Now the bricks lay on Grand Street
Where the neon madmen climb.
They all fall there so perfectly,
It all seems so well timed.
An' here I sit so patiently
Waiting to find out what price
You have to pay to get out of
Going through all these things twice.
Oh, Mama, can this really be the end,
To be stuck inside of Mobile
With the Memphis blues again.
Bob Dylan, 1966
WHAT I WANT TO KNOW IS WHY Peter King has not only failed to call Islamic experts Robert Spencer and Steve Emerson to the stand in his “radical” Islam hearings, but now he has also bowed down to Islamic pressure again and has stated he will not call Hirsi Ali to the stand. In return for not using these three very knowledgeable non-and-ex-Muslims as witnesses, King has said he will go with mostly Muslims and Arabs to make his case.
Does Congressman King even begin to realize that Islam encourages Muslims to lie in defense of Islam at ALL TIMES?
Pete King has always shown us a tough New York demeanor, ready to talk hard when required, always the first patriot on the line, a no nonsense character one wouldn't want to cross, but suddenly he appears to have been lured into bed by the deservedly tarred and feathered Council on American-Islamic Relations. I do not ask rhetorically, but demand to know, how much longer until the truth is made know about CAIR, its strategic, pernicious, unjustifiable intentions, and the disgusting insult to American intelligence that it represents...
Mr. King, we encourage you take the time to pursue the hard-won comprehension of these witnesses you have allowed CAIR to dissuade you from hearing. The body of plain evidence they represent, much of it linked here as a good beginning will not be a struggle to comprehend but will an eyeopener for any loyal patriot like yourself. You will learn that CAIR is a liar's club, not to be trusted, better to be avoided, even shunned, until they are legally prosecuted or disbanded. The American nation needs you to understand the full reprehensible story of the Camp of Islam...
I AM GRATEFUL FOR THIS HIGH-PROFILE INCIDENT. Much like with the Ground Zero mosque affair, Americans have suddenly become aware of something quite terriblea sea change, a paradigm shift, a profound transformation of a basic assumption, and a stunning reversal of their very basic unalienable rights. Their sensibilities are shaken. How could such a major seismic shift be kept hidden, kept so secret, until suddenly Juan Williams, a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, gets fired for telling the truth? Is it any wonder that recent polls show that the majority of Americans no longer trust the media? That is a good thing.
To Williams’ point, we have an entire government agency, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), dedicated to protecting us from terrorists who are largely Muslim. We have torturous security procedures at every stage of air travel. We bear unfathomable costs in taxpayer dollars, but worse, in the surrender of privacy and individual rights because of Islamic jihad: because of the 9/11 Muslim terrorists; and the British Muslims who planned to blow up seven planes and kill 4,000 Americans and/or British people in the name of Islam in 2006; and because of Richard Reid, the Muslim with the exploding shoes; and the Christmas day bomber, the Muslim with the exploding crotch.
And yet in watching the mainstream media coverage of Juan Williams affair, we witness the fact that the media still cannot face up to its own capitulation. It’s all over the airwaves, but no one will discuss what is actually happeningthe loss of the freedom of speech to Islamic supremacism and domination. This is a deadly fightIslam in the West and its suppression of free speech.
When the horror of jihad is discussed, it is always in the context of a “fringe” element among Muslims committing violent jihad. The “extremists” are slaughtering people every day across the world in the name of Islam. But aren’t those who are destroying our constitutional republic, shutting us down, attacking free speech and demonizing the good and the truth tellers the real extremists and radicals? Isn’t CAIR, as well as the Islamic Society of North America, the Muslim Students Association, the Muslim American Society, the Islamic Circle of North America, and the North American Islamic Trust, the real extremists? The only difference between them and the military wing of Islam is their weapon of choice. Islamic supremacist groups in Western countries viciously attack our unalienable rights and chip away at our very legal and societal foundations.
CAIR et al slaughter human thought. They are destroyers, as ruinous and destructive as the organizations of their fellow Muslims: Al Qaeda, Hezb’Allah, Hamas, Al-Muhajiroun, MILF, Islamic jihad, Fatah, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen, Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, the Armed Islamic Group, Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin, Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh, Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, and all the rest of them.
This is war. And fighting that war has been Representative Keith Ellison (D-MN), the Muslim Brotherhood’s man in Congress, who called Juan Williams, a black American, a “bigot” and “un-American.” Considering the notorious Islamic history of Muslims keeping blacks as slaves (abid) to this very day in North Africait is the height of black humor (no pun intended) that this Islamic supremacist would call an honorable African American a “bigot.” Ellison is twisting the very definition of “American” to some perverted idea of sharia. This is rich coming from a man who took money from a group that is the American wing of an organization whose stated aim is “eliminating and destroying Western Civilization from within.”
"I come not to bring peace but a sword," states Mashiach as he prepares his disciples for his imminent crucifixion and departure from them. We add, "Do not hide evil, but expose it. That is ample directive from the Son of God to all of us. Do not allow enduring evil to extinguish love. Sometimes a noble fight is required."IMAGINE MY SURPRISE WHEN I opened an email ad from Amazon.com and found that Edip Yuksel, a Muslim who is a leading Islamic reformer, had written a book, Peacemaker's Guide to Warmongers: Exposing Robert Spencer, David Horowitz, and other Enemies of Peace. He made my day. Bill Warner was included in the product description as an enemy of peace. I am flattered.
Why does Mr. Yuksel call me an enemy of peace and a warmonger? It's simple. Partnered with Robert Spencer, I debated him in Frontpage Magazine Symposiums and beat him like a drum using the doctrine and history of political Islam. As a result, I have gone from being an opponent in a debate to an enemy of peace.
Am I an enemy of peace? Am I a warmonger? Yes, on an everyday basis and I want you to be an enemy of peace and a warmonger as well.
The question must be asked: what peace are we talking about? Islamic peace. How does Islamic peace come about? Islamic peace comes after jihad and the victory of Islam. Peace is one of those words that everyone considers to be universally good, but peace is what losers (kafirs) get, while winners (Muslims) get victory. Islamic peace is all about the victory over the kafirs. Islamic peace changes a free man into a slave of Allah.
We should examine the meaning of all words Muslims use, since Islam does not share a common ground of civilization with us. Islam twists all of the kafir words. To find out what "peacemaker" means we have to go to Mohammed. Mohammed was an Islamic peacemaker. In the last 9 years of his life, he was involved in an event of violence on the average of every 6 weeks.
Every single neighbor of Mohammed experienced his peacemaking. Take the Jews of Khaybar, for instance. They were going about their lives when the army of Mohammed showed up. It took the murder, rape, theft, torture and becoming semi-slaves before the Jews experienced the peace of Mohammed. Once they submitted to Islam as dhimmis and agreed to live under Sharia law and give him half of what they earned, the jizyah (the dhimmi tax), they were left to live in peace. This is the peace of Islam.
As long as Mohammed merely preached the religion of Islam in Mecca, he was a failure. Very few people were interested in the religion of Islam. It was only in Medina where he became a warlord that Islam succeeded, and he became a peacemaker.
The natural state of Islam in relation to kafirs is jihad, not peace. If we want to discover peace in Sharia law, we must look under the general heading of jihad to find the subject of "truce". We learn that Muslims are not to call for a truce as long as they are winning. When Islam offers peace, it means that they are losing and need to gain time to prepare for the next jihad.
I am a warmonger because I use the doctrine of Islam to refute the deceptions of Muslims like Edip Yuksel. Last night in Nashville, TN, a Muslim stood in front of a college crowd and said that jihad was inner struggle. Working hard to get an A is jihad. Jihad is not holy war. He is right. When you examine the hadiths about jihad in Bukhari, about 2% of them can be construed as jihad is an inner struggle. However, the other 98% of the jihad hadiths are about killing kafirs until the rest submit to Islam.
Warmongering consists of asking questions to confront Islamic propaganda in this ideological war. Being a warmonger means showing up to support the Coptic Christians at a street demonstration about the jihad killing of Copts in Egypt. Warmongering means going to an interfaith bridge building and confronting the ministers and rabbis with their ignorance about Islam. Warmongering means speaking truth to the lies of Official Islam.
It works like this. Unless we have enough enemies of the Islamic peacemakers, one day our civilization will experience the peace of Islam, and we will be like the historical majority Greek Christian culture of Asia Minor. Today Greek Christians are 0.3% of Turkey. They've experienced the peace of Islam-annihilation.
Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Welly, welly, welly, welly, welly, welly, well. To what do I owe the extreme pleasure of this surprising news, as young Alex in Anthony Burgess' Clockwork Orange might have put it.
Forecasts of climate change are about to go seriously out of kilter. One of the world's top climate modellers said Thursday we could be about to enter one or even two decades during which temperatures cool.
"People will say this is global warming disappearing," he told more than 1500 of the world's top climate scientists gathering in Geneva at the UN's World Climate Conference.
"I am not one of the sceptics," insisted Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University, Germany, and one of the foremost recognized experts on climate change in the world. "However, we have to ask the nasty questions ourselves or other people will do it."
Few climate scientists go as far as Latif, an author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But more and more agree that the short-term prognosis for climate change is much less certain than once thought.
Update: January 23, 2011
For two decades or so we have been told to urgently act against unprecedented global warming, changing every habit industrial man has grown to embrace, or else there will be fiery gloom and doom for the world and be careful not to confuse weather for climate. Yet, the opposite seems to be occurring all over the globe.
Facts. The entire planet has stopped warming since 1998 and, more significantly, has started to cool since 2003. Instead of warning people of cooler weather for the next 30 years, there’s still the distinct false sense of expectation of unprecedented warming. People and governments are being urged to go entirely in the wrong direction for the wrong reasonsand at a potentially horrendous price.
Just look at what happened in UK. Ten years ago Britons were told to expect global warming only and that snow would be a thing of the past. Yet the opposite has arrived, three winters in a row. This winter it crippled the entire nation for nearly a month in December 2010. Alternating periods of warm and cooler weather have been with us as far back as our climate records go. Some of the past cooler periods have been more severe than others, like the Sporer, Maunder and Dalton Minimums. Professor Don Easterbrook has documented some 20 such cool periods over the last 500 years,
Islamic civilization, the various golden ages of Islamic civilization always occur early in the first few centuries in which a new territory is occupied. Wherever the various Muslim vanguards invaded, the vast majority of the population was non-Muslim. It would take many years for this population to be converted and assimilated. These non-Muslims or recent converts are the ones who carried on the work which many historians are prone to attribute to "Islamic" civilization. Thus, a distinction must be drawn between the so-called high Islamic civilization and the religion of Islam. Eventually as the process of Islamization proceeds the non-Islamic component of the population becomes a small minority and stagnation sets in. This process is evident in the first centuries of the Arab conquests where the process of Arabization and conversion to Islam took a few centuries to complete; this was the "Arab" golden age, a product of unconverted or recently converted Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians.
Thus, the Arabs must be credited not with inventing algebra, but with making it more accessible for the solution of simple problems. As for the ultimate origin of modern algebra there are three schools of thought: “one emphasizes Hindu influences, another stresses the Mesopotamian, or Syriac-Persian, tradition, and the third points to Greek inspiration. The truth is probably approached if we combine the three theories.”
Re Arab mathematics, the so-called Arabic numerals were simply systematized from Hindu texts. From Boyer and Merzbach, A History of Mathematics: The famous Arab mathematician al-Khwarizmi wrote two books on arithmetic and algebra; One of these concerning the Hindu Art of Reckoning. In this work, based presumably on an Arabic translation of Brahmagupta, al-Khwarizmi gave so full an account of the Hindu numerals that he probably is responsible for the widespread but false impression that our system of numeration is Arabic in origin. When subsequently Latin translations of his work appeared in Europe, careless readers began to attribute not only the book but also the numeration to the author. Ultimately the scheme of numeration making use of the Hindu numerals came to be called algorithm, a word derived from the name of al-Khwarizmi.
Algebra had a more mixed origin; it was only partly derived from Hindu texts. The word algebra was also obtained from al-Khwarizmi’s book Al-jabr wa’l muqabalah. Moreover, in certain respects, the works of al-Khwarizmi were at a lower level than those of his Greek and Hindu predecessors. Boyer and Merzbach write: " ...in two respects the works of al-Khwarizmi represented a retrogression from that of Diophantus. First it is on a far more elementary level ... and second ... [it] is thoroughly rhetorical, with none of the syncopation found [in the works of Diophantus] ... or in Brahmagupta’s work. Even numbers were written out in words rather than symbols! … Nevertheless, the Al-Jabr comes closer to the elementary algebra of today than the works of Diophantus or Brahmagupta, for the book is not concerned with difficult problems in indeterminate analysis but with a straightforward and elementary exposition of the solution of equations, especially of second degree."
Algebra was derived from a combination of ideas developed by the oriental culture superseded by Islam, the classical learning of ancient Greece, and an impetus from a far-off land, in this instance India that became accessible due to the vast extent of the Arab empire. And, of course, it reached its full development in a land that still contained a majority population of non-Muslims and recent converts who were well versed in their ancient traditions.
Thus, the Arabs must be credited not with inventing algebra, but with making it more accessible for the solution of simple problems. As for the ultimate origin of modern algebra there are three schools of thought: “one emphasizes Hindu influences, another stresses the Mesopotamian, or Syriac-Persian, tradition, and the third points to Greek inspiration. The truth is probably approached if we combine the three theories.” Historians of mathematics Boyer and Merzbach conclude: "It is probable that al-Khwarizmi typified the Arabic eclecticism that will so frequently be observed in other cases. His system of numeration most likely came from India, his systematic algebraic solution of equations may have been a development from Mesopotamia, and the logical geometric framework for his solutions palpably was derived from Greece."
The example of algebra is an ideal case illustrating the role of cultural cross fertilization in the short-lived period of high civilization under the early Pax Arabica. Algebra was derived from a combination of ideas developed by the oriental culture superseded by Islam, the classical learning of ancient Greece, and an impetus from a far-off land, in this instance India that became accessible due to the vast extent of the Arab empire. And, of course, it reached its full development in a land that still contained a majority population of non-Muslims and recent converts who were well versed in their ancient traditions.
Furthermore, the Hindus had a continuing role in the development of algebra subsequent to al-Khwarizmi as the civilization of the Arabs ossified under the deepening influence of Islam. The radical sign, and many algebraic symbols appear to have been invented by the Hindu mathematician Bhaskara in the twelfth century. For a comprehensive view of the sources of the so-called high Islamic civilizations see Islamic Expansion and Decline.
Okay, all that other stuff failed. Carrots and honey only brought us more vicious rabbit holes and nasty bee stings. Why not let bygones be bygones, shift gears, and come back running with something else, say like, the Big Stick Theory? The continuing saga of a nation without clarity, a people without leadership, the damage that surely must be done, and emphatically shall be done, one way or the other, in this campaign to set the record straight about man, and god, and law, is once again nailed to the door of our awakening in an article written by the impetuously comprehensive Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch.
Read it, comprehend it, pass it along:
Ind what is the deterrence going to be, and how will that deterrence be made known? Surely any further attack on Americans has to be answered not by means of what is essentially a glorified police action, attempting to round up only those immediately involved, those who trained and supported them. Retaliation must he very large, and must do equal damage to the Camp of Islam. The Al-Saud, the Al-Thani, the Al-Sabah, the Al-Maktoum, and all the others must be made aware that their economic and other interests will be damaged, damaged far more severely than we have so far been damaged, and that such damage will be inflicted in all kinds of ways, including a halt to the availability of goods and services, the seizure of enemy-owned assets (just as such assets were seized during World War II), and that will include the privately-owned real estate of various Saudi princelings (could that be why Prince Bandar is selling off his Aspen estate for $135 million, the estate for which he had blown to bits the top of a mountain to improve his view") and whatever can be reached by American and other NATO allies. The days of visiting the West for medical care and education should come to an endwouldn't you, if you were told you could no longer go to any Western doctors, begin to worry, begin to think about modifying your behavior so that you could see the best oncologists and cardiologists and bring your children to Western doctors instead of Arab ones? You would.
And that's a start. Other measures could include seizing the very large, and very conveniently placed, oilfields of Saudi Arabia, holding whatever oil revenues are obtained piously "in trust," after first deducting the amount of economic damage that Saudi support, over the past 30 yearssupport for mosques and madrasas where the most fanatical Wahhabi propaganda has been available and been distributed, support for campaigns of Da'wa targetted at the psychically and economically marginal, campaigns to buy up Western hirelings in all the capitals of the West, and much moreamounting to nearly $100 billion in the past 30 yearshas caused, for there is a direct relationship between the Saudis and the spread of the most virulent form of Islam.
Ieterrence, to be effective, must be understood on all sides. The Western world has not made clear to the rulers and peoples of Muslim states, nor to Muslims now living in the Bilad al-kufr and working night and day at their Taqiyya-and-Tu-Quoque in order to prevent Infidels from learning just a bit too much about Islam, and about the history of Islamic conquest over 1350 years, that all kinds of measures can be, and will be, taken. The Western publics are far far ahead of their governments, and the deep unhappiness with both parties in this country, with the hallucinating Bush bringing "freedom" to "ordinary moms and dads" and the Democrats who oppose the war but apparently not for the right reasonsthat is, in order to more intelligently constrain Islam that can be achieved best by leaving, not staying in, Iraq.
Western governments, led by the Americans, should start consulting with one another on this collective threat (surely the recent elections should mean that NATO will have to meet without Turkey, no longer a fit member of an organization that will have to direct its main efforts at constraining Islam) of the world-wide Jihad, and on the Money Weapon, campaigns of Da'wa, and demographic conquest within the Bilad al-kufr, especially in the hitherto negiligently compliant states of Western Europe. One wants the Muslim would-be terrorists, and those who support them, to be made aware of what, beyond physical destruction to certain Muslim lands, will take place, what damage will be done to the interests of Muslims in Paris and London, in Dearborn and Falls Church, what will be done with somenot allof the oilfields, what will be done with reachable Arab and Muslim assets in the West, what will be done to close down Muslim insetitutions all over the West that inevitably offer support and encouragement for the Jihad.
The leaders of the Soviet Union knew what would happen if they did thus and so. The Muslims have been led to believe that very little will happenoh, hundreds of billions may be spent, in vain attempts to cure Muslim "poverty" (see Afghanistan) and to "reconstruct" an entire country (see Iraq), and to bring Western ways, and the pollyannish panacea of "free elections" which are the main way that "freedom" can be brought, in Bush's view, to "ordinary moms and dads" in the Middle East. But the Iraqi body politic has already clearly rejected the attempt to successfully transplant the organ of Western freedom. Time to try something that makes sense.
The reason the Arab states do not attack Israel at the moment is because of the deterrent effect of the IDF, and what the IDF can do. That's it. It has nothing to do with the Camp David Accords, nothing to do with a change of hearthow could Muslims, if they were true believers, ever accept an Infidel state such as Israel, on land once part of Dar al-Islam, a state that furthermore is in the middle of that so-called "Arab world"? It is simply impossible, not thinkable. Deterrence, however, is not unthinkableit exists, and it works.
The same can and should be done by the American and other Western governments. They have to start dropping all kinds of hints, as to the damage that can be inflicted on Muslim interests, everywhere. And they might do best to talk about reducing the Money Weapon (or inflicting economic damage in turn on the Muslim states), closing down campaigns of Da'wa and countering the effect of past campaigns, and recognizing demographic conquest as a key instrument of Jihad, historically and at present, and not only calling a complete halt to Muslim immigration into the West, but reversing it, by means that are not only perfectly justifiable when one is fighting such a comlicated war of self-defense in which, in a move without precedent in history, large numbers of people who are by unshakeable faith unalterably opposed to the continued dominance, in our own, Infidel lands of our own legal and political institutions, our own solicitousness for the individual rather than the collective, and for freedoms that are the product of centuries of thought and statecraft, have been allowed by the millions to settle within our lands, in a collective fit of ignorance and historical amnesia. In such circumstances, those who sense their own responsibiity, even in the midst of such present decadence, to preserve a civilizational heritage that can be undone by mere numbers, will take what measures are necessary, and will do well to learn of how often, in the past, even the most tolerant and advanced regimessuch as that in Czechoslovakia in 1946undertook measures (the Benes Decree) that no one at the time, and no one respectable since, has criticized, much less deplored.
Does Mexico influence American Policy? Mexican trucks rolling freely along US highways, bridges, tunnels, into our towns and cities? The answer seems to be yes, but why?As with the Dubai Ports debacle, President Bush is willing to risk our national security by giving unfettered access to America’s transportation infrastructure to foreign companies and their government sponsors. They are playing of game of Russian Roulette on America’s highways. Mexico refuses to meet their end of the bargain, yet President Bush rewards them with open access to American highways. It is the American public who will pay the consequences. We can not let these time-bomb trucks on our highways to threaten the lives of Americans and destroy our middle class. Tell Washington today that we need to protect our sovereignty. We do not wish to bow down before this New World Order of which entrenched politicians have apparently signed onto, selling out the American people.
Despite the Bush administration's desire to open the border to Mexican trucks, its own Transportation Department's Inspector General Office reported last year that safety concerns have not been addressed and the border should stay closed.
Issues preventing implementation included the inability to reach an agreement with Mexico to permit on-site safety reviews by U.S. inspectors, the inability of the Mexican government to perform the new criminal history record checks for Mexican drivers who haul hazardous materials, the need to improve the system for monitoring Mexican driver records in the U.S. and the lack of operational weigh-in-motion scales at the 10 busiest crossings.
What is happening? Somebody or some force is rapidly taking over the world. Is this the way to do it?