|
Maxflackreport.com New York Times Dilemma SHAHZAD TANWEER VERSUS RICHIE CUNNINGHAM
The New York Times is still scratching its head. Why would four such utterly normal young men commit such a horrendous crime? (New York Times: Leeds, England, July 13) Why would they blow themselves up in London's subway system? Why would they do what they did? They had so much to live for.
There was this fun-loving kid. His dad owned a fish and chips shop. He would pitch in and help with the cod and spuds when he needed a little extra cash. He liked to clown around with his friends. He loved cricket, got good grades in school, drove the family car and had a bright future. Change the fish and chips shop to a hardware store and one had Richie Cunningham. The NY Times thought so.
There was this other kid-lived down the block. He was charming, impressionable; he was described as a drifting teenager. He didn't do so well in school-it was obvious that he would never stand out; but his smile could light up a room and his enthusiasm was infectious. If he wasn't Potsy Weber he was close.
They had a friend who smoked, played soccer, listened to music; wore designer clothes, liked girls. He had an odd-sounding name. "He seemed nice to speak to," said someone who knew him. It must have been Ralph Malph.
And there was this older guy. He took the munchkins under his wing. He was more experienced. He was wise beyond his years. He was full of good advice. Did he drive a Harley? Perhaps. If he wasn't Arthur Fonzarelli who was?
The foursome never met at Al's hamburger joint to ogle the girls and eat greasy burgers. They were more into fish and chips and the dietary laws they observed forbade the eating of pork. They were Islam's version of the Happy Days crowd. So why did they do what they did? The New York Times is trying to make sense of this. There was Shahzad Tanweer, the fun-loving middleclass kid, the Richie Cunningham of the group; Hasib Hussain, charming, impressionable; Germaine Lindsey, he seemed nice to speak to; and Mohammed Sidique Khan, the Fonz without the leather jacket and the Harley. They could have been dragged right out of Middle America. They were so utterly normal it was frightening.
Instead of gulping burgers and fries at Al's the London Four worked off their excess energy doing Islamic knee-bends at the Hardy Street Mosque in Beeston. They were bright chaps, clever as all get-out. They were going places, not like Potsy and Ralph Malph. Three of them had been born and raised in England. That's about as close to the Continent as one can get-a stones throw from the cutting edge of Bill Maher's civilization. Perhaps that is what is confusing the Times. Richie Cunningham and his friends lived west of the Hudson River, a strange and mysterious land as far the Times is concerned; a land so full of patriotism, flag-waving and John Wayne imitators as to be incomprehensible to the likes of Paul Krugman, Maureen Dowd, and Frank Rich. Sure, Paul and Frank could laugh at the antics of Richie and Potsy and Ralph Malph, but could they understand them? Probably not, Middle America is an alien place to the Times. George W. Bush is a Middle American. Maybe it was in their genes-something they ate.
More troubling for the Times was trying to understand why the London Four would commit such an atrocious crime. Why would Khan and his understudies strap explosives to their backs, descend into London's subway system and blow themselves to Kingdom Come? Did they do it for 72 virgins? Couldn't they have held out for more? But these kids-these young men-were so utterly ordinary, so British to the core; they loved soccer, Hasib brawled with white kids over girls, they ate fish and chips. Where did they go wrong? The Times wants to know.
It wasn't poverty. The suicide bombers were at least as well off as Richie and Potsy and a little better off than the Fonz. Was it religion? Hanif Malik, a spokesman for the Hamara Community Service Center in Beeston said definitely not. "The tensions in this city not based on religion, but on economics and culture," he said.
The Times agreed. It wasn't religion; it was economics and culture. Too many bright young Muslims were falling through the cracks in England's social justice system. Andy Capp's brats hate cultural diversisty; they just won't accept people who are different from them. So the problem is cultural decided the Times; religion has nothing to do with it. This revelation is so stunning it is difficult to grasp with a straight face. John Barrymore tried and broke down laughing. Religion is not a part of culture? Whose God died?
It was a few years ago that things began to change for the London Four. That's when they found religion. Ah, religion! Did they find it instantaneously like Saint Paul on the road to Damascus or like Alfalfa five minutes before he was to play Romeo in the school play? No, it was nothing as simple as that. Those were Christian conversions-little better than neo-paganism. Tanweer and Hasib went to Pakistan, studied at an all-night Madrassas. Wen they returned to Beeston their friends and acquaintances noticed a dramatic change had taken place. The fun-loving kid and the impressionable lout had turned toward piety: religion had set them straight.
Potsy and Ralph Malph went to Las Vegas for their moral awakening. It didn't change them a one bit even after the Fonz said, "Well are you satisfied now that you have lost all your money?"
Tanweer and Hasib, as pious Muslims, were expected to read the Qur'an. There's a lot of no-holds-barred bloody Jihad in the Qur'an; a lot about the killing and maiming of Islam's enemies; a lot about the dar-al-harb. Some of this stuff can be found in Mein Kampf.
The Happy Days boys were not voracious readers. Richie occasionally thumbed through the Bible; the Fonz kept a copy of Harley Davidson Monthly in his toolbox; Ralph Malph read from The Book of Love; Potsy kept his amateur status intact by never reading anything. They didn't play with bombs; never blew up a thing. And neither has Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson both of whom have spent a great deal of time perusing the Holy Bible. "Go ye forth and multiply," it says. It doesn't say, "Go ye forth and blow up your enemies."
Friends of Tanweer and Hasib said the pair had turned toward Muslim piety during the last few years. They should have went to Vegas with Potsy and Ralph Malph. Oh, yes, the tension in Beeston and other English towns and hamlets are not based on religion; they are based on economics and culture. Potsy could see through that. So could Mortimer and Bullwinkle. If religion isn't cultural then what the Hell is it? Economics? Khan and his pals found the justification and the incentive to commit their horrendous crimes in the Qur'an.
So if you see Potsy wandering around somewhere, invite him to dinner and tell him what a wonderful guy he is. Those other bastards can go to Hell. Jyllands-Posten
THERE IS NO HONOR, NO HONOR, NO HONOR-IN ISLAM
When Shane called Wilson a ‘dirty Yankee liar,' Wilson reached for his shootin' iron. What else was he to do? He had been insulted; demeaned; defamed. And unless he responded immediately to the challenge he would never be able to show his face in Grafton again. Suing was out of the question, lawyers were expensive, and Shane didn't have a pot to boil coffee in. So Wilson went down to the hardware store and bought some bullets. His honor was at stake-such as it was.
On May 20, 1856, Senator Charles Sumner (R-MA) rose in the Senate to trash the Kansas-Nebraska Act. During the course of the speech he made several insulting references to Senator Andrew Butler (D-SC), one of the bill's co-sponsors. Butler had taken "...a mistress," said Sumner, "...who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him; though polluted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his sight-I mean, the harlot, Slavery." Two days later, Butler's nephew, US Congressman Preston Brooks (D-SC), strode into the Senate chamber and beat Sumner half-to-death with a gutta-percha cane with a solid gold handle. Uncle Andy's honor has been at stake; Preston ‘Bully' Brooks' honor had been at stake; the South's honor had been at stake-such as it was.
So it is with Islam. The less honor reposing in a person or a group, the more angry and violent the response to any challenge, real or imagined, by said person or group.
Voltaire said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." He wasn't there for Shane or Charles Sumner, but it's the thought that counts. It's in the First Amendment to the US Constitution: the freedom of Speech; the freedom of Expression; the freedom of Thought; the freedom to Doodle; the freedom to take photographs of a crucifix suspended in a jar of urine and pass it off as art. One could, theoretically, paint a picture of The Holy Virgin Mary and cover it with elephant dung and call it art. Actually, that's what Chris Ofili did and he won a prestigious art award for what some called an abomination. (Liberal avant-garde artists seem to be fascinated with urine and feces)
Art connoisseurs, obviously knowing more about body wastes than the average person, said Ofili's masterpiece was ‘shocking,' ‘deliberately provocative' and was intended to ‘jolt viewers into an expansive frame of reference.'
Could that have been the idea behind the 12 drawings of Mohammed that appeared in Jyllands-Posten? Was it to shock-to provoke-to expand a frame of reference? Naw. Absolutely not! It seems more like something the old gang at Mad Comics would have done to while away the time between Smilin' Melvin and Melvin of the Apes. But shock it did-like a cattle prod going full blast. And provoke? Like poking a stick in a hornet's nest, though it did little to expand anyone's frame of reference. Islam is still mired in the 7th Century.
But the artists are in hiding, Jyllands-Posten has apologized, the Danish embassy in Damascus was torched, protesters in Pakistan are chanting ‘Death to France' and ‘Death to Denmark,' Iran's precious little Corporal is waving Islam's bloody shirt, and poor little England who has been apologizing profusely for three months has, nevertheless, been threatened with another 7/7.
Wilson would have understood; Bully Brooks would have understood; the Hatfields and the McCoys would have understood. It's about honor-real, imagined, or mistaken-those who have the least of it spend the most time defending it. Whether it's Wilson, Brooks or Islam they bully, they threaten, they insist upon having their way. At least six centuries behind the West in social and technological development, Islam cannot catch up with the modern world without embracing the very freedoms and ways of doing things they have despised for 1,400 years. To do so would dishonor them; it would be worse than death. But if they can conquer the dar al-Harb and restore the Caliphate all will be well and the Prophet will be pleased. He may even put out the fuse in his turban. And they were well on their way to doing just that. By subterfuge, by taquiya, by playing on the gullibility of the Noam Chomskys and the John Espositos, by taking advantage of the spinelessness of Europe's secularized society and the mind-numbing obtuseness of an America opiated on cultural diversity they were within a mere hadith or sura of success when, almost by accident, 12 of the most unlikely Rosa Parks' imaginable sat down at their drawing boards and exposed the ugly face of Islam. And like Wilson and Bully Brooks they responded with violence.
Let it be said: There is no honor in cutting the hands off thieves; there is no honor in the murder of a wife or sister or daughter because of the sexual incompetence of some braying jackass; there is no honor in collapsing or even talking about collapsing buildings on gays and lesbians; there is no honor in locking women up in houses and clothing them in garbage bags so some maladjusted sexist chauvinist pig can feel superior to someone; there is no honor in screaming ‘Death to Israel,' and ‘Death to America; there is no honor...no honor...no honor...
The mobs rampaging through the streets of Damascus, Tehran and Beirut should serve as a warning to the West. These are not the kind of people a sane person would want living next door. They are mean, nasty, ugly. Satan would have been proud of them; bearded, wild-eyed, irrational...men, youths; mere boys, exuding hatred with every breath. Everywhere one looked one saw men, men...men. Where were the women? The only thing that could possibly ameliorate the savageness of these low-life cretins would have been the presence of women-a lot of them. The higher the percentage of women in a given crowd, the less the propensity of said crowd to engage in violence.
Is it possible that 12 cartoon depictions of the Prophet could turn normal everyday men into raving rampaging lunatics-a sort of spontaneous combustion? Not likely. The kind of hatred exhibited in the streets of Tehran and elsewhere in the Muslim world does not come from the tooth fairy. It has a long gestation period. It has to be imbibed with a mother's milk. Brainwashing is an art-it takes a long time to put even a small load through the spin cycle.
And where did the mobs come from so quickly, so spontaneously, so expeditiously? Did they come out of thin air? Didn't any of those rascals have jobs? Some of them must have been employed somewhere. Did they vacate the counting house, the forge, and the furnace to riot? No wonder the economies of some Muslim countries rival that of Lower Slobbovia!
The truth: Muslims cannot be trusted. They practice taquiya instead of honesty; dissimulation trumps frankness; power relationships replace cooperation. They are not like us, they have never been like us, and, chances are, they never will be. It is time to put a halt to Muslim immigration to the United States. Islam has nothing to do with freedom and democracy; it has everything to do with slavery and oppression. If Muslims want acceptance let them publicly renounce Sharia law. If the vast majority of the world's 1.3 billion so-called peace loving Muslims can't rid Islam of a handful of Jihadists it's because they don't want to. A Muslim is no more likely to join America in its war on terrorism than a German in the 1930s would have been to oppose Adolph Hitler.
Seeing as America's mainstream media lies supine in the face of Islamic terrorism it is up to the Internet-the hackers and the bloggers; the last bastion of freedom of speech-to oppose the coming Caliphate. Whenever a Mad Mullah opens his mouth to scream hatred of America and Israel, post a picture of Mohammed. Whenever Ibrahim Hooper or Nihad Awad or one of their running dogs of the species espositas jonnicus proclaims Islam to be a religion of peace and toleration, post a picture of Mohammed. Post, post, post! As Abraham Lincoln said, "America is the last best hope of the world."
Shane had good reason to call Wilson a ‘dirty Yankee liar,' and Charles Sumner had an ever better reason to call Butler's gal-friend a harlot. Now it is Mohammed's turn. A mass murderer, the man responsible for the destruction of the Syriac and Egyptiac civilizations among others, and for the oppression of more human beings than communism and fascism combined, he deserves it.
BARBIE
CAN BARBIE COME OUT AND PLAY?TOYS ARE NOT FOR TOTS IN SAUDI ARABIA
"Psst! You want to buy a Barbie doll-only 100 Saudi riyals on the black market? That's $27 US dollars. It comes in a plain brown package so no one will know what you've got. If you should, unfortunately, come across some of Allah's enforcers (the Authority for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice) they will think you have just purchased one of the hottest items on the Saudi toy market-a bobble-headed Osama bin Laden-doll. Let them think what they will and keep quiet unless you're one of those who like being beaten across the derriere with a switch. If you prefer not to suffer the indignity of a switching, and you're afraid you might be caught, then you might wish to purchase a special Spanky and Alfalfa Tushy Pad for 100 Saudi riyals. That's also $27 US dollars. Place the pad where you think it will do the most good and let Allah's enforcers whale away to their heart's content. Remember to cry out and beg forgiveness. And please-there are no refunds on Barbie dolls lost or damaged in confrontations with the police.
"Psst! Hey, you-want to buy a Barbie doll?"
Because of its high birthrate and increasingly young population, the Middle East has become one of the world's largest toy markets. Doting parents spend about $1 billion dollars a year on toys, jewelry, and clothes for their children. Saudi Arabia is no exception.
One billion dollars is a lot of money even for Bill Gates. It will buy thousands and thousands of Osama bin Laden bobble-head dolls for little Mohammed, and hundreds and hundreds of coloring books depicting Allah's transformation of Jews into monkeys and pigs for little Fatima. Even if one adds the obligatory cost of a case or two of Jihad Cola-Saudi Arabia's new national drink-to the expense of a bobble-head doll and a coloring book, the average Saudi family will still have a few riyals left in the pocketbook; enough, perhaps, to purchase a Barbie doll, a stuffed animal, a Britney Spears cami and pants set, and, maybe, a Huckleberry Hound wristwatch-all items considered evil by the Saudi religious police.
Evil? Barbie is evil? How could that be possible? Does she come wrapped in a Victoria's Secret catalogue with a 1-800 number tattooed on her butt? Couldn't they cover her with a burqa? Her boobs aren't that big! Who would know unless they peeked?
Oh, you say her blonde hair would give her away? And what would that do? Remind them of Richard the Lion-Heart? Everything reminds them of Richard the Lion-Heart! She's not the Flying Nun.
What are the Mullahs frightened of? Do they think Barbie is some kind of a jinn capable of casting spells on poor little Fatima; something that would put impure thoughts in her head; make her want to get behind the wheel of a Hummer; display her ankles on an escalator; hum do-wa-ditty while preparing kumis for the Lord and Master; deliberately belch at inappropriate moments? Any of those?
Oh, yes-all of those and more. Barbie is freedom; Barbie is democracy; Barbie is capitalism; Barbie is America; Barbie is non-Muslim; Barbie is sex; and-most importantly-Barbie is a Mattel. A what? A Mattel? And that's bad?
Oh, yes, according to the Saudi intelligence ministry-apparently run by Abdul Mortimer and Hamid Bullwinkle-Mattel is owned by the Jews!
Owned by the Jews? Really? Who would have thought that!
It's a vicious, sadistic Zionist plot to undermine Saudi culture say the Wahhabis. Given half the chance, the Jews will turn little Fatima into a whore. They will take her out of the kitchen, cover her butt with a miniskirt, tuck some birth control pills in her purse, and set her down beneath a lamppost on some dirty street corner where she will be forced to compete with Irma La Duce for a livelihood.
Obviously, anyone who would seriously entertain such an absurd scenario would be easily outraged-unbalanced, of course, but easily outraged; and that accurately describes most of Saudi Arabia's Imams and Mad Mullahs-unbalanced and outraged. They feel exactly like Jefferson Davis felt when John Brown crossed the Potomac River and invaded Harper's Ferry; like Lester Maddox felt when he was handing out those axe-handles in front of his restaurant; like George Wallace felt when he stood in the doorway of that schoolhouse in Alabama-and just like Wallace they are saying, "Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!"
So Saudi's God squad is going from store to store, confiscating Barbie dolls and stuffed animals; flowers and candles that might or might not represent non-Muslim religions; anything that might resemble a Buddha, a star of David, or a Christian cross. And these are the rascals that are supposed to be helping us in the War on Terrorism?
Barbie, run for your life! Keith Ellison--One Keith Ellison should be denied his seat in the House of Representatives and sent home!
"I, Loyal Citizen of the Republic, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take these obligations freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and I will well and faithfully discharge my duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
An excellent oath-Tip O'Neill took it and so did many fine upstanding Americans, living and dead, past, present and to come. It's easy as pie. The hand if placed on the Bible or a copy of the US Constitution, the oath is taken and America applauds. Mr. Smith or Mr. Jones or Mr. Ramirez or whoever took the oath is now one of a select group.
But suppose someone doesn't feel comfortable with the Bible or the Constitution, isn't there something else upon which he could take the oath?
Like what? Oh, there are a number of things that come to mind. Someone like Jimmy Kimmel might prefer to be sworn in on a Milton Berle joke book. For Bill Maher it could be the Kama Sutra or the secret diaries of the Marquis de Sade. And if David Duke ever got elected to Congress he might opt out for The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Would Cornel West object if Mr. Snoop Dog placed his hand on Here's for the Bitches? Any member in good standing of the radical campus SWINE (Students Woefully Ignorant of Nearly Everything) if elected might prefer The Communist Manifesto or Das Capitol to the Bible or the Constitution. And for the super physically fit how about the Jane Fonda workout tapes? The list is endless.
It would make sense to limit Congressional oath taking to the Bible and the Constitution before someone takes advantage of America's incredible political gullibility and is sworn in on something hostile to both the Bible and the Constitution-something like the Qur'an. Of course, it's too late to exclude the Qur'an. The first Muslim member of Congress Rep-elect Keith (Hakim Mohammed) Ellison intends to take his oath on the Muslim Holy Book.
"There is no one who is more patriotic than I am," said Ellison. "And so, you know, I don't' need to prove my patriotic stripes."
No, but it might help. Apparently it's easier to get into the US House of Representatives than the US Marine Corps. It must be Congress has a ‘don't ask-don't tell' rule. What chutzpah! This might be good enough for Nancy Pelosi, but it doesn't sit well with the folks from Mayberry or Swaledale, Iowa, or Gunblast, Texas. It wouldn't take someone named Goldberg to think there was something not kosher with this guy. Thousands of Viet Nam draft dodgers used the same line.
Taking an oath on the Qur'an would be worse than taking an oath on Count Dracula's cape. Bela Lugosi might charm Hillary Clinton and frighten Nancy Pelosi but vampires do not threaten America or Transylvania, but Islam is a not only a threat to America, it also threatens Israel and the Western World. Ellison, by whatever name he has used in the past, and he has used many, has made enough anti-Semitic remarks to please David Duke.
Could Ellison be trusted to uphold the laws of the land? He has had his driver's license suspended for failing to pay parking fines and traffic tickets. He hasn't paid his property taxes. He has violated campaign finance regulations and has defended cop-killing gangs. He is more than an ordinary scofflaw.
Will Ellison as a Muslim support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic or will he support Islam against its enemies foreign and domestic? The same questions were raised against John F. Kennedy when he ran for President, but JFK was more of an atheist than he was a Christian.
The Bible says give to Caesar what is Caesars and to God what is God's. It's Christianity's establishment clause. There are no similar verses in the Qur'an. Islam does not recognize secular governments. Mayflower Compacts, Glorious Revolutions and Governments by the people are illegal. The Qur'an-Islamic Law-the Shari'ah-is supreme. Taking an oath on the Qur'an to uphold the US Constitution would be like John Barleycorn polishing off three fingers of Old Grand Dad to celebrate joining a Temperance Society.
So Ellison takes the oath on the Qur'an and what happens?
Qur'an 66:1 "Allah has already sanctioned for you the dissolution of your vows."
The oath to the US Constitution is invalidated. It is taqiyya.
Qur'an 33:36 "It is not fitting for a Muslim man or woman to have any choice in their affairs when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger. They have no options. If any one disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a wrong path."
The right path-the only path-is the Shari'ah, obedience to Allah.
Qur'an 8:2 "The only believers are those who feel fear and terror when Allah is mentioned."
Qur'an 33:26 "Allah made the Jews leave their homes by terrorizing them so that you killed some and made many captive. He made you inherit their lands, their homes, and their wealth. He gave you a country you had not traversed before."
America is the next land not traversed before by Islam that is to be given to the believers. See any number of statements by the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
If Ellison believes any of these excerpts from the Qur'an (a hundred more could easily have been included) he is more dangerous to American liberties than Jefferson Davis, John C. Calhoun and Joe McCarthy combined. If he doesn't' believe them there is no logical reason for him to take his oath on the Muslim Holy Book.
Does Ellison have any mental reservations? Will he faithfully discharge the duties of his office? If there is any doubt at all, the House of Representatives should refuse to seat him. It has been done before. In the years following the Civil War, many duly elected Congressmen were denied their seats in the House of Representatives because they had held governmental office in the Confederate States of America or served in the Confederate States Army. There were sound reasons for excluding them.
If Ellison insists on taking his oath on the Qur'an he should be denied his seat and sent home. He is not any better than the Johnny Rebs who sought entry into the US Congress to thwart the Reconstructions policies of the 1860s and 1870s and is more dangerous to life, liberty and the pursuit of one's own version of God than Fitzhugh Lee and Joseph Wheeler ever were. Keith Ellison--Two Thomas Jefferson' s Qur'an; Keith Ellison's Trojan Horse
George Lincoln Rockwell never ran for Congress but if he had there is no doubt he would have wanted to be sworn in on the original copy of the US Constitution because it was the closest thing he had ever found to Mein Kampf. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion would have been close, but in Rockwell's Burgerbrau-Keller world close didn't count. He ran for President in 1964 as a write-in candidate. He got 212 votes. Jethro Bodine got twice that many when he ran for Possum Day King in Beverly Hills. He campaigned with a possum on a leach. He wasn't elected King but he did win a trip to Granny's woodshed. Still he was light years ahead of Rockwell when it came to campaigning.
Rockwell ran for Governor of Virginia and got 5,730 votes. He created the American Nazi Party in 1959. He was assassinated in 1967. No member of the US House of Representatives would have let Rockwell get his hands on the US Constitution. But what if he would have insisted on Thomas Jefferson's Qur'an? That is what Keith Ellison did. Ellison could have asked for the Constitution but he wanted the Qur'an. That certainly pleased his followers at CAIR and at MPAC and in the Muslim community at large who hope to replace the US Constitution with the Muslim holy book. And almost without a quibble, the freshman Democratic Congressman from Minnesota took the oath of office on Thomas Jefferson's Qur'an.
The Sage of Monticello's copy of the Islamic Holy Book had been resting-lo these many years-in the rare books and special collections division of the Library of Congress. It was taken out of its crypt, dragged across the street and the deed was done. Pressed for cash, Jefferson had sold 2,375 books from his personal collection to Congress in 1815. The Qur'an, his get-to-know-your-enemies primer, was one of them. An Ellison spokesman said, "Jefferson's Qur'an dates religious tolerance to the founders of our country."
WHAT AN INCREDIBLE MIXTURE OF ARROGANCE AND HYPOCRISY! There is no freedom and tolerance in Islam! It would be as accurate to date the coming of freedom and tolerance to American with the arrival of Darth Vader. To begin with, what does the Muslim Holy Book say about tolerance?
Qur'an: 33:64 "Verily Allah has cursed the Unbelievers (whom he defines as Christians in the 5th surah) and has prepared for them a Blazing Fire to dwell in forever. No protection will they find, no savior. That Day their face will be turned upside down in the Fire. They will say: ‘Woe to us! We should have obeyed Allah and obeyed the Messenger!' Our Lord! Give them double torment and curse them with a very great Curse!"
Tolerance! Double torment! Blazing Fire! Jefferson sent warships to the Mediterranean to rescue American seamen who had run afoul of Qur'an 33:64. The verse has never been revoked; it is still in effect-as is the rest of the Qur'an.
The lone quibbler over Ellison's taking the oath on the Qur'an was US Congressman Virgil Goode (R-VA). Goode created a stir in the PC press with his comments on Ellison's choice. "When I raise my hand to take the oath in Swearing in Day, I will have the Bible in my other hand. I do not subscribe to using the Qur'an in any way."
That was bad enough, but Goode was not done. "The Ten Commandments and ‘In God We Trust' are on the wall of my office," he said. "A Muslim student came by the office and asked why I did not have anything on my wall about the Qur'an. (It could be that Goode's office is located in Washington, DC, and not in Riyadh or in Cairo or in Teheran) My response was clear. ‘As long as I have the honor of representing the citizens of the 5th District of Virginia in the United States House of Representatives, the Quran is not going to be on the wall of my office'."
The Washington Post took umbrage. They called Goode's outburst ‘dimwitted' though it was more in keeping with Jefferson's version of ‘Mohammedanism' than with The Post's submissive acceptance of Islam as the religion of peace and tolerance. "With 535 members," groused The Post, "you'd think Congress would welcome the presence of a single Muslim representative. Whether it can afford a lawmaker of Mr. Goode's caliber is another question."
Caliber? That sounds warlike! What happened to The Post's much vaunted tolerance? Why trash a Congressman scarcely known outside of Virginia? Ellison on the other hand, will be representing a religion that is hostile to the US Constitution and opposed to what most Americans believe in-women's rights, minority rights, animal rights, freedom of the press. Ellison took his oath on the Qur'an! Did they miss that part of the swearing in?
Is Goode a lonely voice crying in the Wilderness? Not exactly, there are others.
Goode is not a Winston Churchill but he is closer to Sir Winston than Ellison will ever be to Thomas Jefferson. Goode is as close to FrontPageMag and Islam: The Religion of Peace as The Post, is to al-Jazeera and The London Times-The London Times of the 1930s. In the days when fascism was in bloom, The Times of London did not see Hitler as a threat to the peace and prosperity of Europe, much as today's Post fails to grasp the Islamic threat to democracy.
While the Austrian Anschluss brought gloom and doom to the streets of Vienna in 1938, The Times was ecstatic. They had listened to Das Fuhrer's speech. It was, according to The Times, "reasonable, straightforward and comprehensive. No one who reads it with an impartial mind can doubt that the points of policy laid down by Herr Hitler may fairly constitute the basis of a complete settlement with Germany."
Churchill disagreed. In his column in the Evening Standard, he warned John Bull and Andy Capp what to expect. "After a boa constrictor has devoured its prey (Austria) it often has a considerable digestive spell...then people will be saying, ‘See how the alarmists have been confuted: Europe has calmed down, it has blown over, and the war scare has passed away...For five years I have talked to the House on these matters. I have watched this famous island descending incontinently, fecklessly, the stairway which leads to a dark gulf." (This speech could be given today and would be no less frightening) Europe was tottering on the brink and the peacemakers were smiling and waving their umbrellas. The Evening Standard fired Churchill the next day. His bully pulpit was gone. John Bull and Andy Capp would no longer be informed of the dire consequences of appeasement. There are those who believe that if one doesn't talk about the Frankenstein monster he will go away.
Churchill's views on Islam were every bit as realistic as they were on fascism. He had traveled extensively in Africa and his powers of observation and analyses were a match for de Tocqueville. "How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries," he wrote, "Besides the fanatical frenzy...there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men...the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it." Is this a ringing endorsement of Islam? Of course, not! Its closer to what Jefferson thought than The Post's dimwitted and cravenly attack on Goode.
Ellison said the Qur'an is "definitely an important historical document in our national history and demonstrates that Jefferson was a broad visionary thinker who not only possessed a Qur'an, but read it." (Jefferson read the Qur'an for the same reason Churchill read Mein Kampf) "It would have been something that contributed to his own thinking." (Yes, it did and that is why he sent warships to the Mediterranean!)
Arrogant hypocrisy?
"My readers ought to be informed that these merciless Barbarians are taught by their religion to treat the Christian captives with unexampled cruelty." -From the Preface to A Journal of the Captivity and Sufferings of John Foss: Several Years as a Prisoner of Algiers. (Foss was captured by Muslim corsairs while serving aboard the Polly in the Mediterranean Sea)
Foss and his fellow seamen were told by Mahomet Salamia, the corsair captain, that they should expect to be treated harshly "for your history and superstition in believing in a man who was crucified by the Jews, and disregarding the true doctrine of God's last and greatest prophet Mahomet."
See To The Shores Of Tripoli, A.B.C.Whipple
Ellison is practicing taqiyya when he talks about Jefferson and Jefferson's Qur'an.
Keith Ellison--Three Putting Keith Ellison in the Nut-Ball Box
How old is US Congressman Keith Ellison (D-MN)? Forty...forty-five? He can't be a day older than Rosie O'Donnell. He has a remarkable memory. It must have come from handling Thomas Jefferson's Qur'an. He can remember things that happened before he was born. He was meeting recently with a group of atheists in Minneapolis when the talk got around to 9/11. "It's almost like the Reichstag fire," he said, "kind of reminds me of that. After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it and put the leader of that country (Hitler) in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted."
Nobody cried "Allahu akbar!" These were atheists, members of a Minneapolis-based group called Atheists for Human Rights, and even if they might have preferred Christopher Hitchens or Bill Maher, they would settle for whomever they could get. "You'll always find this Muslim standing up for your right to be atheists all you want," promised Ellison. He sounded like one of the Founding Fathers! Was he Jefferson or Madison? Next thing one knew he would be talking about the separation of Church and State. Was Virgil Goode wrong about this guy?
Was Ellison following the Qur'an or Jefferson? Does it matter? The Qur'an says: 2:256 "There is no compulsion in religion."
Jefferson said, "Compulsion in religion is distinguished peculiarly from compulsion in every other thing...I cannot be saved by a worship I disbelieve and abhor."
Heinrich Himmler wished Islam had been the religion of Nazi Germany. Himmler was afraid German Christians would not have the stomach to accomplish the grim tasks facing the Third Reich. What the atheists thought of Ellison's promise to defend their rights is not a matter of public record. No one swooned; no one called the paramedics. It was a magnanimous gesture for a Muslim, but before buying a pig in a poke, it might be good advice for an atheist to take a peek at the Qur'an and see what it really says.
Qur'an 72:15 "The disbelievers are the firewood of hell!" Qur'an 4:90 "If they turn back from Islam becoming renegades, seize them and kill them wherever you find them."
Disbelievers...the firewood of hell...isn't that a bit strong? Yes, it is. Atheists may not believe in the infernal region and there may be no such place but words converted into action can turn their lives into hell. Whatever they thought, the atheists applauded their new protector. Maybe there were being polite...the enemy of my enemy is my friend, so what if in the end the new friend eats his allies?
"We're trying to upgrade the image of atheists," said Marie Castle, spokesperson for the Minneapolis-based group. "They think we don't have a moral compass."
They? Who are they-Pat Robertson and Franklin Graham? Omar Bakri Mohammed? Whether or not atheists have a moral compass doesn't matter to Opie Taylor and Paris Hilton and there are far more Opies and Paris's than there are Robertsons and Grahams. Still Atheists for Human Rights are concerned about their image and are vigorously promoting what they call Atheist Values. Their website explains their raison d'etre: "As the Lutheran theologian Martin Marty said, ‘It is the role of unbelievers to force religions to be benign.' We've made good progress on that in the last 200 or so years. The small percent of atheists, such as Andrew Quah, who side with the remaining holdouts in oppressing woman and gays, may lack a good belief but they also lack a moral compass."
Who is Andrew Quah? For the record, the worst mass murderers of the last 200 years or so have been atheists-Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pott. The problem seems to be small tightly-knit groups of atheists (Communists or Nazis) leading large masses of bewildered Christians, Buddhists, agnostics and atheists in nation-wide, continent-wide and worldwide murderous rampages. But Ellison need not worry-Michael Newdow and Howard Dean will save America from itself, if not from the Islam's Mad Mullahs.
While the atheists cheered the first Muslim elected to the US House of Representatives, Islam continued to slip, unbeknownst, into the Little Red Schoolhouse. One can take this enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend nonsense just so far-it is not cancer light. As is true with all groups, Atheists for Human Rights are engaged in some useful activities. They support scholarships for gay and lesbian students; they support grants to poor women to help pay for abortions, physician aid in dying and protection for children harmed by faith healing. Well, two out of four isn't bad.
When Ellison mentioned Richard Cheney, he received a standing ovation. (Ellison cosigned the bill to impeach the Vice President) Ellison further delighted his audience when he expressed his opposition to President George W. Bush's ‘faith-based' initiative. "It's essentially a public outreach arm for the Bush administration to reach out to the far right of the evangelical Christian movement," said Ellison. On the separation of Islam and State Ellison was silent. Footbaths for Muslim students, special prayer rooms in public schools, the Qur'an taught as ‘culture,' student trips to mosques-why bring up those unpleasant subjects?
But Ellison let the sura out of his Qur'an when he compared 9/11 to the Reichstag fire. He said he wasn't saying what he was saying because people would take him at his word. "The fact is," he said, "that I'm not saying (September 11) was a (US) plan, or anything like that because, you know, that's how they put you in the nut-ball box...dismiss you."
Among the signers of House Resolution 333, (the bill to impeach Richard Cheney) are: Dennis Kucinich (Ever wondered what Alfalfa would have looked and acted like at age 40?); Cynthia McKinney; Barbara (Berkeley) Lee; Lynn Woolsey (Lynn has a worse success rate in Congress than Casey Stengel had with the 1962 New York Mets. She has sponsored 107 bills with 106 failures); Jim McDermott (McDermott claimed the Iraq Embargo and the Oil-for-Food program killed millions of Iraqi children. Apparently one for each hundred thousand dollars stolen by UN officials and French and English politicians McDermott was Saddam Hussein's very best friend in the US Congress); Maxine Waters (Maxine is one of Fidel Castro's most devoted friends); and James Moran (Moran is nobody's very best friend and he proves it every day). And Keith Ellison doesn't want to be mistaken for a nut-ball?
A piece of advice to Atheists for Human Rights: "Run...run very fast, or you will be judged by the company you keep."
Panel of Notables Critiques Jyllands-Posten Cartoons! Panel of Notables: The Baron Frankenstein, Mr. P. Pig, Dr. Sigmund Freud and Jethro Bodine. Moderator: Maximus Flack.
|
|||||||||||
|
