Sir Humphery Appleby: He’s also against oppression and persecution in Africa.

Prime Minister Jim Hacker: So are we.

Sir Humphery Appleby: Yes but he’s against it when practiced by black governments as well as white ones.

Prime Minister Jim Hacker: You mean he’s a racist..

Yes Prime Minister The Bishops Gambit 1986

Yesterday I complemented Mark Steyn for mentioning Molly Norris, the US cartoonist who remains in hiding for offending Islamists.

A second complement is due for his performance at a Canadian debate informing a group of left wing students of the Mass rapes taking place in Europe that our friends in the media and their feminists allies have done their best first to ignore

American feminists, who have incited irrational hysteria over a non-existent “rape epidemic” on U.S. college campuses, will ignore this news. American feminists never said a word about the Rotherham Horror, in which English girls as young as 11 were pimped out by Muslim predators. American feminists don’t want to call attention to certain crimes committed by certain criminals, and it is not just Juanita Broaddrick’s rape accusation against Bill Clinton that feminists demand that we ignore. The feminist movement in the United States is controlled by the Democrat Party, and therefore rape is just a talking-point to them, an “issue” that feminists help Democrats exploit for partisan purposes. Because feminists are dishonest partisans, their agenda requires a lot of deliberate falsification — the phony “1-in-5” statistic, the UVA rape hoax, etc. — and it also requires feminists to ignore a lot of actual rapes which do not fit the Democrat Party-approved propaganda narrative.

and when that wasn’t possible to make taking about the subject verboten

there was no precedent in Germany or the rest of Europe for mass peacetime sexual assaults, much less ones where the police merely look on. “I have never experienced such a thing in any German city,” a victim told the New York Times. But people who did name the attacks for what they were—a manifestation of Muslim misogyny and an alarm bell regarding mass immigration—were vilified as racists. An old-school German feminist, Alice Schwarzer, denounced the New Year’s assaults as a “gang bang” designed to terrorize women; she found herself condemned by other feminists and “antiracists.” Victims refused to give their names to reporters for fear of being pilloried on social media for xenophobia. Specious moral equivalencies poured forth: not only were the attacks a mere subset of everyday Western antifemale violence, but also ordinary citizens connecting those attacks to the out-of-control migrant situation were no different from the attackers themselves. Ralf Jäger, minister of the interior for the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia, announced: “What happens on right-wing platforms and in chat rooms is at least as awful as the acts of those assaulting the women.”.

It’s what made this reply from Steyn so devistating in his debate:

In the end I suspect the root problem between the two cases, Islamic violence against women in the west and the disappearing of Molly Norris is the same.

To acknowledge the rapes in Europe that are the provence of the Islamic immigrants is a problem is to require the need to do something about it, even if it means entering “islamic” areas in the west to enforce law.

The same with Molly Norris, to acknowledge that the threats against her life and safety is a violation of all that America stands for is to admit that those making the threats, Islamists, must be stopped and to further acknowledge that said Islamists have enough sympathiezers in the US to carry out the threats that have ensured Molly Norris doesn’t exist.

Much easier to instead critique white 1st world college students, western cartoonists or states like Georgia and North Carolina where you don’t risk getting your throat cut for attacking them.


I’m back trying to get that very elusive $61 a day for DaTipJar

I’d like to think we do good work here If you’d like to help us keep up the pace please consider hitting DaTipJar

Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. We are currently 116.3 subscribers at $10 a month to make our goal every day without further solicitation but the numbers are even more interesting:

If less than 1/3 of 1% of our readers subscribed at $10 a month we’d have the 114.5 subscribers needed to our annual goal all year without solicitation.

Plus of course all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.

Choose a Subscription level

It’s been said by Hillary Clinton that social media and the internet has become a weapon in the war on terror. In one respect she is absolutely right.

As we have seen in Brussels, Israel and Syria Islamists of military age, men and women are actively attacking the people they consider their enemies, regularly risking death and capture to kill as many of their foes as possible, while their older leaders urge them on.

These people are terrorists, these people are evil, but because words mean things, you can’t credibly claim they are frightened of us.

What does that have to do with social media? Well when these Islamists go on social media and examine those of Military age of the west, what do they see?

Chalked messages such as “Vote Trump 2016” appeared on the school’s sidewalks Monday.
Many students said they were ‘in pain’ and felt ‘frustration’ and ‘fear’ because of the chalk messages.
The school’s student government vowed to use emergency funds to help support those traumatized by the messages.

They are reading things like this:

It was like cross burning,” Tucker told me. “It was on private property. It was extremely damaging and the students and faculty were totally embarrassed…it was absolutely intended to intimidate everyone and it worked.”

and hearing students say this:

“I’m supposed to feel comfortable and safe [here],” one student said. “But this man is being supported by students on our campus and our administration shows that they, by their silence, support it as well … I don’t deserve to feel afraid at my school,” she added.

and when it comes to their elders, those who are in charge who might lead these people, when ISIS looks online this is what they see:

Emory University President James Wagner will not allow an act of pro-Trump political advocacy to go unscrutinized: the administration will review security footage in hopes of identifying the person or persons who committed the heinous act of scribbling “Trump 2016” in chalk all over campus.

Of course they might think that’s an isolated incident, but then (via Glennthey read this:

I can barely talk—first, with fear, and then with rage when the dispatcher reports back that yes, in fact, I’ve probably just seen ROTC cadets, though they’re going to send an officer to check because no one has cleared it with them. They thank me for reporting it.

Just ROTC candidates going about their business. But that’s not enough for the professor, up to her eyeballs in threats and micro aggressions and macro aggressions and whatever other aggressions she could concoct in her fervid imagination.


So the west is unwilling to watch Islamic enemies and will attack anyone who dares suggest one must be vigilant concerning potential Islamists but will use the resources of the law and wealthy institutions to stop chalk marking, or American soldiers marching or publicly claim that straight white males are more dangerous than the people doing this.

If you had foes so cowardly, so craven and so wiling to advertise those facts to the world, would you be afraid of them, or be doubtful of your eventual victory?

I submit and suggest our intellectual class is worth 10,000 fighters to ISIS and I further suspect that if ISIS or their Islamist ever came to power, these folks who are willing to bravely stand up to Ted Cruz, Donald Trump or sick Twitter Safety on Robert Stacy McCain will happily submit to the veil.

And I bet the Islamists we are fighting are counting on the same thing.

I’m back trying to get that elusive $61 a day for DaTipJar.

I’d like to think we do good work here If you’d like to help us keep up the pace please consider hitting DaTipJar

Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. We are currently 116.3 subscribers at $10 a month to make our goal every day without further solicitation but the numbers are even more interesting:

If less than 1/3 of 1% of our February readers this month subscribed at $10 a month we’d have the 114.5 subscribers needed to our annual goal all year without solicitation.

If less than 2/3 of 1% did, I’d be completely out of debt and able to attend CPAC

If a full 1% of our February readers subscribed at $10 a month I could afford to travel across the country covering the presidential race this year in person for a full month.

Plus of course all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.

Choose a Subscription level

Mortimer Brewster: Aunt Abby, how can I believe you? There are twelve men down in the cellar and you admit you poisoned them.
Aunt Abby Brewster: Yes, I did. But you don’t think I’d stoop to telling a fib?

Arsenic and Old Lace 1944

Wasn’t it just a few years ago when the Government of Canada was doing it’s best to repress Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant for daring to suggest that  maybe, just maybe Jihadist type might be a danger?

And then we see this headline in Canada:

Attack on Ottawa: PM Harper cites terrorist motive

I thoroughly condemn the attacks on Canada by Islamists. Not only are they evil, barbaric and contrary to the laws of was,but given all that Canada did to stop people from speaking out against radical Islam it shows a profound ingratitude.

And that’s just beyond the pale.

Closing thought: It’s a damn good thing Canada did all it could to stop people who tried to warn them about Islamic terror or something even worse might have happened.

Update:  RS McCain:

We learn that Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, the terrorist killed in his attack Thursday on the Canadian Parliament building in Ottawa, was both mentally ill and a convert to Islam:

Well that would explain it, he’s crazy.  Why else would a muslim attack a country that has been so protective of Islamic radicals within it’s borders?  I mean, it’s just not cricket.

Update 2:  I should point out neither Pam Geller nor Robert Spencer had an easy time in Canada either.

We are $5000 5 grand away from paying the year’s bills.

Olimometer 2.52

If you think this blog’s coverage and what we do here is worth your support please consider hitting DaTipJar below

If course if you can do both, I’m  fine with that too.

Consider Subscribing to support our lineup of  John Ruberry (Marathon Pundit)  on Sunday Pat Austin (And so it goes in Shreveport)  on Monday  Tim Imholt on Tuesday,  AP Dillon (Lady Liberty1885) Thursdays, Pastor George Kelly Fridays,   Steve Eggleston on Saturdays with  Baldilocks (Tue & Sat)  and   Fausta  (Wed & Fri) of (Fausta Blog) twice a week.


…don’t look at Israel & Gaza where the muslim population grows look instead at Iraq where the Christian population are marked with N for Jesus the Nazarene.

The ISIS deadline for Christians to leave Mosul ended at the weekend, and thousands of people who follow the religion have left the city. And as the last group of Christians made their way out, the militants torched the 1,800-year-old Assyrian Christian church.

According to Al Arabiya, the church was burned down on Saturday, after the remaining Christians fled. It noted that the burning of the church was the latest event in the destruction of Christian property in Mosul.

Remember the primary source of this isn’t a pro-western site, it’s Al Arabiya

How is it possible if Israel is the 2nd coming of the Nazi that arab & Muslim populations grow where they rule while in places like Iraq where devout Muslims are taking control the Christian population flees for its life (following the jews who fled over half a century ago).

If you can come up with a good answer I’d be delighted to hear it.

Juliet: O Romeo, Romeo! wherefore art thou Romeo? Deny thy father and refuse thy name; Or, if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love, And I’ll no longer be a Capulet.

William Shakespeare Romeo & Juliet Act 2 scene 2

4th Doctor: You know something? I’m sure those creatures don’t stay on their side of the boundary out of a sense of fair play

Doctor Who: The Face of Evil Pt 1 1977

Yesterday I posted some questions about the funding of Anthony Weiner, It’s possible that some might have considered that post rather provocative.

If you are such a person you might want to stop reading right now because this one touches on a REALLY delicate matter:

Yesterday morning I got into a long twitter discussion with a person who goes by the name woman by the name Maxine Baptiste known as BrownSugar7878. She took exception to this tweet concerning Mr. Weiner’s wife Huma Abedin reaction to the latest twist to the scandal


Now that’s an incredibly provocative statement and I had a long twitter exchange with MS Baptiste where I explained why I thought this could be the case while she called me a racist used a tag that I’m not familiar with that I won’t repeat here.

But here is where I’m coming from.

One of the most amazing stories about Anthony Weiner is his marriage to Huma Abideen. They met in 2008 got engaged in 2009 and the very next year were married.

Now it’s not all that unusual for a much younger woman to marry an older man who has power and involved in politics. As a person who has spent her adult life under Hillary Clinton’s wing Ms Abideen might certainly see the advantage of a marriage to an up and coming pol while she as a friend of Ms. Clinton would certainly be a good power match for Anthony Weiner.

But before the political calculation, think of who she is and who her parents are.

Her mother is Saleha Mahmood Abedin she is one of the founding members of the women’s version of the Muslim Brotherhood her father was an Islamic scholar and according to Wikipedia moved with her to Saudi Arabia when she was two years old and didn’t return until she entered college. Shortly afterward leaving college she attached herself to Hillary Clinton and never left.

By an odd coincidence Hillary Clinton was the most pro-Muslim brotherhood secretary of state in my lifetime. As Andrew McCarthy wrote a year ago this month:

Nevertheless, since Secretary Clinton’s tenure began, with Huma Abedin serving as a top adviser, the United States has aligned itself with the Muslim Brotherhood in myriad ways. To name just a few (the list is by no means exhaustive): Our government reversed the policy against formal contacts with the Brotherhood; funded Hamas; continued funding Egypt even after the Brotherhood won the elections; dropped an investigation of Brotherhood organizations in the U.S. that were previously identified as co-conspirators in the case of the Holy Land Foundation financing Hamas; hosted Brotherhood delegations in the United States; issued a visa to a member of the Islamic Group (a designated terrorist organization) and hosted him in Washington because he is part of the Brotherhood’s parliamentary coalition in Egypt; announced that Israel should go back to its indefensible 1967 borders; excluded Israel, the world’s leading target of terrorism, from a counterterrorism forum in which the State Department sought to “partner” with Islamist governments that do not regard attacks on Israel as terrorism; and pressured Egypt’s pro-American military government to surrender power to the anti-American Muslim Brotherhood parliament and president just elected by Egypt’s predominantly anti-American population.

So you have a woman who is the top adviser of the most Muslim Brotherhood friendly Secretary of State in the country’s history. A woman who was raised in Saudi Arabia, till college by two Islamic Scholar parents, one of whom is a founder member of the woman’s version of the Muslim Brotherhood.

So naturally she marries a prominent Jew, and not just a Prominent Jew but a prominent Jew known for his strong pro-israel positions.

Excuse me?

I like Shakespeare as much as the next man, and I really enjoyed Romeo and Juliet but the Capulets and the Montagues are bosom buddies compared to the Muslims and Jews.

Now I will grant you that in one direction the prejudice is less pronounced for a Jew marrying a Muslim woman and Huma Abideen would turn any man’s head (in fact it’s my opinion that not counting Italy, Arabia & Persia produce the most beautiful women in the world) so I certainly wouldn’t be surprised at Mr. Weiner’s pursuit of this woman a dozen years his junior Muslim or no.

But Huma marrying Anthony Weiner? The daughter of a founder of the Muslim Brotherhood woman’s auxiliary marries a Jew in a high-profile wedding and nobody finds this even a little odd?

Now as a Christian and an American I of course, don’t see an issue with this marriage. Maybe love has trumped religion for her too, Maybe Huma is head over heels in love with Anthony Weiner and that’s all there is to it, you can never tell.

And as for her sticking with him, and as an old married man trying to make a living on $305 a week from my readers I’m constantly amazed that my wife has been married to me for 25 years and is sill here. Anyone who has seen her and me together likely are just as amazed. Of course we’re Catholic and thus believe that Marriage is a sacrament. Maybe Huma while not Catholic considered marriage just as sacred and has decided to stick with him for better or for worse. Or maybe she as Mrs. Clinton’s aide for nearly 20 years saw that standing by your man can lead to a senate seat and a cabinet post.

But this still doesn’t answer one other question, what about the reaction back home? What about her family, her extended family, in the Arab world?

After all we know associating with Jews at all is likely to get a Muslim killed or disowned by their family so where is the reaction when a daughter of two prominent Muslim Scholars marries a Jew who is publicly extremely pro-Israel? What are we hearing from those same Muslims who objected to Pokemon because they thought it was a Jewish conspiracy?


Walid Shoebat asks the obvious question:

Huma’s links to a family that is directly tied to the Muslim Brotherhood, including her brother and mother, creates a question that no one on earth can easily answer:

Other than Huma Abedin, has there ever been any member of the Muslim Brotherhood or a prominent Islamist who will not openly denounce a “daughter” or “sister” that married a non-Muslim Jewish male?

It is extremely rare to have Muslim women marry non-Muslims, much less to have conservative Muslims look the other way, unless Huma has a “higher calling”

Now in fairness there have been signs that Congressman Weiner’s support of Israel is not all people think it might be. (Weiner doesn’t really care that much about Israel.) but unless he has converted to Islam and not told anybody or something the same folks who were quick to put a Fatwa on Molly Norris over a drawing are not likely to keep their mouths shut on this.

And we aren’t just talking silence at the time of the wedding. What about with the scandal? This sentence is absolutely true

Huma Abideen, a Muslim woman, a daughter of prominent Muslim scholars was publicly humiliated on a world-wide stage by a Jewish man acting in vulgar sexual ways.

and STILL there is no reaction. Not from Saudi Arabia, not from Iran and not from the Muslim Brotherhood that just a few weeks ago trying to discreet the intern president of Egypt referred to him a Jew.

Is there nobody else who finds this as unbelievable as I do?

If Islamists were silent at Huma Abideen wedding to Anthony Weiner, were silent as he humiliated this high-profile Muslim woman and remain silent today as he humiliates her again, one must conclude that these suddenly quiet and calm Islamists figure their investment in this silence will pay quite a return.

I wonder what it might be?

Update: Andrew McCarthy doesn’t

Update 2:  Funny the NY Times report some women have the same kind of questions about Huma Abideen’s loyalty to her husband.


Olimometer 2.52

3 days left to the week and $129 6 folks kicking in $21 will just about do it.

If you want to help hit DaTipJar below


GRUGGER: Well, I’m prepared to forget that little incident.
MEGLOS: Oh, I hope not.
BROTADAC: We’ll remember.

Doctor Who Meglos 1980

You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust.

For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors do the same?  And if you greet your brothers only, what is unusual about that? Do not the pagans do the same? So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Matthew 5:43-48

One of the things that get tends to get me into arguments with my fellow anti-Islamists is my differentiating “Islamists” from Islam.  Their argument is that Islamists are not doing Islam wrong, they are doing it right.

So when I see things like this from last week from the Iman in Tennessee:

And Qadhi says: “The life and property of a mushrik [one who worships others besides Allah] holds no value in the state of jihad….which means if they don’t say la illaha illa Allah, their lives and property are halal” — that is, permitted to be taken by the Muslims.

Qadhi is an imam in Memphis. He is also Dean of Academic Affairs at the Al-Maghrib Institute. He is a hafiz — that is, he has memorized the entire Qur’an. He has an M.A. in the Islamic Creed and a B.A. in Islamic Sciences from Islamic University of Medina, as well as a master’s and a doctorate in Islamic Studies from Yale.

How is it, then, that he misunderstands jihad so spectacularly that he sounds like a greasy Islamophobe?

I’ve attributed it to people like Qadhi being an Islamist, although Robert Spencer’s question certainly deserves an answer.

However there was something I saw in the coverage of the Muslim Brotherhood’s violence that really struck me.

Here is the base story:

Inhabitants of the Nile island of Manial reported seeing dozens of bearded Islamists armed with machineguns, machetes and sticks on Friday night before the deadly clashes broke out.

Snipers were spotted on rooftops, and medics told AFP they treated some residents of the normally quiet middle-class neighborhood for bullet wounds with a downward trajectory.

Buildings were pockmarked with bullet holes. Rocks carpeted the floor and charred tyres showed the ferocity of the violence.

What had prompted this, why a Muslim Brotherhood TV speech:

Residents say the attack began just minutes after the Brotherhood’s supreme guide, Mohammed Badie, gave a fiery speech to Mursi supporters camped out in Cairo’s Nasr City, which was broadcast live on television.

Sounds like Islamists to me, this certainly seems to support my way of thinking, at least until the following line:

“The attack came minutes after Badie’s speech. They treated us like infidels. They were chanting ‘Allahu akbar’ (God is greatest) as they were shooting us,” said Ahmed Fattouh.


Those sentences say two things both important:

To the “Moderate” Muslim it says that to the Islamist, you are no different from any other infidel if you stand, even unarmed, against them.

To the rest of us, it tells us where we stand. That exclamation: “They treated us like infidels.” sounds a lot like: “How dare they attack us? It’s not like we were infidels or something that would be different.”

Christians are required to remember that like any other person a Muslims are children of God and their lives and souls are of no less value than any other person.

We are not obliged to forget that the reverse is not true.

I don’t know if that line will be pulled from the story (I saved a screen shot) but it will take more than that to make me forget it.

To Boost the British Economy I’d tax all foreigners living abroad

Monty Python’s Flying Circus The Spanish Inquisition 1970

Pirates are hanged

Lord Hornblower 1946

I have come to kill Indians and believe it is right and honorable to use any means under God’s heaven to kill Indians

Col. John M. Chivington

Via Glenn I see a very interesting and potentially dangerous precedent being made by US courts:

A few days before Christmas, the U.S. indicted three men at the Federal District courthouse in Brooklyn for plotting suicide bomb attacks.

This is an extraordinary, almost unique case: none of the people or conduct has any connection to the U.S.
Sounds good right, terrorists nailed before they could do suicide bombings read on…

The defendants are foreign nationals, captured by some African government ont their way to join up with al-Shabab, the Somali Islamist group.

Even better, I’ve gone on for years about the threat of Islamic Terror and its large body count. Stopping these murderous bastards is always a positive and saves lives, but here is where it gets complicated…

To be clear, there is no suggestion that they planned to target American nationals or facilities, or had even ever been to this country before.

Three thoughts go into my mind:

In terms of utility this would be a good thing. Terror and suicide bombing are an international problem as is terror by Islamists. Going after them would doubtless save many lives, not necessarily American lives but lives just the same and make it more complicated for terror groups to act.

In terms of  principle furthermore you could apply the old rules of Piracy, Pirates when captured on the high seas could be hanged on the spot and piracy is still recognized as an “offense against the law of nations” surely Terrorism and suicide bombing can be as well

It’s in terms of practice is where we run into problems. First of all, there is the US Constitution (emphasis mine)

The Art I. authority for prosecuting conduct under universal jurisdiction is the “Define and Punish” clause. Yet the clause limits universal jurisdiction to crimes, like piracy, that are i) “offenses against the law of nations,” and ii) treated as universally cognizable by the law of nations. Congress cannot “define” something as a universal offense when the law of nations has not done so – not because of any superiority or comity of international law, but because that is the limit place by the Define and Punish Clause.

It would seem to me odd that suicide bombing and terrorism is not defined as “offenses against the law of nations” but if that is in fact the case, this simply can’t be done because the constitution explicitly limited the power of congress to do this (and that matters because they are being prosecuted under US law).

If we move to get terror and these groups listed as “offenders against the law of nations” internationally then we are in play, or better yet if we can get terrorism defined as a form of Piracy, already recognized as the same that would work, but until then it’s pretty dodgy allowing the government to redefine “offenses against the law of nations”.  I don’t trust congress or the president to unilaterally redefine this kind of thing and neither should any of you.

And if congress can’t be trust consider who defines these things internationally these days:

the problem of course is how such a law is enforced and how “terrorist” is defined. I suspect if the UN gets its hands on it suddenly Israel will be on the list of “terror” nations giving a false sense of legitimacy to the murder of Jews everywhere.

Remember this is the same international community ready to consider Israel a bunch of criminals for firing back when rockets are launched against civilians while willing to turn a blind eye to those who shoot them.

Or worse yet, what if this same international community defines offending religion (read Islam) is an “offense against the law of nations”. Suddenly US citizens abroad could be picked up for any of these offenses and tried under international law using the same type of Universal jurisdiction being applied here.  Or perhaps private ownership of firearms can also be so defined.  There are already international moves in that direction and if you don’t think that can happen here, look at the reaction in the US since Sandy Hook?

As a practical matter stopping these guys is a good thing, but we had better be careful,  VERY careful when it comes to embracing  this kind of thing.


…If the thought of the Syrian rebels with chemicals didn’t get you worried perhaps this interview with Sky News might catch your eye:

The men only became animated when I showed a little knowledge of Salafist ideology and brought up the works of Islamists such as the Egyptian Sayyid Qutb.

This led to a question about the future of Syria’s minorities such as the Christians. Ahmed, Basah, and Hamid Hassan all agreed – Christians could only live there if they either converted, or paid the ‘Jizyah’ – a special tax levied on non-Muslims in previous centuries in the Middle East. If not said Bahar, they could be killed. (emphasis mine)

When asked why, the answer was, to them, quite simple – because the Prophet Mohammed said so. I was then invited to become a Muslim.

The conversation verged on the surreal. There we were talking in a quite friendly manner, with the occasional joke, about killing people because they wouldn’t pay the Jizyah, which critics regard as effectively obtaining money through menaces.

The interview ended with Ahmed volunteering that eventually Muslims must reclaim Andalucia in Spain for the Islamic Caliphate.

Let’s stipulate that it is in Syria’s interest to present these type of prisoners to the western world and that Syria has not been reticent about supporting these types in Iraq. None of this changes the fact that these are the folks we are going to be dealing with very soon once Assad falls. As Jihad watch put it:

“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” — Qur’an 9:29

Muslim spokesmen in the West routinely claim that this verse has no applicability in the modern world. They’re lying.

Just a reminder, as a Christian I’m a “person of the book” our friends who do not believe will not get off so easy.

Because of personal issues I haven’t given the events in Egypt any coverage, that couldn’t really been helped but for all the fuss about fiscal cliffs and pregnant princesses the protests of the last few days might in fact be the most consequential events of the 21st century, for the entire world.

On Thanksgiving day just a few hours after being praised by Obama/Clinton team for his role in the cease-fire that prevented Israel from wiping out Hamas sites where rockets had been launched against Israel from (a cease-fire the Muslim Brotherhood needed badly to safe face) President Morisi claimed far-reaching powers over the state and the courts in a rather dramatic move that caught many Egyptians by surprised and was almost totally ignored by Americans busy with Turkey, Football and Black Friday shopping.

Since then there have been loud protest reaching a point where Morsi actually fled the palace for a short period of time.

However the Muslim Brotherhood was not going to sit back and let this happen, yesterday they organized counter-protests and that means violence:

The Egyptian army has begun to clear demonstrators and media organisations from outside the presidential palace in Cairo.

It follows violent overnight clashes between supporters and opponents of President Mohammed Morsi that left five people dead and 644 injured.

Yesterday While picking up a pizza at a local place the protests were on the air on a satellite channel in Arabic, the owner of the place in Fitchburg talked about the violence of the Muslim Brotherhood in an attempt to suppress protests.

There isn’t much news in English from the Horse’s mouth but here is something from the Egypt Daily News.

First of all, I would like to thank you. If it wasn’t for the massive organised effort and insane amount of money that you poured into having a strong showing in Giza and Alexandria last Saturday, and the full Panic mode that you put all the secular people of Egypt (who are now the majority after five months only of your rule), we wouldn’t have seen yesterday’s massive, nay, colossal turn out in all of the governorates. Not only did we pack Tahrir, we completely covered the huge area surrounding the Presidential palace (despite security checkpoints placed there by your security forces to divide the crowds and make the numbers look small, and which were naturally removed by the protesters), not to mention the massive turnout in Alexandria, Assiut, Minya, Daqahliya, Suez, Port Said, 6th of October, Mahalla, Hurghada, Sharm El-Sheikh, Damanhour, Damietta, Aswan and others.

Wanting to get a few from the front lines I took a look at the twitter feed of Egyptian blogger Sandmonkey to get a better idea of what is going on and discovered something interesting…

As might be expected there is a lot of arabic as Egyptians of all types talk about what is going on here

That’s a real problem for a person like me who doesn’t know arabic, but there is one thing he says in English loud and clear:

Who is Gehad El-Haddad? Let me introduce you or more properly I’ll let him introduce himself:

So it seems to be Mr. El-Haddad is deeply involved in both the Muslim Brotherhood and in media. As the Brotherhood man involved in TV I would expect he’d have a lot to say about what is going on, so I looked at his twitter feed, Here is what the front page of his twitter feed looks like as of 8:48 AM EST Thursday

This screen shot seemed odd to me, so I kept scrolling down for a 2nd then a 3rd and then a 4th. Then I came to the 5th page:

Now doesn’t it strike you as odd that you have to go down 5 pages before you find a single tweet in Arabic, and that a retweet?

If this man is communicating to the people of Egypt, to the Arab world, to people who follow Islam, surely you would expect to see a large amount of tweets in Arabic with the odd English tweet mixed in more like our friend Sandmonkey?

Why is this so? The answer can be found in Sandmonkey’s twitter feed

Here is what I think. I think this fellow Gehad El-Haddad’s twitter feed is for lazy westeners who don’t want to sort though arabic, I think it exists to build a real time narrative for the western world. As Nervana Mahmoud puts it in the Daily News of Egypt:

The Muslim Brotherhood is waging a war of perception, not just for domestic consumption but for a western audience, too. Perception is crucial for two reasons: To defeat non-Islamist opponents, who may lose faith quickly when watching the endless number of pro-Morsy protestors in comparison to their relatively lower number in Tahrir and, secondly, to convince western nations that Islamists are the only reliable, powerful force in Egypt and that they are backed by the “majority” of Egyptians.

That’s why Mr. El Haddad’s tweets are not in Arabic. If you consider how easily the west bought the Hamas narrative I can see why he would be sure to tweet “facts” in a language that the lazy western press could understand but the majority of Egyptians would not.

Update: Instalanche! and more from Stacy McCain and Captain Ed

…is right here:

As yourself this question. How is it that a Jewish woman speaking about Zionism and the threats against Jews is not only unacceptable to the Jewish Federation of LA but that it didn’t become unacceptable to them until the day before the event. As Breitbart put it:

On Sunday morning, the very morning of the event, after promising ZOA the use of a meeting room for the purpose of Pamela Geller’s presentation – after permitting ZOA to sell tickets – The Jewish Federation of Los Angeles retracted permission for the use of the room.

Pam put it best in her introduction:

“Imagine, that it’s easier to throw a Jew under the bus than to stand up against a group that is the US affiliate of Hamas!”

To the LA Jewish Federation who caved undetermined “security concerns”, to say it a disgrace is self-evident, to say it is UuAmerican is superfluous let me tell you what this really is:


Let me as a Catholic who isn’t the slighted bit Jewish, whose wife is not the slightest bit Jewish, whose Children are Roman Catholic, whose parents, grandparents, great-grandparents as far back as I can go are Roman Catholic.

You are not going to make your enemies love you by going after your friends, you are just going to make yourself weaker while they become stronger.

C.S. Forester described this in a different setting:

You know his methods, Your Excellency. A demand for concessions, and when the concessions are granted then new demands, each one more weakening than the one before , until the object of his attentions is either took weak to oppose him further or is at least so weakened as to make armed resistance fatal.

Commodore Hornblower 1945 p167

Courage is the first virtue, without courage no other virtue can exist. Think about this, because the time will come when it is too late and the only person you will be able to blame is the guy in the mirror.

Let me say this, Pam Geller welcome on my show any time and any day that she is willing to come on.

Update: I wonder what the La Jewish federation says about this.

The Pentagon under Obama has made an interesting decision.

Pushed by the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) the Pentagon removed a target in their shooting range depicting an Islamic Woman with a gun

In their objection CAIR said:

Nihad Awad, executive director of the Washington-based council, said in the letter to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta that the target “is offensive and sends a negative and counterproductive message to trainees and to the Muslim-majority nations to which they may be deployed.”

With a Obama administration ever mindful of Islamic Sensibilities the Pentagon pulled the target figuring that of course we aren’t going to be seeing Islamic Women doing these kind of attacks…

…apparently they have never met Samantha Lewthwaite.

Samantha Lewthwaite, 28, who is wanted for possessing explosives and conspiring to make bombs, has been on the run with her three children since she escaped a swoop on terrorist suspects in Mombasa in December.

She has now been linked to last Sunday’s attack on the Jericho Beer Garden in the Kenyan city.

But but CAIR told us Islamic women just don’t DO these kind of things

“Yes, I am woman but I am woman who believes in Jihad and supremacy of Islam.

“With all this pressure I broke down in tears… Jihad is an obligation that we must accept – so today I’m over my fear and my tears are dry.”

I am women watch me kill…

No word from CAIR yet if they think her actions are “offensive and sends a negative and counterproductive message”. Or perhaps Feminists noting her husband was one of the 7/7 suicide bombers consider this a triumph for Women’s equality in Islam. After all not only has she carried out her attack but unlike her husband as he had the good sense not to blow herself up has the ability to kill again

Anyone you can kill I can kill better…

Perhaps if they haven’t destroyed the target they can send it to England.

Update: DaWife points out that she is not only killing people just as good as a man but is doing so while on the run with three children in tow.

I wonder what Anne Marie Slaughter will say about that?

Update 2: Let me point out that Pam Geller who deserves special mention for finding this story. The days of the jihadists will be numbered when people start listening to Pam.

The DaTechGuy Fundraiser is in progress, our goal is $3000 and any help is appreciated. For details click here for the progress check the thermometer to the right and to kick in hit DaTipJar”.

Pam Geller has written about the Media embargo of 9/11 images often. If you wonder why that embargo is so important to the totalitarian left Jay Nordlinger discovers it at the Oslo Freedom Forum:

Manal al-Sharif, you have also met. She’s the young Saudi woman who broke the taboo against driving. She is a heroine throughout the Arab world (and beyond). Here’s something I did not know about her: She was once an Islamist, a supporter of al-Qaeda.

The “turning point” for her, she says, was 9/11. “I saw a man throwing himself from one of the towers. He was escaping the fire. That night, I couldn’t sleep. I couldn’t get that man out of my mind. ‘Something is wrong here,’ I thought. ‘No religion on earth can accept such mercilessness and cruelty.’

“So, I saw that my heroes were nothing but bloody terrorists, and that was the turning point in my life.”

The atheist says that God doesn’t exist period, let alone exists in the hearts of men. This woman was an Islamist, a supporter of Al-Qaeda. She was brought up in a religion where the life of the unbeliever was without value and yet, seeing this image something changed inside her.

It’s good to know that even in this horrible event, the seeds of positive change can grow.

Great Britain has been remarkably tolerant of radical Islamists in their midst but apparently there are some lines that are beyond the pale in even in England…at least if you are a member of the House of Lords.

Lord Ahmed, 53, who in 1998 became the first Muslim life peer, was reported to have made the comments at a conference in Haripur in Pakistan.

A Labour Party spokesman said: “We have suspended Lord Ahmed pending investigation. If these comments are accurate we utterly condemn these remarks which are totally unacceptable.”

Now realize he is not being “suspended” from the House of Lords, or having his Baronet “suspended”, he is not even being sanctioned by the British government at all. He is being suspended from the Labour party.

So this is what “Great” Britain is reduced to, offer a reward for the murder of a US president and be suspected from a political party.

I’m sure the radicals are quaking in their boots.

While everyone is paying attention to the results in South Carolina the final tally is done in Egypt and the results are just what you might expect?

In the vote for the lower house of parliament, a coalition led by the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood won 47 percent, or 235 seats in the 498-seat parliament. The ultraconservative Al-Nour Party was second with 25 percent, or 125 seats.

The Salafi Al-Nour, which was initially the biggest surprise of the vote, wants to impose strict Islamic law in Egypt, while the more moderate Brotherhood, the country’s best-known and organized party, has said publicly that it does not seek to force its views about an appropriate Islamic lifestyle on Egyptians.

The biggest oddity is the reaction of Human Rights Watch:

Western democracies should overcome their aversion to Islamist groups that enjoy popular support in North Africa and the Middle East and encourage them to respect basic rights, Human Rights Watch said in a report on Sunday.

HRW executive director Kenneth Roth said in the group’s annual report that the past year’s Arab Spring pro-democracy uprisings across the region have shown it is vital for the West to end its policy of backing “an array of Arab autocrats” in exchange for supporting Western interests.

Considering the well known proclivity of Islamic groups support of gay rights this seems a strange reaction. However there is one important point worth making concerning these Islamic groups:

..both (Muslim Brotherhood and Salafi Al-Nour) have a long history of charity work in Egypt’s vast poverty-stricken neighborhoods and villages, giving them a degree of legitimacy and popularity across the country in areas where newer liberal parties have yet to get a foothold.

Your enemies always grow strong on what you leave behind.

General John Burgoyne: “…You will understand Sir, I hope, since you seem to be a gentleman and a man of some spirit in spite of your calling. If we do have the misfortune to hang you, we shall do so as a mere matter of political necessity and military duty without any personal ill feeling.”

Richard Dudgeon (Disguised as Rev Anthony Anderson): “Well that makes all the difference in the world of course.”

Lawrence Oliver & Kirk Douglas The Devil’s Disciple 1959

I couldn’t help think of this speech when seeing this video yesterday.

We referenced this video yesterday but decided not to play it on the air. Forgetting the argument of propriety it loses something without the video component. Atlas cheers and Smitty put it well:

Yet somehow the collision of Dylan and Gaza becomes so horrific that you may forget to laugh.

What’s horrific is you’ve replaced a set of dictators who employ various degrees of repression and murder, with a different set of people doing the same thing on a different scale. The murder and repression remain constant.

It would seem to me that the problem isn’t the form of government but of culture. If your culture believes it is right and proper to slaughter and repress people of certain colors and religions it doesn’t matter who rules, you’ll get a culture that produces repression and murder. Replacing a single murderous barbarian bastard with a group of 100 murderous barbarian bastards or 1000 murderous barbarian bastards is not solution, it just means a larger set of murderous barbarian bastards choosing a different set of targets.

I mean look at the news out of the UAE today:

A United Arab Emirates court on Sunday sentenced a blogger and four other democracy activists to prison terms after finding them guilty of charges including insulting the Gulf state’s leaders.

And this is one of the least repressive regimes in the area.

It’s axiomatic that all people, including Arab and Islamic people, have a basic right to self-determination. All people have the right to govern themselves as they see fit.

It is also axiomatic that religious and cultural minorities in any area have the right to live freely without fear of slaughter and oppression.

This is the dilemma, it would seem under the current Arab/Islamic culture we are told to choose one.

I refuse!

I submit that if a culture of a country forces such a choice then the problem is not the country and who rules it, but the culture that supports it.

After Herman Cain’s appearance on Fox News Robert Stacy McCain (Doesn’t he always manage to be where news is) of The Other McCain posted exclusive video of candidate Cain expanding on his statements concerning Radical Islam

Now one’s instinct is naturally against the banning of any religious building, if one can ban a mosque, than one can ban a church (and I’m sure there are those on the left who would love to have that power) at OTB Doug is not happy:

We have freedom of religion, Cain is saying, but people should have the right to ban your religious practices if they don’t like you. The Herman Cain boomlet is dying, because its becoming clear that everything that comes out of his mouth is utter nonsense.

The problem you have here is that it’s NOT nonsense. Anyone who has been following the Muslim Brotherhood knows this, any person who is has been fighting Radical Islam knows this. When Cain bluntly states that Islam is both a political system and a religion he is exactly right. Across Europe people are discovering that Radical Islam is having a disastrous effect creating “no go zones” for both citizens and police. Here in America we just had the anniversary of the Fatwa against Molly Norris who remains in hiding.

The real question is this: We are currently in a war with Radical Islam. Mosques operated by radical groups like the Muslim Brotherhood are recruiting centers for Radical Islam, that being the case does the Constitution require us to allow a group we are at war with operate a center to recruit people to fight against us under the guise of religion? If one developed a religion that worshiped Nazism would FDR allow it to build churches in America during WW II?

That is the bottom line question and the three sticking points of that question are these:

1. “Guise” of religion. The fact is that Islam IS a legitimate religion practiced by hundreds of millions around the world for hundreds of years. The most radical version has come to power within it only over the last several decades. In terms of theology there is nothing in the radical form of Islam that actually conflicts with the Koran. Radical Islam IS Islam and theologically speaking one can’t restrain it without restraining Islam and thus putting a check on a religion.

2. The War with radical Islam: There are a large amount of people in this nation and in the world who are in complete denial over the war with Radical Islam. Some take this position due to fear, others in the hopes that they will be the last ones eaten by the alligator, still others believe that the threat is overstated. A lot of this is simple cultural ignorance. When I hear people talk like this I remember the movie 1776 and this speech from John Adams:

Oh, good God! Why can’t you acknowledge what already exists? It has been more than a year since Concord and Lexington. Damn it, man, we’re at war right now!

Until people actually recognize what already exists we can’t deal with the problem, and the problem is Radical Islam propagated by groups like the Muslim Brotherhood. This is why Herman Cain is so dangerous, he is acknowledging what already exists and once the problem is acknowledged it has to be dealt with, and they’d rather not.

3. The Anti-antis There were a lot of liberal-minded people who tended to support the Soviet Union during the cold war, some as we discovered after the fall of the wall were bought and paid for, while others who were not saved their most heated venom for those fighting the USSR despite their vocal support for the freedoms that the Soviet’s trampled regularly. Jay Nordlinger has referred to them as the “anti-antis”:

During the Cold War, we used to speak of anti-anti-Communists. These were people (on the left) who were not exactly pro-Communist. But they so hated the anti-Communists, they were . . . well, anti-anti-Communists — the best, the fairest name for them.

Today, there are anti-anti-Islamofascists. They are not on the Islamofascist side in the War on Terror. But they hate those who are fighting, or attempting to fight, the Islamofascists more than they could ever hate the Islamofascists. They are anti-anti-Islamofascists.

The similarities between yesterday’s anti-anti-Communists and today’s anti-anti-Islamofascists would make a very good essay — perhaps by David Pryce-Jones or Norman Podhoretz.

Ronald Reagan was hated by the anti-antis of yesterday as was George W Bush was just a few years ago. Islamofascists who were actively killing both US troops and civilians trying to make an elected democracy work were nothing compared to the evil of Bush/Hitler in their eyes.

Today we see it as people attack the Catholic and Mormon churches for opposing Gay Marriage while giving Islam a pass. We see some who are more afraid of a Sarah Palin or a Michelle Bachmann, than the Islamofascists who would kill them if given the chance. Andrew Sullivan would rail loudly against a President Palin but under Islamic blasphemy laws he would not live long enough to utter a word of complaint.

There is also one ironic note about these anti-anti-islamofascists that Mr. Nordlinger notes as well:

Of course, many of today’s anti-anti-Islamofascists were yesterday’s anti-anti-Communists — I mean, the same people, in the flesh.

It amazes me to see the same people arguing the same discredited case they did decades ago to the American People without ever being called on how wrong they were the first time.

As for Cain’s solution, you can decide it is too draconian, you can say that if adopted it would be used against others by people trying to abuse power, but you can’t credibly denounce it while pretending that the problem doesn’t exist or offering a better idea.

For myself I’m not sure I like it, but I also don’t see a better idea yet. I’m going to have to think on it, but while doing so I think I’ll refrain from denouncing him for acknowledging the elephant in the living room.

Update: Yid with Lid, no friend of Radical Islam gives the case against:

However Sharia law being observed within the context of a Mosque is allowed under the Constitution as long as that law is subservient to civil law. Remember the amendment is supposed to protect the religion from government, not the other way around. Constitutionally the above statement would also be true if the words Sharia law were removed and Halachic Law (Jewish religious law) was substituted. It does not mater of there are parts of fundamental Sharia Law are particularly brutal as long as the government enforces the fact that a particular code of religious law is subservient to civil law no one will be allowed to be brutalized and everyone’s right will be protected.

This is an excellent point, as long as the government enforces the civil law then it doesn’t matter what Sharia says. The big question is will civil law be enforced. Yid believes it would be and as a Jew who would be target #1 I have to give a lot of weight to his opinion.