Part 4: Turning America into another country, losing cultural values, losing national identity

Former President George Bush called it a "War on Terror." In reality, we fight defensively against Islam's war on Western thought, Western culture, Western religion and Western civilization.

Again, Islam detests Western thought, freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Nonetheless, 'soft' jihad continues in America with eight million Muslim immigrants in 20 years and another 10 million coming within the next two decades. What percentage of them will make Fort Hood look like a kindergarten picnic? We impregnate ourselves with Islam at great risk.

"Experience teaches us that it is much easier to prevent an enemy from posting themselves than it is to dislodge them after they have got possession." -George Washington

"FBI: 10% of U.S. Mosques Preach Jihad," Tuesday, November 10, 2009 12:09 PM, by: Ronald Kessler, newsmax.com, 11/10/09, 1,200 mosques in America.
"Moderate to Extreme,"

In Newsweek, November 23, 2009, Jacob Weisberg, said, "American casualties in Afghanistan have more than doubled in the past year. In the past several months, officials have interrupted a rash of domestic terror plots. These include four men accused of planning to attack synagogues and shoot down aircraft in Newburgh, NY; Colorado Muslim immigrant Zazi making bombs; attempt by Jordanian Muslim immigrant to blow up 60 story Dallas skyscraper; immigrant in Boston plot to attack a shopping mall, [11 men in Detroit three weeks ago in gunfight with police as they screamed for Sharia Law and a separate Muslim state in Michigan]." Last week, U.S. Major Hasan blasted 42 unarmed Americans at Fort Hood.

In a London, England, Muslim "Religion of Peace" demonstration, followers sported signs: "Slay those who insult Islam"; "Behead those who insult Islam"; "Europe is a cancer, Islam is the answer"; "Islam will dominate the world"; "Europe will pay, your 9/11 is on its way."

The formation of the Muslim religion

Born in the 6th century by an illiterate thug named Muhammad, who beheaded his enemies, raped young girls and cut off hands of opponents- Islam adheres to mass illiteracy of its followers, violence, female subjugation, stoning of women, female genital mutilation, "honor" killings and a distinct vengeance on anyone who does not follow its teachings.

While we in the U.S. tend to "blame" the Muslims for their "irrationality"- were you to have a serious chat with a sensible Muslim, you would hear of U.S. atrocities that we tend to forget and put aside. Both sides tend to react against each other.

Every major terrorist act from the 1972 Munich Olympic killings, to Lockerbie, to airport shootings, to unrest and tension in Western societies leads to Muslim immigrants infiltrating host countries. U.S. Army Major Hasan offers yet another lesson in this progression that will not be heard or acted upon, i.e., political correctness.

The Muslim idea is simple; the violent overthrow of the infidels.

Muslims wish to live in free societies, but their "prime directive" advocates change toward Sharia Law, which is theocratic law. In other words, Islam rules over reason.

Holland, France, England and Belgium- now in the clutches of millions of Islamic immigrants unwilling to assimilate- stand in the crosshairs of cultural suicide.

A recent Dutch study reported, "Western European and Muslim ways of life are irreconcilable."

Forty-six percent of Turkish Muslims and 37 percent of Moroccan Muslims, agree strongly that "Western European culture has nothing to contribute to Islam."

"Sadly, mainstream Muslims teach, accept and promote violence," said Tawfik Hamid, a former Muslim terrorist, in his Wall Street Journal piece, "The trouble with Islam ," April 3, 2007. "Women are stoned to death and clitorectomies promoted."

With eight million Muslims in America, their silence illustrates a deafening support for their barbaric atrocities. What happens when America injects another 10 million, and then on to 20 million additional Muslims?

Do we not see the cultural suicide of France, Holland, Britain and Belgium as a strong hint of our future?

Huge Muslim population growth in the U.S. -- What are we thinking?

Look at Detroit, Michigan and the suburb of Dearborn. Muslims transformed that city into their own beachhead in America. They've displaced most American-citizens where they have enclaved. The same slums that descended on Holland grow in Detroit. Given enough time, more and more 'dedicated' Muslim groups- like the three Duka brothers at Fort Dix two years ago- will plan more new killing scenarios. It's the nature of Islam.

Are you aware that these three illegal aliens came to the U.S. through Brownsville, TX-illegally crossing the U.S. Mexican border more than twenty years ago? Are you aware that the cops in New Jersey chose to look the other way while these aliens ran loose?

The Koran states:

SURAH (Chapter) 9:5

Those who reject Islam must be killed. If they turn back (from Islam), take them and kill them wherever you find them.

SURAH 4:89

So, when you meet (in fight-jihad in Allah's Cause) those who disbelieve, smite (their) necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly.

For those Americans who don't understand what we face as a nation and as a culture, I bring you to the three stages of jihad of Islam:

All countries with Muslim immigrants suffer one of the following stages of jihad.

Weakened Stage

This stage applies to Muslims that must submit to the law of the land they live in. They are a weak, small minority living in a non-Islamic society.

Preparation Stage

In this stage Muslims have become an influential minority. They will now make preparations to accumulate finances, recruit the young to commit to the next stage of jihad that will confront the enemy.

Let not the Unbelievers think that they can get the better (of the godly): they will never frustrate (them). Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies, and others besides whom you may not know, but whom Allah knows.

SURAH 8:59

Jihad Stage

Influence and power marks this state of the Muslim minority. It is now your duty to overturn the governments of the non-Muslim countries into establishing Islamic authority.

Fight and slay the Pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war).

As America immigrates millions of Muslims, this country turns itself into another country: Islamic whether 10 years from now or 100 years from now. Women will be relegated to secondary slave status. Sharia Law will trump democratic law. Barbaric customs such as stoning of women, arranged marriages, honor killings, female genital mutilation and men enjoying four wives will become the norm as they use the U.S. Constitution to implement their culture upon America.

As we multiculturalize America, as a U.S. Army soldier, which would you like to be sharing a foxhole with: a gay person or a Muslim? Which language would you like them to speak? Arabic or English? Would you rather they follow Sharia Law or the U.S. Constitution? U.S. Major Nadal Hasan followed Sharia Law. If they were a father who had committed an honor killing of their daughter, would you support that action? If they had beheaded their wife for filing for a divorce, would you support that act? It happened with Muzzammil Hassan in New York, February 9, 2009 and in several other American cities in 2009. Would you respect their right to force their daughters into female genital mutilation operations?

Are we willing to negate our culture, our laws and our way of life to allow them theirs? In 2009, we speed toward an Islamic future here in the former United States of America. Perhaps in 50 years, they will change our country to the United States of Islam.

For current examples: Great Britain, France, Holland, Belgium, Sweden, Norway, Austria, Spain and Germany.

Part 5: What Sharia Law means for women in America.

-------------------------------------

 Frosty Wooldridge has bicycled across six continents - from the Arctic to the South Pole - as well as six times across the USA, coast to coast and border to border.  In 2005, he bicycled from the Arctic Circle, Norway to Athens, Greece.  He presents "The Coming Population Crisis in America: and what you can do about it" to civic clubs, church groups, high schools and colleges.  He works to bring about sensible world population balance at frostywooldridge.com  He is the author of:  America on the Brink: The Next Added 100 Million Americans.

One of the reasons liberals are so hostile to public expressions of Christianity is because it threatens the monopoly that the religion of liberalism enjoys in the public square. The late Ted Kennedy was more than a leading senator, to liberal supporters. He was a secular saint. His appeal was essentially religious. He made it fairly explicit in his famous concession speech to the Democratic National Convention that re-nominated President Jimmy Carter. Kennedy reduced thousands of liberal delegates to tears with this emotional peroration:

May it be said of our Party in 1980 that we found our faith again.

And may it be said of us, both in dark passages and in bright days, in the words of Tennyson that my brothers quoted and loved, and that have special meaning for me now:

"I am a part of all that I have met
[Tho] much is taken, much abides
That which we are, we are --
One equal temper of heroic hearts
Strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield."

For me, a few hours ago, this campaign came to an end.

For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.

Not for Ted Kennedy the cool rationalism of his party's founder, Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson had famously said "if I had to go to Heaven in a political party, I would not go at all." For Ted Kennedy and for those weeping delegates, the Democratic Party holds that place that used to be reserved for church and church alone. It's no wonder that those teary believers-more than 90 percent of whom tell researchers they never go to church-end their search for the meaning of life in political activism.

Analyze Kennedy's Epistle to the Gentiles and you will see that the concern, the work, the cause, the hope, the dream that is the subject of his panegyric is government. Government giveth and Government taketh away. The only Government worthy of that capital G is one that provides health, education, and welfare. All Americans are invited into the Democratic Church. Only the heretical conservatives are excluded.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi was at the Kennedy School at Harvard last week. Liberals go to Harvard the way Muslims go to Mecca. Pelosi was basking in liberal approval for having been the first Speaker to deliver on the promise of universal health care. She established her bona fides early in her sermon. "For thirty years I've been an advocate of single payer," she said. Single payer is liberal speak for socialized medicine, run entirely by the state, paid for by the state. But we have to make some tactical compromises, she said. Well, there may have to be a few little detours on the road to the Heavenly Liberal City.

"We all have our theology in politics," she said to murmurs of approval from her audience. When Gov. George W. Bush said in a Republican debate in 2000 that Jesus Christ was his favorite political philosopher, liberals were aghast. But when Nancy Pelosi speaks of "theology," we must assume she uses the word the way Webster defines it: "the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially : the study of God and of God's relation to the world."

For Pelosi, God commands universal health care without a restriction on funding abortion. And God apparently also commands the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. Pelosi invoked the patron saint of San Francisco. She recited the prayer of St. Francis of Assisi. It was probably the first time in history that that gentle saint was dragged in to bless the slaughter of innocents and the abolition of matrimony.

Predictably, there were no ACLU protests. And no atheizers ran to MSNBC to deplore her breaching the Wall of Separation between Church and State.

Pelosi was perfectly free not only to preach her religious ideas, but to impose jail time and fines on those who dissent. In the Gospel According to Nancy, the liberal Preacher of the House promises to bring the liberal Heaven to Earth. Is it any wonder growing numbers of Americans think it's a living hell?

-------------------------------

Ken Blackwell is the Senior Fellow for Family Empowerment at the Family Research Council, and the Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow for Public Policy at the Buckeye Institute in Columbus, Ohio. He is a visiting fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation and the American Civil Rights Union. He serves on the Board of Directors of the Club for Growth, National Taxpayers Union and Pastors Retreat Network. Mr. Blackwell is also the Chairman for the Coalition for a Conservative Majority, and a member of the National Rifle Association's Public Affairs Committee. He is a columnist for the New York Sun, a contributing editor and columnist for the conservative news and opinion site Townhall.com, and a public affairs commentator for the Salem Radio Network. 

This is perhaps the best newspaper article I've ever read on the phenomenon of radical Islamists in Europe, written from the point of view of those who have left the movement and now discuss how they felt and what they did. Well worth reading. It is by Johann Hari and entitled, "Renouncing Islamism: To the brink and back again."

The two key points are:

First, how some--in this case imprisoned leaders of the Egyptian jihad--developed an alternative Muslim perspective:

"After more than 20 years in prison, they had reconsidered their views. They told him he was false to believe there was one definitive, literal way to read the Koran. As they told it, in traditional Islam there were many differing interpretations of sharia, from conservative to liberal - yet there had been consensus around one principle: it was never to be enforced by a central authority. Sharia was a voluntary code, not a state law. 'It was always left for people to decide for themselves which interpretation they wanted to follow,' he says.

"These one-time assassins taught Maajid that the idea of using state power to force your interpretation of sharia on everyone was a new and un-Islamic idea, smelted by the Wahabis only a century ago. They had made the mistake of muddling up the enduringly relevant decisions Mohamed made as a spiritual leader with those he made as a political ruler, which he intended to be specific to their time and place."

I would call this the rediscovery of conservative traditional Islam, with a bit of a liberal modernist twist. That was the view of Islam which dominated the religion for many centuries between its early era and the recent rise of Islamism.

Second, and particularly fascinating and important is how Western Political Correctness and multiculturalism has disastrously encouraged and legitimized radical Islamism:

"From the right, there was the brutal nativist cry of 'Go back where you came from!' But from the left, there was its mirror-image: a gooey multicultural sense that immigrants didn't want liberal democratic values and should be exempted from them. Again and again, they described how at school they were treated as 'the funny foreign child,' and told to 'explain their customs' to the class. It patronised them into alienation.

"'Nobody ever said - you're equal to us, you're one of us, and we'll hold you to the same standards,' says [Ed] Husain. 'Nobody had the courage to stand up for liberal democracy without qualms. When people like us at [Newham] College were holding events against women and against gay people, where were our college principals and teachers, challenging us?'''

What a devastating indictment of leftist Political Correctness and multi-culturalism that is! Those two paragraphs should be read all over the West and in classrooms. Western behavior encourages radical Islamism by failing to champion Western intellectual, cultural, and political values. The same effect results by turning off the assimilation process.

But also responsible is the behavior of most Muslim leaders in the West who spend their time criticizing Western policies and societies while complaining about how Muslims are treated but never seeming to wage the war against extremism in their own communities.

Incidentally, please note that the word "Israel" is not mentioned in this article, which shows how small a part that issue plays in this movement. It is a revolutionary movement seeking state power and the transformation of Muslim-majority societies, or even of the whole world.

On one point I differ a bit but the differences can be easily reconciled. I am willing to accept the idea that actions like the U.S. attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq heated up this movement in Europe by seeming to prove that the West was trying to destroy Muslims. But it is equally valid to point out that the Afghan--though not the Iraq--action was necessary to defend against September 11. This is a choice that the Jihadists force against the United States--and regarding Hamas and Hizballah against Israel. In effect, they say: we will attack you. If you don't respond we will become stronger and win; if you do respond we will use that against you by making propaganda. The latter is ultimately less damaging than the former.

Another point of interest in the article is that the British-born radicals were disillusioned by: actual contact with the Jihad, seeing the kinds of societies it created, and coming to understand how different real Muslim-majority societies were from their own vision of the only proper style of Islam. This is important to understand but of course the majority are not persuaded away by such experiences.

At a time when the reality of radical Islamism as an international and internal threat is being explained away or silenced in Western countries--even when Jihadists shouting "Allahu Akbar" gun down their citizens, this article is an important corrective.
---------------------------------
 

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan).

[Part 1]  [Part 2]

In 1860 Mark Twain said, "The shabbiest of all lies is 'silent-assertion', which happens when the media, politicians and church leaders obfuscate, suppress or ignore a social wrong or something going awry in this society." In his time, slavery represented silent-assertion as it led to states rights issues and the Civil War.

Today, the United States races, hell-bent, toward injecting itself with incompatible cultures and languages that do not meld into the foundational culture, religion and people of America.  From 100,000 Muslims in 1991, the U.S. Congress immigrated eight million Muslims into its Christian culture by 2009.  Call it 'multiculturalism' or 'diversity' or 'cultural suicide', but whatever you call it, only chaos results for the host nations that import millions of Muslim immigrants. Examples abound in Great Britain (subway bombings, two separate societies in London), France (fire bombs, riots in 2007, extensive ghettos, massive police presence to quell unrest), Holland (rapes, violence, ghettos), Sweden (rapes, riots and schools), Norway (Norwegians fleeing Muslim neighborhoods), Austria (tension), Spain (train bombings) and Germany (tense social situation).

Former President Bush, days after Islam's attack on the World Trade Center towers now known as "9/11", said, "Islam is a religion of peace."  However, all 19 of the terrorists followed Islam's precepts.  Bush's 'silent-assertion' may equal Great Britain's Neville Chamberlain's obsequious behavior to Adolf Hitler, which, within a few years, led to World War II. 

The following precepts give you an idea why U.S. Army Major Nadal Hassan, a jihadist Muslim, in cold blood, murdered 13 and wounded 29.  He followed, Sura 9, verse 5: "Then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them. And seize them, beleaguer them and lie in wait for them, in every stratagem of war." 

A former outraged U.S. Army veteran friend of mine said, "The Roman Empire collapsed due in part to its army taking in too many foreigners.  There is a lesson to be learned from this.  When I was stationed at Ft. Leonard Wood, Mo., in 1964, we had in our barracks a black guy who mostly kept to himself and never mingled with the rest of us.  I don't recall him saying anything that would raise suspicion or being disciplined. But during a routine inspection of the barracks, military police discovered in his locker radical black literature and the inside of his locker door covered with color photographs of African warriors, e.g., Mau-Mau, holding spears, large knives, etc.  He was gone before the evening meal and his area completely cleaned out.  Never saw him again.

"This Dr. Hasan should have never been in our military.  Most people don't know this, but about 10 years ago our federal government decided to allow Muslim immigrants upon entering this country to sign a statement saying they would not fight against a Muslim nation.  Fourteen Americans are dead because our stupid government and an education system run by morons who can't get enough of "celebrating" diversity.  On Monday, we had planned to go shopping for a new car.  Instead, I will be part of an American Legion honor guard at the funeral for one of those murdered by this Muslim crud."

Please take notice that the Council of American-Islamic Relations never apologizes for American Muslims that behead their wives, or for honor killings of daughters or its fund-raising for Hamas terrorist activities-here in the United States.  Last week, the FBI shut down four mosques in New York for subversive activities.  Again, refer to Sura 9, verse 5.

The Koran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with non-believers.  Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads, fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding.  Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to hell if they do not join the slaughter.

Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to abrogate or even balance out the many that call for non-believers to be fought and subdued until they-accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed.  This proclivity toward violence-modeled by Muhammad's own violent legacy-left a trail of blood across centuries of world history.

The Koran or Qur'an:
Qur'an (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution of Muslims is worse than slaughter of non-believers...and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah." 

Qur'an (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority".  It includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity.

Qur'an (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing: But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah. But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them."

Qur'an (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" You might deduce that Muhammad did not enjoy any peaceful or spiritual brotherhood with humanity

Bukhari (52:177) - Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say, "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

As you can see from a few verses, Muslims embrace a sacred vow to kill all Jews and non-believers in every stratagem of war.  Additionally, whether it takes 10 years or 100 years, their fight to subdue all mankind to Islam and Allah continues through eternity.

The great conundrum: why Jews in America don't raise their voices to the importation of millions of Muslims. Surely they know that Muslims in the Middle East expect to destroy Israel.  Surely they know that Muslims in Belgium and Holland terrorize Jews and have burned Jewish synagogues.  Surely, they know about outright violence toward Jews in France.  Surely they know, that, as Muslim numbers grow, Jewish citizens face increased violence in America.

As I said before, what happens when another 10 to 20 million more Muslims imbed themselves into America?  Their culture does not represent your garden variety, assimilation-prone immigrants.  One look at Detroit, Michigan will send shivers down any red-blooded non-hyphenated American citizen's spine.

Part 4: Three stages of jihad in America, Robert Spencer at http://www.jihadwatch.org/ , treatment of Muslim women.

------------------------------------

 Frosty Wooldridge has bicycled across six continents - from the Arctic to the South Pole - as well as six times across the USA, coast to coast and border to border.  In 2005, he bicycled from the Arctic Circle, Norway to Athens, Greece.  He presents "The Coming Population Crisis in America: and what you can do about it" to civic clubs, church groups, high schools and colleges.  He works to bring about sensible world population balance at frostywooldridge.com  He is the author of:  America on the Brink: The Next Added 100 Million Americans.

But mainly this article is an addendum to my previous dispatch from the classroom front about the teaching of Japanese internment during World War Two in my son's fourth-grade class (see here). The kids were informed that also interned were Koreans and Chinese because the Americans couldn't tell the difference between them. This is nonsense, of course, for Americans in 1941-1942 were easily able to do so.

Saying this is not to deny discrimination in immigration and other ways against Chinese, especially in California, in earlier years. If put side by side to the treatment suffered by every wave of immigrants starting with the Irish, however, it was quite comparable in many ways. I'm not, however, writing about that but rather on the situation by the 1930s and 1940s.

There is a wider problem here, an element of World War Two largely forgotten today, that gives us a key for understanding how America's story is distorted. In the United States at that time, there was tremendous sympathy for the Chinese before and during the war, and also for the Filipinos once the Japanese attacked. There are many articles and films of that period which express admiration and respect for these two groups. (Korea was pretty much unknown.)

Americans were well informed about the sufferings of the Chinese at the hands of Japan and there was much indignation about it. In fact, this is a major element now largely overlooked. It was because of what we would call today human rights concerns that the United States put up economic embargos on Japan, especially for oil and petroleum products.

Indeed, a major reason for the attack on Pearl Harbor was this U.S. pressure on Tokyo. Just as the United States was nominally neutral but supported the United Kingdom against Nazi Germany, it also supported China against imperial Japan. This was noble behavior on the part of the United States. We should remember that estimates of Chinese war deaths, overwhelmingly civilian, were twenty million.

Once the war began, the United States worked hard to help and supply the Chinese Nationalist forces--many American airmen died taking supplies "over the hump" from Burma to China, and also came to work with the Communists as well. The Chinese Communist revolution after the war and the long hostility helped push these facts into oblivion.

Why is this important today? Because typically Political Correctness and the anti-Americanism so prevalent, in its urge to indict America as racist, ignores the fact that the United States was usually on the side of one "non-white" or Third World group against another. U.S. interventions in Latin America, for example, were almost always due to being asked for help by one faction against another.

While at times the United States intervened on behalf of dictatorships (Guatemala, 1953, being a prime example), it almost equally often (at least except for the brief high Cold War combat against Castro's Cuba in the 1960s and early 1970s when Washington felt the dangerous situation necessitated backing anyone who was anti-Communist) was on the side of democratic forces. If Fidel Castro had ruled as a liberal democrat he would have had an excellent relationship with the United States.

Today American children are being taught in all too many classrooms that their country was always racist and imperialist. Even if you accept the basic framework of contemporary historical views this simply isn't true. The United States was not "against" Asian people in 1941, for example. It supported one group of Asians against another and it was on the right side.

I remember growing up on films and books about heroic pre-World War Two Chinese peasants trying to eke out a living against flood and famine or bravely battling the Japanese (as with those who saved the American airmen from the Jimmy Doolittle raid on Tokyo) and films about brave Filipino partisans fighting side by side with American forces against great odds. There was never any distinction made on the basis of race or to portray these people as inferior. For that matter, compared to what went on in other countries (even among warring Europeans) materials about the Japanese enemy were pretty mild stuff despite Pearl Harbor.

It should equally be noted that today, and for the past half-century, the United States has not opposed or fought against "Arabs" or "Muslims" but supported one group against another. During the period between the 1950s and 1990s, those treated as enemies were radical, anti-American, and usually aligned with the USSR. Since then, they have been usually radical Islamists who want to install dictatorships even worse than the existing ones.

The United States has very little to apologize for in its history, especially compared to pretty much any other country on the face of the earth. Are we ever going to see the day when it is fashionable to be proud of America again, a pride that can easily be based on the facts?

---------------------------------------------

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan).

As the story of Nidal Hassan unfolds, it becomes painfully clear that the Jihadi Shrink who opened fire on US troops at Fort Hood did everything but spray paint, "I Am Going To Kill You All" on the wall, before he actually carried out his attack. Not only did Hassan put a Jihadist abbreviation on his business cards, he delivered repeated lectures justifying Jihad, accused the soldiers he was supposed to treat of War Crimes and was already being investigated for contacts with Al Queda and for defending suicide bombing online.

At a time when snow globes are banned at airports and detectors are positioned in every Federal building, in the heart of the United States Army, a Jihadist like Nidal Hassan could openly and freely express his sympathies and affinity for terrorism. But the thing that Nidal Hassan had going for him, that the snow globes and baby bottles filled with breast milk didn't, is that Hassan was a Muslim, and ever since 9/11, Americans have been repeatedly warned against criticizing Islam. Told over and over again that Islam is the Religion of Peace, and that just because all our foreign terrorists happen to be Muslims acting in the name of Islam does not actually matter. Just as all those Japanese planes flying toward Pearl Harbor and the German factories producing tanks meant nothing in the 1930's.

Hassan's superiors were well aware of what he was, but none of them wanted to risk a charge of Islamophobia. And so they remained silent and soldiers died. That is not a chant you will hear from anti-war activists at the gates of the White House, but that is exactly what happened. And Hassan's case is from unique. There is no telling how many terrorists have flown under the radar because officials were afraid to be accused of profiling or charged with racism. We may never know what reports were never paid attention to because it has become more acceptable to lose American lives, than detain a Muslim.

In the face of Islamic terror, there are endless desks staffed by good men who do nothing and say nothing. Because they have been told that it is more important to be silent, than to take action, when it comes to the Islamic Jihad against all non-Muslims. It is more important to search everyone, than to profile Muslim terrorists. It is better to have lax security, than to have good security that may make some of our friends from Saudi Arabia or Pakistan feel upset. That is how we did it before 9/11. And that is how we are doing it today, as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed gets his lawyers and the media does the hard work of manufacturing Nidal Hassan's PTSD by Proxy defense for him out of thin air, and the radical Imams whom Nidal Hassan came into contact with are whitewashed with the usual thin paste of the Religion of Peace.

But silence on Islam kills. It kills when we remain silent about the Nidal Hassans in our midst. It kills when people look away as honor killings among Muslim families continues to grow. It kills as Muslim gangs like the Muslim Boys in the UK form and it kills as Muslim riots claim the lives of innocent people, as they repeatedly do in Europe. But when it comes to Muslims, there is a code of silence that falls over even the most committed officials. A directive that warns them to look away, to make excuses and to blame anything and everything but Islam. To deny the truth and cover up the crime.

While Hassan is one example of the cost of silence, honor killings are another. The willingness of American and European social workers to ignore abuse in Muslim families as "part of their culture" or worse yet to recruit Muslim police officers who often take the victim right back to the abuser, is part of the same Culture of Silence on Islam.

As Nidal Hassan spun his web of hate right in the faces of the men and women who were supposed to stop his kind, Honor Killings develop right in front of the faces of those who are supposed to prevent them. And both Hassan and Honor Killings share a common premise, the belief by Muslims that in the absence of Sharia, or Islamic Law, they have the right to apply Sharia and take the law into their own hands.

While it is easy to try and dismiss Islamic crimes as emotional or disturbed. To assume that a man who opens fire on soldiers or a father who kills his own daughter is crazy, that is an American interpretation of events. One that treats behavior deviating from social conventions as demonstrating psychological or emotional instability. But that presumption ignores the fact that while their behavior may deviate from American social conventions, they accord with the social conventions of many Muslim nations.

Nidal Hassan's behavior might seem deranged to Americans, but is considered normal and praiseworthy back in the mosques of Gaza or the West Bank. While to his classmates, Hassan might have seemed deranged, he was in fact a perfectly normal Palestinian Arab Muslim. The problem was that he happened to be a Palestinian Arab Muslim living and working among Americans. Yet liberals who routinely boil everything down to cultural differences can't seem to grasp that the difference between homicidal mania and religious martyrdom is in this case a religious and cultural difference as well.

Nidal Hassan did not just snap one day. Nor did he act out of anger. Instead he studied the issue. He read the Koran many times. He even tried to distinguish which soldiers were specifically guilty of death and should be killed. Hassan is a mass murderer, but he is an Islamic mass murderer, following codes similar to those used by Al Queda, Hamas and the Taliban. The codes spun off from the same Islamist teachings that have helped create generations of willing suicide bombers and willing terrorists.

The actions of Jordanian, Iraqi and Pakistani men who murder their daughters or sisters may be abnormal by Western standards, but are behaving in a way that is considered acceptable and even praiseworthy in their own cultures, where a family's honor is tied to the chastity of its women, and where individual rights are subsumed within the family and the tribe. Their behavior is wrong by objective human standards, but approved of by their culture and beliefs. And it is unrealistic to imagine that immigration is the same thing as moral transformation.

Liberals who condemn such talk as bigoted, are ignoring the fact that it is about ideology, not about race. Last week the London Times carried an interview with a British former altar boy who had gone to fight with the Taliban and was eager to kill fellow British troops. Adam Gadahn, the Al Queda spokesman, is a grandson of a member of the Board of Directors of the ADL and an editor for The Chronicle Christian. Jose Padilla started out as a member of a Latin street gang. The only thing they had in common was not race, but ideology. The ideology of Islam.

Muslims may be from any race or ethnicity, but what they have in common is a religion of death that is dedicated to imposing Islam by stealth, by deceit and by force across the world. That same ideology has infused the culture of the Muslim world, its music, its heroes, its literature and its politics. A Muslim immigrant to the West carries it along with him, and if he does not, he is likely to become a member of a Wahhabi Mosque that does.

To ignore this and to remain silent about it, is to allow for the triumph of evil. There is no telling how many men and women remained silent as Nidal Hassan moved his way up through the ranks. There is no telling how many more Nidal Hassans there are in the military, in our schools and neighborhoods and all around the country. And the curtain of silence that surrounds them gives them ample room to plot and finally to act.

Silence on Islam kills. It kills because it turns every Muslim atrocity into a surprise attack that is quickly stifled, because Islam is the Cult of Death whose name we dare not speak. And as long as we dare not speak it, evil will triumph.

------------------------------------------

Sultan Knish - From NY To Israel Sultan Reveals The Stories Behind The News

For his latest disaster movie, 2012, the 53-year-old director had wanted to demolish the Kaaba, the iconic cube-shaped structure in the Grand Mosque in Mecca. ...

But after some consideration, he decided it might not be such a smart idea, after all.

"I wanted to do that, I have to admit," Emmerich told SciFiWire.com. "But my co-writer Harald [Kloser] said I will not have a fatwa on my head because of a movie. And he was right."

Just about every landmark on the planet gets pummeled in the CGI-heavy 2012, including the Vatican and the statue of Christ overlooking Rio de Janeiro. But naturally the director expresses no worries of being targeted by Christians. Instead, he proudly explains that seeing St. Peter's Basilica crash and the statue crumble pleases him "because I'm against organized religion."

Emmerich's frank admissions echo those of British artist Grayson Perry, who has stated that he trashes Christianity but avoids Islam "because I feel real fear that someone will slit my throat." Yet while their candor about not wishing to become the next Theo van Gogh may be rare, examples of creative types pussyfooting around Muslims are not. A 2008 IW essay explores this phenomenon in the art world. Cases from film and television are just as common. Among them:

• For the 2002 movie The Sum of All Fears, Arab Muslim terrorists from Tom Clancy's novel were turned into white neo-fascists, thus satisfying the demands of CAIR.

• The 2005 season of the Fox drama 24, featuring a Muslim family as a sleeper cell, ran a disclaimer with Kiefer Sutherland offering assurances that the plotline is not meant to besmirch American Muslims. CAIR's fingerprints are here as well.

• Comedy Central censored an image of the Islamic prophet in a 2006 episode of South Park. Yet the same episode depicts "Jesus defecating on the American flag."

• In 2008 British comedian Ben Elton argued that a "scared" BBC "will let vicar gags pass but they would not let imam gags pass." He even reported that he had been warned against using the rather innocuous phrase "Muhammad came to the mountain."

Recently HBO's Curb Your Enthusiasm had star Larry David urinate on a picture of Jesus. Jamie Glazov asks whether we might ever see him similarly profane books and symbols sacred to Muslims. And, if not, "what meaning and lesson do we draw from this?"

The answer is no; the lesson is that political correctness and fear are turning Hollywood into Dhimmiwood, where eager capitulations by Roland Emmerich and company will only embolden Islamists and soften us up for disasters far worse than computerized explosions.

------------------------------------------

My patience was short with the newspaper reporter. I am Lloyd Marcus, singer/songwriter, black conservative activist and participant on the national Tea Party Express II tour; 19 states; 40 rallies. At our final rally in Orlando, Florida, a reporter approached me. She had a "these people are a bunch of nuts" attitude and smirk on her face.

Though annoyed, I was polite and refused to answer her questions from a defensive point of view. Approximately 4000 patriots were in attendance. Despite numerous speakers who expressed valid disagreements with the Obama administration, like a pit bull, the reporter latched on to one questionable comment made by one speaker.

Orlando Performance

What so offended me was not just this reporter, but most of the liberal biased media's campaign to portray the tea party attendees in a negative light; racists, rednecks, angry mob and just plain stupid. This arrogant reporter was the straw that broke the camel's back. I confronted her, "Why are you totally ignoring all of the legitimate concerns of the people and focusing on one comment by one person?" Not answering my question, she scribbled on her note pad.

She walked away probably thinking I was a jerk or nut case, but I did not care. I took it personally her attempting to trash the people I have met across America and have come to love and respect. How dare she trash my family!

Folks, the Tea Party Express II Tour was my third time traveling and participating in rallies across America. I have met and embraced the American people and they me. They call me brother because we share values. They are not racists. They are hard working decent people concerned for their families, grand children and country.

Here are a few of my fondest memories.

Lloyd's Journal: Tea Party Express II Tour

Surprisingly, most of our crowds on the Tea Party Express II Tour through small town America were a thousand plus. Our first TPX tour focused on major cities. This tour was through the heartland where diner servings were sized for Paul Bunyan. I now have a slight belly to lose.

In Cheyenne, WY, I met Smokey, a fine twenty five year old truck driver. He apologized to me for the small (300 people) crowd. Smokey said his mom downloaded the poster which he copied and posted all over town. He was frustrated the crowd was not bigger. I told Smokey, he and the organizers did a great job. Cheyenne is a small town. Most folks are at work on a Tuesday morning. Those who attended were enthusiastic and grateful. I thanked Smokey for a job well done. Smokey is symbolic of the spirit and grassroots nature of the tea party movement, everyone contributing in their own way no matter how small in their eyes.

The Rapid City, SD TPXII rally was held in a rodeo arena. Though the equine smell took some getting used to, our tea party team energized the crowd of 500 with an inspired and fun performance.

A big tall man, six foot something wearing a straw hat, bib overalls, flannel shirt and a ZZ Top style gray beard approached me; said his name was Norwegian Jim. The gentle giant gave me a bear hug and thanked me for what I am doing for our country. Jim confided that he had a wooden leg and was due for a new one. He said, "A new leg costs $20,000. I'm a wood carver. If Obama Care passes, I may have to carve my next leg".

One day on the tour was particularly difficult traveling several hours on the bus with eleven people; entertainers, speakers and a photographer. We had been traveling in very close quarters for over a week with two more weeks to go. Nerves and patience were a little thin. Embarrassingly, I will admit that even I joined the chorus of complaints.

The next morning we were on the bus headed to our first rally of the day. I called the team together. "Let's have a gratitude session". Each person took a moment to express what the Tea Party Express tour means to them and why they are grateful to be a part of it. The session was incredibly powerful. Each person got a little emotional during their comments.

The exercise reminded us why we were graced by God to be on the bus. We were making a difference, encouraging the American people and a part of history. We were extremely grateful. Upon arriving at the rally, we gave one of our most powerful performances.

The Five Dollar Lady

Wichita, KS - As usual, the crowd loved my performances of the "Tea Party Anthem" and "2010″.

Like every rally, I signed several autographs, posed for pictures and shook hands. I called the TPX II tour my "Million Handshake March".

With tears in her eyes, a middle aged white woman grabbed my hand with both of hers. She pressed something in my palm. "I wish I could give more. I just want to contribute to your efforts. God bless you". With a line building behind her, without looking, I put her gift in my pocket and continued shaking hands.

Then, a heavy gentleman who was missing his front teeth pulling up on his bicycle. "Mr. Marcus! I rode all the way across town to meet you. Thank you for your columns and for what you are doing for our country. I love you and I am praying for you. You're my brother." I gave my sincere white brother a hug.

Later that evening, I reached into my pocket and found a five dollar bill from the tearful woman. I got the feeling her finances were challenged which made her gift special. And why did she feel the need to give me anything? It brought to mind a woman in the Bible who humbly gave her all. Thank you Five Dollar Lady, I appreciate you.

A Great Day in Texas!

He hated it when we called him "cheese head". Hustusa is a forty something white male who followed both of our Tea Party Express tours across America. He wore a triangle hat shaped like the cheese head hats worn by Green Bay Packer football fans. His hat read "I didn't vote for this Obamanation" on all three sides. He also carried a tall sign and sold buttons at every rally. A general contractor by trade, Hustusa said his business phone stopped ringing the day after Obama was elected. He lost his home earlier this year.

In Amarillo TX, I met a feisty grandmother who is raising a little boy, not her own, on a widow's income. She was definitely not infected with the entitlement mindset being spread by liberal democrats. "I never asked nobody for a bailout!", she proudly told me.

At every rally, the crowds anticipated, loved and cheered my now famous trademark opening line, "I am not an African-American. I am Lloyd Marcus, AMERICAN!" In Beaumont, TX, a white cowboy ( tall, lean, cowboy hat, western shirt, jeans and boots) approached me pushing a stroller with two black babies. He said, "My babies are hyphenated Americans until we get their citizenship a week from today". He explained that he and his wife (also white) wanted children who really needed them. The couple believes God lead them to adopt their two black babies from Ethiopia. "Today they are Ethiopian-Americans. Next week, they will be Americans!", proudly proclaimed the father. But how could such a "color blind" act of love happen? The Left says only racists attend the tea parties. "This movement is all about racists hating a black man in the White House", says Jeanine Garofalo.

A Texas women asked me to inform America about the plight of our truckers. Her husband along with hundreds of thousands of other truckers across America have lost their jobs; hundred year old trucking companies are out of business and once thriving truck stops are half empty.

Our TPXII team heard the same concerns and felt the same emotions in every town, at every rally; fear, anger and frustration. "What can we do to stop the terrible agenda of the Obama administration?" We inspired and gave them hope assuring that "We The People" can and will save the America we know and love.

Black Conservatives

Though some may think rare as Bigfoot sightings, Black Conservatives do exist. I saw more of them on this second TPXII tour than I did on the first. Blacks in greater numbers are attending and participating in the tea party movement. In Texas, I met the conservative black woman, Mary Baker who founded 9-12moms.ning.com

Black clergy are firing up the crowds touting the virtues of God and country at tea parties. They worship Godly principles over skin color. Based on his abortion policies alone, I am still baffled as to how a Christian could reconcile voting for Obama.

I met several bright black youths who, refreshingly, were not taken in by Obama's rock star persona. One young black man who attended a tea party had just been released from prison nine days earlier. He admitted he made wrong choices and wanted to turn his life around. He was seeking truth. I gave him an autographed copy of my friend, William Owens' book, "Obama: Why Black America Should Have Doubts".

William and Selena Owens are wonderful black conservative authors who traveled with me on the Tea Party Express II tour. My first book, "Confessions of a Black Conservative" will be released soon. Michelle Mulkin wrote the forward.

Kenneth Gladney traveled with us on the Tea Party Express bus. Kenneth is a black entrepreneur who became famous after being beaten by SEIU thugs (Service Employee International Union) for selling "Don't Tread on Me" flags at a town hall meeting. The beating sent Kenneth to the emergency room. He was simply attempting to earn a living selling flags after being laid off. Liberals are quick to put independent blacks back in their place on the government dependency plantation.

On the tour, I also met young black conservatives running for political seats traditionally controlled by liberal Democrats. Yes, the times, they are a changin'. No longer are blacks sheepishly and mindlessly following the leading of so called black leaders who thrive on convincing them they are victims.

Interestingly, most of the blacks I chatted with at the tea parties were current or ex-military. They have lived around the world and realize America truly is "a shining city on a hill". Sorry, all you globalists, but America is peerless.

We blacks are blessed to live in the greatest land of opportunity on the planet. The day the majority of black Americans realize this truth is the day they can finally say, to quote MLK, "Free at last, thank God almighty, we're free at last!" Dr. King made that statement referring to the tyranny blacks were suffering from white racism in America. He could have never imagined blacks would someday need to be freed from the tyranny of traitorous blacks and liberal whites who wish to keep them on the government plantation.

Another phenomenon I noticed while on tour is all across America citizens are running for political office for the first time.

Traveling on the Tea Party Express II Tour is an experience I will cherish for the rest of my life. Numerous people told us seeing our bus roll into town was extremely exciting and brought tears to their eyes. We represented hope!

To pass the long hours riding on the bus, our team watched the DVD of the HBO John Adams series. Like our founding fathers, our team feels we too are patriots fighting for freedom, liberty and preserving our Constitution. My heart was stolen by the great American people. As God gives me strength, I will continue fighting for them. Stay tuned for Tea Party Express III.

God Bless.

---------------------------------------

 Lloyd Marcus (black) Unhyphenated American
American Tea Party: 12 great songs to Take Back America!

My white European ancestors then established a framework (hint: the Constitution) that allowed immigrants from all over the world a place where they could be free of tyrannical dictators and oppressive government. Its called America -and it stands for freedom. My ancestors fought and died for it and then offered it to the world.Since man is not perfect, (except for Obama) there were a few hitches along the way. But hey, I'm willing to forgive the ignorant few that followed the cultural dictates of the past - the ones who posted signs saying 'No Irish Need Apply.' That bigotry was a product of the times and America finally did the right thing by abolishing it. Of course, there are still those who choose to dwell in the past. Just last week a Nigerian rights group sent a letter to African chiefs demanding they apologize for the role they played in the slave trade. "We cannot continue to blame the white men, as Africans particularly the traditional rulers, are not blameless." Personally, I believe trying to address historical grievances is counter-productive. Progressives have repeatedly stressed the importance of 'moving-on,' and I think they have a good point. With the coming of Obama and the progessive agenda, all groups, countries, and cultures are deemed equal. Now its totally OK to celebrate my own group-identity. Especially since taking pride in belonging to the broader, American culture is looked upon with such disfavor. Since I'm not willing to identify myself solely by my sexual orientation, or my gender, or my politics - or as a victim, or as one of the disenfranchised, that leaves only one group with whom I totally identify: The politically incorrect group of Americans who demand to be judged strictly on merit.

Unfortunately, that's a no-no in today's political and cultural environment. I guess I'll have to be content with just celebrating the color of my skin, like everyone else does.

I'm proud to be white. There, I've said it. But I'm getting confused.... A Tennessee state trooper who sent an e-mail proclaiming white pride, has just been suspended for 15 days without pay and will have to attend diversity training. Does this mean white people can't celebrate their own culture? Not very long ago, before the Nazis came along, white pride was, well, pride in being white. People like myself whose ancestors were white Europeans used to take pride in the accomplishments of fellow whites. That pride was acceptable and celebrated. The tremendous influence and contributions made by white Europeans has, alas, been lumped into the discredited category of 'colonization,' which we all know is bad. Acknowledgment of white European accomplishments and culture is now deemed racist, which is worse. The fact that many of the countries that were once colonized by Britain are now worse off than when Britain was calling the shots is an inconvenient historical fact. After all, white people of European descent represent a, gasp, superior culture, and that's not allowed to be discussed or studied. Which is why courses on Western Civilization have been removed from college curriculums in favor of gay studies, Black studies, Chicano studies, women studies, etc.

Never having had the time to study diversity and multiculturalism, however, I remain somewhat confused. Hate crime laws require me to take note of the color of a persons' skin in order not to offend them, while political correctness demands I ignore a person's race and their culture when forming an opinion of them. This does not compute.

Maybe I should join that Tennessee trooper in diversity training so I'll know for sure what I am allowed to think, feel and say. After all, I don't want my white skin and American opinions to offend anyone.

Or better yet, why don't we all just take Martin Luther King's advice and judge people based on the content of their character instead of the color of their skin? That way we could do away with all those groups that focus on skin color, like the Congressional Black Caucus, and the Hispanic 'La Raza,' and start celebrating what we all have in common. Our very own unique American culture, in which we all can and should take tremendous pride, regardless of what color we are.

---------------------------------------------

Nancy Morgan is a columnist and news editor for RightBias.com
She lives in South Carolina

Bachmann, at 53, is a darling of the so-called Tea Party movement, which has campaigned vociferously against healthcare reform, the economic stimulus package and legislation to combat climate change. Her followers have been behind mass rallies in Washington and smaller ones all over the country. She has emerged as one of the most visible politicians in America, frequently appearing on the conservative Fox News channel, whose hosts often champion her causes. She is part of an increasingly visible "female brand" of conservatism that is rising in America in the wake of the election of Obama. They include notable syndicated Sarah Palin commentators such as Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter, whose dislike for liberals has grown ever more shrill in recent months. And, of course, Palin herself. She is still a giant of the political and media landscape and next week embarks on a book tour to sell her autobiography. It has already sparked a media frenzy, with a heavily hyped appearance on Oprah Winfrey's show, and become a huge bestseller on pre-orders alone. - UK Guardian

Dominant Social Theme: The new wave in US politics is female.

Free-Market Analysis: It is great to read this article in the Guardian, a leftist British newspaper of note, because the machinery of mainstream media manipulation is laid out for anyone to see here. The dominant social theme being constructed is once again the conservative one. We have of course written about this numerous times already and probably will continue to follow this meme closely as it plays out. It is one of the most important memes that the monetary elite operates (outside of central banking).

It is very important to convince the electorate in the West, especially the United States and Britain that there are only two main political choices when it comes to government. One side wants to build out government, along with higher taxes and regulation, to initiate social programs that supposedly help the poor and disadvantaged and make society fairer. The other side claims to want less taxation and government involvement in the private marketplace but tends to support an overwhelmingly large and aggressive military industrial complex - and will use the leverage inherent in state power, including taxes and monetary stimulation, to get it.

Thus it is that this political dominant social theme organizes both sides to utilize state action. But as we pointed out most recently in our article on Sarah Palin, there is a third point of view, which is generally anti-state. It is the view of Thomas Jefferson and is the view of the American Constitution itself. This is the same view held by outspoken individuals such as US Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex). This is the constitutionalist view that America was founded on. It is in direct opposition not to one but to both major political parties in the US, Britain and elsewhere.

From this standpoint, the Guardian article is both useful and interesting. It ignores the American constitutionalist/libertarian movement, which is quite likely the most powerful and interesting political phenomenon to come along in years. Instead, it focuses on "Conservative" female firebrands who partake of the right wing statist meme. Is this serendipity? We cannot help but think it is a purposeful media manipulation since one sees it over and over. As we have pointed out before, ignoring obvious facts is part of the process of spinning the memes of the monetary elite. The green/climate change meme ignores the past decade of colder weather. The conservative-socialist meme ignores the evermore clamorous libertarian movements in the US and abroad.

Here's some more from the article:

All these women express a mood of conservative discontent that is becoming increasingly vocal and, some experts warn, extreme. The have been kicked out of power in the White House and Congress. The party is becoming more white and southern at the same time as national demographic changes give power to other regions and minorities. Many Americans are also suffering in the recession. That is a grim picture but one that also makes many voters vulnerable to a talented rabble- rouser. "They are tapping into grassroots frustration... they are charging up an already highly charged group of people," said Shaun Bowler, a political scientist at the University of California at Riverside. ...

The politics espoused by Bachmann, Palin and others on the far right of the conservative movement warn darkly of Obama's intentions. They paint a picture of an America that is under threat from its own president. Bachmann has spoken of the possibility of the White House setting up "re-education camps" for America's youth. Palin once accused Obama of "palling around" with terrorists. To the many critics of this new breed of conservatism, people such as Bachmann and Palin are putting an attractive female face to a very ugly brand of politics. ...

What makes liberal Americans laugh or cry has got the conservative wing of the Republican party extremely excited. In an article that sent shockwaves through America's political classes, top conservative newspaper columnist George Will recently wrote a piece anointing Bachmann as a new star of the movement. "Some of her supposed excesses are... not merely defensible, they are admirable," Will wrote. It is easy to see why Bachmann is being so enthusiastically embraced by conservatives. The high profile of Palin showed the impact a charismatic, young conservative woman could have on the right wing of the Republican party. ...

But Bachmann - and Palin too - are more than just individual politicians. They have come to represent a mass social movement that stretches far beyond just turning up on election day. ... Palin's brand of homespun wisdom, rooted in uber-patriotism and killer heels, was a breath of fresh air that conservatives had been looking for. So were unashamedly conservative views and a willingness to state bluntly what she thought about Democrats. Palin's subsequent self-destruction in a series of media interviews only served to make her more popular.

Indeed, to examine the impact of both Palin and Bachmann is to see an America split firmly into two different worlds. The first is a liberal one where such politicians make outlandish comments that become the butt of jokes on the Daily Show or Saturday Night Live. The other is one where Palin and Bachmann are the victims of a liberal media that hates its own country.

Many of the signifiers of a certain kind of political dominant social theme are in the above excerpt. The article divides the American political world into two camps - Conservative and Progressive - and then picks terror as a main flash point between the two competing camps. It goes out of its way to point to Sarah Palin's "uber patriotism" and generally makes the case that the differences between the two parties have much to do with the American military industrial and intelligence complex.

Michelle Malkin is well known for her support of the American war on terror and the ever-expanding federal anti-terror programs of Homeland Security that supposedly combat it. Ann Coulter at one point attacked widows of 9/11 for questioning government conclusions about 9/11. Unfortunately for Ms. Coulter, the leader litigator of the 9/11 Commission, John J. Farmer, has just concluded that government officials generally lied to the commission about the events surrounding 9/11 and makes the case in his new book "The Ground Truth: The Untold Story of America Under Attack on 9/11."

Readers of this article, therefore, are cleverly led to see that there are only two choices. Either they subscribe to a party that supports the current American military and civil defense posture, or they do not. If they do not, then they must support the Progressive side of the political discussion that is less forceful about military issues but far more forceful about leveraging the power of government in the service of socialism. The "third way" - a party that seeks to shrink government generally - is nowhere to be found in the above discussion. It is an old mainstream media trick, one used very successfully in the 20th century to keep state power alive and growing. But it is ending now.

Many of the memes of the monetary elite are beginning to collapse in our humble opinion. Promotions that are obviously untruthful have difficulty in the era of the Internet. The global warming dominant social theme has morphed into the climate change meme because too many people know that the last decade was a cooling one. The central banking meme - that a small pool of wise men can fix the price and quantity of money to benefit everyone - is collapsing as well thanks to the economic crisis and increased 'Net coverage of free-market, Austrian, economics. And finally, the all-important Conservative/Progressive meme is collapsing as free-market oriented politicians such as Ron Paul relentlessly pound away at it, offering a constitutional conservative view of government that wishes to shrink BOTH civil and military spending.

There are many other elite memes that are imploding besides the ones mentioned above. The collapse is slow-motion and not always easily visible. But these promotions all have the same context and profiles. They seek to scare people into helplessness by overwhelming them with notions of catastrophe. Then the solution that is offered is some sort of government action, the bigger (and more global) the better. Lost in the translation is the control that the monetary elite generally has over government - and thus the benefits that accrue to it (wealth and power) if people can willingly be made to accept more government say in their lives.

Conclusion: The Gutenberg press caused a similar collapse of the monetary elite's authority in its day. We anticipate that the Internet will eventually cause an elite retreat as well. In fact, we will continue to try to point out. And It is for this reason we write (continually) and with some confidence that sooner or later there will come a time when the world (or part of it anyway) will come to accept, and even welcome, a private-market gold and silver standard analogous to what has driven eras of prosperity around the world for literally thousands of years in the past.

-----------------------------------------

© Copyright 2008 - 2009 Appenzeller Business Press AG. All Rights Reserved. The Daily Bell is an informative compendium of independent economic views and analysis, which is published by Appenzeller Business Press AG. The information contained in the Daily Bell is for informational purposes only, is impersonal and not tailored to the investment needs of any particular person and should not be construed as financial or investment advice. Appenzeller Business Press AG does not accept any liability or responsibility for, nor does it verify the accurateness of the information being provided in the Daily Bell. Readers of the Daily Bell or any affiliated or linked sources or sites must accept the responsibility for performing their own due diligence before acting on any of the information provided within the report regardless of the source

That this comment comes shortly after the President bowed deeply to the Japanese emperor (an obeisance even more groveling than the one he lied about having offered Saudi King Abdullah this past spring) is, as my former Marxist friends used to say, no accident. This administration is obsessed with American guilt-so ambivalent about our country's intrinsic meaning that it feels it must invent a new symbolism to convince the rest of the world that we are a good and decent nation. Other countries may be on the fence about whether we're all that different from the terrorists, the logic of Reed's comment seemed to suggest, so we must have a show trial to convince them that we are.

But while Reed smugly congratulates the administration for setting up a global civics lesson, KSM must be licking his chops and thanking Allah that nobody listened to him when he demanded to be put to death. Here he has an opportunity, courtesy of the chief law enforcement officer of the U.S., no less, to further the destruction he caused on 9/11. That attack hit buildings and bodies; the one he will soon be able to launch from a New York courtroom could affect American security even more profoundly since it will be directed at all the safeguards put into effect in the eight years since the first attack. In this regard, Holder has given KSM the opportunity to use one of the time honored techniques of the homicide bomber: set off one explosion, and then, when responders rush in to deal with the carnage, set off another that will claim an even larger number of victims.

Sen. Reed, one of those for whom 9/10 appears to be Groundhog Day, blithely dismissed the downside, but it will surely be America, as much or more than KSM himself, that will be on trial when this legal circus opens its big tent. Sources and methods of intelligence gathering, cooperation with foreign intelligence agencies, rendition, cruel and unusual incarceration, and most of all TORTURE  will dominate the proceedings. The rest of the world will not get a lesson about America's constitutional glories, but a confirmation of its worst suspicions that we are and always have been a black ops nation.

KSM will get a chance to show the blood on the Great Satan's hands. And Eric Holder and his President will get the Truth Commission they have wanted since the election but were afraid to seek through the normal political process. In this regard, at least, the trial will be win/win.

---------------------------------

Reggie Littlejohn is a petite woman who heads Women's Rights Without Frontiers. Attorney Littlejohn gave up a profitable practice to work for human rights.

Dr. Littlejohn showed how China's brutal policy actually works. Women in China pregnant with their second or third "unauthorized" child, are rounded up and harassed until they submit to abortion -- even in the eighth or ninth month.

Estimates range as high as 50 million a year. China's communist rulers claim it's all voluntary. Littlejohn knows better. She provided congressional members of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission with incontrovertible evidence that forced abortion is official government policy and that it is widespread.

Dr. Littlejohn is calling upon Planned Parenthood and NARAL to speak up for the women of China who are daily denied their rights. She also hopes President Obama will raise the issue of human rights during his current Asia trip.

What Reggie Littlejohn will learn is what Steven W. Mosher learned more than 25 years ago. Steve Mosher was a young researcher from Stanford University. He was studying village life in rural China.

Then, Steve was "pro-choice." But he discovered -- in fact he was the first Westerner to discover -- the way pregnant Chinese women were rounded up, thrown roughly into open trucks, hauled off to abortion centers by Communist Party cadres, and yelled at and stressed until they agreed to have abortions.

Steve was shocked by this denial of choice to these women. So he went public. He wrote about this story. He was promptly thrown out of China. And Beijing threatened Stanford University: If you want to send any more graduate students to China, you had better expel Steve Mosher. Stanford, you'll remember, was the home of Jesse Jackson-led demonstrations in which student protestors chanted: "Hey hey, Ho ho, Western Civ has got to go." Western Civilization was expelled from Stanford and so was Stephen Mosher. He was found to have violated rules passed by the Stanford faculty senate after he departed for China.

Steve Mosher thought Planned Parenthood and NARAL would rise to his defense. They didn't.

And I seriously doubt they will be heard from now. We've heard precious little from them about China's obvious, aggravated denial of choice to Chinese women. Mosher did get a nice editorial in the New York Times tsk-tsking forced abortions in China. The Times, we should be reminded, is not unlike Winston Churchill's description of Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin: "He occasionally stumbles over the truth, but he picks himself up and proceeds as if nothing had happened.

So it will be with President Obama. Reggie Littlejohn hopes the President will raise the issue with the Chinese. He won't. We read in Kathleen Parker's column about Chinese doctors sending emails back and forth describing the terrible problem of infants born alive after induced labor abortions. Senior party members advise puncturing their skulls as they are in the birth canal to avoid such dreaded complications.

Anyone who expects Barack Obama to raise this issue with Chinese officials is whistling in the dark. Barack Obama as Illinois state senator led the opposition to the Infant Born Alive Protection Act. He later said he would have voted for the bill if it had been like the one that passed at the federal level. Except that it was similar.

Of course, the world's Number One enabler of China's forced abortion policy is President Obama. He hesitated not at all last January before revoking the Mexico City policy initiated by President Reagan. After January 23rd, we are all forced to back abortion. Our tax dollars are backing the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) and International Planned Parenthood. Between financial support for China's brutality and a bailout of the world's largest abortion provider, Obama has claimed the crown as the world's premier abortion backer.

Maybe that's why he won the Peace Prize.

--------------------------------------------------

Ken Blackwell is the Senior Fellow for Family Empowerment at the Family Research Council, and the Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow for Public Policy at the Buckeye Institute in Columbus, Ohio. He is a visiting fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation and the American Civil Rights Union. He serves on the Board of Directors of the Club for Growth, National Taxpayers Union and Pastors Retreat Network. Mr. Blackwell is also the Chairman for the Coalition for a Conservative Majority, and a member of the National Rifle Association's Public Affairs Committee. He is a columnist for the New York Sun, a contributing editor and columnist for the conservative news and opinion site Townhall.com, and a public affairs commentator for the Salem Radio Network.

First came the reading list of four books: one about an African-American, one on an Asian- or Hispanic-American, one on a Native American, and one--amazingly enough--a free choice.

Then came the first book read in class on an African-American runner.

By the way, it should be understood that all these readings are not about a group of youngsters from all races, religions, and creeds, playing together while getting along but rather a focus on minorities in isolation rather than as part of the whole big society.

And next came the second book read in class, portraying the "horrors" of Japanese internment in the United States during World War Two.

By this point, my 10-year-old son piped up that he thought internment was necessary as a war-time measure. Whether or not this position is "correct," it is certainly one that wasn't going to be made otherwise in that classroom.

The teacher gave my son's remark, in conversation with my wife, as an indication that he was opinionated and didn't listen to other views. Naturally, of course, precisely the same thing can be said of the teacher. Different views weren't permitted in the class. Indeed, when he gave another opinion the opinionated teacher shut him up fast. Remember that these students had never been presented with two points of view but only one, over and over again.

No commemoration of September 11 but three days on manmade global warming. Even if the latter is more likely true, no alternative point of view or reservations were expressed.

The teacher explained later to my wife that when she went to school she was taught that the Indians were "bad" but now she understands things from the Indians, I mean Native Americans, view point. When applied to history and international affairs, this is clearly the dominant orientation today: America is always in the wrong

But dimwitted guardians of our children don't understand the most basic concept of democracy and free speech. If at one point, teaching portrayed Native Americans as "bad" and the U.S. government, cavalry, and white settlers as "good," the best solution is not simply to reverse this and to teach that Native Americans are "good," and the United States, cavalry, and white settlers were "bad."

One-dimensional propaganda is no proper substitute for one-dimensional propaganda. It would be far more beneficial for students to be taught how to think, that not everything is black and white, that some balance must be found. Ironically, all those people who once touted such slogans as "challenge authority" are now asserting authority more vigorously than those they displaced. Their new approach is: repeat what I say or you are opinionated and closed to alternative ideas

In addition, they must develop their own point of view. All "other" and no self makes Jack a dull boy. It deprives native-born Americans of an ego, to use Sigmund Freud's term, and just makes them a reflection of their treatment of others, which is presented universally as not good.

In this class at least, all of the "African-" and "Asian" and "Hispanic" American students are immigrants so they don't know much about America or its achievements or the concept of the melting pot. They aren't going to learn it here.  What they will learn is that the United States is a series of disunited set of communal states, semi-separate communities--a sort of confederation--and that the whites in particular, and the Americans in general, have treated everybody pretty badly.

Of course, the goal, whether conscious or not, is precisely to teach little kids that their country is bad and that others-especially its enemies-are in the right. The goal is not to teach children to be more open to alternative explanations but to teach them that there is only one right answer. And, usually, it isn't the one that arises from their own group's history and interests.

Of course, it is proper to teach about all the different groups that went up to make America. But not just the non-Caucasian ones, not to the exclusion of the majority group, not only in the context of these other sectors being apart from the whole. The old slogan of racism in the form of segregation was "separate but equal," that;s the new "progressive" slogan, too, unless one considers it to be--with some reason--separate and superior.

Ironically, all those people who once touted such slogans as "challenge authority" are now asserting authority more vigorously than those they displaced.

"Multiculturalism is an excuse for anti-intellectualism," one veteran high school teacher told me, "Some of it was a necessary corrective in the 1970s and 1980s but it has gone way overboard."

And that's quite true: you don't have to think about the rights and wrongs or messy details of the issue (all that scalping and murder of not only settler civilians but also members of other tribes). You simply side with the prefabricated victim group in question. The "oppressor" is always the same, of course.

I also noted a funny thing about this version of Political Correctness. The women's issue has virtually disapeared. I speculate that women as a victim group is a problem for those with a political agenda. Women divide up roughly along the same political lines as men. They are not reliable "bloc voters"; the issue does not lend itself to bashing American society. Perhaps too much obvious progress has been made.

What the PC commissars want is to focus on groups that can fit entirely into their victim and anti-American framework. Consider the idea of having a story read about a woman in some Muslim woman living in the Middle East or even United States who is oppressed. That would be a definite no-no.
------------------------------------------------------
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan).

Hassan is the first terrorist in history to give an academic lecture explaining why he was about to attack. Yet that still isn't enough for too many people-including the president of the United States--to understand that the murderous assault at Fort Hood was a Jihad attack.

It was reported that the audience was shocked and frightened by his lecture. He was supposed to speak on some medical topic yet instead talked on the topic: "The Koranic World View as it Relates to Muslims in the U.S. Military." All you have to do is look at the 50 Power Point slides and they tell you everything you need to know.

It is quite a good talk. He's logical and presents his evidence. This is clearly not the work of a mad man or a fool, though there's still a note of ambiguity in it. He's still working out what to do in his own mind and is trying to figure out if he has a way out other than in effect deserting the U.S. army and becoming a Jihad warrior. Ultimately, he concluded that he could not be a proper Muslim without killing American soldiers. Obviously, other Muslims could reach different conclusions but Hassan strongly grounds himself in Islamic texts.

In a sense, Hassan's lecture was a cry for help: Can anyone show me another way out? Can anyone refute my interpretation of Islam? One Muslim in the audience reportedly tried to do so. But unless these issues are openly discussed and debated--rather than swept under the rug--more people will die.

In fact, I'd recommend that teachers use this lecture in teaching classes on both Islam and Islamist politics. .

Follow along with me and you'll understand everything.

Hassan deals with three topics: What Islam teaches Muslims, how Muslims view the wars in Afghanistan and Iran, how this might affect Muslims in the U.S. military. [Slide 2] Hassan defines Jihad, showing how silly are the claims that it only means a personal struggle to behave better. It also signifies holy war, of course. [Slide 5].

Now here's Hassan's central theme. Muslims cannot fight in an infidel army against other Muslims. And Hassan himself says that it's getting hard for Muslims in the U.S. military to justify doing so. [Slide 11] Obviously, Hassan was deciding that he couldn't do so.

He then quotes the Koran extensively to prove the point. Allah will punish anyone who kills a Muslim [Slide 12]. Hassan then gives four examples of Muslim soldiers who broke under the strain. One who killed fellow American soldiers (which Hassan would himself do), one accused of espionage (but was acquitted), one who deserted, and one who refused deployment to Iraq. [Slide 13]

Quoting the Koran, Hassan next provides a number of quotations to show that the believer must obey Allah. If they do, they will enjoy great delights (though he left out the 72 virgins, there's one quote hinting at pederasty), and if they don't they will suffer torments of Hell.

Finally, he gets into the heavy stuff. Hassan introduces the concept of "defensive Jihad" which is a core element in radical Islamist thinking and has especially been promoted by Usama bin Ladin and al-Qaida. [Slides 37-39]. If others attack and oppress Muslims, then it is the duty of all Muslims to fight them. September 11 was justified by its perpetrators by saying that the United States had attacked Muslims and therefore it was mandatory to kill Americans in return.

And here is the crux of the matter: Verse 60:08, "Allah forbids you...from dealing kindly and justly" with those who fight Muslims." [Slide 40]

If Nidal Hassan believed this and would follow it, he must-to be a proper Muslim in his eyes-pick up a gun and join the Jihad, Muslim side. He was not shooting Americans because he caught battle fatigue from American soldiers he treated. Think about it. To have done so, Hassan would have had to sympathize with them, thinking about what it would be like for him if he'd been fighting...Muslims in Iraq or Afghanistan. But that was precisely his problem. He sympathized with the other side.

Being ordered to ship out to one of these countries, Hassan now had to decide: which side are you on? Would he choose the side of Allah and the Muslims, to be rewarded in Heaven? Or would he join with the infidels, to be punished with Hell and to betray his religion? He made his decision.

It is interesting that no Muslim debate has developed over a very simple issue: What if two groups of Muslims are fighting, cannot one side with one group, even if it has non-Muslim allies? After all, Americans are not going to Iraq or Afghanistan simply to "kill Muslims" but to defend Muslims from being killed. The Saudis, Kuwaitis, and Egyptians had no problem with using Western troops to save them from Saddam Hussein's Iraq in 1991, for example. The Iraqi and Afghan governments, made up of pious Muslims, do the same thing.

Arab nationalists who are Muslims can take this position more easily. But for Islamists the problem is not some abstraction but knowledge that they are fighting a battle to seize control of all Muslim-majority states and indeed perhaps of the entire world.

The true problem, then, is not that some Muslims help infidels kill Muslims, but that some Muslims help infidels kill Islamists. But Hassan never considered this point, which could be quite persuasive to other Muslims in Western militaries.

So, in his thinking, how might Hassan have escaped from that stark choice? Hassan answers that question. Quoting the Koran, he indicated that if the Americans ended the wars, then that would be okay and no killing would be necessary. [Slide 42]

Another alternative is if the Americans accepted Islam or agreed to become subservient to Muslim rulers (dhimmis) and paid a special tax [Slide 43-44].

The third alternative would be if the Muslim Messiah came, destroyed Christianity as a false religion and set off the post-history utopia. [Slide 45]. He didn't mention another part of this description, which was the murder of all Jews.

A digression is appropriate here. Hassan, although a Palestinian, has never been quoted as attacking Israel or the Jews. This is one more reminder that this struggle isn't all just about Israel. But it also tells something important about Hassan which also applies to many Muslim radicals in Europe. Hassan is an American. As such he has no other nationality, neither Palestinian nor Arab. He doesn't support Hamas or Fatah. But he has a religion that directs his thinking. That's why he is an Islamist and why he supports a generalized Islamist revolutionary movement, al-Qaida.

As one moderate Muslim from Canada pointed out, the clothes he wore the day before committing his Jihad attack was not (as some sources put it in a silly manner) some martyr or even Arab garb but the clothing of Pakistan and Afghanistan. He is an al-Qaida Jihadi, having changed sides in the War on Terror.

Hassan was no fool or blind fanatic. Indeed, he presents a sophisticated view. For example, he quotes contradictory Quranic verses, one suggesting that all religions can enter Heaven; another that all non-Muslims will go to Hell [Slide 47].

His conclusion takes on tremendous significance in light of what would happen at Fort Hood. He writes:

"If Muslim groups can convince Muslims that they are fighting for God against injustices of the 'infidels'; i.e., the enemies of Islam, then Muslims can become a potent adversary ie: suicide bombing, etc."

And of course, these groups did so convince Hassan. [Slide 48]

Why? Hassan tells us:

"God expects full loyalty. Promises heaven and threatens with Hell. Muslims may seem moderate (compromising) but God is not." [Slide 49]

And at the very end, he proposes what might have been his own escape route:

"Recommendation: Department of Defense should allow Muslim soldiers the option of being released as 'Conscientious objectors' to increase troop morale and decrease adverse events." [Slide 50]

If that had existed for Hassan, I think, he would not have killed people. This proposal is worth debating, though it has negative implications too, of course. But then he had other options. He could have resigned his commission, deserted, or refused deployment as a conscientious objector and gone to prison. In fact, Hassan himself cited individuals who had done the last two.

Consequently, Hassan's lecture also tells us why Muslims can choose not to be Jihadists, though this requires ignoring or rationalizing clear, religiously binding commandments in their religion or by being basically secular people of Muslim background. This is the kind of solution found in Christianity and Judaism, of course.

Hassan was too pious and consistent to take this way out. The answer to his personal behavior must be found in a mix of psychological factors and political-religious beliefs. The fact  is, however, that he clearly did see himself as a Jihad warrior in the end. The existence of psycological factors in no way negates the importance of religious considerations.

All terrorists have some psychological forces working to make them follow such a path. Yet if not for ideological--and in the case of Islamists, religious--beliefs they never would have become terrorists. In contrast, criminals have psychological factors plus material goals, while mentally ill people who commit crimes are compelled by purely psychogical factors. Hassan does not fit either of those two categories.

Equally, his action cannot be attributed to a "misreading" or "heretical" interpretation of Islam. To read this lecture is to understand how carefully and self-critically he approached the issues. Anything so obviously false or deviant from mainstream Islam would simply not appeal to so many Muslims. Hassan was looking for a way out in the texts and listed the "loopholes" he did find: either the United States must not fight anyone who was a Muslim or it must let him out of the military.

What Hassan neglected was an explanation that lay outside what his strict reading of the Muslim texts would allow him to say: the United States must fight, in general, because the Islamists have been the aggressors. And the United States is actually fighting as allies with one group of (more moderate) Muslims against another (of radical Islamists). Yet the texts always deal with the Muslim community as a united whole (the umma), an interpretation that just doesn't correspond with reality. Indeed and ironically, this view enables Islamists to themselves kill thousands of Muslims all over the world! 

The fact that Hassan's lecture has not been the centerpiece of the whole post-massacre debate is a true example of how impoverished are the "experts," journalists, and politicians at dealing with these issues. Of course, without exploring the Islamic factor, they're wasting everyone's time. They're also going to be wasting quite a few lives.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan).

-------------------------------------------

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan)

In the wake of the horrific act of Islamic domestic terrorism at Fort Hood Texas, it's been learned that militant homosexual activists recently made similar online postings to those of Nidal Malik Hasan, threatening additional acts of terrorism against Christians.

A number of pro-marriage advocates have also received death threats directly. 

Shortly after "Question 1" was voted into law, I issued a press release (posted with additional commentary at AmericansForTruth.com) hailing this pro-family victory. In reaction to that statement a handful of homosexual activists on the popular anti-Christian "JoeMyGod" weblog, became completely unhinged, engaging in death threats and warning of future homosexualist terrorism should their political demands not be met.  

Blog poster "ColdCountry" wrote: "Will someone please give me a gun?" Poster "Fritz" warned: "What I fear is that once gay and lesbian people give up hope of achieving equality through nonviolent means, there will be radicals who will begin to hunt down haters... All it will take is a small group of radical zealots who are willing to kill for their cause."  

In reply to Fritz, "tex" posted: "Fritz....you say this like it's a bad thing? Maybe a bit of well organized terrorism is just what we need."

"This happens in all cases where people are oppressed and lack representation," continued Fritz. "We will have gay and lesbian people strapping bombs to their chests and blowing up churches. All it will take is one or two more losses like this. If marriage equality is taken away in one of the landmark states, we will see domestic terrorism arise very quickly. ... In 1991, I witnessed gay and lesbian activists setting fire to buildings and beating people with baseball bats in Los Angeles."

"tex" reiterated: "Still not seeing this as a bad thing Fritz ... [African gay activists] didn't gain their civil rights through being passive."

Liberty Counsel notified the FBI which is investigating the matter. Not surprisingly, Joe Jervis, the homosexual activist who runs the offending blog, quickly removed the comments once exposed (captured version of post available at AmericansForTruth.com).    

Meanwhile, Michael Heath, former director of the Christian Civic League of Maine, was directly targeted with a death threat shortly after the vote on 1. An anonymous caller telephoned the League and left a message warning: "I am calling about Mr. Mike Heath, the Executive of your Christian Civic League of Maine.  He thinks that gay people should have our rights revoked that we already have. Well I can tell him this - I'm a gay guy who owns guns, and he's my next target."

Another death threat was made against Marc Mutty, chief of the unaffiliated "Yes On One" organization: "You're dead. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon...you're dead." Law enforcement has been notified of each incident as left-wing extremist threats targeting other Christian advocates continue to mount.  

Elected officials are apparently fair game as well. For instance, a post on the Gay.com weblog in December even went so far as to directly threaten the life of then President Bush (no news on whether the Secret Service investigated the incident). Someone identified as "Josh Sebring" wrote: "I suggest we throw a pride parade at the whitehouse and everyone bring their (sic) guns. We form a militia and get our gay rights by raiding the whitehouse and possibly burning it down or something. ... We've got to shoot out a few Govenors (sic) knee caps, kill a few cops, burn down a few churches. We could get it done this year."   

As a former law enforcement officer, I can tell you that this is deadly serious business. All potential threats of terrorism and murder, when discovered, must be investigated. As Fort Hood has taught us, there are indeed ideologically driven terrorists who walk among us.

After passage of Proposition 8 in California we saw that many homosexual activists are capable of threats, vandalism and even violence. Those who either threaten or attempt to incite terrorism must be immediately brought to justice. Churches and Christian leaders around the country need to be on high alert. These threats of homosexual activist terrorism must be taken very seriously.  

Of course, just as most mainstream media have sheepishly caved to the dictates of political correctness in refusing to call Muslim terrorist, Nidal Malik Hasan, a "Muslim terrorist" - they too have blacked-out the story surrounding these homosexualist threats of terror.

It doesn't fit the PC narrative, you see. Islam is really a "peaceful religion," right? And homosexual activists?  Well, they're the victims, not the victimizers. They're the targets of "hate crimes" not the architects.  

It seems the mainstream media are likewise bent on strapping a suicide bomb to any last remnant of journalistic credibility. 

----------------------------------------

Matt Barber is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He is author of the book "The Right Hook - From the Ring to the Culture War" and serves as Director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action.