Of course Andrew Breitbart, an American patriot extraordinaire, is worthy of all the words, those of favor and those of disgust hurled at him as a political man with drawn digit in the sand, before and after his life ended so suddenly, unexpectedly, mysteriously, tragically, unspectacularly just after midnight last Thursday as he was walking near his home. He collapsed, and at 43, still a young man, he was gone.
We knew him through his untiring investigative journalism, his tough stances against the unhinged Left and against who and what he considered violent, seditious, determined enemies of the the state in many cases, but certainly enemies of the people, the people who still believe in constitutional loyalty, liberty, justice, courage, responsibility, and the American way. Protection from the government and the forces of the mob. But I'll step aside and let his friend, Robert Spencer share his version of Andrew Breitbart...
AMONG THE MANY THINGS that made Andrew Breitbart a great man was that he was not playing defense. So many, many times I have been speaking at anti-jihad events and heard other speakers saying, "We are not racists, we are not bigots, we are not Islamophobes..." We have allowed the jihadists and Islamic supremacists, and their Leftist allies, to put us on the defensive. We're always apologizing, tacitly accepting their narrative and responding to them in the parameters they set up. Even worse, many even among the anti-jihadists eagerly throw their colleagues under the busthose colleagues whom the Left and the Islamic supremacists have started to zero in on. They're the ones we should be standing up for the most resolutely, for they are drawing fire because they are effective.
Instead of bowing and scraping to the Islamic supremacists and feebly protesting that we're not really racists and hatemongers and all the other calumnies and canards they throw at us, we should be taking the fight to them, and standing up and saying, "You are fronting for the most oppressive ideology on the face of the earth. You are fronting for evil. You are carrying water and running interference for the denial of free speech, the denial of the freedom of conscience, the institutionalized oppression of women, the subjugation of non-Muslims, and worse. You're fronting for stonings, amputations, the murder of apostates, the treatment of women as possessions of men, the madness and senseless violence that we see in this furor over the Qur'an-burnings, and more. You shout us down on campuses and do everything you can to make sure we are not heard in the public square. And you call us fascists? You are the quintessence of fascism."
THIS IS, NEEDLESS TO SAY, NOT how one should approach a discussion over what is sure to be a difficult sell to those who already feel they know everything they need to know on a difficult topic, and instead presume you are just an idiot, a racist, and probably both.
In this photo, let's suppose we have a husband and wife, or perhaps two old friends, each professionals, a college professor and a bank executive, and let's agree it's not germane which job is whose. Woman or man, based only on what you see in the photo and what you already ascertain about the general culture, who do you think is the person more knowledgeable, who is concerned about a serious topic worthy of analysis?
Here's our profile. Based on what we know about how certain evidence breaks in this PC society, we presume the man to be the calm but vigilant anti-jihadist who prefers evidential persuasion leaving the woman to be a hardcore politically correct leftist claiming the higher moral ground, tooth and nail, certain of her superiority. If the roles were reversed, and it was she who was frightened of jihad, Islam, and its strategies for conquering the world, she would win no argument with this sort of display, even if this cowardly friend of hers is a wimpish hollow man of the politically correct variety, stoned on his own ignorance.
So read on...
FOLLOWING 9/11, FOLLOWING MADRID, FOLLOWING the London bombing, following Bali, in fact following the whole panoply of Muslim violence at that point, I listened and listened to political and media reaction.
Tiny minority. Religion of Peace. Rich Diversity. Untold wealth brought by immigration. Vibrant communities.
On and on the cliched excuses fell from establishment mouths, their voices united in a wholesale pass for what the rest of us saw as a religion intent on getting its way and killing as many possible in the process. Something was grossly askew. Something was missing. Why was our collective intelligence being so badly insulted by politically correct morons, parroting the same old fables?
Then the thought occurred. These people, wallowing in dire ignorance are merely talking heads and spewers of easily demolished platitudes. They do it because they all do it. It's the easy route. However, apart from what my eyes and ears told me about the current situation I was quite unaware of the history and true doctrine of Islam.
So off to Amazon and a few clicks later up it popped. Robert Spencer'sPolitically Incorrect guide to Islam and the Crusades. The cover alone gave the aura that this would be no half assed apologist's polemic so I bought it.
That was about five years ago, and what refreshment? What revelation?
Thus armed, my argument with friends either riled them mildly or aroused such anger that I realised something was not quite right. These were educated people. Lecturers, photographers, TV people, a couple of (largely unsuccesful) actors, senior managers plus of course the remoras and hangers on. One thing did unite them and that was the left.
My epiphany started at that point. Buoyed by the great introduction Robert's insight's offered, I bought more. And more. And despite all of this well researched truth they still didn't believe me. I was a racist and that was that.
For me that was when their bubble burst. All that came out was hot air and dogma. In other words the lies of self preening liberals, basking in self proclaimed liberality. And nothing more
They were [TS] Elliot's Hollow Men devoid of any individuality of thought and addicted to the groupthink which infests their brand of society.
A few years down the line I jettisoned the dross. If the unvarnished truth could not persuade them, why bother? I'd say this experience is quite informative. It obviously changed me. What was that thing about truth setting you free?
Who are we to improve upon this piece of brilliant writing? What better critique of the often undulating process of sorting out the real from the unreal can we offer to those who will not heed a word of it, but will resort to vile slanders, misinformation, hyperbole, and logical fallacies to thwart our insistence on using the fullest measure of our intelligence, not merely a caricatured obedience to some counterfeit ideal?
A Jihad Watch commentator transcribes a personal but oh so familiar path to intellectual sanity when trying to figure out why what we must process day in and day out on nearly every subject pertaining to Islam when filtered by the mainstream media just doesn't meet the smell, much less the taste test. Leftism is a cult of wishful thinking, and is no longer a ridiculous clique, but is now the deep-rooted establishment.
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 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
Ever get that sinking feeling that some people would rather spend their entire life chasing rainbows than accept the reality that a rainbow is merely an arc of colored light in the sky caused by refraction of the sun's rays by rain. There is no distinction to the rainbow whether this is caused by clean rain or polluted rain caused by a myriad of human and geological events.
This immense, curved spectrum of light appears only when both the elements of sunshine and rainfall present. As the sunlight enters the falling raindrops, it breaks up into its true colors of red, orange, yellow, blue, and violet. These colors are always arranged according to their wavelengths, with red being at one end of the spectrum, and violet at the other. Once inside the droplet, the particles of colored light bounce from side to side, reflect off of the far side of the droplet, exit the droplet, and reassemble, according to their wavelengths, to form a rainbow.
Simply because one happens to be standing in the right place at the right time, when both elements necessary to form a rainbow are present, does not mean that one will actually see a rainbow dazzle. For the human eye to see these multi-colored bands, ranging from red to violet, her body must be strategically positioned between the sun and the rain, with his back to the sun.
If the sun, the eye, and the center of the rainbow's arc are not in a straight line, the show is over, before it began. This explains why we only see rainbows in the early morning or late afternoon...
it is physically impossible for us to align our eyes with the sun at other times of day, as it is high above our heads! Logically, a morning rainbow appears when the sun shines in the east, and the rain falls in the west, and an afternoon rainbow appears when the sun shines in the west, and the rain falls in the east. Interesting stuff. From Dr. Daniel Pipes:
POTUS Barack Obama's assistant for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, John O. Brennan, conveniently outlined the administration's present and future policy mistakes in a speech on August 6, "A New Approach for Safeguarding Americans."
To start, his address to the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, has an unusual tenor. "Sycophantic" is the word that springs to mind, as Brennan ninety times in five thousand words invokes either "President Obama," "he," "his," or "the president." Disturbingly, Brennan ascribes virtually every thought or policy in his speech to the wisdom of the One. This cringe-inducing lecture reminds one of a North Korean functionary paying homage to the Dear Leader.
Specifics are no better. Most fundamentally, Brennan calls for appeasing terrorists: "Even as we condemn and oppose the illegitimate tactics used by terrorists, we need to acknowledge and address the legitimate needs and grievances of ordinary people those terrorists claim to represent." Which legitimate needs and grievances, one wonders, does he think Al-Qaeda represents?
Brennan carefully delineates a two-fold threat, one being "Al-Qaida and its allies" and the other "violent extremism." But the former, self-evidently, is a subset of the latter. This elementary mistake undermines his entire analysis.
He also rejects any connection between "violent extremism" and Islam: "Using the legitimate term jihad, which means to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal, risks giving these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately seek but in no way deserve. Worse, it risks reinforcing the idea that the United States is somehow at war with Islam itself."
This passage regurgitates a theory of radical Islam that, according to Lt. Colonel Joseph C. Myers of the U.S. Air Command and Staff College, "is part of a strategic disinformation and denial and deception campaign" developed by the Muslim Brotherhood. Discredited in 2007 by Robert Spencer, the theory distinguishes between good jihad and bad jihad and denies any connection between Islam and terrorism.
It's a deeply deceptive interpretation intended to confuse non-Muslims and win time for Islamists. The George W. Bush administration, for all its mistakes, did not succumb to this ruse. But Brennan informs us that his boss now bases U.S. policy on it.
As has been pointed out many a time in many a place, the problem is "The One." Right at the top, Barack Obama, that is. As a candidate, in discussing foreign affairs, he used endless platitutes. On Iran, for example, he could not get beyond "carrots and sticks," which he repeated again and again. He made extraordinary comments about Hezbollah and Lebanon that even caught the attention of David Brooks of the New York Times. He sounds a all times like a moderately adept debater who thrives on the fruits of platitude, chasing rainbows in the false churlish world of his own imagination.
We at the Bellicose Augur agree that Obama and Brennan are up to no good with their soporific notions of appeasing the enemy, or worse, in conducting pure acts of treason to gum up the works for future service, but we strongly disagree that the Bush administration stayed free of such conflated and confused thinking themselves. Did the Bush White House stop or place a moratorium on Islamic immigration onto our shores? No, it did not. Instead, it flung open the doors to Islamic immigration from around the globe, cocksure that once on American soil, followers of Allah would morph into Joe and Flo Crossbearer, and play peacefully with its infidel neighbors. Oops, didn't happen.
Did the Bush White draw distinctions between our system and the system of Islamic nations in terms of human and natural rights, as diminished as these rights are becoming even here with the encroachment of government from both ends of the sledge hammer? No, it most certainly did not. A martial code of silence was in full effect. Echoes of Bush's "Islam is a Religion of Peace" non-sense still bounce like bricks with a painful thud inside my head. Lies. More lies. And those damned lies.
Bush was obviously in bed with the Saudis who are spearheading massive spending ventures, funding Wahhabi schools from kindergarten upwards, erecting virilent and robust mosques in a neighborhood near you, and in a slick move politician types of every stripe master with a wink and a nod, these Saudi princes pour concrete and glass into new Islamic Studies wings at universities in every state of this formerly great nation of ours while the Bush administration did nothing but fire whistleblowers who dared contradict its standing (and sitting) policy of soft appeasement of this very real enemy. All in the name of oil and business as usual. To now hold Scotland accountable for its release of the Lockerbie bomber is a joke.
"The refusal of the Western elite class to protect their nations from jihadist infiltration is the biggest betrayal in history."
ANOTHER AMBITIOUS article at the American Thinker today analyzes yesterday's conference entitled "The Fall of Capitalism and the Rise of Islam" that took place as scheduled at the Hilton Hotel in Oak Lawn, Illinois, a Chicago suburb. There, in the heartland of a post 9/11 America, Hizb-ut Tahrir, an international organization outlawed as a terrorist group in several European and Middle East countries, sponsored sessions focusing on strategies to end free enterprise and replace it with Shari'ah law.
Hizb-ut Tahrir is no academic think-tank simply examining public issues. It is an international group reported to have over a million members, including cells in more than 40 countries. It supports the Taliban and Hamas, sanctions suicide bombing and has called for the killing of nonbelievers. It has spawned terrorists for Al Qaeda, Hamas and Jemaa Islamiya; subscribes to the mantra that "jihad has to continue till the Day of Judgment;" and endeavors to replace existing governments with a worldwide Khilafah (Caliphate) or Islamic government under Shari'ah law.
It is remarkable enough that a conference of this nature by a group that advocates the overthrow of the U.S. government actually took place in an American city. Perhaps even more disturbing is the growing number of cancellations of events and conferences that feature the opposite point of view with material and speakers that seek to educate the public about the threat of radical Islam. Increasingly, our country's prized right to freedom of speech seems to operate in only one direction, providing plenty of opportunities for our enemies to speak openly against us, yet, placing a gag over any discussion about the radical Islam threat.
Here are some disturbing recent examples.
New English Review Symposium
In December 2008, the New English Review, a non-profit organization dedicated to the defense of Western values, had scheduled and signed a contract to conduct a symposium, "Understanding the Jihad in Israel, Europe and America" at the Loew's Vanderbilt Hotel in Nashville, Tennessee. Three days before the symposium was to begin, the hotel manager cancelled the event citing concerns about "the safety, welfare and security of hotel guests and employees." Subsequent investigation disclosed that the manager summarily disagreed with the politics of the event and responded to pressure from prominent Muslims and Leftists in the community. A local paper went so far as to refer to the conference speakers as "agents of intolerance."
American Library Association Panel
Just this week, the American Library Association cancelled a panel, "Perspectives on Islam: Beyond the Stereotyping," at the behest of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and CAIR sympathizers who objected to the participation of Islamic scholar and author Robert Spencer.
Spencer has studied Islamic doctrine for close to 30 years and quotes directly from traditional Islamic sources in his efforts to shed light on the myriad facets of the global jihad. He has led seminars on Islam and jihad for the United States Central Command, the FBI, the Joint Terrorism Task Force, the U.S. intelligence community and other government organizations. Spencer is the author of eight books on Islam and the jihad and has appeared on CNN, BBC, FoxNews, PBS, MSNBC and other networks.
CAIR, which presents itself as a benign civil rights organization for American Muslims, is an unindicted co-conspirator in the successful prosecution of Muslim charity founders who illegally funneled millions of dollars to the Palestinian militant group Hamas. CAIR officials are known to have terrorist ties and the organization has actively fought to repeal the Patriot Act, eliminate military tribunals and even defended convicted terrorists. The group is well known for its pursuit of individuals who expose its links to terrorist funding and support activities. In 1994, one of CAIR's co-founders, Nihad Awad, publicly asserted that he was a Hamas supporter.
In 1998, co-founder Omar Ahmad declared, "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant." He added, "The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."
People's Truth Forum
In 2005, The Georgetown Marriott refused to host a symposium on counterterrorism sponsored by America's Truth Forum (ATF), formerly known as People's Truth Forum, a non-profit organization dedicated to educating Americans about national security threats. The ATF hosts a website featuring articles from mainstream media sources and had planned a series of panels featuring top experts in the field of counterterrorism. ATF's conference was rejected by the Georgetown Marriott Conference Center on the grounds that the organization was too controversial, the venue was inappropriate for the topic and heightened security would be necessary to protect hotel guests. The following statement was issued by Marriott's corporate office: "Due to the high density of Muslim students on campus, we're afraid of the potential for violent protests, injured employees and damage to the facility."
Shortly thereafter, CAIR hosted its 11th Annual Banquet at the Crystal Gateway Marriott in Arlington, Virginia. Not only have several CAIR officials been convicted and deported by the United States for terrorist activity, but a 2005 invited speaker, Siraj Wahhaj, is an unindicted co-conspirator in the first World Trade Center bombing of 1993. Apparently, a group with established connections to terrorism is a non-controversial organization for the Marriott Corporation.
It is unconscionable in 2009 that an acceptable forum in America today is a conference entitled, "The Fall of Capitalism and the Rise of Islam," with a goal of strategizing the demise of the bedrock of our democracythe free enterprise systemand the replacement of our constitution with a theo-political-legal system that subjugates women, murders homosexuals, confers non-person status on non-Muslims, permits slavery and kills apostates. At the same time, attempts to discuss Islamic doctrine and educate the American public about this very threat are increasingly verboten. In many recent instances, accurate speech is being deemed inflammatory due to fear of retaliation by those who want to silence critics of Islam who engage in legitimate discussion of a serious threat to our nation.
How this threat plays out in everyday life can be illustrated by the city of Nashville, Tennessee, which provides an interesting example of the exercise of one-way free speech and the accompanying extreme accommodation of those with whom we disagree. Thanks to the largesse of the State department's Refugee Resettlement Program, which offers housing, jobs, welfare and an abundance of social services for program recipients, at least 50% of whom are Muslim, Nashville has over 20,000 Muslims from Iraq, Somalia and the Sudan. Six known mosques exist in Nashville, a doses a Muslim graveyard, a madrassa, a Muslim Boy Scout troop and chapters of the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Muslim Student Association and Muslim American Society. According to a local psychiatrist, the Nashville Muslim community has evidenced polygamy, child marriage, female genital mutilation and wife beating. Crimes such as drug-dealing, money-laundering, murder, rape and Medicare and grant fraud are occurring at alarming rates. Many of these behaviors are grounded in value systems that are contrary to our own, yet anyone pointing this out would be subject to accusations of "intolerance."
In this and other ways, attempts to curtail the speech and assembly of critics of Islam portends a grave threat to the First Amendment protections that are vital to preserving our cherished liberty and freedom and safeguarding us from totalitarianism and tyranny. If we are unable to speak freely and openly about the radical Islamic threat presently confronting our country while Islamists are given the freedom to gather and plot the overthrow of our system of government and spout hateful rhetoric and propaganda, an Islamic government under Shari'ah law will surely be our fate.
War machine? No silly. I'm not referencing the Bush administration. All bellicose references to Nazi-like affectations directed at Bush and company, despite its monumental failures of judgement, are ridiculous cacricatures at best, filthy projections of a distorted and mismanaged mind, in numbers too strained to recant, in their worst form. Thanks, but no thanks. Rather, on this fine March day, I am referring once again to the war machinery of soiled thugs husting over hill and dale at the IOC, or the Islamic Organization Cooperation, an international organization consisting of 57 member states. The organization states that it is "the collective voice of the Muslim world" and works to "safeguard and protect the interests of the Muslim world in the spirit of promoting international peace and harmony"...
As my old pops might say, "That's enough dip on a stick to gag a maggot."