Thursday, July 31, 2008

Islam "is to dominate and is not to be dominated."

--Hugh Fitzgerald

That is why it is DANGEROUS!
--Leslie White

Hugh Fitzgerald at Dhimmi Watch writes:

. . . how comforting it is not to pay attention to, not to listen with care to, the growing small army of articulate defectors from the army of Islam, as valuable as were defectors from the KGB during the Cold War, such highly intelligent and thoughtful people as Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina. How comforting it is to think it is not a permanent problem, or one that in any case can be solved over there, way over there, in the Middle East, in Iraq, or in Afghanistan, or by "solving" the Jihad against Israel (which has no solution, which is only a situation to be managed, and managed through Israeli deterrence, which is all that keeps, or ever will, keep the peace).

How wonderful not to look closely at what is happening in the countries of Western Europe. How wonderful to think that there is a "solution," and that what one sees in the behavior of Muslims, directed at Buddhists and Hindus as well as at Christians and Jews, in such places as southern Thailand and southern Sudan and southern Nigeria, in Bangladesh as in Bradford, in Lahore as in London or Lyon, in short, all over, wherever Muslims feel strong enough to push their ways, to force Infidels to accommodate them, is simply an anomaly. Sometimes they win, and sometimes they are rebuffed, but that does not end their eternal desire to promote Islam, for Islam "is to dominate and is not to be dominated."

--Hugh Fitzgerald

excerpt from
Read the whole thing!

New weapons for those conducting Jihad

. . . [t]he principal of these is the negligence of the political and media elites throughout the Western world, that allowed them to admit into their midst millions of Muslims and permitting them to settle deep behind what Islam itself tells them they must regard as enemy lines, without carefully considering what this arrival of people who carried undeclared in their mental baggage the ideology of Islam would mean for the future security and stability of Infidel societies.

--Hugh Fitzgerald from . . .

Fitzgerald: A tribute to James K. Glassman

by Hugh Fitzgerald

from Dhimmi Watch

“This is an effort that requires credible Muslim voices to work effectively — especially voices of those, like Fadl, born Sayyid Imam al-Sharif, and known as Dr. Fadil, whose story was told recently by Lawrence Wright in the New Yorker. Fadl helped build the Al Qaeda ideology and now repudiates it for its wanton violence.” -- James K. Glassman, under secretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs

Had James K. Glassman read the report on Fadil with attention and understanding, despite Lawrence Wright's attempts to offer his own pollyannish gloss about What A Falling-Out There Was In The Ranks of Al Qaeda, he would have seen just from the quotes from Fadil offered, that Fadil was not abandoning Jihad. (Does anyone actually read anything with attention, or did he just accept an Executive Summary of the piece, or ignore the quotes and accept Wright's misunderstanding of the very evidence he, Wright, presented?) Fadil is all for Jihad. He is simply for Jihad conducted by means other than the terrorism favored by Al Qaeda, because that doesn't work. It simply arouses the Infidels too early. And what's more, Fadil finds attacks on Muslim rulers, or rulers who call themselves Muslims, also a bad idea, though perhaps he does so because being inside an Egyptian or a Saudi jail, as so many of those former Al Qaeda ideologues or fighters have discovered, naturally leads to such a conclusion.

No, Glassman accepts, and does not offer a hint of questioning, the banal notion that "there is a war within Islam." No, there isn't really. There is a "war -- or rather a Jihad -- against Infidels." The duty of Jihad is as old as Islam, and is central, not tangential, to Islam. It is the "struggle" or Jihad to press back the boundaries of Dar al-Islam, to remove all obstacles everywhere to the spread, and then to the dominance, of Islam. Being lazy, J. K. Glassman assumes that the means chosen for Jihad -- qitaal or combat -- by the early Muslims necessarily remains the only means, and therefore the identifying feature, of Jihad. But qitaal or combat is not the only means. A morning spent with Muslim texts, or Muslim sites online, would quickly demonstrate that Muslims have for many decades discussed all the other means of conducting Jihad that now present themselves.

To repeat myself: there have been several major changes, overlapping in time but distinct, that offer new weapons for those conducting Jihad.

The principal of these is the negligence of the political and media elites throughout the Western world, that allowed them to admit into their midst millions of Muslims and permitting them to settle deep behind what Islam itself tells them they must regard as enemy lines, without carefully considering what this arrival of people who carried undeclared in their mental baggage the ideology of Islam would mean for the future security and stability of Infidel societies. We already know, even now, from seeing what is going on in Great Britain, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, Spain, Sweden, and so on what the arrival of Muslims has meant. We have seen what kind of demands for changes to accommodate Muslim requirements are continuously made, and even when turned down, will forever be remade, because Muslims, Believers in Islam, can do no other. And we can see the pressures, ranging from same-sex or, still worse, Muslim-only same-sex public facilities, and prayer rooms in schools and workplaces and time off for those daily prayers, that so disrupt the rhythm of Western life, and for accommodations in every area -- including the most absurd, such as demands that photographs of Muslimah faces on drivers' licenses and passports should not be required, and so on, or that all crucifixes and other signs of Christianity be removed not from laic France, or the United States, but from the quite different country of Italy. And so on -- you can fill up your own mental pages with the list. It goes on and on.

And of course the most sinister demand of all is that Infidels not exercise their own rights, including the right of free speech. Muslims do not accept the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; Muslim states instead concocted their own version of this, the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights, that simply rips the heart out of the real thing, denying freedom of conscience and free speech and equal treatment of the sexes and of non-Muslims in Muslim societies, and which they have had the gall to present as an "Islamic" equivalent of the real thing, when it actually vitiates where it does not outright destroy, the spirit and letter of the Universal Declaration, or such equivalents, in individual freedoms, as the American Bill of Rights.

There are fights within the world of Islam: fights between Shi'a and Sunni, fights by Arabs to suppress non-Arab Muslims such as Berbers, Kurds, and black African Muslims. There are resentments felt by the poor Arabs and Muslims for the rich ones. There is contempt felt by some of the "northern Arabs" of Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon, for the "southern Arabs" of the sheikdoms and, especially, Saudi Arabia -- a resentment that may well merely be prompted by the economic disparity, but that is given a sheen of being about the supposed civilizational advance of the "northern Arabs" over the rude crude "desert Arabs" or "Beduin" of the Arabian peninsula.

There are also rivalries for power. Shall Mubarak stay or go? Shall he be succeeded by his oily gucci-loafered scion, or by the less corrupt, but likely more dangerous-to-Infidels representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood? Shall the Alawite dictatorship in Syria remain, or be replaced by a dictatorship of Sunni Muslim officers who, having slaughtered the Alawite generals, and allowed a certain amount of Sunni slaughter of Alawites in every one of their villages, now take over to enjoy the power, and of course the money that, in Muslim societies, is always obtained by the seizure of political power? And what princeling shall reign in this little sheikdom, and which one in that?

Oh, but that's it. There is no discussion of the Islam as an ideology. There is no attempt to modify, at all, the inculcation of a worldview that teaches hatred of Infidels, out of texts -- Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira -- bristling with hostility, often murderous hostility toward non-Muslims, and that offer a Total Belief-System that rests on an uncompromising view that a state of permanent war, though not necessarily of open warfare, exists between Believers and Infidels.

Do some of those who call themselves Muslims not always and everywhere put the doctrines of Islam into practice? Of course, and they don't do so for various reasons. One is because they are not in a position at the moment to do so; their self-interest demands different outward behavior. They may be seeking to live in an Infidel state, or study nuclear energy in a Dutch or German lab, or take a Fulbright to learn all about computer engineering. They may already live in an Infidel land and not wish to draw attention to what the canonical texts of Islam contain, and what, if one still identifies oneself as a Muslim, by this point can legitimately be attributed to such people as their beliefs, unless they declare otherwise and mean it.

And it is so much more important at the moment for so many Muslims to continue to extract as much as they can from Infidels, in the way of still more economic and military aid. Look at the meretricious behavior, accompanied by a steady drumbeat of smiles-and-wiles offers of support, for the campaign "against Al Qaeda" by so many generals and zamindars in Pakistan. Or just look at Iraq, where we have now entered the stage where both Sunnis and Shi'a, and the various groups and parties and tendencies within each of the sectarian camps, tries to ingratiate itself with the Americans, and hopes that those fabulously well-equipped Americans will leave behind, and leave to their particular group or sect, so much of that equipment. And so they keep talking, as Hashimi did the other day, all about the "need for a stronger army." Hashimi, a Sunni, sees the army, not the police, as the place where the Sunnis who formed the officer corps under Saddam are likely to find their surest power base within the so-called "national institutions" -- if they are to do so at all. So he and the others go on about "greater security" -- which will, of course, only be insured by the Americans leaving those Humvees, those Bradley fighting vehicles, those tanks with special anti-I.E.D. devices, those guns, that night-fighting equipment, those helicopters, oh, and a few dozen planes would do nicely, and don't you want us to have a little bit of a navy to patrol off Umm al Qasr and help you contain Iran?

And the American military officers are so self-delighted with the "counter-insurgency strategy." Take a bow, all you writers of counter-insurgency manuals who have ignored the larger question -- the question of what exactly it means that we win, what exactly the "victory" in Iraq is that will weaken the Camp of Islam and Jihad, other than a quite different definition of "victory" that I have discussed here so many times. Take a bow, soft-spoken would-be-novelist thoughtful Col. Nagl. Take a bow, Colonel or is it General McMaster, inventor of the "Ask Your Customer" program, according to which, we learn, American soldiers are asked to treat incarcerated Iraqis as "customers" whose good will they need to earn ("Friendliness Is Job One"). Take a bow, all of you who think that the phrase "in general, insurgencies last ten years" makes any sense at all, instead of being as comical a phrase as "in general, civil wars last 4.7 years" or "in general, wars last 10.3 years."

James K. Glassman has not, it is clear from what he writes, sat down and studied Islam. He has not studied the texts. He has not understood either the definition of Jihad, nor the varied instruments of Jihad. It was only a quarrel over those instruments that distanced Fadil from the current leaders of Al Qaeda, and not over the concept, or necessity for Muslims to fulfill the duty, of Jihad itself.

How comforting it is, though, isn't it, not to study Islam, not to study the texts, not to study the commentaries, not to study the 1350-year history of Islamic conquest and subjugation of non-Muslims, who faced either conversion, or death, or at best -- if they were ahl al-kitab, People of the Book -- the status of dhimmi, which means permanent humiliation, degradation, and physical insecurity.

And how comforting it is not to pay attention to, not to listen with care to, the growing small army of articulate defectors from the army of Islam, as valuable as were defectors from the KGB during the Cold War, such highly intelligent and thoughtful people as Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina. How comforting it is to think it is not a permanent problem, or one that in any case can be solved over there, way over there, in the Middle East, in Iraq, or in Afghanistan, or by "solving" the Jihad against Israel (which has no solution, which is only a situation to be managed, and managed through Israeli deterrence, which is all that keeps, or ever will, keep the peace).

How wonderful not to look closely at what is happening in the countries of Western Europe. How wonderful to think that there is a "solution," and that what one sees in the behavior of Muslims, directed at Buddhists and Hindus as well as at Christians and Jews, in such places as southern Thailand and southern Sudan and southern Nigeria, in Bangladesh as in Bradford, in Lahore as in London or Lyon, in short, all over, wherever Muslims feel strong enough to push their ways, to force Infidels to accommodate them, is simply an anomaly. Sometimes they win, and sometimes they are rebuffed, but that does not end their eternal desire to promote Islam, for Islam "is to dominate and is not to be dominated."

Glassman is a product of a certain American time and place. He is limited in his ability to see beyond his assumptions about people or peoples, and about the effect of ideologies. I'm not sure if he is one of those Wall Street Journal marxists who believes that economic wellbeing, or lack of it, explains everything, but I suspect so. He is a believer in the dogma that People Are Essentially The Same The Whole World Over, though not quite with the blatant bomfoggery of the Bush Administration's sentimental messianism, now slightly muted, of that Light-Unto-the-Muslim-Nations project in the dreamworld of Iraq.

And that Iraq remains, surge and "calm" or not, still a dreamworld, even or especially, for those hardheaded tough-minded "realistic" counter-insurgency experts who are proud of what they have accomplished -- like Colonel Bogey who with his men built that bridge over the River Kwai for the Japanese enemy with such care, paying attention to the task at hand but missing the larger picture, the picture outside Iraq, the picture of seeing the essential meaning, and menace, of Islam, and defining "victory" in Iraq only in one way: an end result that will weaken the Camp of Islam and Jihad. And there is only one way -- the way I have suggested in many columns -- to do that.

posted by Hugh at July 30, 2008 7:35 AM


James K. Glassman, heir to the position abandoned by the hapless Karen Hughes, and a good deal like her in his own display of brisk self-assurance, as he assures us, this master of "public diplomacy," of the essential goodness and rightness of Islam, as "one of the world's great religions," a "religion" in which "moderate" Muslims, if only we can appeal to them properly, explain ourselves to them properly, and make common cause with them (but their defining characteristics are never given), and so it is his, James K. Glassman's job, to do that "outreach" (in the annals of verbal treacliness, surely this word sticks, molasses-like, most to the craw) with these Muslims who can be our friends, our natural allies (if only we meet them half-way in some of their demands), against those bad or extremist or radical Islamists who apparently are able to make up new texts, or wildly misinterpret existing passages in the Qu'ran, Hadith, and Sira (the biography of Muhammad), just as those passages seem, over the past 1350 years, to have been so "wildly misinterpreted" by so many "extremists" (why, sometimes the "extremists" seem to constitute almost all of the conquering Muslims, with the "moderates" over many centuries apparently in hiding).

James K. Glassman is one of those in Washington who, without study or reflection, is making a bet on his understanding of, which is really his impulse to wilfully avoid learning about and then understanding, Islam.

He has made big bets, reputation-bets, before, on other matters.

For example, in Wikipedia we find this piquant paragraph:

"Glassman is known for his market analyses and commentary on economics and equities investing. He is a long-term optimist and is quick to point out positive developments, which is clearly typified in his book Dow 36,000. In this book, published near the peak of the late 1990s stock market bubble, Glassman declared that the Dow Jones Industrial Average was undervalued and would rise to 36,000. In its introduction, Glassman and his co-author wrote that the book "will convince you of the single most important fact about stocks at the dawn of the twenty-first century: They are cheap....If you are worried about missing the market's big move upward, you will discover that it is not too late. Stocks are now in the midst of a one-time-only rise to much higher ground–to the neighborhood of 36,000 on the Dow Jones industrial average." At the time the book was released (October 1, 1999) the average stood at 10,273. During the next three years the index declined by over 30%, bottoming at under 7,200 in the fall of 2002."

Glassman can solemnly proclaim, in good reading-tea-leaves fashion, for the kind of book that is sold, say, on business-school campus bookstores, with their dreary offerings about "leadership" or rather, "leadership roles," and their "total-quality management" one year, and "barrirs to competition" the next, and go ahead, choose your bleak poison for this year or this decade, with the assorted one-minute-megatrend gurus of the age, the mountebanks who tell the unappetizing captains of industry how to function, and tell us, the sad-eyed permanently disappointed investors, all about the Royal Road to Riches, with the snake-oil men, never called to account, never sufficiently embarrassed, never retiring to their estates in the Berkshires, or Cos Cob, or somewhere, with the ill-gotten gains from the idiotic advice that so many so breathlessly believed in, and will -- mark my words -- so easily believe in again.

When James K. Glassman wrote his little book confidently predicting, in 1999, that the stock-market would rise to 36,000, no doubt some eagerly bought that book, believed his stuff, and acted upon it. Tant pis pour eux. And Glassman, as far as I know, has not been mocked, or locked out of positions of power.

No, he was apparently casting about for something to do, and so the Bush Administration handed him this post that someone powerful apparently was convincved was just the ticket for James K. Glassman, and he for it.

He, Glassman, can make any kinds of bets on the Dow-Jones he wants, and is free to convince or lure or inveigle others. The American business world is full of such people. Both Dickens, in his depiction of the brevetted Kentucky colonel, the land speculator and promoter, in the American chapters of "Martin Chuzzlewit," and Mark Twain, limning the grotesqueries of the Gilden Age, would have had a field day today with such people.

But here's the point. Make all the bets you want about the Dow-Jones, the Nikkei, the Hang Seng, the anything at all, when it comes to mere (yes, I wrote "mere") money. But when you presume to make, or to help make, a civilizational bet, based on a misunderstanding of Islam, you do more than endanger my tiny, my non-existent even, portfolio. You endanger everything. And that is what happens when you blithely make assumptions about, and then proceed to make pronouncements about, Islam -- proceed to instruct, as part of the duty to protect, others.

That is intolerable.

Posted by: Hugh at July 30, 2008 9:30 AM

For Glassman (and company):
a musical interlude
Posted by: miira at July 30, 2008 9:52 AM

There are so many possibilities for those who do not live under censorious and censoring regimes, and, therefore, have not had their youtubes tied:

Posted by: Hugh at July 30, 2008 12:12 PM

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

WHEN IT COMES TO OBAMA - Paul Eidelberg Gets It ! ! !

Subject: Paul Eidelberg gets IT!!!
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:16:22 -0400

[This is important--for Israelis as well as Americans
--Leslie White]


I listened to Paul Eidelberg on your July 28th show and he's saying everything that I've been telling people for a year now. Obama is DANGEROUS, Professor Eidelberg hit it when he said who Obama will put into his cabinet when he becomes President. I've been thinking that for the last year, most idiots over here have NO CLUE who these people are that Obama will place in his cabinet. THESE PEOPLE ARE DANGEROUS, not only to us here but, to ISRAEL AS WELL. Obama talks in code, Professor Eidelberg is right on when he says that Obama uses "change" as an inocuous phrase, but in fact, those of us that are students of history know that this is anything but harmless. If you listen to this guy he's always offering something to people in other words "elect me I'll give you something" that is socialism my friends and how it rises to power. Hitler did it, Stalin did it, Musolini did it, now Obama is doing it. Thank GOD for Professor Eidelberg a man that is not AFRAID to say it like it is. He thinks a civil war is coming and so do I, I told you when I wrote you about Corsi, that short of taking up arms against these elitists nothing can be done to stop their socialist agenda from taking hold. This must be the same atmosphere that preceded the French Revolution in France. For those of us in tune with what's going on we all feel something brewing under the surface, but unfortunately most people are MORONS and can't see what's happening. They're buying into Obama's dangerous rhetoric, and following blindly to their demise. I have a plan on what I will do when the Obama government comes knocking on my door, most idiots on the other hand have no clue what's going on. The media over here is just an arm of the socialist agenda that Obama is pushing for. Pravda comes to mind as to how this media over here has become. Professor Eidelberg is right on about Iran too, how can one negotiate with animals that have openly said they want to kill you? Answer, you can't. Israel will have to go it alone I think to stop the new Hitler in Iran. Obama will not help Israel, this is a man who would not even visit our troops in Germany when he was there, he hates the military and hates Israel:--don't be fooled like these phony jews over here in the states have been. The irony is that Obama wants to placate Ahmadinejad and the "jews" over here think that's ok, it amazes me that they really don't seem to give a damn about Israel whether it lives or dies. These liberal jews are phony, like John Stewart or Seinfeld that make fun of their heritage to make money. Rather sickening.

[color emphasis mine. lw]

Read the Paul Eidelberg broadcast transcript at

Read about the Coming Civil War at

Monday, July 28, 2008

Obama And The New American Revolution

Prof. Paul Eidelberg


. . . since Obama has said he will pull American troops out of Iraq within 16 months—an invitation for Iran to move in—I fear that the next Congress, if controlled by the Democrats, will legislate America’s defeat in Iraq and its virtual surrender to Islam.

What also needs to be emphasized, however, is that an insidious political revolution is taking place in America, a revolution pursued under Obama’s seemingly innocuous slogan of CHANGE. That change may well be nothing less than regime change—a change that will eventually terminate American civilization. I say this with two developments in mind: the economic ascendancy of a nuclear-armed China and the resurgence of Russian imperialism, undermining the U.S. by supplying Iran with S-300 long-range anti-aircraft missiles to thwart any attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

And so, a leftwing presidency may undo the American Revolution of 1776. At stake is the Judeo-Christian heritage underlying that magnificent Revolution.

Read it all at

Thursday, July 24, 2008


. . .


Click on

Losing the war of ideas

. . . and see how

James K. Glassman, the new U.S. under secretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs . . .



looking for an alternative . . . ?


The "Messiah" of Nothing!

You think that this will defeat our enemies?

This would-be Messiah let his Mohammedanism lapse sometime between his Islamic education and his taking up Christianity by joining the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's white-hating Afrocentric church. Doing whatever he deemed necessary for gaining power, he launched himself into the American-African community by becoming a community organizer in Chicago with connections to unsavory and anti-American elements.





An analysis


“No Substitute for Victory”
The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism
by John Lewis

(with sections of the author's original text)


Two responses to Islam are possible:

The first has as its Goal:


How accomplished:

Hit centers of power

obliterate cities.

decimate military

bomb industry

choke off food

mine harbors

sink ships

shatter people psychologically

Kill 1000,000 in firestorm in capital

Drop leaflets advising which cities will be next

Enemy responds with propaganda to his people that they are winning

Enemy population cowers defenselessly--American bombers level homes

We mass huge forces mass on enemy's borders

1000 bombers pulverize cities.

President issues ultimatum:

"Unconditional surrender"

Nuclear bombs are dropped on cities.

Enemy surrenders,

Orders his soldiers to lay down their arms

Makes a political decision to cease fighting

American military occupies


media censored

schools reformed

economic cartels dismantled

militaristic language effaced at all levels

constitution written and imposed by occupiers

Enemy told that they are defeated and that
we have no obligations to them.

People starve; told they brought it on themselves

Cost of occupation is charged to defeated Islamics

No aid arrives until complete surrender is demonstrated and
militaristic ideology is repudiated

A principled, all-out merciless offense brought us victory


(Iraq-style response)

Precision bombing only

Avoid civilian casualties at all costs

Food drops

Enemy allowed to flee to neighboring nuclear armed country
which is our ally

We don't cross their borders.

Enemy crosses over kills Americans (like from Iran or Saudi).

We set up--or try to set up--a democracy.


Now, which of these two responses—the all-out, merciless, military offense, or the restrained, diplomatic, semi-military approach, should we choose? Let us evaluate them, according to several ideas widely accepted today.

In the second method of fighting, we fight:

War for the "good of others."

The only absolute is that we must NOT engage in focused, principled military action toward a firm, self-interested, pro-American victory.

This second, flexible, response is considered right—according to pragmatism.

Altruism leads to the same conclusion.

To fight for our own benefit—to elevate our lives over those of our enemies—
is almost universally condemned today as selfish and thus “immoral.”

A moral war, according to altruism, is a war fought self-sacrificially, for the good of others, especially for the weak.

Again, their freedom must be our goal—their prosperity must be our mission—if we wish to be “good.”

An all-out offensive response, in this view, would be an utter disaster—
pragmatically because it holds to principles in defiance of constantly shifting reality,
and morally because it seeks the enemy’s defeat rather than his benefit.
On the premises of pragmatism and altruism, the measured, proportional, restrained approach is our only option.



While this cleric plots an Islamic State, people from countries where children are taught that Jews are born of pigs and monkeys, and that Israel is “occupied territory” and fair game for attack, rail against so-called anti-Muslim “prejudice.” Inside America, leaders of hostile countries give speeches to build “bridges of understanding” while building nuclear bombs overseas.Adherents of Islam claim to be victims of persecution, assertions they make on national television, from pulpits, and in tenured university positions.

In short, the second, pragmatic, altruistic approach has failed. In the five years since 9/11, the motivations behind the Islamic attacks have not been suppressed—and this is the real failure of these policies.

The reason for this failure is that every one of the ideas we used to evaluate our options is wrong. In every case, the opposite of today’s “conventional wisdom” is true.

* A strong offense does not create new enemies; it defeats existing foes. Were this not so, we would be fighting German and Japanese suicide bombers today, while North Korea—undefeated by America—would be peaceful, prosperous, and free.

* Poverty is not the “root cause” of wars. If it were, poor Mexicans would be attacking America, not begging for jobs at Wal-Mart.

* Democracy is not a route to freedom—not for the Greeks who voted to kill Socrates, nor for the Romans who acclaimed Caesar, nor for the Germans who elected Hitler.

* A culture of slavery and suicide is not equal to a culture of freedom and prosperity—not for those who value life.

* The world is not a flux of contradictions, in which principles do not work. If it were, gravity would not hold, vaccinations would not work, and one would not have a right to one’s life.

* Being moral does not mean sacrificing for others. It means accepting the American principle of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”—and living for one’s own sake.

History is clear: All-out force against fanatical killers is both practical and moral. It led us to our two most important foreign policy successes—the defeats of Germany and Japan in 1945—and to the permanent peace with those nations that we take for granted today. Such a course was practical and moral then, and it is practical and moral now—an affirmation, and a defense, of life and civilization.

Ayn Rand, in her essay on the nature of government, observed a vital relationship between man’s right to life and his right to self-defense:

The necessary consequence of man’s right to life is his right to self-defense. In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. All the reasons which make the initiation of physical force an evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative.

If some “pacifist” society renounced the retaliatory use of force, it would be left helplessly at the mercy of the first thug who decided to be immoral. Such a society would achieve the opposite of its intention: instead of abolishing evil, it would encourage and reward it.

We must defeat these enemies, and we can.

Only after we understand that we should defeat these enemies, can we ask how.

That we have the overwhelming capacity to defeat the Islamic Totalitarians militarily is beyond doubt. Yet far from elevating technology to the key issue in winning a war, this illustrates the unequivocal importance of the moral self-confidence—the state of mind that proceeds from an awareness of one’s own moral goodness and efficacy—that is needed to use this weaponry. This is what enabled us to overcome serious material deficiencies and to drive victoriously over the Japanese in 1945. The question today is not whether we have the capacity to win; it is whether we have the self-confidence, and the will, to do so.

The purpose of a proper government is to protect the rights of its citizens—each citizen’s freedom to think and act on his own judgment—by using retaliatory force as necessary against criminals and foreign invaders.

This requirement applies to Islam today. In regard to Japan, the job involved breaking the link between Shinto and state; in regard to Islamic Totalitarianism the task involves breaking the link between Islam and state. This is the central political issue we face: the complete lack of any conceptual or institutional separation between church and state in Islam, both historically and in the totalitarian movement today.

The conclusion is inescapable. The road to the defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism begins in Tehran. America, acting alone and with overwhelming force, must destroy the Iranian Islamic State now. It must do so openly, and indeed spectacularly, for the entire world to see, for this is the only way to demonstrate the spectacular failure and incompetence of the Islamic fundamentalist movement as a whole.

Intellectually, we must state our intentions and reasons openly, without hiding behind timid diplomatic-speak. Physically, we must act decisively, and with all the force we deem necessary, to eliminate the Iranian regime as quickly as possible, and with the least risk to American soldiers. Only when the world sees this demonstration of American resolve will America begin to see peace and security.

We must not seek legitimacy for the removal of the Iranian Islamic State beyond the principle of our right to defend ourselves. To pretend that something more than this principle is needed would be to deny the sufficiency of the principle. To base our reasons on the alleged good of others, especially on any alleged benefits to the people of the Middle East, would be to accept a position of moral dhimmitude: the moral subordination of our right to life and self-defense to an allegedly higher principle.

If we accept the Totalitarians’ claim that we must submit to the will of “Allah,” then we cannot claim the right to exist. America’s “weakness of will” is the jihadists’ great hope—as it was the hope of Japanese warriors—but it is something they cannot impose on us. Their only prayer is that we will accept it voluntarily. The price for doing so is our lives and the lives of our children. We must not submit.

To remove this cancerous Islamic State loudly and forthrightly will have immediate benefits. We would avenge the thousands of American terror victims since the 1960s. We would reverse the pitiful image we projected when Iranians stormed our embassy in 1979, and when we fled from Mogadishu and from Lebanon—actions that the Islamic Totalitarians claimed as evidence of our weakness. We could even reverse a tremendous injustice by un-nationalizing the oil companies in Iran—stolen from their owners in 1951—and placing them back into private hands, under government protection. Certainly guarding those facilities from a surrounding civil war—a legitimate protection of private property, backed by a credible threat of crushing force—would be a far better use of our troops than guarding a few blocks in downtown Baghdad from its own residents. The pipeline of money into Islamic jihad would be cut.

Most importantly, by ousting the regime in Iran, we would send a clear message to the world: Political Islam is finished. Weaker states and groups would cringe in terror—as they did briefly after 9/11—and would literally retreat into holes in the ground. Anti-totalitarian forces across the world would be emboldened by the sight of a real defense of life and liberty. Allies we never knew existed would raise their heads with confidence and join the cause of freedom. The land of the free—rejuvenated as the home of the brave—would rejoice as the nation of the secure. We would truly be on the road to victory, freedom, and peace. By affirming the efficacy of reason and individual rights over incompetent dark-age theocracy, America could once again claim its place as a real world leader, and become a beacon for those who understand, and value, freedom.

Once this central task is complete, further intransigent policies toward Islamic Totalitarianism will be necessary. One pertains to state economic support for Islam, another to state-sponsored education. The 1945 telegram—again, with Islam replacing Shinto—addresses both of these points:

Islam, however, insofar as it is directed by governments, and as a measure enforced from above by the government, is to be done away with. People [will] not be taxed to support Islam and there will be no place for Islam in the schools.

The Muslim world must be made to understand that any government that provides economic support to jihadists will be summarily destroyed. In order for this policy to be taken seriously, we must demonstrate its truth—by destroying the Iranian regime and stating why we have done so. Only the clear threat that “you will be next” can break the entangled network of Islamic economic support for jihad that masquerades as “economic development.” There can be no more playing games with Saudi apologists who speak smooth English and describe their work as “charity.” In 2003, the International Islamic Relief Organization, a Saudi charity, claimed to have dug 1,615 wells throughout the Middle East—but it also established 4,400 mosques and distributed millions of Islamic books and pamphlets. The result has been the display, on television, of young children as “True Muslims,” trained to see Jews as pigs and apes, screaming “Allahu Akbar” and dedicating themselves to jihad.13 Such “charity” means raising money to spread the ideas, and tactics, of Totalitarian Islam. It must end.

Ending this state economic support cannot occur without confronting one of Islam’s five pillars: alms. By separating church and state, alms can become something that it has never been in Islam: truly private charity. In the primitive society in which Mohammed lived, there was no concept of the separation of church and state. The religious leaders were the political leaders, and the payment of alms was a state-imposed taxation as much as a religious duty. Since then, nothing has changed within Islam. It is high time that all government involvement in so-called “charities” be ended. All states known to have sponsored terrorism against the West must be forbidden to impose taxes or provide funding on behalf of Islam.

Regarding education, the following will be imposed:

Islam as a state religion—National Islam, that is—will go . . . Our policy on this goes beyond Islam . . . The dissemination of Islamic militaristic ideology in any form will be completely suppressed. Middle Eastern Governments will be required to cease financial and other support of Islamic establishments.

After the regime in Iran is destroyed, the leadership in countries sponsoring such state training in Islamic jihad—especially Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt—must choose: Close the state-funded schools, or face the Iranian alternative. Until the U.S. demonstrates the nature of that choice, by serious retaliation against Iran, unambiguously connecting principled words to practical actions, there is no reason for any Middle Eastern leader to expect serious consequences. Until then, they are right to regard us as a paper tiger. Only the forthright destruction of the Iranian Islamic State can demonstrate the resolve needed for this task.

America needs a Commander-in-Chief today who can understand and state this simple truth: In war, there is no “right” to free speech on behalf of an enemy. The string of obviously false, contrived, and manipulated “news” by the supporters of jihad—the staging of civilians crying when a home is destroyed, and the throwing about of children’s dolls when a terrorist’s safe house is wrecked—are all part of the enemy’s war effort. In war, the psychological disarmament of the enemy, including the inculcation of terror through vicious propaganda, is part of the fight. American unwillingness to quash such propaganda is seen, by our enemies, not as respect for freedom of speech, but rather as a lack of will and as evidence of weakness. In the present situation, Americans must forcibly prohibit the dissemination of militaristic ideology and propaganda anywhere it rises. To make the point clear, Al-Jazeera—the fountainhead of Muslim taqiyya, or deception—must be shut down.

In summary, Political Islam, Militant Islam, rule by Islamic Law—and all the economic and intellectual support associated with it—must go. This means that Iran must go.

The removal of Islamic political states will not be the end of the task; many intellectual battles will have to be waged. Most importantly, Western intellectuals must present not only a negative—a repudiation of the Totalitarian Universe—but also a positive—a clear explanation to the world that the moral purpose of a government is to protect its citizens’ rights to think and act on the judgment of their own minds, free from coercion by church, mosque, or state. But such battles cannot be fought by pretending that those who make death threats instead of arguments are offering anything but clubs in place of syllogisms.

This is not a clash between civilizations; it is a clash between civilization and barbarism. Until civilized people assert themselves with a depth of moral confidence exceeding that projected by those who submit to the “will of Allah,” America will remain permanently on the defensive, in a state of moral dhimmitude, and the war will continue to its logical conclusion: a mushroom cloud over America.

Is it possible for a “moderate” form of Islam to become an alternative to the totalitarian world-view infecting so many Muslims?

It would mean an Islam that (like modern Christianity) is open to critical self-reflection, whose thinkers examine the Koran as a set of stories, compiled and interpreted by men—and not the infallible word of God to be spread by the sword. It would mean an Islam that allows apostates to make their own decisions, and that tolerates no death threats against them. It would mean the explicit rejection—by Muslims—of State Islam, Islamic Law, and the pursuit of jihad. Such “moderate” Muslims will support the obliteration of Totalitarian Islam. The rest must witness the defeat of this poisonous ideology, and grasp the hopelessness of supporting it.

Hiding the truth behind allegedly “prudent” language designed to obfuscate our intentions is of no use against an ideology with the directness of Islam. We cannot out-taqiyya the Islamic Totalitarians. We must state our end goal openly and clearly; we must identify the principled means of achieving it; and we must become people of integrity—people who act in accordance with their values and convictions. There is no substitute for integrity, and that means no substitute for victory.

How will we know when we have achieved “victory”? The question is: What is it that we really need from the enemy?

Involves the simple formula of placing the objective of this war in terms of an unconditional surrender. . . . Unconditional surrender means not the destruction of the populace, but does mean the destruction of a philosophy . . . which is based on the conquest and subjugation of other peoples.

The term “Unconditional Surrender” has been closely linked to Civil War General Ulysses S. Grant, who demanded “no terms except unconditional and immediate surrender”

We must demand the unconditional surrender of the Islamic State in Iran—and of every other Islamic Totalitarian State on earth—to the legitimate laws of man, the laws that protect individual rights. Every Islamic cleric must renounce the goal of inciting his audience to jihad; he must proclaim, loudly and openly, his repudiation of Islamic law; he must state his intention to live under the laws of men in accordance with the requirements of man’s life on earth. Every Muslim intellectual must denounce the Islamic State as an aberration and a monstrosity, as being contrary to the requirements of life on earth. Immediate, personal destruction can be the only alternative.

If it is true that the majority of Middle Eastern people want a decent free life for themselves—as the vast majority of Japanese did after August, 1945—then they will rejoice over the excision of Totalitarian Islam from their midst.

If they do not, the unconditional surrender of Islamic Totalitarianism must be taken to mean its political defeat: There will be no negotiations over the place of Islam in government, for it has no such place.

We can do this. This is not some Platonic ideal, good in theory but unattainable in practice. We Americans can—and must—re-establish our integrity by re-uniting our ideals and our actions. History is on our side here. In relative terms, the physical forces facing America and her allies in 1941 were far more formidable than those we face today, and America then was far weaker militarily. In our own day, the technological and industrial superiority of the U.S. over the Middle East is staggering. Islamic warriors can shoot an AK-47, but they cannot build one; all of the arms possessed by Islamic countries come from outside those countries. They are pathetically weak; the American army ended the regime of Saddam Hussein in three weeks, after Iran could not beat him in eight years. Our overwhelming material advantage, however, will be of no help if we lack the will to drop a bomb—or if we use our forces to strengthen our enemies. As it was for Germany and Japan in the 1930s, so it is today: The power of the Islamic Totalitarians grows every day that we wait. The strategic balance will shift—the Islamic Totalitarians will have the capacity as well as the will to bring about the nuclear Armageddon that they so deeply crave—if Iran acquires nuclear bombs. It is not a kindness to wait, knowing that our response will have to be even more lethal after a mushroom cloud rises over American soil. To wait, in light of that knowledge, is irrational—criminally irrational.

The need to understand the gravity of this situation—and our capacity to prevent a catastrophe—is particularly urgent at this moment in time. It is obvious that the defeat of the Republicans in the 2006 mid-term elections was a repudiation of President Bush’s policies in this war. But it is more important to understand that President Bush has not mounted an offensive strategy, and that an offensive strategy is not the reason why American troops are dying in Iraq. There has been no drive to victory, only a string of casualties and the progressive discouragement of the American people. As a result, our primary enemy has been strengthened, and allowed to address the world as a leader just a few blocks from Ground Zero in New York City. (Imagine Hitler being granted this privilege.) Bush’s war strategy of non-war has resulted in a functional paralysis caused by our self-imposed failure to identify and confront open and avowed.

What has been demonstrably repudiated by the actions of the Bush administration is not the first of the options I presented, but the second. What has been tried and has failed are the altruistic, pragmatic policies of an administration that is as desperate to appear tough as it is to avoid being tough. The Democrats—the party that won World War II by dropping two atomic bombs—have an opportunity to regain a position of moral stature before the American people. Should they not do so—should they choose to retreat—then their unwillingness to value the lives of American citizens over the lives of foreign enemies will be made clear, and the Democrats will be seen as no better, no more principled, no more courageous, and no more American than the RepublicansOur military capacities are not in doubt today. It is our moral self-confidence that is in question. What was it that stopped us from confronting Iran in 1979, except a lack of confidence in our own rightness, and an unwillingness to defend ourselves for our own sakes? Had we removed the Iranian regime in 1979, thousands of Americans would have been saved, and children across the world would not have grown up with sword verses rising in their minds as they give their lives to jihad.

[emphasis mine. lw]


We Must Get Back to the Basics of Warfare - CAN THE WEST (THE FREE WORLD) WIN AGAIN?


Nothing Less than Victory:
Military Offense and the Lessons of History
(Under contract, Princeton University Press. Expected publication: fall, 2008)

Article: "'Gifts from Heaven': The Meaning of the American Defeat of Japan, 1945" in The Objective Standard 2.4, Winter, 2007/2008
“Gifts from Heaven”: The Meaning of the American Victory over Japan, 1945
John David Lewis
Identifies the ideology of sacrifice behind the Japanese aggression that culminated in World War II; documents America’s recognition of this ideology as the fundamental cause of the Japanese assault on the West; explains how America targeted, dismantled, and discredited this ideology, replacing it with the ideas, values, and institutions necessary for the establishment of a free society; and defends America’s use of the atomic bomb as a profoundly moral way to end the war. Read the opening paragraphs (full article accessible to subscribers).

Article: “‘A Balm for a Guilty Conscience’: Moral Paralysis, Appeasement, and the Causes of World War II,” in The Objective Standard 2.2, 2007
“The Balm for a Guilty Conscience”: Moral Paralysis, Appeasement, and the Causes of World War II
John David Lewis
Shows how altruism and egalitarianism—combined with guilt caused by these same factors in regard to World War I—led to British appeasement and compromise in the late 1930s, which, in turn, enabled the rise of Nazi Germany and necessitated World War II. Read the opening paragraphs (full article accessible to subscribers).

Article: “William Tecumseh Sherman and the Moral Impetus for Victory,” in The Objective Standard 1.2, 2006
William Tecumseh Sherman and the Moral Impetus for Victory
John David Lewis
Presents the essential history of Sherman's march, showing how Sherman developed and implemented his ideas that lead to the North's victory in the Civil War, and drawing the moral lessons we can learn from this great man about how to properly approach and quickly defeat enemies of freedom. Read the opening paragraphs (full article accessible to subscribers).

“No Substitute for Victory”: The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism (accessible for free)
John David Lewis
Consults historical precedent to evaluate America’s response to the attacks of 9/11. Considering key historical attacks against America, along with her responses to those attacks, Lewis highlights the moral and practical issues involved, and draws vital lessons that Americans must grasp and apply in the current war—if we want to win it. Read the article.


Neoconservative Foreign Policy: An Autopsy
Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein
Surveys the manifest failure of neoconservative foreign policy, which is alleged to be in America’s “national interest,” zeros in on the fundamental reason for that failure, and calls for the only moral and practical alternative to it: a foreign policy of genuine American self-interest. Read the opening paragraphs (full article accessible to subscribers).

The “Forward Strategy” for Failure (accessible for free)
Yaron Brook and Elan Journo
Examines the Bush administration’s so-called war strategy and shows that its manifest failure is a consequence not of good ideas poorly implemented, but of the morally corrupt ideas motivating the administration. Read the article.

The Jihad on America
Elan Journo
Elucidates the fundamental ideas behind, and the principal sponsors of, the Islamic assault on America by reference to the words and deeds of its adherents and supporters—words and deeds that westerners in general and Americans in particular must understand if we are to eliminate this anti-life movement before it eliminates more of us. Read the opening paragraphs (full article accessible to subscribers).

“Just War Theory” vs. American Self-Defense (accessible for free)
Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein
Presents the principles of “Just War Theory”—the disastrous, altruistic theory underlying and guiding the Bush administration’s so-called “War on Terrorism”—and contrasts them with the principles of a proper, egoistic approach to American self-defense. Read the article.

Exposing Anti-Muslim “Conspiracies”
Elan Journo
Surveys and identifies the fundamental cause of the widespread conspiracy theories that plague the Middle East and help convert millions of people into anti-Western lunatics. Read the opening paragraphs (full article accessible to subscribers).

Subscribe to the journal for people of reason.

Thursday, July 17, 2008


Bill Warner of
makes the case:

Hello, Dalai--Muslim-ology is Not Islam


The Dalai Lama said Sunday that "it's totally wrong, unfair" to call Islam a violent religion. This is not the first time that the Dalai Lama has spoken up to say that Islam is not violent. Where does he get his information? He bases his statements on what his Muslim friends have told him.

For the Dalai Lama these Muslims represent the real Islam. They are not violent, and therefore, there is a peaceful Islam.

The Dalai Lama does not recognize the existence of a civilization called Islam. Islam has a highly detailed political doctrine that determines 100% of what a Muslim does to kafirs (kafirs is what the Koran calls unbelievers). This political doctrine includes what being "nice and moderate" to kafirs really means.

His opinions are of no consequence to Islam. Islam defines absolutely everything about a Muslim, down to how to say, "Hello".

Start with the basics. All Muslims believe that there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet. Simple, but it demands that Muslims follow the Koran and the perfect pattern of Mohammed's words and deeds (his Sunna). The Sunna is found in the Hadith (Traditions of Mohammed) and the Sira (Mohammed's biography). Today, these three texts, the Trilogy, are available in readable editions.

The doctrine of political and religious Islam is contained in these three books. It is very simple--three books--a Trilogy. To know Islam, read the Koran, Sira and Hadith; don't go and ask your Muslim friends.

This "peaceful Muslims = peaceful Islam" statements are actually about Muslim-ology, not Islam. It is perfectly fine to study Muslims, but do not draw conclusions about Islam from them. There is a cause and effect relationship that is confused. Islam causes Muslims. Muslims do not cause Islam. Muslim-ology teaches little about Islam.

This means that you judge Muslims by Islam, not Islam by Muslims. If you want to know anything about Islam read the Trilogy. If you want to know if someone is a moderate Muslim, use Islam to measure them, not personal opinion.

Islamic doctrine says that moderation consists of patterning your life after Mohammed's perfect example and living by the Koran. By this standard of moderation, Osama bin Laden is a moderate Muslim. Osama follows the example of Mohammed, the warrior jihadist, and the later Medinan Koran. The Koran has two parts and the second part is about politics and jihad. A jihadist is a moderate Muslim.

But wait, what about those other moderate Muslims? They follow the Islam of the earlier Meccan Koran. So they are moderate too.

Islam is dualistic and has two different kinds of moderate. Here is the bad news. Islam is a process, not just a name. Both the Koran and the Sira, Mohammed's life, show a process of starting off with civility, then demanding and next moving to violence as Islam grows stronger.

Mohammed preached the religion of Islam in Mecca for 13 years and gained 150 followers. He went to Medina and became a politician and warrior in jihad. In 10 years he conquered all of Arabia and died without an enemy left standing. Just as there are two Korans, there are two Mohammeds. Islam is dualistic in its nature.

Mohammed's life was a dualistic process, an Islamic process of success. Those "moderate" Muslims represent the early stages of Islamification. In Islam, doctrine matters, and doctrine is what the Dalai Lama doesn't understand. What is his justification for ignoring it? Read his statements and comments. He never, ever, not even once, quotes any Islamic doctrine. He merely asserts that his Muslim friends have told him what Islam is. What if he asked different Muslims? He would get different answers.

The Dalai Lama is a hypocrite. In addressing Buddhism, he is very careful to quote doctrine and facts. When he talks about Islam, he just repeats what his Muslim friends say.

Here is the real tragedy. The Dalai Lama is not different from George Bush or any other politician. They know absolutely nothing about Islam, just what their Muslim "friends" tell them.

When will we have leaders who can talk from knowledge about the doctrine of Islam found in the Koran, Sira and Hadith? Hello Dalai, if you want to be a leader quote the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith, not your Muslim friends.

Bill Warner

Signup for our weekly newletter.

copyright 2008, CBSX, Inc. dba

Use this as you will, just do not edit and give us credit. Permalink:

Thursday, July 10, 2008































Monday, July 7, 2008


In Hartford, Thousands Gather To Celebrate Islam
By MATT BURGARD Courant Staff Writer
July 6, 2008,0,890224.story

Referred by, and thanks to,

A woman wearing a burqa sat on a bench Saturday at the Connecticut Convention Center in Hartford, the fabric across her face revealing only her eyes.

Next to her, a group of children chatted on cellphones and shrieked merrily over the sound of chanting music calling the assembled masses to prayers.

At the annual Islamic Circle of North America Convention, the traditional mixes easily with the modern.

"We're just like anyone else, and I think people have a hard time understanding that," said Sakina Abduss-Salaam, a New Jersey woman who strolled through the convention Saturday wearing a black-and-gold Islamic hijab dress and holding a Starbucks iced coffee.

Abduss-Salaam said she converted to Islam 18 years ago when she met her husband, a Muslim. She said the religion has shaped her life as she and her husband have raised two children and held full-time jobs in a society that sometimes views Muslims with distrust.

"It's not about terrorism or hatred. It's about love," she said. "Being a Muslim is just like being a Christian or a Jewish person. We are all called to treat each other with respect."

The convention, which has taken place in Hartford for the last four years, is expected to draw more than 15,000 people by the time it winds down later today, said Muhammad Rahman, the convention's co-chairman.

He said most of those who have shown up this weekend are Muslims from the East Coast stretching from New England to the Carolinas, though many have traveled from Canada and Texas and other far-off points.

"It's become a very popular family event and that's what we intended," Rahman said. "We want to educate our young people about the true meaning of Islam, as well as help overcome a lot of misperceptions on the part of non-Muslims."

In a cavernous hall next to the center's main lobby, hundreds of followers knelt on the ground at various points in the day to pray. Among them were teenagers Sydul Choudhury and Daiyan Chowdhury, both of New York, who toyed with a digital camera before the prayers began.

"It's a lot of fun," said Choudhury, whose family attends the convention every year. "It can be hard when people find out you're a Muslim. You have to explain that it's a peaceful religion."

Muhammad Tahir, a photographer from New York hired to take pictures at the convention, said the terrorist attacks of 9/11 have brought hardships and understanding for Muslim Americans.

"At first, it was hard because everyone suddenly looked at you differently," he said. "But since then, I think, more people have taken the time to learn about Islam, and now more people are educated."

Throughout the convention center, signs of Muslim culture mixing with the commercialism of American society were everywhere. In the lobby, a large cartoon camel pronounced the traditional Muslim greeting, "Assalamu Alaikum," which means, "Peace be upon you." In another large hall, rows of vendors offered traditional food and clothing of Islamic cultures beside booths selling compact discs and other modern luxuries.

"I think it's appropriate that we had the convention on the Fourth of July because we're proud to be Muslim and we're proud to be Americans," Rahman said.

Saturday, July 5, 2008


CAIR's* Traitorous Cop Ally
[*CAIR = Council on American-Islamic Relations, (CAIR)
see for more on CAIR]

By Paul Sperry
author of Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington

Thanks to Anti-Cair

If the Taliban catches an American spy, they slit the informer's throat. If we catch a pro-Taliban spy, he gets a slap on the wrist after getting a letter from a Muslim pressure group urging leniency. Who says we're winning this war?

Last month, Taliban fighters claimed to have killed a "female U.S. spy" for helping American forces in Afghanistan. Once all the evidence against the alleged spy was gathered, they slit her throat with a knife.

Compare that with the kid glove treatment of Sgt. Muhammad Weiss Rasool, a Muslim cop in the nation's capital who tipped off the target of an FBI terrorism investigation into a pro-Taliban mosque.

Despite his arrest, confession and recent conviction in federal court, Rasool, an Afghan immigrant, will do no jail time and will continue to collect a paycheck from taxpayers pending the results of an internal-affairs probe by the Fairfax County Police Department outside Washington.

Rasool took an oath to protect this country several years ago when he joined the FCPD, which is the largest force in Virginia and a key partner with the FBI in investigating major terror cases in the Washington area, including the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon.

But Rasool put his religion ahead of his adopted country when he alerted a fellow member of his mosque that he was under federal surveillance. At his Muslim brother's request, he searched a police database and confirmed that FBI agents were tailing him.

When agents went to arrest the target early one morning, they found him and his family already dressed and destroying evidence. They knew they had a mole and worked back through the system to find Rasool.

That's when agents discovered the police sergeant had breached their database at least 15 times to look up names of other contacts, including relatives, to see if they showed up on the terrorist watch list. (As part of post-9/11 data-sharing, local police now have access to classified federal case files on terrorists maintained within the NCIC, or National Crime Information Center system.)

Rasool's actions "damaged the integrity of the NCIC system and jeopardized at least one federal investigation," U.S. prosecutors said in court papers filed last month. "The defendant's actions could have placed federal agents in danger."

Rasool, 31, at first claimed he didn't know the terrorist target. He confessed only after hearing a recording of his message for the suspect, who was a cleric in his local Taliban-sympathizing mosque. Rasool finally pleaded guilty to illegally searching a federal database.

Despite his subsequent conviction, however, Fairfax County has left him on the force, pending the outcome of an internal investigation. The leniency afforded Rasool is unprecedented, given how he copped to the crime – and not just any crime, but one that betrayed his fellow officers and country.

It also contrasts starkly with the recent handling of other Arab and Muslim government employees caught breaching classified databases.

The city of Rochester, N.Y., for example, summarily fired a Muslim 911 operator, Nadire Zenelaj, well before she was formally charged last month with illegally searching the names of hundreds of friends in the terrorist watch list. And as part of a federal plea deal, Lebanese national Nada Prouty resigned from the U.S. government after confessing she accessed a restricted FBI database to see if relatives were being investigated for terrorist activities.

Unlike these alleged spies, however, Rasool has a powerful patron in Washington -- the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which lobbied on his behalf during his prosecution.

"I have always found Sgt. Rasool eager to promote a substantive relationship between the Fairfax County Police Department and the local Muslim community," wrote CAIR Governmental Affairs Coordinator Corey Saylor in a letter to the federal judge, who ended up denying prosecutors the jail time they requested for Rasool. (He got off lightly with a fine and two years probation.)

Indeed, Rasool acted as CAIR's representative on the police force, and even worked with the group to kill a successful counterterror-training program within the department.

Rasool and other Muslim officers tied to CAIR claimed the course taught by the respected Higgins Center for Counter Terrorism Research portrayed Islam in a bad light. CAIR phoned Fairfax County Police Chief David Rohrer to complain, and the chief canceled the training in 2006.

That same year, Rohrer spoke at CAIR's annual fundraising dinner in Washington, crediting the group with "helping police departments to better understand the Muslim community."

But the chief was being used -- by the Islamist enemy. It turns out his aggrieved sergeant at the time was under federal investigation for aiding and abetting terrorists. And so was CAIR -- the group from whom Rohrer was accepting phone calls and on whom he was conferring legitimacy. In fact, U.S. prosecutors at the time were adding CAIR to a list of co-conspirators in a terror scheme to funnel more than $12 million to Hamas suicide bombers and their families.

Yet CAIR and Rasool teamed up to persuade the politically correct Rohrer to nix the anti-terror training, which included counterintelligence measures to help police guard against the very infiltration from terror supporters and facilitators that has taken place on Rohrer's watch.

Sadly, the chief appears more concerned about protecting the force from charges of "Islamophobia" than Islamist penetration.

Rasool, still on paid leave, says he hopes to be permanently reinstated. If so, it would mark a humiliating defeat in our battle against the growing Islamist 5th column in America. Rasool has a dangerous religious conflict, and should never wear the uniform again.

Paul Sperry is a Hoover Institution media fellow and author of Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington. He can be contacted at

Thanks to Anti-Cair

For "How CAIR Slimes Americans," see

Andrew Whitehead
Director Anti-CAIR

Friday, July 4, 2008


Let us not lose it to the proponents of Islam that have infiltrated our country.

Why are they a danger?


(Council on American-Islamic Relations)

"Islam isn't in America to
be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant."
Omar Ahmad
Co-Founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations [CAIR]

"I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of
the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future...But I'm not going to do anything violent to
promote that. I'm going to do it through education."
--Ibrahim Hooper
CAIR spokesperson

Aggressive ambitions. As reported by the San Ramon Valley Herald, CAIR Chairman Omar M. Ahmad told a crowd of California Muslims in July 1998, "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran . . . should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth."

and this:

"CAIR's mission is to enhance understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding."

" Since its establishment in 1994, CAIR has worked to promote a positive image of Islam and Muslims in America. Through media relations, lobbying, education and advocacy, CAIR puts forth an Islamic perspective to ensure the Muslim voice is represented. In offering this perspective, CAIR seeks to empower the American Muslim community and encourage their participation in political and social activism."


Since its founding in 1994, the Council on American-Islamic Relations and its employees have combined, conspired, and agreed with third parties, including, but not limited to, the Islamic Association for Palestine (“IAP”), the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (“HLF”), the Global Relief Foundation (“GRF”), and foreign nationals hostile to the interests of the United States, to provide material support to known terrorist organizations, to advance the Hamas agenda, and to propagate radical Islam. The Council on American-Islamic Relations, and certain of its officers, directors, and employees, have acted in support of, and in furtherance of, this conspiracy.
(From "Response" To CAIR)

“Let there be no doubt that the Council on American-Islamic Relations
is a terrorist supporting front organization that is partially funded
by terrorists, and that CAIR wishes nothing more than the
implementation of Sharia law in America.”
* * *

This from Omar Ahmad
Co-Founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations
President and CEO of Silicon Expert Technologies.
Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP) Officer.

Captured on FBI surveillance tapes at Hamas meetings in the United States during 1993
explaining that the IAP could not, for political reasons, admit its support for Hamas,
and then discussing how the Hamas agenda could be cloaked and advanced.

"Those who stay in America should be open to society without melting, keeping Mosques open so anyone can come and learn about Islam. If you choose to live here, you have a responsibility to deliver the message of Islam ... Islam isn't in America to
be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book
of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only
accepted religion on Earth."

"Fighting for freedom, fighting for Islam, that is not suicide," ...
"They kill themselves for Islam."
(Ahmad Praises Suicide Bombers)

Therefore, when this co-founder of CAIR says,

"The Koran, the Muslim book
of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only
accepted religion . . . . "

CAIR places the koran above the United States Constitution.

CAIR therefore proposes the supplanting the US Constitution with the koran