Category Archives: Mohammedanism

Fit In Or Fly Out

stuart-varney
Stuart Varney
BRITISH EXPATRIATE AND AMERICAN citizen Stuart Varney, a financial commentator on Fox News noted on one of their Saturday morning programs that Britain is beginning to "push back" at Muslims. Stating that he sensed a change in the British demeanor toward Muslims on the heels of the current veil controversy, Varney suggested a new tone was emerging, indicating "no more bending over backwards, no more appeasement." He also stated that a British politician had recently told him "it's either fit in or fly out".

Now that's all the news fit to print!

(Originally published here on October 24, 2006, and now residing in the archives ready for our WordPress reposting engine. And not to be overlooked, obviously our cause for enthusiasm with regard to British sovereignty pushing back at the Islamic invaders was mere flirtation, and unfortunately for many British neighborhoods, some six sharia-creeping years later—gravely exaggerated.)

Culture Shock In Scotland

M
Kriss killer
Kriss killer
ayhem, fooking bloody mayhem, perniciously instigated "once again" by Muslims (or Asians, as the British press likes to straddle it), and while it may have just been a pothole in the road of expanding documentation in the clash between the West and those more fiercely devoted followers of Mohammed, the debate over just what is to be done to stabilize these rising concerns is still rather muted, and nearly always neatly packaged in broad but rather simplistic terms. After all goes the party line, it was merely one white teenager who lost his life, however gruesome the attack. But let's be fair. Actually, this time, this place, the callousness of the brutal murder of an innocent fifteen year old boy did arouse the community from their politically correct slumber. Here is a reprise of that disgusting story from overseas:

Recently, forensic scientist Ruth Ramage testified in Scotland court that Glasglow youngster Kriss Donald was probably still alive when he was burning and had made his way down the grass to where he finally lay. He may have tried to extinguish the flames by rolling in the mud on the Clyde walkway before his death. The 15-year-old's body was found by the walkway, near London Road on 16 March 2004, a day after he disappeared.

At the High Court in Edinburgh Mohammed Faisal Mushtaq, 27, Zeeshan Shahid, 28, and his brother Imran Shahid 29, deny racially aggravated murder. Ms. Ramage had been called to the Clyde walkway and described her findings to the court.

"A smell of petrol was noted, particularly when the deceased was turned over onto his back," she said, noting that there were a number of stab wounds on his back and blood stains and scorch marks to logs about 50 yards away. His body was also heavily stained with soil on top of the burn marks.

Originally republished here on October 23, 2006. Here is an update. News of the original crime was major news in the anti-jihad circles, but there were some surprises along the way to justice for this young Scottish native where three of his Muslim attackers were given life sentences. Read on:

Three Muslim gang members were jailed for life yesterday for the "savage and barbaric" racially motivated murder of a schoolboy in Glasgow who had been singled out because he was white. Kriss Donald, 15, from Pollokshields, was abducted, stabbed repeatedly and then doused in petrol and burned to death by five men of Pakistani descent in March 2004, apparently in revenge for an earlier incident at a city centre nightclub.

The prosecution said four of the men then drove their captive on a 200-mile journey via Motherwell and Dundee, phoning friends and underworld associates for advice about what to do next; their journey was traced for the court by tracking some 200 mobile telephone calls.
The judge, Lord Uist, told Imran Shahid, 29, his brother Zeeshan, 28, and Mohammed Mushtaq, 27, that their "pre-meditated, cold-blooded execution ... truly was an abomination".

As he sentenced the men to minimum sentences of 25, 22, and 23 years respectively, the schoolboy's mother, Angela, shouted out: "You bastards!"

During the six-week trial the high court in Edinburgh heard graphic and often harrowing testimony from forensic experts that the victim was probably alive when he was set on fire, and had tried vainly to douse the flames by rolling on the ground.

His charred and semi-clothed body was found in the foetal position the following day, on a walkway on the bank of the Clyde. Prosecutors said the murder was "one of the worst and most appalling crimes of inhumanity against an effectively defenceless boy".

The jury of nine women and six men heard that Mr Donald had been singled out by Imran Shahid, 29, known as "Baldy", after Shahid had been hit with a bottle or glass at Victoria's nightclub on Sauchiehall Street in central Glasgow the previous evening.

Shahid, a bodybuilder who at the time sported a distinctive part-shaven, bleached-blond haircut, had pledged to seek revenge for the assault, which he blamed on a rival gang. "Boys from McCulloch Street" had attacked him, the court heard, and he wanted to know which "white bastards" had injured his pride.

Shahid and his four friends set out in a stolen silver Mercedes, cruising the streets of Pollokshaws with a knife, hammer and screwdriver; they came across Kriss Donald, who was a friend of the white men being sought but who was unconnected with the nightclub incident.

The prosecution said the car contained Imran Shahid, his brother, Zeeshan Shahid, nicknamed "Crazy" who was driving, their cousin Daanish Zahid, Mohammed "Becks" Mustaq and Zahid Mohammed. Their victim was first thrown into the rear footwell of the car despite his vain attempts to grab hold of the car doorframe, and threatened with a knife, punched and kicked, as Imran Shahid shouted: "I'm Baldy, nobody fucks with me."

A friend who narrowly escaped from the gang, Jamie Wallace, said the schoolboy cried out: "I'm only 15, what did I do?"

The prosecution said four of the men then drove their captive on a 200-mile journey via Motherwell and Dundee, phoning friends and underworld associates for advice about what to do next; their journey was traced for the court by tracking some 200 mobile telephone calls.

Eventually they drove back to Glasgow after a white associate suggested that the Clyde walkway was a quiet spot useful for "sorting" someone out. At the riverside, it was alleged, the 15-year-old was held down, stabbed 13 times and set alight.

The men's mobiles had fallen silent just after 7pm, and started up again about 20 minutes later, when the Mercedes was driven to a back lane near Glasgow University and set on fire.

kriss_donalds_killers
Kriss Donald's Murderers
Later that evening clothes from the attack were burned in another alley by Mushtaq and Zeehan Shahid. The wreckage of the Mercedes held vital forensic evidence, the court heard, including traces of Kriss Donald's blood and one of his trainers, and Imran Shahid's leather jacket, which had been preserved only because firecrews had arrived in time to prevent the car being destroyed by the fire.

Community leaders were extremely worried about the risks of an explosion of racial violence, with accusations that the British National party was stoking up tensions. Mrs. Donald intervened with an appeal for calm, stating: "It doesn't matter to my family what colour these men are. Kriss is gone because of gangs, not just in Pollokshields but every area of our communities."

The gang members escaped to Pakistan. It emerged in court that Mohammed Sarwar, the Pakistani-born MP who represents the Pollokshields area, had played a pivotal role in bringing the three men to justice, backed-up by the then foreign secretary Jack Straw.

Mr. Sarwar lobbied the Pakistani president, Pervez Musharaff, to introduce a one-off extradition treaty to secure the men's return. One meeting took place at the funeral in Cairo of the Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat. The three eventually agreed to return voluntarily in October last year.

Read more.

Common Threads Of Modern Life Strafed By Islam

hushmoneyTHE NEXT TIME A PROUD BUT CRIMINALLY impaired advocate of Mohammedanism lashes out at you, claiming his favorite prophet was not a mass murdering warlord, an enslaver of women and children, a serial rapist and pedophile who dictated a book on how to make war by terror, on how to infiltrate the non-Mohammedan enemy with the baby-making machine of polygamy, and whose doctrine of bold-faced lying in the name of religion, just remember who this person is:

An illiterate Muslim doing what an illiterate Muslim does, protecting his pernicious sorry self, projecting his sorry self onto others, and prospecting for new victims of his poisonous porridge with rancor, lies, ignorance, and other pernicious acts, undisturbed by Islam's own history or Western jurisprudence...

And also remember, this beast of a man known as Mohammed is also the perfect example of a human life for his followers to aspire. Those who call themselves Christians also claim the same distinction about Yahshua, or Jesus. Compare for yourself. Mohammed or Jesus? You don't have to be a follower of either of these figures to resolve this issue, unless of course, you already have an agenda which conflicts with the obvious.

Bits Of Knowledge Go A Long Way Regarding Pakistan

Obamawar
Obama's War
In 1839, The empire-keen British sought to expand the borders of its colony of British India, by launching a war of conquest against the neighboring Pashtuns. The Pashtuns, as a fiercely independent tribal warrior people, resisted ferociously, so that the British conquest of them was not successful. The British were only able to conquer part of the Pashtun territory, and even that remained in constant rebellion against them. Meanwhile, the remaining unconquered portion of Pashtun territory became the nucleus for the formation of Afghanistan. In 1893, the British imposed a ceasefire line on the Afghans called the Durand Line, which separated British-controlled territory from Afghan territory. The local people on the ground however never recognized this line, which merely existed on a map, and not on the ground.

In 1947, when the colony of British India achieved independence and was simultaneously partitioned into Pakistan and India, the Pakistanis wanted the conquered Pashtun territory to go to them, since the Pashtuns were Muslims. Given that the Pashtuns never recognized British authority over them to begin with, the Pakistanis had tenuous relations with the Pashtuns and were consumed by fears of Pashtun secession.

When Pakistan applied to join the UN in 1947, there was only one country which voted against it. No, it wasn't India—it was Pashtun-ruled Afghanistan which voted against Pakistan's admission, on the grounds that Pakistan was in illegal occupation of Pashtun lands stolen by the British. Their vote was cast on September 30, 1947, and is a fact.

The world needs to compel the Pakistanis to let the Pashtuns go, and allow them to have their own independent national existence, along with the Baluchis and Sindhis. Humoring Pakistan and allowing it to continue using Islamist hatred to rally the people towards unity to counter slow disintegration is not the way to achieve stability in the region, or security for the world.
In 1948, in the nearby state of Kashmir, its Hindu princely ruler and Muslim political leader joined hands in deciding to make Kashmir an independent country rather than joining either Pakistan or India. Pakistan's leadership were immediately terrified of this precedent, fearing that the Pashtuns would soon follow suit and also declare their own ethnically independent state. In order to pre-empt that and prevent it from happening, Pakistan's founder and leader Mohammad Ali Jinnah quickly decided to raise the cry of "Hindu treachery against the Muslims" and despatched hordes of armed Pashtun tribesmen to attack Kashmir. This was his way of distracting the Pashtuns from their own ethnic nationalism by diverting them into war against Kashmir "to save Islam". These are the same Pashtun tribesman whose descendants are today's Taliban. Fleeing the unprovoked invasion of their homeland, Kashmir's Hindu prince and Muslim political leader went to India, pledging to merge with it if India would help repel the invasion. India agreed, and sent its army to repel the Pashtun invasion. Pakistan then sent its army to clash with Indian forces, and the result was Indo-Pakistani conflict, which has lasted for decades.

Pakistan's fear of Pashtun nationalism and separatism, which it fears can break up Pakistan, is thus the root of the Indo-Pakistani conflict over Kashmir and also the root of Pak conflict with Afghanistan, not any alleged Indian takeover of Kabul. This is all due to the legacy of 1839, which happened long before Pakistan was even created.

When a communist revolution happened in Kabul in the late 70s, Pakistan's fear of potential spillover effects on Pashtun nationalism caused Pakistan to embark on fomenting a guerrilla war against Kabul that led to Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Aligned with with the USA, Pakistan then proceeded to arm the Pashtuns while indoctrinating them with Islamic fanaticism. The USA was not allowed any ground role, and was told it could only supply arms and funds to Pakistan, which would take care of the rest. Pakistan then simultaneously embarked on destabilization of India by fomenting insurgency there.

After the Soviets withdrew, Pakistan again feared that the well-armed Pashtuns would turn on it and pursue secession. So Pakistan then created the Taliban as a new umbrella movement for the fractious factional guerrilla groups under an ultra-fundamentalist ideology. Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda then became cosy with Taliban, and the result was 9-11.

When the 9-11 attacks occurred, the cornered Pakistanis then did a 180 and promised to help the US defeat the Taliban and bring the terrorists to justice. Meanwhile they were racking their brains hoping to come up with a way to undermine the War on Terror from within. Now that they have succeeded in doing that, and in bleeding US/NATO forces, they hope to jump horses by kicking the US out and aligning with China.

Because of Pakistan's attempts to illegitimately hang onto Pashtun land, it has brought itself into conflicts with so many countries—first against its neighbors and then against more distant larger powers. This is the reason why Pakistan is an irredentist state and can never be an ally against Islamic extremism, because Pakistan depends on this very Islamism as a national glue to hold itself together, and keep nationalistic ethnic groups like the Pashtuns from breaking Pakistan apart.

At the same time, Pakistanis don't dare own upto the Pashtun national question at any level, nor its effect on their national policies, because any attempt to do so would open up the legitimacy of their claim to Pashtun land.

It's only later on, much after America's defeat, that some Americans will realize too late that they should have seen that the Pashtuns on both sides of the artificial line were actually one people. Pakistan knows it all too well, because they've been living with the guilt and fear of it ever since Pakistan's creation.
Sovereignty is a 2-way street, entailing not just rights but obligations. Pakistan only wishes to assert rights owing to it from sovereignty, and wishes to completely duck the issue of any sovereign obligations to apprehend terrorists on what it claims as its own territory. This is because the fundamental reality is that the Pashtun territory is not really theirs, is not really under their control, and the Pashtuns don't really recognize Pakistani central authority over them.

Pakistan uses Islamic fundamentalism to submerge traditional Pashtun ethnic identity in a desperate attempt to suppress Pashtun ethnic nationalism, and to stave off the disintegration of Pakistan. The Pashtuns are a numerically large enough ethnic group possessing the strength of arms to be able to secede from Pakistan at any moment, should they decide upon it.

The answer is to let the separatists have their way and achieve their independent ethnic states, breaking up Pakistan. It's better to allow Pakistan to naturally break up into 3 or 4 benign ethnic states, than for it to keep promoting Islamic fundamentalist extremism in a doomed attempt to hold itself together. Pakistan is a failing state, and it's better to let it fail and fall apart. This will help to end all conflict in the region and the trans-national terrorist problem. An independent ethnic Pashtun state will be dominated by Pashtun ethnic identity instead of fundamentalist Islam, and thus AlQaeda will no longer be able to find sanctuary there. Conventional ethnic identity is far more natural and benign than trans-nationalist Islamism with its inherent collectivist political bent. Supporting the re-emergence of 4 natural ethnic states—Pashtunistan, Balochistan, Sindh and Punjab—would be far better than continuing to support a dangerous and dysfunctional failed state like Pakistan which continues to spew toxic Islamist extremist ideology in a doomed attempt to hold itself together.

afghanistan_cartoon
Military Genius On Display
Following the failure of the Vietnam War, many Americans later recognized that war was really a war of ethnic reunification by the Vietnamese people. It wasn't a case of one foreign country attempting to conquer another foreign country—indeed, the north and south Vietnamese were not strangers or aliens to one another—they were 2 halves of a common whole. The question was whether they would reunify under communist socialism or under free democracy, but because a blinkered American leadership refused to recognize the Vietnamese grassroots affinity for one another and their desire to reunify, it pretty much ensured that Vietnamese reunification would take place under communist socialism.

Likewise, the Pashtun people live on both sides of an artificial Durand Line (Afghan-Pak "border") which they themselves have never accepted or recognized. It's a question of whether they will politically reunify under close-minded theocratic Islamism or under a more secular and tolerant society. Because today's blinkered American leadership is again blindly defending another artificial line on a map, and refusing to recognize the oneness of the people living on both sides of that artificial line, America is again shutting itself out of the reunification process, guaranteeing that Pashtun reunification will occur under fanatical fundamentalist Islamism as prescribed by Pakistan (much as Hanoi's Soviet backers prescribed reunification under communist socialism.) It's only later on, much after America's defeat, that some Americans will realize too late that they should have seen that the Pashtuns on both sides of the artificial line were actually one people. Pakistan knows it all too well, because they've been living with the guilt and fear of it ever since Pakistan's creation—but that's why they're hell-bent on herding the Pashtuns down the path of Islamist fanaticism, using Islamist glue to keep the Pashtuns as a whole hugged to Pakistan's bosom.

If only policymakers in Washington could shed their blinkers and really understand what's going on, then they might have a chance to shape events more effectively, and to their favor. Pakistan is rapidly building up its nuclear arsenal, as it moves to surpass Britain to become the world's 5th-largest nuclear state.The Pakistanis are racing to build up as much hard-power as possible to back up the soft-power they feel Islamist hate-ideology gives them.

The world needs to compel the Pakistanis to let the Pashtuns go, and allow them to have their own independent national existence, along with the Baluchis and Sindhis. Humoring Pakistan and allowing it to continue using Islamist hatred to rally the people towards unity to counter slow disintegration is not the way to achieve stability in the region, or security for the world.

—Article attributed to Sanman

Thanks to Sanman for this interesting and encouraging post. Your essay suggests what many in Europe have begun to realize about their own lives under the EU. Many Americans, thanks to the Tea Party and its forebears, are busily reconsidering the noble idea that smaller government based on common interests and liberty, can be much more effective, creative, and successful, and therefore superior to these many cobbled-together super states, usually bound by awkward if not outright oppressive regimes which seem to be failing for many of the same reasons all over the globe.

Earth dries, the spitting sun. Terrifying unsung winds,
latter day stormtroopers born for nightblindness, compost damages,
foul waters crashing through amber posts sleepy, crawling mud
broadcasting fire, terror, joblessness, crumbling infrastructure, recalculating
unholy numbers this awesome algebra of pain announcing itself
to the lands as a carrot, then mere thud.

Money, rage, religion...
bunking for blood worthless as sinking treasure,
fighting back glances, on undeserving glum faces
too haunting to measure case by case,
files floating, paltry putrid lessons
of a dead awful stick
left to rot.

Time is running out. All thinking people need to seriously consider the nuances and the noises of world history and one's own basic common sense in the context of the dangers we face as we choose our next leaders who must meet the patriotic mark and allow us to once again mobilize ourselves and our families and our friends to invigorate what we give witness to as the thriving contours of the next century. Each of us here in America and across the peaceful nations should recognize the dangers we face as a culture and a people, so to then act upon the emphatic impulse that there appears little room for error this time around.

Just Saying, Neither Islam Nor Its PR Committee Is My Friend

Ayatollah Khomeini memorably articulated:

ISLAM MAKES IT UNCUMBENT on all adult males, provided they are not disabled or incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. . . . But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world. . . . Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them, put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]…. Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Qur'anic] psalms and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.

Just seems to me, I've got other alliances and obligations that to choose to war against my neighbors in favor of those who wish me dead, dead, and more dead, as evidenced just one of many tens of thousands of time, by this recent leader of the masses who proclaim to follow the message of Mohammed, who was the"perfect model of human behavior" they say...

Geert Wilders: Unmasking Muhammad

Geert Wilders
Geert Wilders fiddles with headphone...

English translation of an op-ed piece that Geert Wilders published today in a Dutch magazine [see below].

TO MORE FULLY UNDERSTAND WHY ISLAM is a mortal danger one must not only consider the Qu'ran, the Hadiths, and the Sunnah but also the character of Muhammad, who conceived the Qu'ran and the entirety of Islam.

There has been much analysis of Muhammad’s mental sanity. In spite of all the available research, it is rarely mentioned or debated. It is a taboo to discuss the true nature of the man whom one and a half billion Muslims around the world regard as a holy prophet and example to be followed. That taboo must be breached in the West, and here in the Netherlands.
The Qu'ran is not just a book. Muslims believe that Allah himself wrote it and that it was dictated to Muhammad in the original version, the Umm al-Kitab, which is kept on a table in heaven. Consequently one cannot argue with the contents. Who would dare to disagree with what Allah himself has written? This explains much of Muhammadan behaviour, from the violence of jihad to the hatred and persecution of Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims and apostates. What we in the West regard as abnormal, is perfectly normal for Islam.

A second insuperable problem with Islam is the figure of Muhammad. He is not just anyone. He is al-insan al-kamil, the perfect man. To become a Muslim one must pronounce the Shahada (the Muslim creed). By pronouncing the Shahada one testifies that there is no god that can be worshipped except Allah, and one testifies that Muhammad is his servant and messenger.

The Qu'ran, and hence Allah, lays down that Muhammad’s life must be imitated. The consequences of this are horrendous and can be witnessed on a daily basis.

There has been much analysis of Muhammad’s mental sanity. In spite of all the available research, it is rarely mentioned or debated. It is a taboo to discuss the true nature of the man whom one and a half billion Muslims around the world regard as a holy prophet and example to be followed. That taboo must be breached in the West, and here in the Netherlands.

Ali Sina is an Iranian ex-Muslim who established the organisation for apostates of Islam Faith Freedom International. In his latest book he posits that Muhammad is a narcissist, a paedophile, a mass murderer, a terrorist, a misogynist, a lecher, a cult leader, a madman, a rapist, a torturer, an assassin and a looter. Sina has offered 50,000 dollars for the one who can prove otherwise. Nobody has claimed the reward as yet. And no wonder, as the description is based on the Islamic texts themselves, such as the hadiths, the descriptions of Muhammad’s life from testimonies of contemporaries.

The historical Muhammad was the savage leader of a gang of robbers from Medina. Without scruples they looted, raped and murdered. The sources describe orgies of savagery where hundreds of people’s throats were cut, hands and feet chopped off, eyes cut out, entire tribes massacred. An example is the extinction of the jewish Kurayza tribe in Medina in 627. One of those who chopped off their heads was Muhammad. The women and children were sold as slaves. Confronted with the lunacy of Islamic terrorists today, it is not hard to find out where the lunacy comes from.

In Vienna the women’s rights activist Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff was recently sentenced to paying a fine for insulting a religion by calling Muhammad a paedophile. However, that is the truth. Numerous hadiths contain testimonies by Muhammad’s favourite wife, the child wife Aisha. Aisha literally says: “The prophet married me when I was six years old, and had intercourse with me when I was nine.”

According to the historian Theophanes (752-817), Muhammad was an epileptic. Epileptic crises are sometimes accompanied by hallucinations, perspiration from the forehead and foaming at the mouth, the very symptoms which Muhammad displayed during his visions.

A public debate about the true nature and character of Muhammad can provide insight and support to Muslims all over the world who wish to leave Islam.
In his book “The other Muhammad” (1992) the Flemish psychologist Dr. Herman Somers concludes that in his forties the “prophet” began to suffer from acromegaly, a condition caused by a tumor in the pituitary gland, a small organ that is situated just below the brain. When the tumor in the pituitary gland causes too much pressure in the brain, people start to see and hear things that are not there. Somers’s psychopathological diagnosis of Muhammad’s condition is: organic hallucinatory affliction with paranoid characteristics.

The German medical historian Armin Geus speaks of a paranoid hallucinatory schizophrenia. A similar analysis can be found in the book “The Medical Case of Muhammad” by the physician Dede Korkut.

In his book “Psychology of Mohammed: Inside the Brain of a Prophet” Dr. Masud Ansari calls Muhammad “the perfect personification of a psychopath in power.” Muhammad had an unhinged paranoid personality with an inferiority complex and megalomaniac tendencies. In his forties he starts having visions that lead him to believe he has a cosmic mission, and there is no stopping him.

The truth is not always pleasant or politically correct. On the basis of the research referred to above it can be argued that the Islamic creed obliges one and a half billion people around the world, including the one million living in the Netherlands, to take Muhammad as their example. There is no turning back once one has become a Muslim. For even though article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that every person has the right to “change his religion or belief,” in Islam there is a death penalty for leaving the faith.

Anyone who voices criticism of Islam and Muhammad is in grave personal danger—as I have experienced. And whoever attempts to escape from the influence of Islam and Muhammad risks death. We cannot continue to accept this state of affairs. A public debate about the true nature and character of Muhammad can provide insight and support to Muslims all over the world who wish to leave Islam.

Apostates are heroes and more than ever they deserve the support of freedom loving people all over the world. Party politics should not be at play in this matter. It is time for us to help these people by exposing Muhammad.

Geert Wilders is an MP in the Netherlands. He is the Chairman of the Party for Freedom (PVV)

This article was originally published in the Dutch weekly magazine “HP/De Tijd” of March 30, 2011

Is Congressman Pete King The Pocket Rocket of CAIR?

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...

Read more at Loganswarning.