CAIR's Campaign of Lies

It took nearly four years but the arrogantly stubborn, and dangerous, Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has finally felt the heat of an angry backlash, and is launching a desperate public relations campaign that will attempt to convince America that Islam, after all, is a religion of peace. What's next? A full page New York Times ad from the Aryan Nation describing how it's members really don't hate blacks and Jews?

Since CAIR never does anything that is not related to its own self-interest, or more specifically the interests of radical Islam, the group must have gotten the message that Americans are sick of hearing about Islamic peace and tolerance. But if CAIR really believes a few slick commercials showing apparently mainstream Muslims condemning terrorism will sway rational thinking individuals from seeing the truth, they are as crazy as the wild-eyed mullahs that send homicide bombers into holy war against the Judeo-Christian West. Then again, they might think the rest of us infidels are simply idiots.

In the ads, CAIR claims that "Islam is not about hatred and violence. It's about peace and justice". Try telling that to the victims of nearly 3000 individual Islamic terrorist attacks that have occurred around the world just since 9/11, or to the millions of Christians, Jews, and other religious followers who are persecuted, prosecuted and executed in Islamic nations simply for going to a different church, or try to refute the fact that while not all Muslims are terrorists, all terrorists tend to be Moslems. Name any Islamic country, and there you will find a level of religious bigotry, intolerance, violent reprisal, and vindictive hatefulness against non-believers unparalleled in recent history. Collectively, the state-sponsored religiocentricity of modern Islamic nations makes the Crusades and the Inquisition look positively tolerant by comparison.

The ads also try to tweak those who have been stunned by the deafening silence from the Islamic world when it comes to terrorism. "We often hear claims Muslims don't condemn terrorism and that Islam condones violence", CAIR says in the ad, "and we want to state clearly that those who commit acts of terror in the name of Islam are betraying the teachings of the Quran and the Prophet Muhammad". Have not these people read their own religious texts? What the Quran does not address regarding a Muslims duty to kill everyone who will not subjugate to Islam, Muhammad's own words in the Hadith makes very clear. Don't believe it? Read it yourself. Since most Americans have never read the Constitution or Shakespeare, let alone the Quran and Hadith, CAIR assumes its audience can be so easily duped. And please, save me the comparisons between the Christian New Testament and these other books. When it comes to flat-out mayhem, wife-beating, adultery, calls for death and destruction against one's enemies, and creative methods of murder and torture, Jesus just can't hold a candle to Muhammad.

CAIR also complains that the religion has been hijacked by "criminals" who have misinterpreted the teachings of Islam, and that only a small number of Moslems are involved in either the acts of terror, or who give support to the terrorists. "We refuse to allow our faith to be held hostage by the criminal actions of a tiny minority". Such pretty words, but CAIR itself is an organization with a very questionable stand on terrorism. CAIR's leaders initially denied that Osama bin Laden was even involved in the 9/11 massacre, but was finally embarrassed into acknowledging his role three months later. In 1993, CAIR called the conviction of the original Trade Center bombers a "travesty of justice", and the conviction of the mastermind Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman a "hate crime". CAIR has also been directly involved with The Holy Land Foundation, which was ultimately found to be collecting money for the terrorist group Hamas, and shut down. In fact, Steven Pomerantz, the FBI's former chief of counterterrorism, has concluded that "CAIR, its leaders and its activities effectively give aid to international terrorist groups".

While CAIR has excelled at quickly claiming Islamophobia and coming to the defense of every Muslim accused of a crime, no matter how heinous, the group's own stand on religious freedom has been even more suspect. During a May, 1998 CAIR-sponsored event, several featured speakers made anti-Semitic statements, including calling Jews "the descendents of the apes". Two months later, CAIR Chairman Omar M. Ahmad told a crowd of California Muslims that "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth".

While the group may try to appeal to generally tolerant Americans and fool those gullibly raised on the fantasy that all religions are the same, these two incidents are more illustrative of CAIR's, and Islamic, true beliefs.

But then, according to the Quran, lying to the infidel is a Muslim duty (Sura 66:2).

Don't Like Islamic Terrorism? Blame a Liberal.

Since liberals are so blinded by their disdain for America, they have been unable to recognize their own culpability in Islam's war against the West.

Before the smoke settled and the blood dried in London, the latest front in the world war against Islamofascism, brain-addled liberals were once again projecting the blame to America. The terrorists would stop trying to kill us, they say, if only we would abandon our military bases in Muslim nations, or jettison the Israeli democracy in favor of a Palestinian theocracy, or waste millions of dollars down another African Islamic rat-hole, or stop flushing Korans down the prison commode, or other such tiresome nonsense. Of course, anyone with a semblance of historical perspective or reason knows that Islam will not alter its destructive course until the world is crushed beneath the weight of a vindictive Allah. All you have to do is listen to their own words, and read their own history. But proving once again that liberalism, like Islam, is a mental disorder, America's most strident objectors and Islam's most vocal defenders, usually social libertines who make both a hobby and a career out of bashing this country for any reason, are apparently unaware that they would be murdered first under such a regime.

There are certainly reasons for Islam's declared battle against America, most fundamentally originating in Islam's perception of Western societies as decadent and godless, and the root cause of Islam's inferior position around the world. While there may have been a time, a thousand years or more ago, when Islamic culture somewhat resembled civilization, those days are long past, and what remains are substantially illiterate Moslems eeking out a subsistence living. Neutered and weak, Islam's failure to thrive is juxtaposed in sharp contrast to the West's Judeo-Christian success and hegemony. The absence of global, tangibly positive contributions from nearly a billion Islamic followers is staggering in its implications.

This is understandably difficult for Moslems to explain, since Islam dismisses Christianity and Judaism, the very basis for previous Western success, as inferior and unenlightened religions, and which views itself as the final word of God. Since God can't be wrong, there must be another explanation. If it wasn't for those Satanic Christians and Jews, the reasoning goes, Moslems would be living in comfort and ease, instead of languishing embarrassingly in some of the most crushing ignorance and destitute poverty the world has ever seen. Everywhere Moslems look, their religion and culture has proven a dismal failure. Islamic jealousy and self-hatred is evident and acute, and manifested in its dark worship of death and the malleability and willingness of young men and women to blow themselves to pieces in order to be seen as worthy in the eyes of Allah.

But beyond evident feelings of inferiority, other equally strange and sinister internal struggles seem to compel the Islamic fundamentalists. By subjugating women with humiliating strictures, and reacting violently to any female autonomy, Moslems men seem to live in perpetual fear of women, and their own lack of masculinity. While publicly denouncing homosexuals as sinful and decadent, it is well known that homosexual behavior is prevalent in the Islamic world. It was long-rumored that Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat enjoyed an active, and barely hidden, homosexual sex life, preferring young boys and men. In fact, Supreme Leader of Iran Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founding father of Islamic fundamentalism, openly legitimized specific homosexual acts. In the book "The Sayings of Ayatollah Khomeini: Political, Philosophical, Social and Religious (The Little Green Book, ISBN 0-553-14032-9), a well-documented compilation of his speeches and writings, he is quoted as saying "if a man sodomizes the son, brother or father of his wife, the marriage remains valid". Also, sex with children and animals does not appear to be outside of normal Moslem sexual behavior. Khomeini writes in his book "Tahririlvasyleh" (volume four, Darol Elm, Qom, Iran 1990) that "a man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. . . sodomizing is acceptable". He further states that "a man can have sex with animals such as sheep, cows, camels and so on". Both of these books are widely distributed in Iran, the birthplace of modern Islamic terrorism.

Ironically, much of what the left has supported and promoted, such as gender rights, homosexual rights, animal rights, abortion, pornography, drug use, and secular humanism are now cited by Islamic scholars to justify Islam's war against the West, and America in particular. In fact, it would have been nearly impossible to use such justifications fifty years ago, but with the successful incremental introduction of liberal thought into our own culture, such philosophy is common, prevalent and nearly mainstream. While liberals would argue that these societal changes are signs of enlightenment, and others would view these issues simply as the dispassionate advance of civil liberties, Moslem religious leaders will continue to exploit this dichotomy which allows such apparent godlessness to thrive in the greatest nation the world has ever produced.

While only the murderous, crazed Islamofascists are ultimately responsible for acts of terror, liberalism has given the terrorists another convenient excuse to hate America.

On Abortion, Christian Conservatives Will Never Forgive and Forget

President Bush may in truth be the only person in Washington who does not have an abortion-rights litmus test, but for the sake of his party and his legacy, he better get one. Real quick.

For Democrats, abortion is the very heart of the party, its money and its supporters. Every Democratic candidate, even for state offices, are embraced or rejected based on abortion philosophy. Every Democratic support group, including MoveOn.org, Emily's List, and People for the American Way, worship the culture of abortion like a religion, and would never, ever give money to a non-believing Democrat. Al Gore and Joseph Lieberman were forced to change previously pro-life positions to be palatable to the party, and John Kerry rejected his own Church to run in 2004. Conversely, Zell Miller was ostracized by his own party primarily because he became pro-life.

There may be slight disagreements within the party on other issues, such as support for the war in Iraq, but to be a Democratic politician in America today means that you must unreservedly support a woman's right to kill her own baby. Here's the proof: name even one Washington Democrat who is pro-life. Now that Miller is gone, it won't be easy. And when it comes to the Supreme Court, the only branch of government that can presently affect abortion law, you can bet this party would ignore every other consideration if Bush was to bring a pro-choice nominee to the Senate floor.

Such as Bush Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, for example.

While Democrats have warned that nominees like Michael Luttig and Emilio Garza would instantly bring a Democratic Senate filibuster, there has been muted criticism regarding the possible Gonzales nomination. Little wonder, since Luttig and Garza are known to be solidly pro-life, and Gonzales has proven himself to be a supporter of abortion rights, ruling that children have a right to procure abortions without parental notice, and pledging to support Roe vs. Wade. With those credentials, even Gonzales' most strident opponents during his AG confirmation hearings, who accused him of being the architect of US "torture" policy on terrorist detainees, would probably support him in the end.

Since the Republican Party is more tolerant of diverse abortion views, pressure on Bush to nominate someone like Gonzales will come from both sides. While the party platform officially remains pro-life, advocating a constitutional amendment to ban abortion and calling for the choosing of pro-life judges, many powerful and influential Senate Republicans are unashamedly pro-choice, including Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter. Bush's dismissal of abortion philosophy as a relevant factor in gaining his support was evident when he chose to campaign to re-elect Specter, rejecting pro-life candidate Pat Twomey during last year's Pennsylvania Senate race. Bush has proven his willingness to abandon the conservative base of his party when it was politically expedient, and this precedent, and Bush's angry reaction to recent conservative criticism of Gonzales, is ominous.

But Democratic apologists for Gonzales are as equally troubling. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid called Gonzales "qualified for the Supreme Court", saying the president should not have to respond to such criticism from "the far right", and Sen. Charles Schumer, who voted against Gonzales for Attorney General, issued a statement proclaiming that the potential nominee has a "very strong resume". Similarly, the director of the leftist activist political group People for the American Way, Ralph Neas, criticized the "religious right" for their misgivings about Gonzales.

With Republicans in charge of the Senate, and with politically powerful and well-funded conservative groups like James Dobson's Focus on the Family already warning the president not to pick someone like Gonzales, and instead nominate a judge willing to overturn the Roe vs Wade decision, Democrats are panicked, and ready for war. After all, these organizations are simply reflecting the official platform of the Republican Party. A quick read of liberal newspaper editorials and activist web-sites indicates an underlying level of hysteria not seen until now. As the party continues to decline in influence, progressively losing one political battle after another, the liberal groups that keep the Democrats flush in money will demand what could very well turn out to be the party's last stand over the defining issue of the modern Democratic Party. Radical activists are well aware that American opinion is quickly moving away from abortion support, and therefore cannot afford to lose the courts, for fear the citizens of each state might very well seal the fate of abortion law.

There is also the chance that Bush's political advisors, and possibly Bush himself, may be tiring of the constant battle with a tenacious minority party, which is supported by the powerful mainstream media and which becomes more strident and radical with every passing day. With other pressing matters of interest to the president, such as Social Security reform and a world-wide war against Islamofascism, Bush may view the court fight, and its potential to change the course of abortion law in this country, as a lesser priority. He was, in fact, strangely quiet during the previous Senate battle over his appellate court nominees, and showed little interest in intervening personally to end the Democratic filibuster and get an up or down vote for solidly pro-life nominees. Several languish without a vote even now, some after being blocked for years.

If President Bush is so naive as to believe that abortion should have nothing to do with his choice of the next Supreme Court judge, he may well risk losing the support of his only dependable base. Just as liberals would never forgive Democrats for failing to fight for a woman's right to kill her own baby, conservatives will never forgive Bush if he fails to try to stop them.

The Sambo Factor

A postage stamp depicting a popular black comic book character in disparaging manner has caused the Bush Administration to issue a rare critique of the Mexican government.

Evidently, the White House is more concerned about politically incorrect cartoon characters with exaggerated Negro features, reminiscent of our own Aunt Jemima and Little Black Sambo, than a southern border flowing with illegal aliens and potential terrorists, or a Mexican government hopelessly mired in corruption and drug cartel control at the highest levels. Considering President Bush's chummy personal relationship with Vicente Fox, and his inexplicable embrace of uneducated, unskilled invaders who invariably drain away precious public funds, it is hard to believe he mustered enough gumption to be critical of Mexico, about anything.

If he wished, Bush would not have to look very hard to find fault with Mexican behavior, and a racially stereotypical cartoon on an official Mexican postage stamp is not even close to the most disconcerting. Almost every aspect of our relationship with this country, beyond some questionable economic benefit, is tainted with dangerous implications for our own. Most blatantly, President Bush has been an ardent supporter of various schemes to bring illegals into mainstream status. Of course, many Mexicans, and many radical nativist organizations like La Raza, believe that there is no such thing as an illegal Mexican alien, because the United States stole the border states from Mexico in the first place. In fact, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has been linked to La Raza. Apparently, Bush is not uncomfortable being associated with an organization that calls for completely open borders, and the establishment of a new Mexican controlled region called Atzlan, where California, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, and Texas now exist. Hundreds of documented illegal incursions by the Mexican Army across our border indicates that at least a few Mexican military officials see the border as tenuous, at best.

Ironically, another ominous example of border vulnerability emerged yesterday, when two Iraqi men were arrested by Mexican police just as they were about to enter the United States. Certainly, the state of corruption and ineptitude of Mexican police agencies bought off with drug money does not inspire confidence that such apprehensions are, or will become, common-place, or that a few thousand pesos would not have resulted in the men being allowed to cross with Federale assistance. While Mexico's own southern border is aggressively controlled like a police state to keep out the Central American riff-raff, Vicente Fox and his government call for open borders with the United States. Of course, the flow of poor migrants who will ultimately become a border to society in innumerable ways will be a one-way street. It is hard to imagine an American welfare family in, say, San Diego, uprooting to go live the good life in Tijuana.

Although Mexico should be a rich oil country, it continues to languish as a third world nation because of gross corruption and mismanagement, and Fox and his upper-class supporters are happy to see their own huddled masses, mostly those of mestizo Indian origin, leave and become someone else's problem, in turn benefiting from billions of American dollars flowing back to Mexico's economy. Until there is a Mexican George Washington, able to inspire his people to freedom and liberty, that country will continue to rot from within. George Bush, usually a sincere advocate of free and just societies, does no favors for the people of Mexico by remaining silent in the face of such staggering injustices, simply because many of his business supporters wish to use illegal aliens like indentured servants.

A thick-lipped, frizzy-haired, flat-nosed cartoon character on a Mexican postage stamp has done what decades of corrupt governments, millions of illegal aliens, disregard for national sovereignty, and mini-military invasions were not able to do: agitate this administration into critical action against Mexico.

Sadly, we are not likely to see it again.