Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Getting to Know John McCain

Getting to Know John McCain
By KARL ROVE April 30, 2008

From the Wall Street Journal

Note from Radarsite: Like many of you I have had some ambiguous feelings about our Republican Presidential Candidate. I have questioned some of his decisions and have wished for a little more clarity from him about where he really stands on some of the most important issues of the day. However, as this article suggests, we actually know very little about the man. Therefore, I believe the more we can learn about him the better. I think we would all agree that personal character is one of the most important issues in any presidential campaign -- especially in this one. This is what Karl Rove's excellent and moving article addresses -- John McCain's personal character. I, for one, am glad that I read it. I feel a little more confident now about our candidate, and a little more hopeful about our future, if we can just manage to get him into the White House.
I'll be very interested in your reactions to this piece. -- rg

It came to me while I was having dinner with Doris Day. No, not that Doris Day. The Doris Day who is married to Col. Bud Day, Congressional Medal of Honor recipient, fighter pilot, Vietnam POW and roommate of John McCain at the Hanoi Hilton.
As we ate near the Days' home in Florida recently, I heard things about Sen. McCain that were deeply moving and politically troubling. Moving because they told me things about him the American people need to know. And troubling because it is clear that Mr. McCain is one of the most private individuals to run for president in history.

When it comes to choosing a president, the American people want to know more about a candidate than policy positions. They want to know about character, the values ingrained in his heart. For Mr. McCain, that means they will want to know more about him personally than he has been willing to reveal.
Mr. Day relayed to me one of the stories Americans should hear. It involves what happened to him after escaping from a North Vietnamese prison during the war. When he was recaptured, a Vietnamese captor broke his arm and said, "I told you I would make you a cripple."

The break was designed to shatter Mr. Day's will. He had survived in prison on the hope that one day he would return to the United States and be able to fly again. To kill that hope, the Vietnamese left part of a bone sticking out of his arm, and put him in a misshapen cast. This was done so that the arm would heal at "a goofy angle," as Mr. Day explained. Had it done so, he never would have flown again.
But it didn't heal that way because of John McCain. Risking severe punishment, Messrs. McCain and Day collected pieces of bamboo in the prison courtyard to use as a splint. Mr. McCain put Mr. Day on the floor of their cell and, using his foot, jerked the broken bone into place. Then, using strips from the bandage on his own wounded leg and the bamboo, he put Mr. Day's splint in place.

Years later, Air Force surgeons examined Mr. Day and complemented the treatment he'd gotten from his captors. Mr. Day corrected them. It was Dr. McCain who deserved the credit. Mr. Day went on to fly again.

Another story I heard over dinner with the Days involved Mr. McCain serving as one of the three chaplains for his fellow prisoners. At one point, after being shuttled among different prisons, Mr. Day had found himself as the most senior officer at the Hanoi Hilton. So he tapped Mr. McCain to help administer religious services to the other prisoners.

Today, Mr. Day, a very active 83, still vividly recalls Mr. McCain's sermons. "He remembered the Episcopal liturgy," Mr. Day says, "and sounded like a bona fide preacher." One of Mr. McCain's first sermons took as its text Luke 20:25 and Matthew 22:21, "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's." Mr. McCain said he and his fellow prisoners shouldn't ask God to free them, but to help them become the best people they could be while serving as POWs. It was Caesar who put them in prison and Caesar who would get them out. Their task was to act with honor.

Another McCain story, somewhat better known, is about the Vietnamese practice of torturing him by tying his head between his ankles with his arms behind him, and then leaving him for hours. The torture so badly busted up his shoulders that to this day Mr. McCain can't raise his arms over his head. One night, a Vietnamese guard loosened his bonds, returning at the end of his watch to tighten them again so no one would notice. Shortly after, on Christmas Day, the same guard stood beside Mr. McCain in the prison yard and drew a cross in the sand before erasing it. Mr. McCain later said that when he returned to Vietnam for the first time after the war, the only person he really wanted to meet was that guard. Mr. Day recalls with pride Mr. McCain stubbornly refusing to accept special treatment or curry favor to be released
early, even when gravely ill. Mr. McCain knew the Vietnamese wanted the propaganda victory of the son and grandson of Navy admirals accepting special treatment. "He wasn't corruptible then," Mr. Day says, "and he's not corruptible today."

The stories told to me by the Days involve more than wartime valor. For example, in 1991 Cindy McCain was visiting Mother Teresa's orphanage in Bangladesh when a dying infant was thrust into her hands. The orphanage could not provide the medical care needed to save her life, so Mrs. McCain brought the child home to America with her. She was met at the airport by her husband, who asked what all this was about. Mrs. McCain replied that the child desperately needed surgery and years of rehabilitation. "I hope she can stay with us," she told her husband. Mr. McCain agreed. Today that child is their teenage daughter Bridget.

I was aware of this story. What I did not know, and what I learned from Doris, is that there was a second infant Mrs. McCain brought back. She ended up being adopted by a young McCain aide and his wife. "We were called at midnight by Cindy," Wes Gullett remembers, and "five days later we met our new daughter Nicki at the L.A. airport wearing the only clothing Cindy could find on the trip back, a 7-Up T-shirt she bought in the Bangkok airport." Today, Nicki is a high school sophomore. Mr. Gullett told me, "I never saw a hospital bill" for her care.

A few, but not many, of the stories told to me by the Days have been written about, such as in Robert Timberg's 1996 book "A Nightingale's Song." But Mr. McCain rarely refers to them on the campaign trail. There is something admirable in his reticence, but he needs to overcome it. Private people like Mr. McCain are rare in politics for a reason. Candidates who are uncomfortable sharing their interior lives limit their appeal. But if Mr. McCain is to win the election this fall, he has to open up.

Americans need to know about his vision for the nation's future, especially his policy positions and domestic reforms. They also need to learn about the moments in his life that shaped him. Mr. McCain cannot make this a biography-only campaign – but he can't afford to make it a biography-free campaign either. Unless he opens up more, many voters will never know the experiences of his life that show his character, integrity and essential decency.
These qualities mattered in America's first president and will matter as Americans decide on their 44th president.

Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

A Global Race War?

Warning: This article has a PC rating of "X"

Are we in the beginning stages of a global race war?
Not yet, thank God. But consider this.

Islam, through the obvious successes of Al Qaeda and its affiliates in intimidating and embarrassing the West, has touched the heartstrings of many of the colored peoples of this world, and re enforced that seething undercurrent of post-colonial victimization that runs at varying depths throughout the Third World. Thus, thanks to the cynical machinations of the Islamists, our world is in danger of being divided once again -- as Japan and Germany both attempted to divide it in their own special ways, for their own special purposes -- between those supposedly exploited peoples of this world and their purported oppressors, who, they have once again convinced themselves, are the cause of all of their troubles -- past, present and future.

By ingeniously tapping into this latent but persistent strain of reverse racism, Islam has presented itself as a champion of the Third World in its never-ending battle to break free from the cruel shackles of white suppression. This is how this very real Clash of Civilizations is beginning to play itself out -- even here in America with the recently uncovered Wright/Obama anti-white crusade.

Unfortunately, the great and undeniable flaw in this seductive paradigm is that, with a few notable exceptions, whenever and wherever the black man, or, if you prefer, the man of color, has achieved a certain amount of autonomy and broken away from the yoke of overbearing white governance the consequences of this new found freedom have almost invariably been bloody and chaotic. Whether we look to post-colonial Africa, or those sordid post-colonial kingdoms and ruthless dictatorships of the Middle East -- or even our own American cities where the black majority has taken hold of the reins of government, the results are invariably the same: society self-destructs and the crime rate soars. Outside investments quickly dry up and corruption runs rampant. Whether the example is Haiti, Philadelphia, Rhodesia, Algeria or New Orleans, the same bloody post-colonial, post-white governance downward-spiralling scenario plays itself out.

This is such an explosive subject. It has become almost impossible to talk about it without creating a huge furor, or nowadays, without actually breaking some new multiculturalist law. Yet, somehow, to deal with the truths of our world, to even attempt to solve some of its most critical problems, we must find the courage to discuss these issues openly, honestly, and without malice.

What, then, is my point? Am I merely trying to prove that whites are somehow superior to the colored peoples of this world?
But it is undeniable to all but the most committed ideologues that by almost any standard Western civilization has proven itself superior to a lot of other civilizations. What, then, is the proper message to those people in some of those other civilizations who feel disenfranchised and betrayed by history? Give up? Accept the inevitability of the white yoke forever? Learn to live with the fact that you were somehow born naturally inferior? Hell no! I repeat -- Hell no! This is the hopeless and deadly message of our enemies. This is the negative message of inverted racism. This is the darkness of Islam.

Our message is simply this: Cut out the crap. Start being truthful with yourselves and quit blaming others for all of your troubles -- the Crusaders, the white colonialists, the Jews, the WASPS -- The Victimization Card only gives you a losing hand. If you attach yourself to the victim's cause, the cause of hatred and resentment and revenge, you will lose your God-given chance to succeed. Look at history and try to be honest. Did the Victimization Card ever really work? It certainly doesn't look that way to me. The Victimization Card has given us endless strife, a lot of wars, and a few Indian casinos, but has seldom if ever helped a suffering people.

No, the way out of the darkness is to follow the light of truth. If your way hasn't proven successful, then dump it. Attach yourself to those other ways of thinking and acting that have proven to be successful. Go with the winners. The winners don't have colors, they have civilizations. Don't lay back and sulk with the losers. Are you listening, Palestinians? Don't plot revenge, plot success.

This whole volatile subject has nothing whatsoever to do with race or color, but everything to do with civilizations, and everything to do with truth.

Of course, this whole earth-shaking subject is to be considered taboo. We are forbidden to even broach this subject. We are all, we are being admonished every day, equal. All peoples are equal, all religions are equal, all races are equal. If one group of people gets ahead of another group of people in terms of civilizational development it must have been perpetrated through some kind of trickery or malfeasance. Not by hard work or merit. Not by finding a system that works.

Damn it. Islam is succeeding by suppressing the truth of its real tyrannical and totally intolerant nature and presenting itself as the rallying banner of global victimization. And we, in the Judeo-Christian West, have yet to find a viable method to counter the deceitful foundations of this growing movement. All of the unsuccessful or disgruntled people of this world are now to become united under Islam in their struggle against all of the successful people of this world. In fact, in this new-fangled version of religious Marxism, individual success itself is now to be considered the ultimate evil. The price for this apparent unity demanded by Islam of all of its subjects and converts is the same price that all tyrants have demanded throughout the course of human history -- submission, or in another word, "Islam".

Are we, then, in the beginning stages of a global race war?

Not yet. But, take heed -- if the Islamists continue to seduce converts into their bleak world vision, it could soon become one.

And then, God help us all, no matter what color.

Note: I almost forgot to give proper credit to Maggie's Notebook, for her great article about the utter uselessness of the UN. This is what actually got me going. You've got to read it.

Blips on the Screen: 29 Apr 08

PIC: Bos Smith in front of Masjid At-Taqwa


Cross posted from The Midnight Sun:
April 28th, 2008 by By Bos Smith

THIS IS A SHOCKER, especially the part about the aims of the Masjid At-Taqwa. Is the global caliphate just a heartbeat away?

Don’t snap a photo of the Masjid At-Taqwa in the Bedford-Stuyvesant section of Brooklyn unless you want to be hauled away by a group of angry Muslims inIslamic attire to the basement of the facility where a group of twenty “security guards” in karate suits will interrogate you.

This might sound preposterous.
But it happened on Saturday, April 19, at 3:00 in the afternoon.

Ali Kareem, the head of security for Siraj Wahaj’s mosque, conducted the grilling. A small, muscular man with a wispy black beard that has been dyed red with henna, Kareem demanded to know the reason why a trio of ‘kafirs’ had dared to photograph the building on a public street without securing his permission. He further insisted on securing our identities and obtaining our motives for such a violation of Islamic space.

Being surrounded by a group of militant guards in a mosque basement from which there is no means of escape is not a comforting place to be for a Wall Street financier.
We tried to explain that we found the neighborhood with its *halal *meat vendors and food stores; Islamic dress shops, featuring the latest styles in*burqas *and *hijabs;* Muslim souvenir outlets, replete with bumper stickers stating “Don’t Be Caught Dead Without Islam”; and Middle Eastern restaurants offering a variety of goat dishes to be rather quaint and interesting.

This explanation was not sufficient.
Kareem was impatient and did not want a detailed explanation of the reason for our excursion (simple sight-seeing) or a graphic account of the sights we had seen and photographed.
“I ask the questions here,” he said, “and you provide the answers.”

Realizing that we were in a bit of a pickle, my companion explained that we were interested in various religions and knew Siraj Wahaj, the imam of the mosque, was a prominent Muslim figure whom we would like to interview for a news outlet.
This didn’t work too well since we could not produce a business card from a wacko blog, let alone credentials from a national publication.
At last, we blurted out that we were admirers of Islam and the Prophet Muhammad (Peace and Blessings Be Upon Him) and wanted to obtain information about conversion. We were even knowledgeable enough to blurt out “Salaam”and “Allahu akbar.”
The last utterance seemed to be the “Open Sesame” that got us out of the basement and back to Bedford Street, where we managed to take a picture ofthe mosque before hailing a cab and making a getaway.

The experience was disconcerting. Surely, anyone who takes a picture of St.Patrick’s Cathedral or the Riverside Church is not hauled off to a basementfor questioning by a threatening figure in a karate uniform and a band of Ninjas.

Read the rest of this incredible story here:

Note from Radarsite:
If this experience is indeed authentic -- and being published by The Midnight Sun certainly gives it a high degree of legitimacy -- then this has to be one of the most outrageous affronts to American democracy in recent times. We might expect this type of intimidation to take place on the streets of Tehran -- but here, on the streets of Brooklyn, USA? Isn't the primary goal of any government supposed to be protecting its own citizens from foreign harassment on their own soil? Where's Homeland Security? Where's the FBI? For that matter, where are the NYC cops? And, if the author is a lawyer, why the hell isn't he suing them for kidnapping? I mean, isn't kidnapping still illegal in this country?
This, my friends, is why we must act and act now. How much more humiliation and intimidation must we suffer? In one of my older articles I think I have clearly shown — as have many others — that Islamism is NOT a religion. It is an aggressive Political Movement, just another “ism”, and should be treated the same way as all those other dangerous “isms” — Communism, Nazicism, Socialism, Fascism, etc. Yet, we stubbornly continue to treat Political Islam as a religion and allow it to usurp that sacrosanct space in our constitution reserved for legitimate religions.

This is NOT -- as some still believe -- a matter of allowing people the freedom to worship, it is a matter of recognizing and confronting a vicious POLITICAL movement which is determined to overthrow our democratic government. Until we accept this cynical ploy for what it is, incidents like the one described here will only become more common and accepted.

Islam is completely incompatible with democracy. Islam is not interested in assimilation, but in conquest. We MUST begin to see it for what it is, not for what we would like it to be.

Thank you Aurora for this enlightening article.

Monday, April 28, 2008

From Other Sites on the Line: 28 Apr 08

Jeremiah Wright Still Unashamedly Racist

Cross posted from Faultline USA:
Monday, April 28, 2008

Contrary to media reports, Jeremiah Wright hasn’t been in self-imposed exile since Obama distanced himself from Wright’s anti-American and racist remarks. On the contrary, Wright has continued his whirlwind speaking tour across America. Friday he was interviewed by Bill Moyers of PBS, Sunday he delivered two sermons at Friendship-West Baptist Church in Dallas, where he finally received a belated award from Brite Divinity School (see previous articles below), then he flew to Detroit to address the NAACP, and this morning his gave another self-gratification speech to the National Press Club.

So what’s up with Wright?

To summarize Juan Williams’s assessment on Fox TV following Wright’s speech this morning, Wright is saying “If you are attacking me, you are attacking the Black Church.” Yesterday, Wright said that he was being “crucified.” Today the Black Church is being crucified. Williams went on to observe that Wright never explained his inflammatory statements. “It was all about ego and self-gratification for Wright. . . Wright isn’t looking out for Obama. . .It’s all about Wright and Black Theology.” Williams said that Wright “Is playing racially divisive politics. You don’t hear that from the Black Pulpit. It’s not typical.”I watched the entire speech and the Q&A session following the speech. His speech lasted less than fifteen minutes but it was packed full of inflammatory quotes that should come back to haunt Wright as well as continue to plague Obama. Another 20-30 minutes were devoted to answering pre-screened questions.

Here’s the gist of the speech: Wright said that he will be opening a two day symposium of Black Theologians, scholars, and social workers etc., and said that Obama has called for a dialog on the Black Church. He opened his speech by referring to the media’s playing of the “out of context” sound bites saying, “It’s not an attack on Jeremiah Wright. It is an attack on the Black Church.”Then Wright went into a brief history of the Black Church in America and attempted to distinguish his “Prophetic Theology of the Black Church” from James Cones’ “Black Liberation Theology.” What are the differences? Basically none except that Wright’s theology goes beyond “white supremacy” to the prophets of the Old Testament. He hinges his theology on the 61st chapter of Isaiah and on Luke 4.

According to Wright, his theology is a theology of liberation, transformation, and “ultimately, reconciliation.” Why did he insert the word “ultimately”? According to Wright, the white church in Europe and North America is a “theology of white supremacy.”Here’s a summary of Wright’s speech concerning what whites have to do in order to become reconciled to the Black church in America.God’s desire is for a radical change in a social order that has gone astray. God’s desire is for a radical transformation. This is the heart of Liberation Theology. What must we do in order to become reconciled? “Children of God repenting for past sins against one another.”

Apparently, Wright thinks whites have a long, long way to go before they deserve to be reconciled to the Black Church. I wonder what kind of additional repentance Wright has in store for Whites? Hint, go listen to Obama’s new pastor’s sermons and, can you spell Reparations and residtribution???With regard to the “white supremacy” church in America, Wright quoted Dr. William Augustus Jones to explain how one’s theology determines one’s sociology. Really? Can we get permission from Wright to apply that same standard to Obama???I wonder if Wright considered that if that’s truly the case, then why shouldn’t all Americans have a right to ask Obama to explain his own theology in terms of comparison and contrast to Trinity United Church of Christ and Jeremiah Wright?

The Q&A session offered some hard questions that Wright attempted to turn to his favor.When asked about the “chickens coming home to roost” post 9/11 sermon he responded:“Have you heard the whole sermon? (He waits for a response) Well that nullifies that question.” Then Wright went on to say that (1) “I was quoting the ambassador of Iraq,” (2) What Wright said “comes from the Bible”, and (3) “You cannot do terrorism against other people and not expect it to come back on you.”Asked if he was patriotic and loved Aemrica, Wright said:“I served six years in the military. Does that make me patriotic?” Then he waved a flimsy salute.Hummm. Looks like he doesn’t want to give a direct answer on that one.Wright was asked about his relationship with Louis Farrakhan, the acting head of the Nation of Islam. Wright implied that he had been hurt by his relationship with Farrakhan because Farrakhan has once called Zionism a “gutter religion.” But Wright went on to say, “Farrakhan and I don’t agree on everything. Farrakhan is one of the most important voices in the 20th and 21st centuries. I won’t put down Farrakhan any more than (Nelson) Mandela would put down Castro.”Asked about Sen. Obama’s disavowal of him, Wright reminded the audience that Obama had not disavowed him just “distanced himself from me because he is a politician.” Wright said that he was downstairs praying with Obama before Obama went upstairs to talk. What does this imply?

When asked about his own motivation, Wright said, “If Obama had not said what he said he would never get elected.” Then Wright added, “I’m not running for office . . .(then with a kidding grin) I’m hoping to be V.P.” As a matter of fact, he said that again at the end of his speech. Interesting, and I bet he’s serious.

Asked about what evil our government is capable of, he said, that based on the Tuskegee experiment, “I believe our government is capable of anything.”Asked if he likened Israeli policies to apartheid, he denied saying that and said that Israel has a right to exist but needs to sit down and work out a solution – reconciliation.Wright refused to comment about Bill Clinton and said that “I came to talk about the church not politics.” Funny, he could have fooled me.Wright was asked how the Black and White church could reconcile. He said that many have already “taken great steps to do so. To reconcile, whites must understand the injustice that was done.”He would start educating at the earliest levels by using “Infusion curriculum” – telling the true story.

When asked if Islam is the way to salvation, Wright said, “Jesus said, ‘Other sheep have I not of this fold.’”So what’s Obama to do?Wright, like a dirty old piece of gum, is permanently stuck to Obama’s shoe. Obama can’t shake him. Granted, Obama hasn’t tried very hard to convince most voters that he’s all that upset with Wright, but why should he? If Obama were to come out even stronger against Wright or his own Black Liberation church, he’d lose the votes of his primary supporters on the left.

Some speculating yesterday on the news had the Obama camp actually redirecting Wright in an attempt to rehabilitate his image. The idea is that if Obama can stop attacks on Wright, he can win the blue collar white votes he badly needs. The only way to do that is to turn this thing on his head. Apparently, the far left is taking the ball and running with it.Here’s the new spin. To question Wright or Obama is tantamount to white racism!

For more background on this continuing story read:(1)Brite Divinity School to Honor Rev. Jeremiah Wright, (2) Brite Divinity School Jeremiah Wright Update, (3) Brite, Jeremiah Wright, and the Out of Context Card, (4) The Brite-Jeremiah Wright Debate Continues, (5) Brite Divinity School Accused of Violating Its Own Covenant, and (6) Jeremiah Wright’s 9/11 Sermon “In Context”, and (7) An Outraged Active Democrat Tells Brite Divinity School Off, (8) The Clever Rev. Jeremiah Wright

Note from Radarsite: We are fortunate to have Barb from Faultline USA, whose expertise in this field is a given, to help us navigate through all these theologogical obfuscations and get at the sordid truth. These men are haters. And we cannot allow haters into the White House. We are indebted to Barb for her continuing in depth coverage of this travesty of religion. -- rg

Saturday, April 26, 2008

The 28th Amendment: the Debate

The Debate:

From "A Proposed Constitutional Amendment" by Pedestrian Infidel:
With analysis and commentary from Ben at A NEWT ONE

A note from Radarsite:
In the previous article "Fighting Back: The 28th Amendment" we presented Pedestrian Infidel's controversial "28th Amendment", together with analysis and commentary from Ben at A Newt One. As often happens, the discussion in the comments thread has taken on a life of its own. This, I believe, is one of the most important debates that we in America can be having at this particular moment in our history. The decisions we make now will shape the very future of this great country. Here, then, are the unmoderated comments. If new comments pertinent to this crucial conversation come in, I will add them to this article in the order in which they came.

Shawmut said...
Looking back at how many easements upon our existing laws have developed into protective and interpretive sanctions for violators, your summary questions are quite appropriate. Look at how some cities, states, and commonwealths have become autonomous regions, (bucking the REAL ID, sanctuary cities) almost reverting back to the Articles of Confederation. When does a trickle become the flood?"
But do we have the collective will to enact it? Right now, the answer is No. Will we ever? Or will we have to experience some further horrendous outrage to reach this point of national resolve? We shall see. But time is running out."It's one thing to lament the burden of 'big government', but to watch disintegration of its most basic tasks and the erosion of basic rights and freedoms by 'counter-discrimination' ordinances should be humiliating. Actually, it is. That's when we must ask, as you have, over and over again. "Do we have the will...?
Great article.
April 25, 2008 9:27 AM

SF said...
Yeah, let's legislate the way people think! Great idea! So hyprocrtical of you to embrace America and how great we are and then say that we need to rid this land of Islam. Personally, I don't think any of you have a damn clue what it means to be an American. You embrace America and then try to trample on everything it is about. Unreal.
And by the way, your correclation between the Italian mob and Islam is soooooooo a stretch! Get a clue!
April 25, 2008 9:39 AM

Roger W. Gardner said...
Thank you Shawmut. Your comments are always interesting.
April 25, 2008 9:39 AM

Roger W. Gardner said...
Brilliant argument SF. Thank you for your erudite contribution to the discussion.
April 25, 2008 9:44 AM

Findalis said...
I have to disagree with this or any proposed amendment like it. As much as I see the threat of Islam and the Jihadist war, I see this proposed Amendment as worse. Change the word Islam to any of the following: Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, Wiccan, Christian and see if you would pass it then. I know that you or the author wouldn't do that, but there are those who would and there lies the problem.
As a Jew I find it very similar to the Nazi's Nuremberg Laws. If this can be done to Muslims, it could be done to me next. The Pandora's Box this would open ultimately leads to genocide. That is why I could not support such an amendment, even if it meant that we would lose this war. The price to our freedoms, the precedent it sets is too evil, and would ultimately destroy the very nation we are striving to save.
April 25, 2008 9:51 AM

Maggie M. Thornton said...
I see Islam as a government which whips its people into submission. I agree with much of this proposed amendment, in spirit.This is the American way, and I know there are those who will disagree with me.I have no objections to Muslims, unless they are illegal, but Muslims must never expect to live under any type of Islamic law, here in America. That includes their back alleys, where Imams rule.Muslims are not free - their own philosophy doesn't allow it. It is like nothing we've ever been up against. It is a new day. No matter how moderate, it is no different than Islamic Hamas or Fatah or PLO, the list goes on - they don't change their charters and constitutions - we don't believe one thing they say. They have sworn to kill us, and I plan on America having the last word - and having it before it is too late.
Maggie's Notebook
April 25, 2008 3:57 PM

Roger W. Gardner said...
Thank you both Findalis and Maggie. I have only known the two of you for a short period of time now. But it has been long enough to appreciate the fact that you are both intelligent women of integrity. Your contributions here on Radarsite are very valuable to me.
In this present discussion I would have to agree with Maggie; I think that she states the case perfectly. However, the point of view that Findalis holds is certainly reasonable and valid and worth responding to in depth. Here, then, is my response.

Just a few months ago I, too, would have thought this type of approach much too extreme, but more and more, as I see the enemy winning battle after battle in our courts and in the arena of our American culture, and I see our woefully ineffectual -- or outright collaborationist responses, I find myself coming round to this take-no-prisoners stance. I understand the arguments against enacting such legislation, but what are we actually doing now? Close to nothing, it seems to me.

Unless I misunderstand it Findalis, basically your objection is based on the classic "slippery slope" argument. But that much-used analogy has never won me over, simply because it always presumes a certain helplessness, an inability to control one’s own fate. There are after all such things as brakes. Fighting back effectively doesn't mean that we have to automatically become fascists. We had a precedent for this national dilemma in WWII. And I use that as a pertinent guide for our present circumstances. For more on this argument see:

In short, we did away with almost all civil rights for suspect immigrants. We imposed censorship, set up military tribunals, shot suspected spies, opened internment camps, instituted rationing, and indulged in unabashed propaganda. We took stringent defensive measures -- including what we would today call "racial profiling". But everything that we did was, in my opinion, justified by the circumstances. However -- and this is the relevant part of the argument -- immediately after the war, rather than continuing our helpless slide down this 'slippery slope' to fascism, we quickly corrected course and returned to our traditional constitutional democracy. And, we successfully sowed the seeds to democracy in those nations we had defeated. But, we were only able to do this because we had won the war. Had we lost the war, these finer points of moral conduct would have quickly become moot.

I’m sorry, but I just can’t buy into the argument that it’s better to lose this war than to lose what we stand for. I believe that what we stand for is not all that vulnerable. It has withstood the test of time and innumerable challenges in the past and I believe it will withstand those challenges that we face today, just as it withstood them in 1945.

We are, as you well know, fighting a ruthless enemy who knows how to use our constitutional protections against us. They know full well how reluctant we are to fight back with those drastic weapons we eventually used in WWII. This is a tremendously important discussion, and one can only wish that we were having this same discussion today in the halls of Congress.

Unfortunately, this is not the case; so far at least, this discussion is still relegated to the virtual world of the blogosphere.Thank you once again for your always thoughtful responses. I’m beginning to think that these comments, these arguments, are so important that they deserve an article of their own. rg
April 26, 2008 3:32 AM

redhawk said...
I believe that all we have to do is to take a page from Australia; If you come to our country, understand that we are a Christian Nation with freedom of religion and individuals as founded by our forefathers, You are expected to obey our Laws and learn to speak English and Integrate in our socio-economic way of life .. If NOT willing to do this well STAY THE HELL OUT!!!
April 26, 2008 6:45 AM

Snooper said...
Roger Guy: Personally, I don't think we need an Amendment because it could lead to a path we really don't need to "explore". However: The discussion is crucial. For the idiot that thinks Islam is AOK, drop dead. It isn't AOK. Islam is a POLITICAL system based in the Shar'ia Law and there is no other "religion" acceptable.

As is socialism/communism diametrically opposed to the United States Constitution, so is Islam. Our FEDERAL REPUBLIC, operated under democratic principles cannot coexist in the same country with either socialism, communism or Islam. One must give to the other.Islam is a selfish and intolerant political system, as is socialism and communism...or the Mob for that matter.

CAIR officials have claimed that Shar'ia Law will "rule the United States by 2050". I have written and discussed this on many levels with many people. Since that proclamation was made, the lads that uttered the statement have since been deported after having been found to have connections to HAMAS and Hizballah. Imagine that.

No. No Amendment...just discussion and remove the Dhimmicrats from Public Condi. After all, she said we couldn't use the term "JIHAD" or "JIHADIST" anymore.
April 26, 2008 8:53 AM

Shawmut said...
Over the past twenty-four hours this notion has been ricochetting in the hollows of my mind, leading me to temper my approach.Many seem to be of a mind, and with me, deeply fear, that Western Civilization (Judeo-Greco-Christian - no particular order or rank) is threatened by a blood-lusting 'movement' that has chosen from its inception to grow by the sword. (Note; I employ the term 'movement' not religion.)One of the measures that is customarily taken in the drafting of a law is to guarantee its applicability, not just for its immediate purpose, but as well for it's utility in the future.(Does anyone remember the "Attorney General's List"?, HUAC?, The Palmer Raids?...Think of the Salem Witch Trials.)Don't panic, I'm not going sophistic!
One of the issues, and I find encouragement to breach this point from Roger's comments, is whether we replace fear with courage and re-instill (for baby-boomers and Gen X's instill) spirit. Or are we faced with our own citizens' tendency to add-water'nstir a law and think it enforces itself?We love to parrot, "We're a nation of laws, not men". But we fail to calculate how many men and the cost it takes to implement and enforce a law.In the deliberations of our founding, religion was employed in general terms. Thus, we gather that the 'Founders' were anticipating immigration of people who would be contributors to the ideals they were setting forth.
The concern that Maryland would concede to a Papal State or middle-Pennsylvania to Prussia or Bavaria was nil.However, in recent history we had to address issues such as the "Black Dragon" an espionage network of (Shinto) Japan, The Bund of a (Aryan Cult) NAZI Germany and the (State Philosophy) of Totalitarian Communism, KKK; all without conceding the spirit of the Founding Fathers.What did it take?
We had to sweat our gray-cells and muscles to taut and disciplined sinews.We made sacrifices of pride, but with pride. We made every JV contest count because we knew the varsity game was important. And this country did it by the rules of its game.We must make our way of life an attraction again, not a soft target. But that baits the question of where to begin. We are tripping over so many laws, regulations and ordinances that it would be easier to determine which strand of spaghetti was the first on the plate.
Do we need another?
Sometimes we only have to open the window or stop to chat with a neighbor to get an idea. (Gingrich over-simplifies this.) That can be done with assertiveness without causing a demonstration of anti-discrimination and victims-united posse's.We must, must, I re-iterate, exercise all the lessons of our history with fearlessness (without fear of facing errors).To the term I used earlier: 'movement' Should we suggest that Islam is a movement the upon grasping land first and converts later be treated differently than an organization started by another sci-fi aficionado, L. Ron Hubbard?The task might be to scrutinize movements by their threat to the integrity of the United States as we know it and as we want to keep it.(Look for local leaks in the dam as well.)I've cited above some of the threats we have faced in the past and certainly see in the present.Remember, Vienna, Lepanto and Tours were only battles; clashing of swords and shields. We must continue to apply our hearts and minds. "OUR HEARTS AND MINDS"; to Hell with theirs.
April 26, 2008 10:26 AM

Findalis said...
The trouble with this war, and yes we are in a war, is that most people suffer from APATHY. A few weeks ago I went to a counter demonstration against our foes. We were hoping for at least 100 people. 10 showed. We sit and complain, but are too lazy to spring to action.
This Amendment must be the last resort we do. Not the first. It is too extreme for now, the media would crucify us if we proposed it now.
Right now we sit at a crossroad in the battle. Do we take up arms and fight, or become Dhimmies. We need to take up our arms: The pen, the lawsuit, the protest. We need to become proactive.When the Jihadist calls for a protest march and have 500 show up, we should have 1000+ in a counter-protest. When a Muslim goes to court demanding Halal food be served in his child's school, we should have a corresponding Jewish/Buddhist/Jane family also sue the school for their child. When a public pool has Muslim only sessions, unless the group is hiring the pool (some pools do this), the answer to them should be NO! You have to pay the hiring fee and abide by OUR rules. You cannot cover the window, etc...
When we say NO to the Jihadist and make it stick, they lose another battle. We need to organize. The Jihadist is already organized. He is organized through his mosque. We are loosely scattered, contact minimal. No wonder he feels strong. This message must be taken to our Churches, Synagogues, Civic Groups.And we must support Sue Myrick's Wake Up America Plan This is our first step. Investigate, Legislate, and Protest.
April 26, 2008 11:30 AM

Debbie said...
I don't think we could ever get this passed. However, I think it is a good idea. If it does nothing but stir discussion and head us in the right direction, that's a start. But that's not enough. Discussion never stopped any enemy.
Debbie Hamilton
Right Truth
April 26, 2008 11:46 AM

KG said...
Findalis said:"We need to organize. The Jihadist is already organized. He is organized through his mosque. We are loosely scattered, contact minimal. No wonder he feels strong. This message must be taken to our Churches, Synagogues, Civic Groups."he is organized through his mosque..And right there is the key to this problem.The islamists are not fighting an organised, homogenous entity in Western societies, rather a fragmented, selfish apathetic and uninformed mass which is easy to divide and conquer.
Debbie says--rightly--that "discussion never stopped an enemy"--but as a first step we desperately need to make this problem a subject for widespread discussion outside the blogosphere. Until the media that the majority of people are exposed to begins to cover the problem and it's implications then most people will simply get on with their lives unaware of the threat. Until it's too late.
How to force the media to cover this? may be the most urgent question.And the answer to that is to take a leaf from the islamist playbook: Use the courts! Even a failed court case raises the profile of the fight in the eyes of the public.Most citizens don't have the kind of money necessary for such a campaign, but the Churches do. We may use our time more productively if we ask why the mainstream churches aren't funding such an effort--is it an attempt to be seen as tolerant and to avoid a "religous war"?
The time for tolerance is over, since islam will grind other religions into submission or oblivion and it's time for religous people of all faiths to realise that what's needed right now is commitment, courage, money and lawyers (ugh!) in order to preserve what we have.And I say that as an agnostic, but an agnostic who recognises the vital role religion has_must have-in this fight.Millions of Westerners go to church. Right there is the constituency and the means of spreading the message of resistance.
April 26, 2008 12:13 PM

Findalis said...
The 28th Amendment must be a last resort. If we attempt to pass it now, it will fail. The Media will crucify us for the attempt.We first must organize. Our enemy is very organized. His mosques, schools, community centers can rally the troops. They are very attuned to the what the media says, and will scream, cry and carry on a temper tantrum to get their way.We are scattered. Our churches and synagogues refuse to allow such organization against the enemy. They cry these are the moderates, not the Jihadist. This is wrong. This could be us next.And so, we have no where to rally, no where to congregate except on the impersonal atmosphere of the internet. We post, we blog, but we cannot organize to plan strategy. We are leaderless. We lack intelligence. Not in the mind, but the intelligence of knowing what the enemy is up to. We cannot plan out counter attacks to the Jihadist's attacks, since we do not know where they will launch these attacks.Some argue that the Church should be the place to start. I agree. Now go to your Minister or Priest and try to convince him. Then tell us if he will agree. There are some churches that are in the forefront. They are condemned by the liberal media as being too far to the right.So until a leader arises and organization commences, we will fail in our attempts.
April 26, 2008 3:46 PM

Ben said...
SF: there is one train of thought that needs to be controlled; that which reads: "You are an enemy of Allah, who commands me to kill you, confiscate your property & enslave your wife and children.". That train of thought is at the core of Islam. It is inculcated in every Mosque, Madrassa & Islamic Cultural Center. Closing Mosques and other Islamic institutions where their bloodthirsty doctrines are inculcated and their activities are organized is critical. Preventing further Islamic immigration is critical.As critical as they are, those tasks can not be performed because Islam is presumed to be a religion and "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". The law is cut and dried. There is no test of eleemosynary mission or historical track record. The content of the Qur'an can not be considered, nor can Moe's sunna. What the Algerian Ambassador told John Adams when asked why they attacked our shipping can not be considered. Its a religion and that settles the matter. Islam is a religion.
In a pig's ass it is! No more than the Warmacht, Cosa Nostra or KKK. The external trappings do not convert a war machine into a religion! Examine the central core mission of Islam, which is revealed in 8:1, 8:41, 8:67, 33:27 and 48:16-20. When the founder of an institution says: "My provision has been placed under the shadow of my spear, and abasement and humility have been placed on the one who disobeys my command.", any intelligent person can immediately see that he was not founding a religion!!! Christianity, Judaism & Buddhism are not threats to society. They are not mandated to conquer and dominate the world. Warfare is not in their charters. Pillage & plunder are not their purpose. The difference is clearly evident to all but the willfully blind damn fool. There is no rational basis for outlawing them. Islam stands alone as an evil institution, founded for the personal emolument & empowerment of one man through piracy, warfare & extortion. Mosques serve as indoctrination centers, training camps and armories. What need have we for them? Madrassas inculcate supremacism, triumphalism, hatred, racism and glorify violence. What need have we for them? Why in Hell should their existence be tolerated??
You know that CBW suits, guns and bomb making instructions were found in a British Mosque. You know that hate literature is being distributed in American Mosques. You know that Mujahideen are shooting at our soldiers from Mosques in Iraq & Afghanistan. Get a clue, for Chrissake!!! There is a pattern here. Allah's commands, Moe's razzia & ghazwat, Islamic law and the building of the Muslim Empire by armed conquest form a clear pattern from which we should learn something. J.Q. Adams knew and wrote about it. W. Churchill knew and wrote about it. We should be paying close attention to those wise statesmen.
Open discussion and debate are the first step. That is why I push hard for the Congress Debate Koran petition. That document puts the most important evidence before the reader so that he can evaluate it for himself. It points him to the original documents so that he can explore the context. Controversy generated by discusion of the proposed amendment could be the spark that gets the MSM involved. That could change everything. The more people who read and understand the Qur'an & Hadith, the sooner Islam's mercenary purpose and martial methods will be come common knowledge. The sooner they become common knowledge, the sooner we'll prevail upon our elected officials to take rational action to secure our liberties.
Keeping this debate alive and growing is up to you.
April 26, 2008 6:32 PM

dean said...
Islam is not a religion, neither is it a "religion of peace". Let's get that straight right from the beginning. Ample evidence exists to show Islam for what it really is.While I read your comments I am appalled at some of the dhimmi attitudes I see. This is not meant to put the blame on any one person but this attitude seems to permeate the average American and those in trusted leadership roles including elected officials.Note: for an insightful discussion of dhimmis I submit this interview at;
Islam is a total way of life that commands submission to the laws of Allah.Take a look at some of the realities of Islam;Islam institutionalizes the murder of infidels(kafirs).Islam insists on subordination and conversion and it does this through intimidation and subjugation. It does not seek peaceful co-existence, it intends domination of the world.Islam is not compatible with democracy. While coexistence with Islam may seem reasonable to westerners Islam does not share that view.Islam does not allow free thinking nor does it allow free will. Islam's ultimate goal is to institute Islamic law(Shari'a) globally.
Islam is at war with every major religion in the world, yet the other religions are not at war with each other. Why is that? Simply stated Islam wants to conquer the United States of America and replace it with the Islamic States of America.It also intends to replace our Constitution with the Qur'an and our rule of law will be replaced with Shari'a. While many Americans fully expect to see an attempted violent overthrow of the U.S., reality perhaps tells a different story as you can read here; hed The intent is to conquer us from within much the same as communism.Once Islam has enough followers in the U.S. establishing Shari'a and imposing Islam on us will not require violence on a large scale.
Would we as a people condemn, even ban, communism or nazism in this country? If so then I submit the ban of Islam is called for.This country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. We are a republic that embraces democracy. Islam cannot survive in that environment.Having said that, I think even more important is educating those who view Islam as a benign entity, the dhimmi apologists and others who believe coexistance with Islam is possible merely pave the way for the domination of Islam.Even the internet has become a menacing threat to Islam offering an expose of it's dogma and is the primary reason many internet sites are blocked in Muslim dominated countries.Islam does not want to befriend you, it wants to own you.
Many of your astute comments are worth reading and pondering, but while we debate this issue just remember Islam has it's own plans, it's own agenda and whether you agree with me or not is beside the point. Islam is a very real peril and it is long past time for westerners to take an objective, realistic look at it. That can only come through education.While a 28th Amendment may seem extreme, the discussion that it brings is absolutely essential. We, in this country, enjoy the freedom to do least for now.The enemy is Islam. It has made itself so because it threatens our very existence.
Know your enemy...
April 27, 2008 7:20 AM

GrEaT sAtAn'S gIrLfRiEnD said...
First off, several points leap to mind and get caught in my tiny tiny brain. They slingshot, ricochet, spray shrapnel - like bullet bumper cars nigh unhinged - smashing and bashing each other in a mad rush to get out.
Amazingly embarrassing, incorrect, intolerant and weirdly un-American.
April 27, 2008 9:34 AM

By email from Cassie L.:
One better understand that our enemy is islam, it's NOT in any stretch of the imagination a PEACEFUL RELIGION. They would kill us faster than a New York minute. And anyone that don't believe that needs to just listen to what they are saying, and what they have said. America has never done anything to make islam come here, they attacked America period. And nothing anyone says can make it different. They have a choice, islam or Religous Freedom. They chose islam. Only when people realize that without our laws we will not have freedoms. Our laws makes us different than let say Cuba, Iran, etc. People tend to use our laws for the purpose of their own gains, these laws are OUR LAWS, it's our Constitution, it's our land. If one doesn't abide by our laws then get out. It's not us that have to appease them, but they better get it straight that we will never go to islam. This has nothing to do with Religion, but it has to do with politics and just how much of the world they can con into joining them.

Findalis said...
While we rally here, we don't hold our elected officials' feet to the fire. We don't make our views known to them. Only the Jihadists and Liberals do. Thus our officials believe that this is US public opinion, even when polls say otherwise. We must make our views known loudly to them. We must write, call, e-mail them. From the Federal government on down to the Local level.When a Muslim commits an "honor killing", we must demand that this be considered a First Degree Murder and the Death Penalty be given. When Muslims plan the bombing of American landmarks (such as the Liberty City Thugs). We must indite them as traitors and convict them under treason laws.And when CAIR and other organizations call themselves Peaceful, the authorities must investigate every member, every donor, where every penny came from and went. Then close them down for sedition and treason. We must use our existing laws against the Jihadist. And when he cries: "But we are a Religion of Peace!" We hold his feet to the fire and point out how he defines peace and how we define it.
April 27, 2008 1:38 PM

Aurora said...

Roger, this is indeed a fascinating debate. I have real reservations about placing legal limits on freedom of worship. Obama is talking about universalisation of religion and a new 'constitution' of the North American Union has already been constructed at their website which states that a new religion will be instituted called 'One-Faith' which will be completely regulated by laws laid down by the United Nations.
While I see the need to monitor Islamists of course, if you start regulating one religion as a belief system and outlawing it, this will then give the Left precedent and legal grounds to outlaw Christianity in the same way.
Once we allow them to control our right to religious freedom, it's all over. Everything else will quickly go down the sinkhole.
Just my opinion.
April 27, 2008 2:23 PM

Muslims Against Sharia said...
Muslims Against Sharia Urge Support for Sue Myrick's "Wake Up America" InitiativeWake Up America

1. Investigate all military chaplains endorsed by Abdurahman Alamoudi, who was imprisoned for funding a terrorist organization.

2. Investigate all prison chaplains endorsed by Alamoudi.

3. Investigate the selection process of Arabic translators working for the Pentagon and the FBI

.4. Examine the non-profit status of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

5. Make it an act of sedition or solicitation of treason to preach or publish materials that call for the deaths of Americans.

6. Audit sovereign wealth funds in the United States.

7. Cancel scholarship student visa program with Saudi Arabia until they reform their text books, which she claims preach hatred and violence against non-Muslims.

8. Restrict religious visas for imams who come from countries that don't allow reciprocal visits by non-Muslim clergy.

9. Cancel contracts to train Saudi police and security in U.S. counterterrorism tactics.

10. Block the sale of sensitive military munitions to Saudi Arabia.Muslims Against Sharia urge every American to send a letter of support to Congresswoman Myrick. Sample letter is provided below.==========================The Honorable Sue Myrick230 Cannon House Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20515Phone: (202) 225-1976Fax: (202) 225-3389Dear Congresswoman Myrick,As an American who is concerned with the issue of terrorism, I applaud your efforts to prevent radical Islam from infiltrating American society. I wholeheartedly support your "Wake Up America" plan, as well as other initiatives of the Anti-Terrorism Caucus. You bring honor to the title of United States Representative.Groups in America such as CAIR and MAS and groups overseas like Hamas and Al-Qaeda need to be shut down for their support and/or perpetration of terrorism. We hope that people recognize this threat to our society, and as well, recognize what you are doing to stop it.Sincerely,SignatureNameContact info (optional)==========================Please print out, sign, and mail or fax this letter to Congresswoman Myrick at the address / fax above. Feel free to modify the letter as you see fit.
April 27, 2008 5:43 PM

Roger W. Gardner said...
Hello again to Muslims Against Sharia -- Welcome to the debate and thank you for your input.rg
April 28, 2008 4:08 AM

WomanHonorThyself said...
wow what a fascinating debate!
April 27, 2008 6:14 PM

Churchill's Parrot said...
No amendment necessary. What is needed is good old “Federalist Papers” style persuasion/marketing re: the proposed Amendment’s Article I:“The social/political/ideological system known around the world as Islam is not recognized in the United States as a religion.The practice of Islam is therefore not protected under the 1st Amendment as to freedom of religion and speech.” This is simply common sense. Unfortunately, common sense is a tough sell these days as we have spent 40 plus years filling young minds with sentimental hogwash and leftist double-think. Regardless, even if the soft-minded cannot grasp that Islam is NOT a religion and thus deserves none of the protections there given under the Constitution; your Founders, their predecessors, and cohorts were well aware of potential abuse of the concept of freedom of religion – the depraved justifying their depravity as “religious expression” - and accounted for it. Thus many State constitutions contain language further delineating what will and will not be allowed in the name of religious freedom. A rather typical example exists in the New York state constitution of 1777: "The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever hereafter be allowed, with this State, to all mankind: Provided, That the liberty of conscience, hereby granted, shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of this State." Once again, this entire debate is made mute were Americans (or British, or Canadians, or Australians etc. etc.) to have the slightest awareness of their own histories and the greatness there of. Such awareness provides not only the legal justification but the motivation for protecting our mutual philosophical heritage against all enemies of Liberty no matter how cleverly crafted their fraudulent guise. The Amendment is unnecessary, but the debate essential.

Carry on! Cheers, Charlie
April 27, 2008 6:52 PM

Findalis said...
What ever you do, don't send a form letter. I used to work for a congresswoman and we disregarded form letters. Send a letter to your own congressman or woman, your senator expressing support for Rep Myrick's Initiative., send an e-mail or snail mail. Let your voice be heard. I sent letters to my Congresswoman Melissa Beam and My Senators Richard Durbin and Barak Hussein Obama.Take a guess which one won't respond.
April 27, 2008 8:56 PM

CyberPastor said...
Roger, what is there for me to add when experts like Dean, Ben, and Snooper have posted. I wish I knew the answer. While I agree with what the amendment is after, I wonder if there is another way to accomplish the desired result without taken that path to get there. I will continue to work to get out the truth about Islam using Dean, Ben and others who are experts in the field.

Roger you do an outstanding work here, and keep up the great work!!!CP
April 28, 2008 7:39 AM

Findalis said...
This is a long overdue debate amongst not only our side, but the whole nation needs this debate.Unfortunately the PC Police will have kittens if this and similar issue were to be discussed or debated in the traditional media forums. We must not make waves they would scream. It is racist talk they would scream. You are a bigot they would cry.And so, the nation is quiet on this issue and the Jihadists grow in strength.I wonder what tragedy will it take for this issue to be brought to the forefront? Will a dirty or nuclear bomb going off in a major US or European city do it? Will the forcing of a European nation to adopt Shar'ia law as their law do it? Or will the silence just grow?
April 28, 2008 12:28 PM

A note from Radarsite:
With a normal post, I would at some point post a final "summing up" of my thoughts on the subject of the article. Here, however, I think any attempt by me to "sum up" this wonderful discussion would be both presumptuous and unnecessary. I feel that just by having this important debate we are actually accomplishing something. People are listening and watching. They are interested. You might be surprised by some of the readers we have picked up. In the words of Deb from Right Truth: " If it does nothing but stir discussion and head us in the right direction, that's a start." I believe we have, in our own small way, made this start here. Now, according to Ben of A Newt One: "Keeping this debate alive and growing is up to you."

Therefore I have a suggestion. To all of you who have commented here on this debate who have websites of your own I would ask that, if you believe that this debate is as important as I do, make reference to it on your sites. Let's get as many people involved in this argument as possible. Maybe, just maybe, we really can make a difference.

I personally feel even more motivated to become actively involved in this battle. I have just written an email to my Congressman asking him what he is doing to protect us from this looming menace. If he answers, I'll post his answer. I intend to write more emails like this in the coming days.

You are almost all creative thinkers and writers. If anyone has any suggestions as to how we could disseminate this debate out further, please let me know. Who knows what we can accomplish?

On a personal level, this discussion has done me a great service. It has forced me to look very closely at my convictions and my opinions and perhaps reevaluate them, or reenforce them. To my mind this alone makes our debate worthwhile.

I intend to keep this article open for further comments as long as necessary; I will continue to post them (above this message) as soon as I receive them. Thank you all for your active participation in this conversation. But thank you most of all for all the work that you have put into this subject in order to formulate those opinions. If only our own Congressional leaders would do the same.

Voted by: gophub

Friday, April 25, 2008

From Other Sites on the Line: 25 Apr 08

Fighting Back: the 28th Amendment
With analysis and commentary from Ben at A NEWT ONE

From A Proposed Constitutional Amendment by Pedestrian Infidel:

Background and justification to Amendment 28

Article I
The social/political/ideological system known around the world as Islam is not recognized in the United States as a religion.The practice of Islam is therefore not protected under the 1st Amendment as to freedom of religion and speech.
This first article is a prerequisite to the rest of the amendment. We can't proceed without derecognizing Islam because the first amendment prohibits the actions we need to take to safeguard our liberties.

Article II
As representatives of Islam around the world have declared war, and committed acts of war, against the United States and its democratic allies around the world, Islam is hereby declared an enemy of the United States and its practice within the United States is now prohibited.
In 1786, Jefferson & Adams asked Algeria's Ambassador by what right they attacked our shipping. His answer is most informative.

The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet (Mohammed), that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman (or Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to heaven.

Article III
Immediately upon passage [1] of this Amendment all Mosques, schools and Muslim places of worship and religious training are to be closed, converted to other uses, or destroyed. Proceeds from sales of such properties may be distributed to congregations of said places [2] but full disclosure of all proceeds shall be made to an appropriate agency as determined by Congress. No compensation is to be offered by Federal or State agencies for losses on such properties however Federal funding is to be available for the demolishing of said structures if other disposition cannot be made.The preaching of Islam in Mosques, Schools, and other venues is prohibited. [3] The subject of Islam may be taught in a post high school academic environment provided that instruction include discussion of Islam's history of violence, conquest, and its ongoing war on democratic and other non-Islamic values.
[4] The preaching or advocating of Islamic ideals of world domination, destruction of America and democratic institutions, jihad against Judaism, Christianity and other religions, and advocating the implementation of Sharia law shall in all cases be punishable by fines, imprisonment, deportation, and [5] death as prescribed by Congress. Violent expressions of these and other Muslim goals, or the material support of those both in the United States and around the world who seek to advance these Islamic goals shall be punishable by death. [6]Muslims will be denied the opportunity to immigrate to the United States.

[1] Passage is the wrong expression, it should be ratification.

[2] In many cases, Mosques are financed by the K.S.A. enriching the congregants by distributing proceeds of sale to them is an unreasonable proposition The proceeds should be transferred to a legitimate charity serving victims of Islamic attacks or to the Federal Treasury.

[3] This clause is too ambiguous. "Other venues" should be specified, to include open spaces, parks and audio/visual & electronic media.

[4] This clause needs to make a distinction between teaching about Islam and indoctrination. Mere passing mention of Islamic history is insufficient. Such instruction should be objective, not hagiographic, and should include reading of Surat 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 33, 37, 38 & 61 and Sahih Bukhari's Books of Jihad, Khumus & Expedition.

[5] Wrong conjunction; it should be or.

[6] Muslims should be excluded from entering the United States for any purpose other than to receive medical care not available elsewhere.

Article IV
Nothing in this amendment shall be construed as authorizing the discrimination against, of violence upon, nor repudiation of the individual rights of those Americans professing to be Muslim. The individual right of conscience is sacrosanct and the practice of Islam within the privacy of home and self is strictly protected to the extent that such individuals do not violate the prohibitions described in Article III.

I do not accept the postulate of a right to kill, conquer, enslave, rob, rape or subjugate me. Islam postulates that 'right' and makes it a duty incumbent upon every Muslim. Since it is impossible in a free society to prevent parental inculcation of their doctrines into children, leaving Muslims in place is extremely problematic.

That is why
my own proposal calls for deportation of legal and illegal resident alien Muslims. Clearly, the doctrines enshrined in the Qur'an and exemplified by Moe's sunna are a prime motivating factor for Islamic violence. Under current law, nothing can be done about it until a violent act is in progress. This nation needs to recognize the fact that every Muslim is a time bomb that may explode at random. Only by officially recognizing the fact that Islam is a war machine, not a religion can we remove it from the umbra of first amendment protection, enabling legislation to prevent its mischief from full bloom in our society.The proposed amendment is imperfect, but it is a good start with which to open serious national discussion of the critical issues involved. The proposed amendment would not diminish our rights or liberties, it would only stop their application to an institution undeserving of them: Moe's murder cult, which he contrived for his own enrichment & empowerment through barbarian conquest & extortion.
Posted By Ben to A NEWT ONE at 4/25/2008 02:13:00

A Note from Radarsite: This proposed amendent, my friends, is what's called fighting back. This is the kind of national resolve necessary to win this war. For their tireless work on behalf of our endangered democracy Radarsite applauds the work of Pedestrian Infidel and Ben from A Newt One. To counter this relentless encroachment of militant Islam into the heart of our free but vulnerable American Society we must move this battle from the innocuous realm of the opinion pages and the virtual reality of our blogosphere into the real world of forceful legislation. Effective legislation, such as this, was the means by which we eventually defeated the criminal encroachment of the Italian Mafia into the mainstream of American life. The introduction of the famous RICO statutes gave our law enforcement agencies the necessary tools to wage an effective campaign against the Mob. As a result, that seemingly unbreakable code of omerta quickly crumbled.
We know that legislation like this works. But do we have the collective will to enact it? Right now, the answer is No. Will we ever? Or will we have to experience some further horrendous outrage to reach this point of national resolve? We shall see. But time is running out.

Thursday, April 24, 2008

Beguiled by the Serpent's Smile

Who is the Real Tariq Ramadan?

Tariq Ramadan. Moderate? Reformer? Modernizer? Or Devil's Disciple? Is this emerging darling of the current PC British government and our own notoriously leftist media really a shining symbol of hope and pluralism or just another Islamic jihadi in disguise?

From Maggie M. Thornton:

“We need trust and dialogue and a more flexible faith,” says Ramadan. This kind of language prompted former British Prime Minister Tony Blair to appoint him to what was essentially a Muslim task force to combat extremism. On the other side of the Atlantic, Time magazine placed him on its list of the 100 people who comprise "tomorrow's most influential individuals."

Others see him as an Islamist in disguise, a “wolf in sheep's clothing,” a master of deception. And, as a matter of fact, Ramadan has made a number of statements that don’t sound remotely liberal or tolerant.

The original author of this piece was Maggie M. Thornton of Maggie's Notebook. Click the link below to read her entire explosive article. - rg

And from City, Ibn Warraq writes in his The Pious Fraud:

In the 1990s, Western liberals, alarmed at the presence of Islamic fundamentalists in their midst, turned in desperation to Muslims whom they dubbed “reformers” or “modernizers.” They hoped that these figures would have a moderating influence on disaffected Muslim youths who refused to integrate into Western society. One such “reformer” is Tariq Ramadan, a Swiss-born academic. Ramadan has won the confidence of many in the West, including the British government, which asked him to serve on its task force for preventing Islamic extremism. But as Caroline Fourest shows in her superbly documented book, which first appeared in French in 2004, Ramadan is not a worthy figure.

Fourest reveals Ramadan’s art of duplicity, which encompasses an entire repertoire of rhetorical subterfuges, from doublespeak and equivocation to euphemism and lies of omission. Ramadan claims that he accepts the law in Western democracies—so long as the law “does not force me to do something in contradiction with my religion.” He calls the terrorist acts in New York, Madrid, and Bali “interventions.” He claims to be a “reformist,” but defines the term to exclude the concept of “liberal reformism.” He tells a television audience that he believes in the theory of evolution, but neglects to mention that his book, Is Man Descended from the Apes? A Muslim View of the Theory of Evolution, argues for creationism. He criticizes Saudi Arabia as “traditionalist and reactionary,” but fails to mention that his own revered father helped the Saudis become the sponsors of Wahhabism. It’s no surprise that, according to the Belgian Permanent Committee for the Control of Intelligence Services, “State security also reported that the moderate speeches that Tariq Ramadan gives in public do not always correspond to the remarks made in confidential Islamic settings, where he is far more critical of Western society.”

Ramadan’s doublespeak is part of a carefully calibrated, long-term strategy of dissimulation, perfectly justified by the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya, a doctrine of “pious fraud” or religious dissimulation. That Ramadan is an impostor is evident even in the titles that he freely accords himself. He claims that he is “Professor of Islamic Studies (Faculty of Theology at Oxford),” and the biography in the inside flap of his Western Muslims and the Future of Islam describes him as “Professor of Philosophy at the College of Geneva and Professor of Islamic Studies at the University of Fribourg in Switzerland.” But as journalist Gudrun Eussner has shown, Ramadan is merely a research fellow at St. Anthony’s College, Oxford, where has has given just three lectures. Nor is he a professor at Geneva, especially not at the university there. He was a teacher at a sub-university level in the Collège Saussure, and he served as a “scholarly associate” at the University of Fribourg, teaching a two-hour course every two weeks, “Introduction to Islam.”

That Ramadan is the grandson of Hassan al-Banna—founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, and a fundamentalist fanatic who wanted to impose Islamic totalitarianism on the world—would not be fair to hold against him if not for his laudatory writings on his grandfather. In television interviews, Ramadan proudly displays a photograph of al-Banna. “I lay claim to this heritage since, if today I am a thinker, it is because this heritage has inspired me,” he told the Belgian Journal du Mardi in 2004. He was even more explicit in his interview with Alain Gresh of Le Monde diplomatique: “I have studied Hassan al-Banna’s ideas with great care and there is nothing in this heritage that I reject. His relation to God, his spirituality, his mysticism, his personality, as well as his critical reflections on law, politics, society and pluralism, testify to me his qualities of heart and mind. . . . His commitment also is a continuing reason for my respect and admiration.” In fact, Ramadan wrote a university thesis on al-Banna that was nothing short of hagiography. The jury at the University of Fribourg rejected it for being too partisan and unscientific.

In November 2003, in a televised debate with Nicolas Sarkozy, then France’s interior minister, Ramadan was asked about his brother Hani, who had justified stoning adulterous women to death. Instead of condemning the custom outright as barbaric, Ramadan replied, “I’m in favor of a moratorium so that they stop applying these sorts of punishments in the Muslim world. What’s important is for people’s way of thinking to evolve. What is needed is a pedagogical approach.” In other words, Ramadan wanted, as my dictionary entry on the word informs me, “a legally authorized postponement of the fulfillment of an obligation”—a temporary ban.

Fourest provides many examples of Ramadan’s brazen lies, but one stands out. It involves the al-Taqwa bank—founded by leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood, and shut down by the Swiss government in December 2001 for sponsoring terrorism, with links to Hamas, al-Qaida, and the GIA in Algeria. Ramadan claims that his family had no involvement with al-Taqwa: “We never had any sort of contact with the bank. The fact that our name appears in its address file doesn’t mean a thing.” This is untrue; Said Ramadan, Tariq’s father, was one of the founders of al-Taqwa. (Other al-Taqwa founders were active supporters of Hitler during World War II.)

Does Ramadan condemn terrorism? Again with much ambiguity, he claims that terrorist acts are justified “contextually.” At the height of the riots by young Arabs in France in 2005, Ramadan told the television channel France 5, “The violence is legitimate.” Though Ramadan has always denied having any contact with terrorists in Europe, Jean-Charles Brisard, an international expert on terrorism financing, has gathered evidence suggesting otherwise. Brisard cites a 1999 Spanish Police General Directorate memo, for example, that states that Ahmed Brahim (now serving a ten-year sentence on charges of inciting terrorism) maintained “regular contacts with important figures of radical Islam such as Tariq Ramadan.” Brisard also points to Djamel Begal, who in his first court appearance after his indictment by a French judge for participating in a foiled terrorist attack against the U.S. Embassy in Paris, stated that before 1994, he “attended the courses given by Tarek Ramadan”—an indication of the influence that Ramadan’s teaching has had on budding Islamist radicals. Beghal was sentenced to ten years in prison in March 2005. Brisard cites prosecution documents chronicling Beghal’s interrogation by UAE authorities in which Beghal states that “his religious engagement started in 1994,” when “he was in charge of writing the statements of Tariq Ramadan”—by which he meant, according to a translation from the Swiss daily Le Temps, that he helped prepare Ramadan’s speeches. Finally, Brisard cites a Swiss intelligence memo of 2001 that states that “brothers Hani and Tariq Ramadan coordinated a meeting held in 1991 in Geneva attended by Ayman Al Zawahiri and Omar Abdel Rahman.” Al Zawahiri is a major al-Qaida leader and one of Osama bin Laden’s lieutenants; Rahman was the planner of the 1993 World Trade Center attack, now serving a life sentence in the United States.

Fourest has rendered an invaluable service. She demonstrates with great skill that Ramadan is a dangerous radical who, far from modernizing Islam, is in fact attempting to Islamize modernity. Of undoubted ability and charisma, but with no respect for or allegiance to Western values of liberty, Ramadan is poisoning the minds of young Muslims in the West. He spreads his message through personal appearances and with the sale of tens of thousands of cassettes through Tawhid, an Islamist publishing house with close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Under Ramadan’s influence, Islamist youths develop a hatred for Western values and dream of creating a totalitarian Islamic theocracy, not only in the heart of Europe, but eventually the entire globe, until, in the words of al-Banna, “the Islamic banner . . . waves supreme over the human race.”

Since 1998, Ibn Warraq has edited several books of Koranic criticism and on the origins of Islam, including Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out, Defending the West: A Critique of Edward Said’s Orientalism, and Which Koran? (forthcoming).

Brother Tariq: The Doublespeak of Tariq Ramadan, by Caroline Fourest; foreword by Denis MacShane (Encounter Books, 262 pp., $23.95)

For additional insight read Steve Emerson's enlightening Islam's Grand Wizard of Deception

Note from Radarsite: Are we a generation of moral pygmies? Are we nothing more than a bunch of cultural cowards, weak-kneed appeasers who will do anything, grasp at any straw to avoid offending our invaders? Oh, how we welcome the smiling deceivers who deliver us from the necessity of manly action. We will, it seems, buy into any lie, accept any obfuscation, if it furthers our cowardly state of denial. We cling to our desperate and unreasonable hope that the only problems we are having with the Muslims are problems of communication. We only appear to be in conflict with the Islamic world. In reality, it's just a gross misunderstanding. People always fear the unknown; this is why we fear Islam. However, we must rise above this petty cultural prejudice. We cannot allow our inflexible racism, our traditional xenophobia to overrule our reason. The only way out of this labyrinth of misunderstanding is through dialogue. It is through dialogue and willingness to learn that we will overcome our present crises. And calm and reasonable figures, open-minded moderates, like the good-hearted Tariq Ramadan will lead the way.

God help us.
If we continue down this path of least resistance, this illusory road of denial and appeasement, if we continue to eagerly embrace these blatant lies and deceptions in order to avoid having to face up to the reality of our peril, then perhaps we deserve our dire fate. Perhaps in this classic Clash of Civilizations we truly are the weaker of the two civilizations. History has repeatedly shown us that technological advancement alone will not save us. All too often will is the determinant factor. All too often it is the society who demonstrates the stronger will who emerges victorious. For reasons too numerous to innumerate, the prevalent forces of political correctness and multiculturalism have set us on this course to self-destruction. Unless we change, unless we finally accept the reality of the actual conflict we are in and do what has to be done to preserve our great Western civilization, we shall surely perish. Can we change? Do we have the societal will to change?
And, finally, do we have the time to change?

Voted by: gophub