Confusing Muhammad With Jesus...

Moslems around the world riot in favor of destroying the freedom of the press and murdering those who practice it, and organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations still try to convince the rest of us that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance.

Who do these Moslems think they are fooling? How stupid, naive and malleable do they believe us to be?

To understand Islam's cynical attempts to pull the burkha over our heads, one need only read the messages carried by Moslem protestors as they wreak havoc over cartoons that dare portray Muhammad. One man holds a handprinted sign declaring Islam a religion of peace and tolerance, and next to him is another man holding aloft a banner that calls for the death of anyone who fails to "respect" Muhammad.

The dichotomy should be perplexing to those in the crowd, but Islam's religiocentric arrogance allows both concepts to live in harmony. In that world, peace and tolerance are severely conditional, afforded mainly based on a person's particular adherence to Islam, and excluding anyone who might disagree or choose to worship differently. Peace, in Islam's twisted reckoning, is a world full of Moslems, worshipping five times a day from mosques in every town of every nation, subjugated under Sharia law, and held to religious compliance by roving gangs of belief police who take orders from Imams they believe are a direct conduit for the voice of Allah. Tolerance, as practiced by imams and mullahs, is when you mercifully receive only twenty lashes for shaving your beard, or failing to walk far enough behind your husband, or listening to the Rolling Stones on a banned CD player. When it comes to infidels, such as Christians and Jews and Sikhs, real tolerance and acceptance does not exist in any Islamic nation today.

Both protestor's messages also serve another more ominous purpose, that being a concerted effort by the Islamic world to send one message to its followers and another message to the gullibly weak West. The typical Moslem knows very well the sinister aims of the religion, namely to replace every other belief with Islam, using violence as a necessary adjunct towards that purpose. But in the West, so desperate to "understand" Islam and unable to grasp its dark nature, yearn for pleasant platitudes about peace and tolerance. After all, how could over a billion people follow a hateful religion? It must be that just a few Moslems have gone off track.

Such rationalization makes it easier for some to sleep at night.

No less eager than the rest of Islam for the day when everyone is forced to submit to Allah, CAIR knows that coverage of frenzied savages in the process of rejecting basic human freedoms is bad press. CAIR spokesman Rabiah Ahmed, reaching deep into his bag of tricks to quell increasing concern about Islam's place in a civilized world, said "We are concerned that people are not responding the way the prophet Muhammad would want. He was the kind of person who would turn the other cheek if someone slapped him. He preached love and tolerance."

Rabiah, you are thinking of Jesus, who did in fact preach peace and love. If Muhammad was alive today, he would be doing what he always did and supported.

Killing infidels, wherever he found them.

So Much for the American Press...

Much of old-stream media's recent sensitivity to religion would be welcome, if the hypocrisy wasn't so rank.

As crazed Moslems around the world burn down buildings and threaten to decapitate cartoonists because of a few Danish editorial cartoons portraying Islam's prophet Muhammad in caricature, writers and editors in the United States are engaged in retrospective hand-wringing about the hurt feelings of the mob. Never mind that Islamic "journalists" have said much worse about Jews and Christians for many years, or that a free press has evaporated anywhere Islamic control has been established. One could never have imagined that America's stalwart defenders of unfettered expression, quick to condemn even timid suggestions of self-censorship, would suddenly be questioning the efficacy of a free and open press that would dare treat Islam to the same disrespect that has been directed at Christianity for years.

After all, major American newpapers and media, like their Islamic counterparts, have never hesitated to condemn and degrade Christians and Christianity. At the same time, as if to stick it to America's majority of believers, the media has promoted every socially destructive agenda and distasteful Hollywood escapade. The most recent example of this is the fawning frenzy over "Brokeback Mountain", a film that graphically depicts a "love" story between two gay sheepherding cowboys. Of course, Mel Gibson's reverent portrayal of Christ's last days is hate-filled and anti-Jewish to America's media elites, but two men sodomizing one another in a pup tent is high art.

But in this case, American media has lost its collective nerve, which is really not surprising when you consider that they are, at the very heart, cowards to begin with. The Associated Press has chosen not to reprint the cartoons in question, saying that "we do not distribute content that is known to be offensive". ABC news ran very fleeting images on "World News Tonight" and "Nightline". NBC has been airing only part of the cartoon, CNN has reported with the graphics blurred, and CBS has refused to show the cartoons at all. Only Fox News aired the cartoon deemed most offensive to Muslims-a drawing that depicted Mohammed wearing a turban shaped like a bomb, and only Fox's Brit Hume has mustered the common-sense to point out the "kinds of slurs against Christians and against the Jewish faith that are regularly spread abroad in the Arab world by the mass media and by many of the imams themselves".

Amazingly, European media, constrained by many different governmental restrictions and controls, has shown a greater understanding of the concept of free press and speech than their American counterparts luxuriating in nearly unlimited constitutional protections. Serge Faubert, chief editor of a French daily, invoked the 18th century free-thinker Voltaire in defending the publication of the cartoons, saying he did not agree with the sentiments, but would defend to the death the right of the cartoonist to make them. England's Daily Mail columnist Peter Hitchens wrote in his column that "the myth of Moslem tolerance needs to be exploded. Muslims should not be allowed to dictate what is, and what is not, published about them." Robert Menard, director of the media rights group Reporters Without Borders said that "modernity" was now at stake. Dozens of European newspapers and magazines have reprinted the cartoons, generally saying that the issue was not the cartoons themselves, but whether newspapers should be allowed to publish them.

Apparently, having your neighborhoods and national flags burned by roaming Moslem thugs, intent on stifling free expression and murdering those who practice it, brings a certain clarity of thought presently missing from the editorial boards of American media.

Recently, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told a global security conference in Munich that "Islamic radicals seek to take over governments from North America to Southeast Asia and re-establish a caliphate they hope, one day, will include every continent" under the control of Islamic Sharia law. He warned that the rise of Islamofascism "could be as deadly as Nazi Germany and the early decades of the Soviet Empire", both of which triggered the slaughter of millions of innocent people. A day before, he told an audience at the National Press Club that radical Islamists "have designed and distributed a map where national borders are erased and replaced by a global extremist Islamic empire".

While the old-stream American media falls all over itself to show deference to hypocritical followers of a crazed and destructive religion, don't expect them to report on the continually emerging threat to Western freedom posed by these radicals.

After all, two queer cowboys are so much more palatable.

Please, Hillary, Listen to Ms. Ivins...

Way-left syndicated columnist Molly Ivins, who probably hates George Bush more than any other person in America, has jettisoned support for Hillary Clinton's presumed presidential run, blistering Clinton and Democrats as being cowards and fools.

Since Susan Estrich, that other really obnoxious liberal commentator, has come out in support of Hillary, one can imagine the potential for a roiling bitch-slap encounter if these two ever face each other on CNN.

But apart from the delicious spectacle of frustrated Democrats ripping themselves apart over an election two years away, Republican should hope that Ivins wins hearts and minds among Rodham-Clinton's handlers.

In Ivins' insular world, populated with fever-swamp crazies like Michael Moore and Howard Dean, Rodham-Clinton is acting like a despicable moderate unable to conjure the courage of her own convictions, especially when it comes to the war in Iraq. There is no wiggle room among the hard-left on this issue, and it is not nearly good enough that Rodham-Clinton regularly criticizes Bush on his handling of the war. She voted to go to war in the first place, and among what has become the mainstream Democratic Party, that is as bad as relegating poor teen mothers to back-alley abortions.

Ivins also believes that most American are actually clamoring for new initiatives out of Washington, such as raising taxes, punishing oil companies and cutting defense spending, and charges that Rodham-Clinton and the Democrats are weak and feckless for not forcefully making these issues their own.

Hillary's adept managers know this to be false, and only have to look at the overwhelming slap-down of John Kerry during the last election to prove it. They know that publicly taking such policy stands would be political suicide, even with an electorate apparently in gridlock. But Ivins and her ilk are so thoroughly blinded by their hatred for Bush and disdain for the voters that rational though is precluded.

As if to prove this, Ivins conjures up the memory of Eugene McCarthy, the recently deceased radical leftist who made Hubert Humphrey look like a conservative during the 1968 Democratic primary. "If no one in conventional-wisdom politics has the courage to speak up and say what needs to be said, then you go out and find (someone) with the guts to do it". Somebody needs to remind her that McCarthy was crushed when it came time for Democrats to actually vote, not to mention he was one of the few Democrats who later called for Bill Clinton's impeachment or resignation. But in the fog of hysteria, there is no reason to be had.

But Ivins holds sway in Democratic circles, and her words will not go unheeded among Rodham-Clinton's supporters. They are already panicked about the next presidential election, and see Hillary as the only chance they've got. They realize she cannot hemorrhage such high-profile support and expect to appeal to the radical left, who driven by seething hatred and rage, contribute most of the money. At some point very soon, financial expediency may compel her to move markedly left. Such "strategery" would ingratiate her to many party loyalists, but might very well functionally sabotage her presidential ambitions, because those loyalists are light-years out of the mainstream. They just don't know it, or refuse to believe it.

Republicans cannot lose here. If Rodham-Clinton refuses to placate the wackos in her party, Ivins is right to assume another more palatable candidate will emerge, such as Howard Dean, and anyone like Dean would be soundly rejected. If she moves left, and spends the next couple years establishing a record of crazy-talk, Americans will never elect her if the Republican candidate has even a hint of moderation.

Let's hope that Rodham-Clinton chooses the latter course. There would be nothing as satisfying as watching the Clinton legacy self-destruct once and for all.

Can't He Just Go Away?

Clinton's hypocrisy know no bounds, and his continued, pathetic attempts to create a positive legacy with criticism of George Bush is so transparent.

While Clinton authorized warrantless physical searches of American citizens during his time in office, and authorized electronic monitoring of millions of American through warrantless Project Echelon and Carnivore intercepts, he now questions the legality of President Bush's very limited eavesdropping of international calls originating from numbers associated with known terrorists suspects.

It must be difficult for him to sit with the size of those balls.

More Islamic Craziness

While Islamists are dangerous, destructive, and insane, they are certainly not very original.

Taking a few moments away from Jew-bashing, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said today that Islam must prepare to rule the world, and that the return of the Mahdi, or Messiah, is close at hand.

According to Shiites, the 12th imam disappeared as a child in the year 941. When he returns, they believe, he will reign on earth for seven years, before bringing about a final judgment and the end of the world.

Ahmadinejad is urging Iranians to prepare for the coming of the Mahdi by turning the country into a mighty and advanced Islamic society and by avoiding the corruption and excesses of the West.

Continuing the theme, Iran's speaker of parliament, Mehdi Kahrubi, said Saturday that some people working closely with Ahmadinejad believe the Mahdi probably will return in the next two years, which means Iran needs to start building more hotels.

That whole "no room at the inn" thing, you understand.

Maybe the three wise Iranian mullahs can bring gifts of oil, plutonium and an AK-47.

Sunnis and Democrats Share Common Anger

Anti-democratic losers can never quite cope with defeat. They are inherently unable to accept the possibility that what they believe, or feel , or stridently support may in fact be the minority opinion. Today those losers, now questioning the very foundations of a free and democratic election, are the Sunni Muslims in Iraq marching against the recent election outcome. A few years ago, those losers were the Democratic Party of the United States, who blamed Supreme Court decisions, and later voting machine irregularities and underhanded politics for the victories of George W. Bush. The difference between these entities is, unfortunately, only measured in degrees, and only tenuously separated in craziness.

The Sunni Muslims in Iraq, especially those members of the Baathist party, enjoyed decades of privilege under Saddam, and although a distinct minority, controlled the wealth and political systems of that country. Year after year, in a craven pursuit of political ambition, they slowly destroyed their nation with progressively exclusionary legislation. Massive taxes were raised to support every grandiose political plan that emerged from the Baathist legislature, and ultimately this party of privilege held power long enough to destroy a once sold middle class. They created laws and regulations and statutes that benefited a narrow political view, and protected personal interests instead of the national good. Other beliefs were outlawed or criticized, and dissent was met with drastic repercussions, and those who might dare to voice opposition were marginalized, or personally destroyed. Or worse. Now, they stand on the losing end of another election, where the great majority of the people of Iraq have rejected such a party, and have specifically rejected leadership from those who would treat their own country as a personal bank account, or treat their own citizens as pawns of the state.

The Democrats in this country are not much different. For nearly fifty years, the Congress was controlled by liberals who spent American dollars as if they had earned them. They created one government agency after another, spent billions on useless and exclusionary social programs, and raised American's taxes to the breaking point. They created new Constitutional rights where none existed, and dismantled rights that were evidently clear. Flush with the confidence of a party without end, Democrats began to believe that they ruled by fiat, or mandate, or divine intervention and intent, and set about protecting every selfish interest imaginable.

When the Republicans took back the Congress in 1994, Democrats were stunned. After years of Republican control, Democrats became desperate. And since a Republican president was elected in 2000 and again in 2004, Democrats have become like the Sunni Muslims: stubbornly defiant of public decisions, unwilling to admit crushing defeat, and openly hostile to those who made those decisions, namely the voters.

The only thing that separates American Democrats from Iraqi Sunni Muslims is the propensity to kill those who disagree with them. But the rabid and hateful hyperbole of Harry Reid and Patrick Leahy, and the personal and visceral vindictiveness they apparently feel towards President Bush and other conservatives might lead some to believe that such action is not beyond the realm of possibility.

There really is not much difference between a typical Sunni, angrily relegated to minority status after years of privilege, and a typical Democrat, yearning for the days of one-party control.

Take away the AK-47, religious fervor, and head rag, and what stands before you is Reid and Leahy.

Don't Expect Much From Clinton and Carter

Amazingly, a former Clinton staffer has actually spoken out on a subject not intended to fabricate an imaginary Bill Clinton "legacy".

John Schmidt, who served as associate attorney general between 1994 and 1997, argues that both Congress and the Supreme Court have recognized presidents' "inherent authority" to bypass warrants in ordering the eavesdropping of U.S. citizens suspected of conspiring with foreign governments or terrorists to injure or kill Americans.

Schmidt is of course referring to President Bush's executive order to electronically eavesdrop on potentially lethal foreign terrorists plotting with compatriots here in this country.

Now, if former Presidents Clinton and Carter, who both ordered similar warrantless wiretaps, would simply step out from the shadows of Bush-bashing and the fever-swamp left to defend inherent presidential powers.

Don't hold your breath for either man to show the least measure of decency or responsibility. Clinton is desperately trying to conjure an image of global savior, while at the same time attempting to hide the fact that his do-nothing presidency and weak-willed policies contributed directly to the terrorists' confidence. As for Carter, to say his administration was feckless and shallow would be to give too much credit.

Thank God that neither man is any longer in a position of responsible for our safety or protection. Both have proven themselves sadly lacking.