by Rose Pedenko and Tanya Simon

In the neo-gothic 16^th century tale of The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Victor Hugo presented a story set in and around the City of Paris, which involved a beautiful gypsy girl, Esmeralda (who was given sanctuary behind the doors of Notre Dame for the crime of murder, which she did not commit); an impious priest (the actual murderer), an impoverished playwright, and the mainly poor populace.  The protagonist in the story was the deaf and grotesque Quasimodo, the ringer of bells at the great cathedral. It was Quasimodo who provided sanctuary to the gypsy girl.

Jump forward 400 years and the same bells are tolling, not in Paris, but in the United States.

It has become an eerily familiar scenario: the City of Los Angeles is now the teeming, thriving metropolis, and Esmeralda is embodied in illegal immigrant, Elvira Arellano.  The deaf-to-the-protesting-Americans Ding-a-Ling: Mayor Antonio “Quasimodo ” Villar — L.A.’s resident King of Fools.  It is our unremarkable Mayor who, in defiance of federal law, offers sanctuary to illegals coming from south of the border, and publicly panders to them without a shred of shame.

Persons who have pushed across our borders looking for “the Mexican Dream” (i.e., remaining a Mexican National but reaping all the benefits of American citizenship) have created havoc amongst the legal, taxpaying U.S. populace.

Specifically, a woman by the name of Elvira Arellano, a Mexican citizen, was recently arrested in Los Angeles and re-deported to Mexico for stealing the Social Security number of an unsuspecting American.  And what was her punishment?  Elvira was not thrown into a prison cell — she was sent back to her home country.  For American taxpayers, her arrest and multiple deportations were not inexpensive affairs.
 

As reported, Elvira had already been in the U.S. for nearly ten years (and in that time never bothered to learn the English language).  She knew enough, however, to become pregnant and, in 1999, gave birth to a fresh-minted Anchor Baby.  Fatherless, Saul Arellano is being sheltered by the pastor and his family at a Methodist church in Chicago.  In addition to his sanctuary, “Master”Arellano is receiving a free education and free medical treatment courtesy of American taxpayers.  Elvira has made it apparent that she intends to use this illegitimate child as a weapon to further fuel her outrageous demands—that the United States of America change its immigration laws with respect to illegal aliens.

How preposterous!  This self-centered illegal alien is issuing demands that are no different than if an American citizen were to illegally cross from the U.S. into Canada and call for Canadians to forthwith change their laws to accommodate illegal Americans.

It doesn’t begin and end with Arellano.  “Sanctuary City” mayors and clergymen who harbor lawbreakers, and who accuse anyone against illegal immigration of being racists, should be brought up to speed when it comes to codified law.  We are not living in the Middle Ages, during which time “church sanctuary” was established by the state to aid lawbreakers.  That sanctuary was abolished nearly 300 years ago, and modern penal codes do not recognize or condone the practice.  Perhaps our “Frollo,” the Reverend Walter Coleman, should be arrested for aiding and abetting a fugitive from justice.  To drive the point home even more deeply, the Methodist Church (and any other organized religious body) should suffer the loss of their Internal Revenue Tax-Exempt status for harboring criminals.  Something must be done to prevent this from happening again… and again and again.

Elvira Arellano, and the millions of others like her, must be made aware (via interpreter of course) of the following:  Persons who wish to come to America and become legal U.S. citizens should first learn about and honor the existing rules of law.  Procedures include sponsorship, application, waiting periods, payment of fees, interviews, health check and, passing a test in English.  This is what leads to an oath of allegiance to these United States, and ultimately, citizenship.

Moreover, for those others who enter our country illegally, it should be made mordantly clear that marches and rallies in which our laws are mocked, spat upon and condemned do not, and never will, effect sympathy or understanding from Americans (and to the children and grandchildren of former immigrants to America).  They patiently stood by the law and became citizens honorably.

Lawbreakers will meet a wall of resistance — the same wall our Congress collided with in June when an inflamed citizenry beat back the headstrong and misguided ambition of President Bush, and U.S. senators and congresspersons who attempted to bridge legal with “illegal.”

by Lance Thompson

It is said that Richard Nixon decided to order the invasion of Cambodia in April 1970 after watching the movie Patton.  If Nixon could be inspired by George C. Scott’s indelible portrayal of the flamboyant tank general, then he can’t be all bad.

More recently, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, referring to Barack Obama’s threat to bomb Pakistan if the government refused to cooperate on anti-terror measures, compared the suddenly bomb-happy Democratic candidate to “Doctor Strangelove.”  It shows an admirable command of movie history by Romney, saddling Obama with the apocalyptic inferences of the 1964 classic’s full title: Dr. Strangelove–How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.

It made me wonder what films inspired, informed and influenced the other candidates. 

With the depth of insight that John Edwards has shown on foreign policy, economics and self-image, not to mention his ability to dance to any tune the ultra-liberal web sites play, he probably has been most influenced by the recent film version of the hit musical Hairspray.

Unannounced candidate Fred Thompson has already appeared in plenty of manly action movies, such as Hunt for Red October, No Way Out, and Die Hard 2 and obviously enjoys the benefit of his screen characters’ tough and decisive stands against all enemies.

Al Gore claims a special bond with film.  Long ago, he intimated that his and Tipper’s romance was the basis for the book, and later the film, Love Story.  Gore watchers who may have noticed his inflated bulk and occasional oratorical explosions may also have been reminded of The Hindenburg.  However, Mr. Gore was probably much more influenced by the original Irwin Allen disaster film, Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, where the world’s temperature increased so much that the skies caught fire, and ice floes defied the laws of physics and actually sank.  Mr. Gore now makes his own movies, based on much the same sort of science fiction, so the question of life imitating art or Gore imitating science is still open to debate.

John McCain, a self-described maverick, may be inspired by the big-screen version of the popular Western series by the same name.  Unfortunately, Maverick the film, despite the presence of original star James Garner in a prominent role, failed to recapture the wit, originality and fun of the Maverick TV series.  McCain’s 2008 bid has likewise failed to recapture the wit, originality and fun of his previous campaign, and is headed by an aging candidate who’s not quite as quick on the draw as before. 

Rudy Giuliani has been defined by his record as mayor of the Big Apple--positively for controlling crime and standing tall during 9/11, and negatively for lenient policies toward illegal immigrants, abortion rights and wedding vows.  Giuliani must be thinking about the John Carpenter-Kurt Russell action classic Escape From New York as he hopes to leave his New York days behind in his run for the White House.

Hillary Clinton must be a fan of Conspiracy Theory, because it wasn’t long after that Mel Gibson-Julia Roberts thriller hit the video shelves that she explained the controversy generated by her husband’s administration to Katie Couric by blaming a “vast right wing conspiracy.”  Of course, if Hillary does attain the White House, and no longer needs the unerring campaign instincts of her husband, she may be tempted by the allure of a more recent film, Quentin Tarantino’s Kill Bill.

Whoever ends up in the finals next year, it’s certain that movies will have played a pivotal role in shaping their campaigns and our perceptions of them.  It only remains for the American people to decide who gets the award for Best Actor.

-=-=-

Lance Thompson lives in Idaho with his wife and daughter.

By Lance Thompson

Time is running out in Iraq. Panic has set in. Desperate measures will have to be taken to salvage a hopeless situation. Especially if you’re a Democrat.

As coalition and Iraqi forces kill and capture terrorists and their leaders, as massive coalition offensives secure larger and larger swaths of the country, as even anti-war bulwarks like The New York Times admit that the war is winnable, the Democrats who have been proclaiming that we couldn’t win sound increasingly divorced from reality. As good news mounts, their stock plummets.

Next month, General David Petraeus, the results-oriented commander of the multi-national force in Iraq, will report to Congress on progress in the war. The Democrats (and some faint-hearted Republicans), who have done all they can to legislate a surrender and pull-out, fear that the general’s report will reflect the positive results we read about each day–terrorists killed and captured, al Qaeda leaders killed and captured, dangerous provinces made safe, Iraqi civilians reporting and identifying insurgents.

The Democrats have two choices. First, they can discredit General Petraeus and his report, focus on the bad news, and still claim that the war is unwinnable, even as we’re winning it. This, however, will be increasingly untenable, leaving them in the same position as “Baghdad Bob,” the Iraqi information officer, who stated that Iraqi forces held impregnable fortifications in Baghdad even as Iraqi soldiers fled American tanks in the background.

The Democrats’ more likely choice is to slowly sidle over from the “We can’t win this,” to the “I supported the troops” side. As victory becomes more certain, end-the-war advocates will become less vocal, less visible, and eventually, less committed to their convictions. If victory becomes inevitable, they will abandon those convictions completely.

This strategy is epitomized by John Kerry’s famous proclamation, “I voted for the war before I voted against it.” Defeatist Democrats will fashion their own versions of this double talk as the war news gets better, especially if they are Democrats aiming for the White House.

Hillary Clinton built a strong record on defense in her first Senate term, serving on the armed services committee, voting to authorize the use of military force in Iraq, supporting the war despite controversy--right up until polls told her that it was costing her support among the base. Then she joined the give-it-up crowd, vowing to end the war, complaining that she was misled about the war, and criticizing the conduct of the war.

Expect similar redirections from Barak “Let’s Hit Pakistan” Obama. Boasting on his web site that he’s been “consistently against the war,” he rode the wave of anti-war fervor to a prominent position in the polls, then sought to burnish his foreign policy image by suggesting an attack on Pakistan. Like most Democrats, he fails to support the war we’re engaged in, but strongly supports any war that doesn’t currently exist.

John Edwards, long an advocate of cutting and running, is well known for pinballing from one Daily Kos talking point to the next. He dances effortlessly to the tune of the far left web sites. Thus, as news from Iraq improves, don’t be surprised if Edwards pirouettes from dove to hawk, and calls Bush timid for not nuking Iran.

Perpetual undeclared candidate Al Gore may have been smartest of all on this issue. Instead of weighing in on the war that threatens Western civilization, he tilted against climate change–a vague, ethereal enemy that affords its adversary the convenience of never having to engage in a decisive battle. No matter how great or how limited the efforts in the war against weather, there will be no embarrassing setbacks or metrics to show progress or the lack thereof. It is the equivalent of monitoring a college course–no grades, no exams, no need to do anything but show up.

Non-candidate Democrats in Congress will have a tougher time nuancing their ways out of the defeat-at-any-cost mob. Senate majority leader Harry Reid’s and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s relentless campaign to seize the commander-in-chief duties from the executive branch failed, despite numerous attempts. Their goal was to make it impossible for the war to continue, and to force the withdrawal of our troops from the face of an enemy whose main goal is to force the withdrawal of our troops. Nonetheless, in the face of encouraging reports from the front, Reid and Pelosi will distance themselves from undermining the war effort and claim that they never stopped supporting the troops engaged in it.

They say success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan. The Democrats will try to be the adoptive parents of victory in Iraq. But American voters, sensing achievable victory, won’t give credit to those who fought so hard to prevent it.

-=-=-

Lance Thompson lives in Idaho with his wife and daughter.

In a new feature, LowDownCentral cryptologists intercept, decode and present secret communications between our enemies, both foreign and domestic.

Decoded by Lance Thompson:

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Tehran, Iran

Dear President Ahmadinejad,

Enclosed in this crate marked “Religious Artifacts,” wrapped in prayer mat, you will find (1) used rocket-propelled grenade launcher, recently smuggled across the border to our brave fighters in Iraq, to use against the American crusaders.

I speak for all jihadists here (although our numbers are dwindling) when I express our thanks to your government for the endless supplies of weapons, ammunition, explosives, tactical suggestions, and holiday fruitcakes you have provided. The opportunities to engage the enemy afforded by your gifts have enabled at least a hundred of our brave fighters to achieve martyrdom each and every day.

Regarding replacement fighters, the journey for an Islamic jihadist from Iran to the battlefields in Iraq is now more hazardous, due not only to increased American troop presence, but also to the heightened effectiveness of Iraqi military and police units.

Additionally, our support among Iraqi civilians is falling, because they fail to realize that the more Iraqis we murder, the more embarrassment to our enemies. The result is that recruiting efforts continue to fall short, notwithstanding our inducements of martyrdom, monetary rewards to surviving relatives, and posthumous carnal favors. We have had to lower our standards for trainee jihadists. Our ranks are now being filled by the insane, the infirm, the easily misled, and those whose applications have been denied by eharmony.com.

The enclosed rocket launcher is a complication in this matter. Many of our new recruits have no idea how to operate even such a simple device as this. As you can see, to the uninitiated, the front and back of the RPG launcher are outwardly very similar. I wonder if you could label all future RPG launchers, in large letters, “THIS END TOWARD ENEMY.” This would prevent accidents such as the one that conferred martyrdom not only upon a new recruit, but also upon an entire class of trainees observing an RPG demonstration from what would ordinarily be a safe vantage point. The exercise was being supervised by Abdul al-Toona, my right-hand man (now my left-hand man), who fortunately survived his injuries. Nonetheless, mishaps like this are very damaging to morale.

We are doing our best to accelerate training of our surviving recruits. However, I doubt that their level of expertise will be sufficient to handle the tactical nuclear weapons you have been promising us. When I recall the results of the elementary roadside bomb construction class at the Osama bin Laden Memorial Mosque (since renamed the Osama bin Laden drainage basin), I have little confidence that our people will be able to handle fission-type weapons. Right now, they’re training with paintball guns, but even with these comparatively harmless weapons, many eyes have been put out and ceremonial robes permanently stained. This, we realize, makes our men easy to spot by American and Iraqi forces.

Please do not think of this as complaint or ingratitude. We are all delighted to be hiding in abandoned buildings, sewers, and in the basement of the NBC News Bureau, coming out only at night to lob a mortar round into a school or an ambush video at the nearest al Jazeera reporter. We only wish we could do more to stem the increasing strength and capability of our enemies.

As you suggested, I sent Congressman Murtha a birthday card, signed by all here, except Abdul, who just made his mark.

Undauntedly yours in the name of Allah,

Akim Azziz
General Manager of Terror and Mayhem
Anbar Province, Iraq

By: Amil Imani

‘Islam is a religion of peace and the great majority of Muslims are not party to any plans and actions of the radicals’- so claim academic pundits, leftist journalists, and hired Islamic apologists. The incantation of these “authorities” is the lullaby that puts the people into a sleep of complacency.

Complacency and appeasement on the part of the free world and those well-meaning, non-practicing Muslims, can only serve Islam. There is no chance for co-existence with Islam. All one needs to know is to see what is happening in Islamic countries. That is exactly what is in store for the presently free people of the world if Islam is not held in check.

The average free person, who is busy with all manner of demands on his time and resources, would hardly want to worry about the very real threat which mainstream Islam poses to his life and to his future. It is so much easier to accept the claims of authorities who assure us not to worry; ‘it’s just a tiny minority of extremists’, and ‘soon the great majority of “moderates” will triumph over the crazy zealots’. So we lull ourselves back to the comfort of our pretenses, serene in knowing that the “experts” have it all under control.

Wait! Aren’t these the same experts who told us Hitler could not possibly be crazy enough to attack Russia or Britain? Aren’t these the same “experts” who tried to cover up Mao Tse Tung’s reign of terror in China, or Pol Pot’s genocide in Cambodia? Isn’t this the same “expertise” that assured us in the 1970’s that inflation was good, and could never be accompanied by recession?

Aren’t these the same folks who tell us the Saudis are our best friends in the Middle East, that the Titanic was unsinkable, that we should not succumb to our racist impulses by reporting suspicious Muslim men who are learning to fly jumbo jets, and that goods imported from China are perfectly safe? Or that if we just “open up dialogue with our enemies”, we can create peace?? Hmmm...It seems like we have much to worry about when the “authorities” begin to disseminate their collective wisdom. And don't bank on the politicians either. They are the master practitioners of the art of the politically correct.

Yet, some of these professional advocates of Islam go farther by accusing those who sound the alarm as racist, bigots, hate-mongers and much more. That attitude sure worked well for England, Holland and France!

But the elites who scold us and seduce us into our slumbering acquiescence never allow their dismal record of intellectual failure to prevent them from claiming ever more enlightenment. Their present project is to ‘build a bridge to moderate Islam’.

Let us, for the record, be clear on this subject one more time: Islamism, Islamofascism, Radical Islam, Political Islam, and Militant Islam are different terms for essentially the same thing, a virulent, hateful, and violent system of beliefs and practices. Yet, one and all are progeny and mutation of Islam itself.

Islam in all of its forms and sects is simply an evil ideology that is practiced by all Muslims. Islamism is a pincer, with the world in its jaws between the end-of-the-world Shiism and the jihadist Sunnis. To the simple mind of western “intellectuals”, within every ideology there must always be “good liberals” and “bad conservatives”, and so they search in vain for the “moderate”, “reasonable”, “pragmatic” wing of any threatening ideology.

But in their enormous ignorance of the realities of Islam, they fail to realize that in Islam, the wings are not “left” and “right”, or “liberal” vs. “conservative”; they are two jaws in the same supremacist device that aims to crush the life of all non-believers. I will explain why attempting to build a bridge to “moderate” Islam is in fact a road to hell, since “moderate Islam” is oxymoronic.

The so-called “Moderate Muslims” or “Secular Muslims” would like to have their cake and eat it too. They wish to remain Muslims in name only, yet not bother to read the mandates of the Quran or understand the context in which Muhammad foisted his poisonous prophecy upon the world.

Instead of conclusively demonstrating Islam's violent nature from its very inception and moving in another direction with what they can prove is the worthwhile portions of Islam, they have decided to marry an inherently noxious religion with an inherently godless philosophy, secularism. “Secular Islam Summit” was hilarious; a run-down and meaningless show of desperate attempt to salvage a bankrupt and deadly ideology.

Also, these happy-go-lucky people-of-Islam are indeed delusional, for Muhammad’s record is not even the subject of debate. His utterances and deeds are a part of history that is simply not debatable. Islam is what Muhammad said it was in the diatribes of vitriol and hatred that is the Quran; and Islam is what Muhammad did during his violent life. If you accept Islam as your religion, you become a part of the guiding principles of hatred, revenge, and rejection of prior enlightened prophecies. But the “bridge-builders refuse to acknowledge the fact that one cannot be a Muslim and not abide by the dictates of the Quran.

Keep in mind that the fact being a Muslim is a clear admission of wrongdoing, the extent of which depends on the degree of a person’s Muslim-ness. If he is only a Muslim who does not practice Islam, then he is, at the very least, guilty of hypocrisy. If he is somewhat of a Muslim by tithing, from time to time, following the ranting of the local mullah or imam, and swallowing whole the pronouncements of the high divines, then he is guilty of significantly contributing to the evildoings of Islam.

It is time for the non-practicing Muslims to abandon their childish desire to cling to evil, yet pretend they can “reform” it, like the abused wife insisting that she can cure her alcoholic, violent spouse by remaining in a codependent relationship. It’s time the self-described “moderates” either accept the truth of their ugly religious ethics and reject them by joining the forces of liberty and worldwide family of free people, or join the forces of darkness. But to join the peace-loving free world, you must immediately stop making excuses for the religion of hate!

Here is my 10-point process to understand why Islam cannot be “moderated,” for the benefit of those misguided people who are the advocates of “Secular Islam.” I will prove that “Secular Islam” is just a hoax.

1. The first question that must be answered is whether or not any doctrine can be called “evil”. If nothing is good or evil, then all of life is inherently nihilistic, and all thinkers and believers in life (all of us) are necessarily nihilists. We must establish a way to measure “evil”.

Take for example, Naziism. How are we to know that the Nazi party was evil, and that present-day believers in Nazi principles are doing evil? We certainly cannot use traditional Islamic mea culpas, to rid Nazis of their well deserved guilt! We can’t look at present day Nazis who are demonstrably not trying to take over the world. We can’t ask the average Nazis on the street to declare themselves authorities on their entire cult.

We can’t just look at the actions of some of them, for in doing so, we could simply assert that the good Nazi party was hijacked by “radicals”. It is certainly true that the vast majority of German supporters of the Nazi party in 1936 were normal, peaceful people who were simply held hostage by the zealots. If you took a random “Nazi”, you’d be vastly more likely to condemn him for his taste for Sauerkraut rather than see him participate in an actual murder.

So we have the same excuses at work that exist in the debate over Islam, but today we condemn Naziism as evil. If it is illegitimate to simply look for a nice Nazi, and try to build a bridge to the Nazi power structure through him, then how can we think we can do it with Islam? We think so because we have presupposed that Naziism is bad, and because of the forces of propaganda, we believe that Islam is not. But this begs the question: How then do we know what evil is, so we can condemn it?

The answer is that the only way to determine if a thing is evil or neutral or good is to establish a working definition of what constitutes evil and its opposite, good, and then test the doctrine against the definition.

While it is true that many people will disagree on the precise definition, it does not matter. Let each person establish the definition for him or herself, and at least be logical and fair in evaluating the evidence of the creed. In other words, deal with the consequences of the process, no matter how hard the findings are to accept. The Bible says, “You shall know them by their fruits.”

2. Once a definition is in place, the only way to evaluate a belief system under any accepted definition is to read the foundational books, the manuscripts that define the creed...the scripture that was carefully written to explain the norms and intent of those who established it. You cannot ask a Nazi whether he thinks he is evil. He will tell you he is good, and that you are evil for resisting him, because he is defending his “people” against those who resist his beliefs. This is exactly what Muhammad said about the Jews and Christians who resisted him.

“Thus (will it be said): ‘Taste ye then of the (punishment): for those who resist Allah, is the penalty of the Fire.’" Quran 8.014

“And when those who disbelieve plot against thee (O Muhammad) to wound thee fatally, or to kill thee or to drive thee forth; they plot, but Allah (also) plotteth; and Allah is the best of plotters.” Quran 8.030

“And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease (in defeat), then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do.” Quran 8.039

You cannot allow a random Nazi member to provide personal anecdotal opinion and declare it to be authoritative. Only the written treatises of the founders may be taken as true expression of the belief system. You cannot take a third-party account of Nazi goodness to be superior to the Nazi party principles and the philosophy espoused in Mein Kampf. That would be ignoring Hitler’s beliefs in exchange for that of an outside observer commenting on Hitler’s beliefs. The same is true for Islamic apologists. We can’t just trot out any “scholar” and declare him to be authoritative over the words and deeds of the most important figures in Islamic history.

This is the precise error that Stephen Schwartz makes in advising people to read the Aqida al-Tahawiyya (interpretations of the creed), or other apocryphal interpretations that only a fool would escalate above the Quran and Hadith. Yet normal people can’t help notice the similarity in name of “Aqida al” as referenced by Schwartz is his fatuous quest for moderation in an inherently oppressive philosophy, and the more memorable name “Al Qaida” as manifested in reality. Why does the third-party whitewash text name so closely resemble Terror Inc’s brand name? Because they are the same thing!

Once we have found the foundational texts which declare the basis and purpose of the creed, in order to validate the creed as it is written we must test if the leaders of the creed are in fact true to their words; one must look at historical actions of those who rose in rank through the belief system. Look at their words, actions, and reactions as their lives played out to see if they were consistent in representing their own creed. This is how you test whether or not a doctrine is evil.

3. Having defined evil, and having isolated the relevant foundational texts, we can move ahead. If we find a group of people who adhere strictly to their codes of conduct as established in their scripture, we cannot place these people on the sidelines of their religion as aberrations or “extremists”. Such attempts to marginalize the fundamentalist believers in a religious movement are the product of highly confused and illogical thinking.

A person cannot be “extreme” with respect to her religion if she is in alignment with all of its commandments and admonishments. Being highly devout is “fundamentalism,” but it is not extreme or radical. The reason we wish to believe that a Buddhist who never steps on an ant is “extreme” is because we realize that the behavior is unusual and difficult to accomplish, inasmuch as almost nobody can live up to its ideals.

But to view an action that is rare and strange to you, and then declare that, because it occupies a far-off position with respect to your personal beliefs and capability to align, it is therefore “extreme” with respect to its own religious dictates, is highly illogical and quite frankly stupid. And this is the precise “logic” that is used by those who wipe the Islamic slate clean, declaring all inhumane practices and advocation in Islam to be the handiwork of “extremists.” Such muddled thinking does nothing to advance our understanding of the creed, the evil it does, and its dangers to mankind.

If we use this process and we objectively find that Islam satisfies the definition of evil, we cannot then be subject to the insults of the ignorant who themselves refuse to conduct a like investigation. We cannot be accused of being “Nazis” ourselves simply because our rational discovery and analysis process uncovered true evil. It would be the height of absurdity to declare that an anti-Nazi is just as bad as a Nazi for vehemently opposing Nazi thinking! The same must be true for Islam.

4. I won’t get into every nuance of the reasons; any average person can define evil and read the Quran and come away with the sole conclusion that it is evil. Only those of us who have bothered to read the Quran and parts of the Hadith and Sunna and who have bothered to read history and take note of present-day Islamic violence and oppression in light of their dark beliefs can say that we have good reason to declare Islam an evil cult. But suffice it to say that Islam, as configured by Muhammad and as interpreted over the centuries, essentially boils down to the following principles:

a. Jews and Christians are, per se, the epitome of evil to Islamic thinking. Pagans are also evil, but somewhat less insulting to Allah, since the Jews and Christians received prophecy and “rejected” it.

One of many such verses of hate: “Those who reject (Truth) (Islam), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures.” Quran 098.006

b. Therefore Jews and Christians are offensive to Allah. The worse between them is the Jew. The world will not be restored to Allah’s preferences until all Jews are defeated and entirely eradicated.

One of many such verses of hate: “Say: ‘shall I point out to you something much worse than this (referring to the previous verses), as judged by the treatment it received from Allah? Those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath (Jews), those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil;- these are (many times) worse in rank, and far more astray from the even path!’” Quran 5.060

c. Muslims believe that those who resist conversion to Islam and the establishment of the prominence of Islamic global domination are Islam’s enemies who can never be trusted or treated as equals.

One of many such verses of hate: “O ye who believe! Take not my enemies and yours as friends (or protectors),- offering them (your) love, even though they have rejected the Truth that has come to you, and have (on the contrary) driven out the Prophet and yourselves (from your homes), (simply) because ye believe in Allah your Lord! If ye have come out to strive in My Way and to seek My Good Pleasure, (take them not as friends), holding secret converse of love (and friendship) with them: for I know full well all that ye conceal and all that ye reveal. And any of you that does this has strayed from the Straight Path.” Quran 60.001

d. Allah calls on Muslims (believers) to use their corporeal power to murder Jews, Christians, and people of other religions and to destroy their nations, cities and institutions, until they sue for peace and either become Muslims or pay for the privilege of being ruled by a world Islamic order.

One of many such verses of hate: Volume 4, Book 52, Number 176:

Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar: Allah's Apostle said, "You (i.e. Muslims) will fight the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, 'O 'Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.' "

One of many such verses of hate: Volume 4, Book 52, Number 196:

Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Apostle said, " I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' and whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' his life and property will be saved by me except for Islamic law, and his accounts will be with Allah, (either to punish him or to forgive him.)"

e. Forget all you know about spiritually uplifting ideals of brotherly love and peace (the word “love” is nearly absent in the Quran). Peace and earthly enlightenment only comes after slaughter and victory in a war in which Islam is victorious. If, in any battle or time period, Islam is not victorious, Muslims must lie in wait until the right time and then ambush their enemies and establish Islamic rule. Until that time, policies of terrorism and deceit are both sanctioned and advised.

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220:

Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand." Abu Huraira added: Allah's Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them).

Excerpt Q-33:25-27
Set 66, Count 131-133 [33.25]...Allah sufficed the believers in fighting... [33.26]...some [Jews] you killed and you took captive another part. [33.27]...He made you heirs to their [Jewish] land and their dwellings and their property, and (to) a land which you have not yet trodden...

(So much for the theory that Muslims don’t have a religious mandate to claim Jewish lands...that the “Palestinian” problem is all the fault of the Jews...so on and so forth)

f. Islam calls for robotic acceptance of minute and grand prescriptions covering every aspect of a Muslim’s life. Therefore, Islam is not personally or spiritually relevant. It is political, which is why it may never separate itself from government. Adherence is not a matter of voluntary devotion, but of the Law, and violators are severely punished, including capital punishment as in Sharia.

The principle of “an eye for an eye” (retribution/revenge) is supreme in all social interaction. Praying five times daily, wearing headscarves, ablution, abstaining from alcohol, etc... all this is done not out of personal belief that it is proper, but because Allah says so, and nobody may violate Allah’s written commandments.

g. Men are the strong and superior. Women are the weak and inferior. Women must be kept ignorant and within a low social class so they do not abuse the Islamic order by seeking equality.

“Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the others and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because Allah has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you take no further action against them. Allah is high, supreme.” Quran 4.34

Islam strictly forbids women to participate in many activities in which men are involved. In Islam, women are not in the calculus—women are incidental and merely exist for the pleasure of men.

The words “naghess al aghl” literally means defected witted person. It describes the intellectual capability of women in general. And the word “zaeefeh”, is referred directly to female gender in contrast to men, meaning “the weaker one”, in a condescending fashion.

“By another sign He (Allah) gave you wives from among yourselves, that you (men) might live in joy with them, and planted love and kindness in your hearts. Surely there are signs in this for thinking men.” Quran 32.21

h. Muslims are entitled, in fact required, to wage war on all non-Islamic thoughts and deeds. Any who mock or disrespect the prophet Muhammad are to be murdered by honor-bound Muslim enforcers.

4:162b Muhammad said, "My livelihood is under the shade of my spear, and he who disobeys my orders will be humiliated by paying Jizya." ["Jizya" is the poll tax paid by subjugated peoples in return for the protection of the Islamic government.]

4:196 Mohammad said, "I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, ‘None has the right to be worshiped but Allah,’ and whoever says, ‘None has the right to be worshiped by Allah,’ his life and property will be saved by me except for Islamic law, and his accounts will be with Allah (either to punish him or to forgive him.)"

4:220 Muhammad said, "... I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy) ..."

The 69th verse of Sûrah Anfãl declares:

“Eat ye the spoils of war. They are lawful and pure.”

“The apostle (Muhammad) said, ‘Kill any Jew that falls into your power.’ Hereupon Muhayyisa b. Masud leapt upon Ibn Sunayna, a Jewish merchant with whom they had social and business relations, and killed him. Huwayyisa was not a Muslim at the time though he was the elder brother. When Muhayyisa killed him Huwayyisa began to beat him, saying, 'You enemy of God, did you kill him when much of the fat on your belly comes from his wealth?' Muhayyisa answered, 'Had the one who ordered me to kill him ordered me to kill you I would have cut your head off.'” ⁶¹

In another terrorist action, Muhammad asked his men to murder an old Jewish man, Abu Afak. “’Who will deal with this rascal for me?’ The killing of such an old man moved a poetess, Asma b. Marwan, to compose disrespectful verses about the Prophet, and she too was assassinated.” When the assassin prayed with the prophet at al-Medina, Muhammad said to him: "’Have you slain the daughter of Marwan?’ The assassin said: ‘Yes. Is there something more for me to do?’ He [Muhammad] said: ‘No two goats will butt together about her.’”⁶²...” (from Islam is not Salaam, by CS Karlson, 2004)

i. All contemporary written scripture is corrupted, and only the Quran is the truth. Muhammad is the highest authority, as Allah’s primary and final prophet. Even the Quran contains contradictions and infusions of verses by Satan (note: Muhammad actually codified this concept in the Quran, the subject of Rushdie’s book, the “Satanic Verses”). But in order to eradicate Satanic infusion, whenever a passage conflicts with another, only the latter one may be understood as correct...because Allah will always trump Satan. The Quran (surviving, unabrogated prophesy) and its ethical commandments are eternal, perfect, and immutable.

j. This is why any references to “peaceful” earlier scriptures have been completely abrogated by evil scripture that is congruent with only older, violent scripture. What we have left is a book that is unbelievably sickening in its hateful attitudes and inhumane practices. This is why you cannot believe an ignorant Muslim who quotes abrogated scripture, such as “there should be no compulsion in religion”...that phrase was abrogated hundreds of times, and it is enraging to have to point out such obvious contradictions.

5. Conclusion: These unalterable and undilutable sentiments represent that which is wrong, sinful, erroneous, ill-advised, and just plain evil.

6. Moreover, anyone who acts consistently in the advocation and advancement of these ethics is adhering to Islam as it was intended. They are fundamentalists, like the Christian who consistently turns the other cheek, or the Buddhist who is careful never to step on a bug, but they are not extremists.

An extremist Christian would for example claim that Christ did not intend for people to forgive each other and express the final commandment for brotherly love, but rather to beat each other until they accepted Christ as God, and to reject anyone who did not believe as they do. Perhaps some, even many, Christians think that the latter is correct, but according to scripture, they are wrong. This is easily identifiable in the New Testament and is a consistent theme in Christ’s prophecy. If such heretical “Christians” persist in evangelizing incorrect interpretations, they are extremists vis-a-vis Christianity as codified in the Bible.

Likewise, if any Muslim tries to declare that Muhammad (who personally led dozens of offensive military excursions, took slaves for himself, demanded 20% war booty, raped a 9-year-old concubine, ordered the assassinations of his detractors—all recorded in official ISLAMIC texts!) never intended his scripture to represent Islam, but rather Muslims should be peaceful and loving when such advice is not given in his scripture (in fact it is revealed in the scriptures Muhammad tried to eradicate), they are not mainstream...they are the true extremists. You cannot lie about your religion and consider yourself “moderate.”

We have hundreds of commandments by Muhammad that declare such things as:

“Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost (in conquest): for Allah is with you, and will never put you in loss for your (good) deeds.” Quran 47.035

“Fighting (in wars to advance Islam) is prescribed for you, and ye (may) dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.” Quran 2.216

“Fight those who: believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold forbidden that which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” Quran 9.029

Passages like these and worse are all over the Quran and Muhammad proved their meaning by the perfect records of how he conducted himself in life, as recorded in the Hadith.

7. So what we have is this: we have a group of personally non-violent, well-meaning, friendly perhaps, but quite ignorant, and non-intellectual people such as the advocates of the “Secular Islam Summit” who seek to censor all the evil that is expressed within Islamic scripture as commandment, and yet seek to somehow allow the resulting “moderated” cult to retain its brand name, “Islam.”

These people use confused logic, denial and censorship to create what they call “connections” and “bridges” between normal human behavior and those who refuse to abandon that which is manifestly evil. They assist ignorant Muslims in surreptitiously redacting most of their own scripture and all of Islam’s raison d'etre, yet they refuse to call for the abandonment of the religion itself, and certainly refuse to admit that the reason reform is sought is because the religion they minister is full of antisocial, animus and hatred....ergo, evil.

These people are secularists who desire Islam to be restrained, so they can assert that their policies of dilution are good for all religions. In doing so, they seek to throw the baby out with the bath water, for not all religions are in fact evil.

8. But once this liberal process of ambiguating religion is understood, we can also understand why their task is futile. “Moderating” by ignoring the truth cannot work unless the Quran itself, and much of the life and traditions of Muhammad recorded long ago, are universally destroyed to the last manuscript and digital file...and good luck with that.

Since this is impossible, one day even under the most successful liberal scenario where Muslims have forgotten their religion, some 16-year-old Muslim boy will bother to read the original works of the Satanic and evil Muhammad, and refusing out of sin of pride to abandon the cult, the whole sick, violent history of the Islamic juggernaut will rise again from the ashes of the books burned by self-described moderates.

Here, many uneducated people refer to the history of Christianity and its reformation, and perhaps to a general view of the dialectic of movements in general, which they believe go from pure to corrupt, then to reformist, then to post-modern. But applying this supposed deterministic process to Islam is absurd. Christianity was most certainly corrupted by the 13th century. By the 15th century, the church had become even more corrupted: acts such as the sale of indulgences, the sins of the papal rivalries, and its repression against heretics were legion.

When Martin Luther nailed his list of 95 grievances to the door of the Wittenberg Church, he was scripturally correct. In fact, the Catholic Church had gone so far as to make it illegal to print the Bible in any language other than the dead Latin (used as a code language by the church, since only Catholic-trained men were taught the language). But church chicanery was anti-Christian according to the actual Bible. So from the perspective of scripture, the reformists were correct, and the Popes were divergent, and that is what led to the Reformation.

Contrast this with what the so-called reformists are trying to do with Islam...they are not looking into the Quran for answers...they are banning the book altogether lest people find out the evil that drips from its pages. The Quran is the last place Islamic moderators look for help in “reforming” Islam, because it would make al Qaida look like a poodle pet-owners convention. In fact, doesn’t it take great chutzpa to call a movement that seeks to eradicate the letter and intent of actual scripture “reformist”? Perhaps “retardation” or “revisionism” would be better terms.

9. You can restrain Islam, but you cannot lie about its true character by branding those who abide as “extremists,” and complimenting those who abandon all but its name as “Moderates.”

10. The ludicrousness of their chosen position is exactly why “moderate” Muslims refuse to engage in a battle of truth using Muslim scripture to back up their preposterous denials. They can’t read their book out loud because they are canonically wrong and they know it. And this is precisely why the vast majority of Muslims prefer to name their children “Muhammad” or “Osama” rather than march in the streets to protest the evils that this religion does on a daily basis.

This is also why liberal appeasers in 1938, who refused to call Hitler “evil,” got the world into so much trouble by creating a similar confused intellectual forum about the Nazis. They tried to build bridges to the “moderate” Nazis; they lectured clear thinkers about the dangers of inciting German hatred by pointing out the truth.

They accused conservatives of being “just as fascist” as the Nazis; they sent ambassadors and made treaties and trusted that the moderates would come out and “reform” their zealous leadership. And they were wrong.

We in the United States need to embark on a comprehensive legal, educational, and social campaign to eradicate the deadly plague of Islam. We need to immediately stop appeasing the Muslims and call Islam for what it really is. By effective action, we may even save those peaceful and self-styled moderate or secular Muslims from their own deluded affliction.

There is nothing that I would love more than witnessing all Muslims become ex-Muslims and full-fledged members of a diverse, tolerant and democratic society. I hope that Muslims themselves leave this Bedouin slaveholder cult. Yet, the hope is extremely slim. Islam has a stranglehold on its slaves and will neither let them go, nor do the Muslims seem to have the insight or the will to leave it in large numbers. But hope, as slim as it is, keeps me sounding the alarm before the fire of Islam engulfs us all.

***
 

Amil Imani is an Iranian-born American citizen and pro-democracy activist residing in the United States of America. Imani is a columnist, literary translator, novelist and an essayist, who has been writing and speaking out for the struggling people of his native land, Iran.  He maintains a website at Amil Imani

http://www.amilimani.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=74&Itemid=2

by Lance Thompson

I admit, I was at first skeptical of the whole carbon credit apparatus, made popular by Al Gore and other concerned environmentalists. As I understand it, the system is designed so that entities who pollute too much can purchase permits to do so from those who pollute too little.

Two troublesome aspects occur to me. First, the people who pollute too much are not required to pollute less, and the people who pollute too little are unlikely to increase their pollution whether they sell their credits or not. Thus, the carbon credit system does nothing to reduce the overall level of pollution. All it does is transfer some revenue, much of which is siphoned off by “carbon brokers,” or businesses that trade carbon credits on the world market.

Second, it seems the carbon credit system is designed to reward rich polluters with the ability to pollute more, and render poor polluters subject to harsh restrictions. That doesn’t differ much from the distribution of pollution prior to the introduction of carbon credits.

Nevertheless, the more I thought about it, the more attractive the system seemed. I thought about how it could improve my own life and bank account. For example, I use an electric lawn mower. Could I sell carbon credits to my neighbors who use gas-powered mowers? I also don’t own any recreational vehicles--no motor home, fifth wheel, power boat, ATV, snow mobile--not even a motorized scooter. Could I sell those unused carbon credits to my neighbors who own some or all of these gross polluters? Suddenly my indoorsman lifestyle is a nest egg. I could be sitting on a fortune, surrounded by potential customers for my carbon credits.

Then I thought, why not apply this system to other areas of human existence? I don’t smoke, and second-hand smoke has been branded a pollutant. Can I sell my non-smoking credits to the chain smoker across the street? With the exorbitant prices she’s already paying for cigarettes, inflated by draconian tobacco taxes and the cost of anti-tobacco class action suits by greedy states’ attorneys general, she wouldn’t mind adding some second hand smoke credits to her cigarette tab.

My wife and I both work at home. We do not contribute to rush hour traffic, do not take up valuable road space from highly stressed commuters, do not require new highways to be built. Can we sell our road credits (or “street creds,” perhaps) to drivers who find themselves on the road at the two most heavily-traveled times of day?

What about noise pollution credits? We have two cars with powerful stereos, but they are never cranked up to maximum volume--usually only about ten to fifteen percent of the potential ear-splitting levels, and usually with the windows up. Could I sell my unused noise pollution credits to those cruising woofers and idling tweeters who blast their taste in unpopular music across eight lanes of traffic and cause my fillings to vibrate with their 1000-watt noisemakers?

When we fly, I always check the largest portion of my luggage, and stuff my carry-on under the seat in front of me. I never use the overhead rack, mainly because some bozo with a steamer trunk on wheels always arrives at the last minute and shoves his gargantuan portmanteau into the rack where my luggage would be. Having once boarded with a modest duffel bag, and deplaned with a flattened luggage wafer after just such an occurrence, I don’t take up valuable overhead rack space. Could I sell those credits to the huffer and puffer with the supersize carry-on, and equalize the burden on us all?

We recycle everything in our house, from packing boxes and padded envelopes to peanut butter jars and tasteless gifts. I wear my t-shirts until they have an SPF of 2, my shoes until I can step on a dime and tell you if it’s heads or tails, my dress clothes until they come back into style. We throw very little away. Could we sell our unused landfill credits to neighbors who live a more acquisitive and disposable lifestyle?

I have never committed a violent crime, and I know too little about that career path to start now. Could I sell my unused criminal activity credits to criminal predators who have, instead, committed too many transgressions? I’m sure there are all sorts of convicts in prisons who would gladly pay to share the burden of their crimes with innocent citizens, and thus breathe again the sweet air of freedom.

It all sounds quite lucrative to those of us who live laudable, noble, politically correct and responsible lifestyles. In fact, I have nothing to feel guilty about whatsoever. There’s another market. Could I sell my non-guilty feeling credits to those who are saddened by the exhaust trails of their private jets, the massive footprints of their ski chalets, the litter produced by the pitiful bands of attendees at their Live Earth rallies?

Of course, this would require a dozen or more massive bureaucracies to calculate, regulate, administer, not to mention tax, this economy. After all, some one must decide which are desirable habits, which undesirable. Some entity must judge the free choice acts of every citizen and award credits or debits according to a hierarchy of habits undoubtedly compiled by an international non-governmental agency. The United Nations Society for the Attenuation of Very Odious Residential Yearnings (UNSAVORY) would monitor every human activity, assess a price to be paid or reward to be conferred, and enforce the observance of properly sanctioned behaviors.

Those with the correct habits will enjoy a market for their responsible lifestyles certain to sustain them through the coming economic downturn, brought on by industries and corporations paying apologetic fortunes to those who produce and manufacture nothing. Clearly, an economy that punishes those who create and consume, and rewards those who are idle, is destined to fail. Until then, can I interest anyone in a discarded book/DVD credit for the copy of An Inconvenient Truth that I didn’t buy? Imagine how much landfill space would be saved if everyone followed my responsible example.

-==-

Lance Thompson lives with his wife and daughter in Idaho.

***John Travolta Jetsidence