side of Islam and, frankly, this smacks of cowardice.

The elite will instead claim that the “vast majority” of Muslims are peace-loving and are just as horrified at the acts of a small number of radical terrorists.  That may very well be true but even a fraction of a billion is a very large number and that number is growing and gaining influence around the world thanks to the stupidity and cowardice of what should be called the “lamestream” press and those in our government today.

The Internet bloggers are doing the nasty job of covering the world of Islamic jihadists and it is truly chilling. The video of Daniel Pearl’s beheading could not be shown on the public airwaves but was easily available on the web. Gruesome as it was it cannot compare with this video of children training for Jihad beheading a man all the while praising Allah. (more…)