Oklahoma Is Sued Over Shariah Ban

A Muslim activist in Oklahoma City filed a lawsuit Thursday challenging a voter-approved measure that bars Oklahoma state judges from considering Shariah, the Islamic religious code based on the Koran and the Prophet Mohammed's teachings, in formulating rulings.

State Question 755, which passed Tuesday with 70% of the vote, declares "the legal precepts of other nations or cultures" off-limits to Oklahoma courts. "Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia Law," it reads.

The suit, filed by Muneer Awad, director of the state chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, asks the federal district court to block officials from certifying the referendum. Mr. Awad says the measure violates the First Amendment, which protects "free exercise" of religion and prohibits official "establishment of religion." A hearing was set for Monday.

The complaint alleges Oklahoma has singled out Islam for "profound stigma," consigning Muslims such as Mr. Awad "to an ineffectual position within the political community."

Oklahoma's Legislature voted overwhelmingly to place the Save Our State Amendment before voters. A co-sponsor, state Sen. Anthony Sykes, denied it sought to stigmatize Muslims. "We're not trying to send any sort of message here," said Mr. Sykes, a Republican.

Rather, he said, Oklahomans wanted to insulate their judiciary from un-American influences. While no Oklahoma court ever has cited Shariah law, "we are on a slippery slope," he said.


Read More: WSJ

Congressman Harper only Mississippi Rep. to get perfect score from Center for Security Policy

Center issues Congressional Scorecard; Peace Through Strength Platform on national security

The Center for Security Policy released its ninth National Security Scorecard evaluating the performance of members of the 111th Congress on matters of great importance to the security interests of the United States. Congressman Gregg Harper was joined by 157 other Members of the House of Representatives and 32 Senators receiving a score of 100% qualifying them as "Champions of National Security".

In an effort to advance the debate on the nation's most vital national security issues, the Center also launched a pre-election campaign for midterm election candidates to embrace the "Peace Through Strength Platform," a ten-point program of national security priorities for America. The Center also premiered its new web ad on the Peace Through Strength Platform:




The Peace Through Strength Platform complements the 74-page National Security Scorecard as a way forward for candidates and elected officials. While the Scorecard looks back at decisive issues facing the last Congress, the Peace Through Strength Platform serves as guiding principles for the next Congress. To this end, the Center contacted candidates from both parties, including incumbents and challengers, to alert them to the score of each Member of Congress.

In assessing the record of the 111th Congress, the Center selected 12 roll call votes in the Senate and 8 roll call votes in the House of Representatives to show legislators' positions in key foreign, defense and intelligence matters of direct relevance to America's safety, sovereignty and freedoms. Roll call votes were selected on the basis of their utility in revealing substantive differences on significant security policy issues.

"The Center for Security Policy believes that the success of the American experiment fundamentally depends upon the quality of our representative government," Center President Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. said. "The public must be apprised of their representatives' legislative records."

NPR fires Williams over Muslim fears

Late last night, NPR fired senior news analyst Juan Williams. On Fox News’ “The O’Reilly Factor,” where he also contributes, there was a discussion about something that had happened on “The View” the previous week. Apparently Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar flipped out when guest O’Reilly said that “Muslims” had perpetrated the terrorist attacks on 9/11. They walked off the set in disgust.



So O’Reilly asks his panel about it and well, Williams’ comments didn’t sit well with NPR. The early reports of this news story are likely to be straight news. Here’s Brian Stelter at The New York Times:

The move came after Mr. Williams, who is also a Fox News political analyst, appeared on the “The O’Reilly Factor” on Monday. On the show, the host, Bill O’Reilly, asked him to respond to the notion that the United States was facing a “Muslim dilemma.” Mr. O’Reilly said, “The cold truth is that in the world today jihad, aided and abetted by some Muslim nations, is the biggest threat on the planet.”

Mr. Williams said he concurred with Mr. O’Reilly.

He continued: “I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.”

Mr. Williams also made reference to the Pakistani immigrant who pleaded guilty this month to trying to plant a car bomb in Times Square. “He said the war with Muslims, America’s war is just beginning, first drop of blood. I don’t think there’s any way to get away from these facts,” Mr. Williams said.

NPR said in its statement that the remarks “were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR.”

The write-up is great and even includes a bit of analysis, although perhaps Williams’ statement about addressing reality should also have been mentioned:

I think, look, political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don’t address reality.

Certainly NPR hadn’t been happy with him for a while, reprimanding him, as The Times notes, for mentioning his actual title (senior news analyst, NPR) outside of NPR. This may have been the excuse they needed to get rid of him.

Speaking of reality, Williams did not get in trouble for attempting to tie Timothy McVeigh’s irreligious terrorism to Christianity. In fact, NPR Media Correspondent David Folkenflik tweeted:

Williams also warned Fox host Bill O’Reilly agst blaming all Muslims for “extremists,” saying Christians shouldn’t be blamed for Tim McVeigh

It is true that Christians shouldn’t be blamed for McVeigh. Mostly that’s because McVeigh didn’t consider himself a Christian — self-identifying instead as agnostic. It’s a common error, but an error none-the-less. Apparently Folkenflik and many other media bigwigs, such as Newsweek editor Jon Meacham, are unaware of this basic fact. In fact, NPR’s Michel Martin was the last big media type to tar Christians with the Timothy McVeigh terrorism. Perhaps when NPR does its next round of sensitivity training, the network’s leaders might encourage their journalists to get their facts straight on that one.

Anyway, what do you think we’ll see in next-day stories? I assume most newsrooms have their series of Muslim response stories lined up already.

What else? A newsroom-wide polygraph to ensure that newsrooms are free of anyone who worries about Muslim terrorism on planes? A look at some of the hate speech that NPR approves of? An honest discussion of the role religion plays in Muslim terrorism? A collection of denunciations of Williams? A discussion of whether NPR’s status as a taxpayer-funded entity plays a role in Williams’ firing? A discussion of when it’s inappropriate to reveal fears? Somehow I think we might see a few “history of bias against Muslim”-type stories. All I hope for is a solid fashion-based discussion of “Muslim garb.” Well, that and a good treatment of stigma and its use and overuse in reining in bigotry.

The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg weighed in with a look at recent firings of journalists Helen Thomas and CNN’s Octavia Nasr. He wonders if media outlets aren’t getting too touchy in some cases.

No, not Helen’s. He says it appears that Williams was fired for no particularly good reason. He looks at the reality of travel-related violence committed or attempted by Muslim men in recent years. He points out, however, that the terrorists aren’t known for dressing in “Muslim garb.”

These last two statements seem to be a good avenue for further discussion in a news story. Why don’t you throw out your story suggestions. What are the important religion angles to include in this story? Extra points for how to make those “Muslim response to Williams” stories less predictable.

GR

Candidate, Election Workers Kidnapped on Eve of Afghan Poll

Afghan officials say the Taliban has kidnapped 19 people, including a candidate and several campaign workers, on Frifay, the eve of nationwide parliamentary elections.

An Independent Election Commission spokesman confirmed Friday that a candidate had been kidnapped in eastern Laghman province. Eight election officials and 10 campaign workers were also reported kidnapped in northwestern Badghis province

Taliban militants have already killed at least three candidates and several campaign workers in the run-up to Saturday's vote. The group is threatening to stage countrywide attacks, as it did during last year's presidential elections in an effort to intimidate voters.

Read more at VOA

Opinion: Evil Islam Cannot Be Tolerated

BY: Steve Casey

On 9/11, this year, I received two email videos that reveal the reality of the depth of the propaganda and lies we are hearing about the "peaceful religion" of which we should "be more tolerant."


The first video was of Muslims burning Christians – not books – they were burning people alive. They threw them into a shallow ditch and set leafy branches on fire on and around them. If they tried to escape they were beaten and pushed or dragged back into the fire. An old lady trying to escape was brutally knocked down and pushed back in the fire. All while others stood around and watched. How evil can humans get?!

The second video was of a young Muslim woman being beaten and kicked as punishment for her crime. What crime? Refusing to marry the old man that had been picked to be her husband/master. The judge ordered that she be killed. She was dragged into the street and executed by a mob of men and boys in compliance with Islamic Sharia Law. Her life ended as a man took a cinder block and mashed her head twice. The video was filmed on a cell phone as young boys took pictures with their cell phones.

This is the Islamic Sharia Law of which we are being asked to be more compliant and honor within our courts.

Evil of this nature cannot be tolerated by a civilized people. Sure there are peaceful Muslims around, but we don’t hear any outcry from them against this evil brutality. These radicals rule Muslim countries and they will not be content until they rule everyone.

We need to face the truth about these radicals we are dealing with. The truth may not be politically correct. But then the politically correct is seldom true.

The Harsh Bigotry of Their Expectations

by Debra Saunders

Why did Florida pastor Terry Jones garner all that media attention last week for threatening to burn Qurans on Saturday's 9/11 anniversary? I believe it's because network swells had spent weeks trying to frame opponents of the ground zero mosque -- also known as the Lower Manhattan

Islamic community center -- as stupid anti-Islam bigots, but that story line wasn't sticking. So networks found a stupid anti-Islam bigot in Florida who had nothing to do with the mosque, but who reinforced their political view.

Two people died in protests in Kabul. If Jones had gone ahead with his stunt, pundits would have blamed him -- not themselves, not those who committed acts of violence -- for any bloodshed. It is a sad day in journalism when a huckster Holy Roller with a 50-person parish exhibits better judgment than many in media.

The Sunday talk-show types still don't get it. "Meet the Press" host David Gregory lamented "the demonization of the other." Said guest Reza Aslan, "Anti-Muslim sentiment in this country is at unprecedented levels. We all know this. ... Let's call a spade a spade for a moment. If you are painting 1.5 billion people with the same brush of violence and extremism, you're a bigot."

Last week, Washington Post blogger Greg Sargent announced that he had found "clear evidence that there's a direct link between public anti-Islam sentiment and public opposition" to the ground zero mosque. A Washington Post poll reported that 49 percent of Americans have generally unfavorable views of Islam and 66 percent oppose the Islamic center. His smoking gun: Two-thirds of those 66 percent have generally unfavorable views of Islam.

Funny. In 2002, after the priest-child sex abuse scandal erupted, an ABCNews/Washington Post poll found that 52 percent of Americans -- including three in 10 Catholics -- expressed an unfavorable opinion of the Roman Catholic Church. Now, I don't recall pundits referring to the majority of Americans as anti-Catholic bigots who are too stupid to know that most priests are not pedophiles. They likely figured, negative stories yield negative poll numbers.

Consider Fort Hood shooter Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who shot to death 12 soldiers and one civilian in 2009. Ditto Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, 23, the Nigerian arrested for trying to blow up a Detroit-bound plane on Christmas. Add the attempted Times Square and New York subway bombings. Islamic extremism was the common thread in those stories -- which makes it amazing that Islam polls better today than the Catholic Church in 2002.

At Friday's news conference, President Obama was righteous when he said, "We are not at war against Islam. We are at war against terrorist organizations that have distorted Islam or falsely used the banner of Islam to engage in their destructive acts." He then talked about the millions of Muslim Americans who are "fellow citizens," neighbors and friends. "And when we start acting as if their religion is somehow offensive, what are we saying to them?"

It's a true shame that Obama fails to exhibit such understanding toward, say, people in Arizona who support federal immigration law, or oppose putting a mosque near Islamic extremism's great crime. For such people, Obama has no problem with odious stereotypes.

Three Things About Islam

This video comes to you via Youtube by way of The Hayride and it tells every Christian what they already know in their heart to be true: "You are being hunted and your way of life is being threatened!"

Pick up a book people. This IS happening.

Take the next 8 minutes and learn some new terminology. After you finish that, read up on the concept of Taqiyya by clicking HERE . It's a pretty long article by Warner MacKenzie, but well worth printing and keeping as a reference.

From the Goldberg File: Making a Mosquery of the Truth

BY: Jonah Goldberg

I cannot be alone in thinking that the mosque debate is getting really old. But since I still seem to be in the minority, here are three quick points that I think need to be given more air.

1. The liberals are the ideologues on this. Michael Bloomberg and Barack Obama have claimed countless times that they are non-ideological pragmatists. But their position, right or wrong, is wildly ideological. Meanwhile, conservatives who say, "Fine, build your mosque, just not right there," are the pragmatists. But conservative pragmatism is never recognized as such if it breaks with the liberal party line. When conservatism breaks with liberalism, it must be denounced as ideology or, of course, bigotry.

2. Stop calling it a mosque. Defenders of Cordoba House sometimes say, "It's not a mosque, it's a cultural-affairs center with a prayer room," or some such, as if this were a defense. To me, that makes it worse, not better. If this were some small, one-story mosque for the handful of Muslims living nearby to pray in, the arguments over freedom of religion would have more merit. But this would be a 13-story institution with an obvious political component to it. That strikes me as gaudy and an invitation to mischief. This is another point I think non-bigoted Americans understand better than the condescending supporters of the mosque.

3. The staggering hypocrisy of liberals is really an amazing thing. Everywhere you look, you hear these scandalized liberals talking as if it were beyond the pale to criticize religion. You'd never know that these overnight stalwarts of religious freedom had been demonizing Christian conservatives, Mormons, and increasingly orthodox Jews for years. It's as if these people never wanted to ban a crèche, outlaw a Christian group, or claim that Jewish supporters of Israel suffer from dual loyalties. I'm not making a two-wrongs-make-a-right point here. I do think that some of the rhetoric on the right goes too far -- Newt's Nazi analogy, for instance. But it is amazing how establishment liberalism can spend years demonizing organized religion in this country only to turn on a dime when it comes to defending the Islamic equivalent of NikeTown two blocks from Ground Zero.

Opinion: The Separation of Islamophilia from State

By George Neumayr
By modern secularist standards, Barack Obama's boosterism for Islam violates the "separation between Church and state." Had George W. Bush held a rosary and modest fish dinner at the White House to mark the beginning of Lent, the ACLU left would have freaked out. But these same secularists didn't mind Barack's "Iftar dinner" last Friday night.

That is, until he wimped out on his endorsement of the Ground Zero mosque. Now his dinner looks to them more like the production of Ishtar, as finger-to-the-wind Dems cravenly scramble for cover. The search is on for a "compromise." Perhaps the self-styled Solomonic Obama can convince the mosque planners to transfer their property rights to NASA. Administrator Charles Bolden could then turn the land into a satellite office for contractors who pursue the space agency's "perhaps foremost" mission (as explained to him by Obama): "to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science…and math and engineering."

The moment one thinks this presidency has hit the bottom of grim parody it finds a new one. It is hard to keep track of them at this point, but any list of the White House's greatest Islamophilic hits would have to include: wanting a civilian jury trial for the 9/11 planners, refusing to identify radical Islam as a terrorist motive, endorsing the concept of jihad, fretting over the loss of "diversity" after the Fort Hood shooting, and vacationing through the fallout of an aborted Christmas day bombing over Detroit.

The White House's ideologically willful self-delusion about radical Islam is staggering. Here, for example, is its self-reporting at whitehouse.gov about the Ramadan dinner: "Last night, President Obama continued the White House tradition of hosting an Iftar -- the meal that breaks the day of fasting --celebrating Ramadan in the State Dining Room." Continued a tradition? Exactly which White House tradition is that?

The answer: Obama was referring not to a White House "tradition" but to one distant event that he carefully left vague: Thomas Jefferson's war negotiations with Tunisian envoy Sidi Soliman Mellimelli.

Jefferson, desperate to end the Barbary war with Islamic pirates, invited Mellimelli to Washington for negotiations. According to Gaye Wilson, the visit put Jefferson and his staff on the spot: James Madison, then the Secretary of State, had to field Mellimelli's request for "concubines." Jefferson told shocked colleagues to calm down; after all, peace with the Barbary pirates required passing "unnoticed the irregular conduct of their ministers." Mellimelli, in his own way, was grateful. After hearing some gossip about the wan mood of the childless Madisons, he "flung his 'magical' cloak around Dolley Madison and murmured an incantation that promised she would bear a male child. His conjuring, however, did not work."

The war negotiations happened to coincide with Ramadan. Consequently, a scheduled dinner at the White House had to be moved back from "half after three" to "precisely at sunset" in order for Mellimelli to show up.

While it is true that the basically agnostic Jefferson was an arrogant secularist in embryo (the type on display now who dislikes all religions save Islam), he was under no illusions about jihadists. The Obama White House makes references to the "Koran" Jefferson owned, as if he had purchased it for religious edification. The truth is that he purchased it for self-protection: he wanted to understand the attitudes and war tactics of the Barbary pirates.

The cocky frat-boy "Republican" on MSNBC, Joe Scarborough, a hopelessly smug lightweight who tries to weigh in on the "big issues" of the day when not playing early-morning grabass with his equally shallow but self-important guests, has said repeatedly that the Founding Fathers wrote the First Amendment to protect projects like the Ground Zero mosque. No, they didn't. "Morning Joe" is mistaking Thurgood Marshall's "living" Constitution for theirs.

While the Founding Fathers certainly didn't want anyone coerced in matters of faith, they wrote it to protect the states from a future federal government that might swoop down and crush the public religious life of majorities in those states. (And, by the way, let's cut the PC crap about Jefferson as the father of the First Amendment; he wasn't even at the Constitutional Convention. He was in France as an ambassador, gazing with approval at budding French Revolutionaries.) For many decades after the Constitution was enacted several states still had religious litmus tests for public office and sent tax dollars directly to the churches of their choice.

In other words, it is the very First Amendment that Scarborough mangles which permits New Yorkers to block the construction of a mosque. The First Amendment was designed to protect the majority from the tyranny of a religious minority favored by the federal government. What radical Islam's useful idiots in the White House and the press call "religious freedom," the founders would have called insanely dumb religious relativism and self-hating stupidity.

TAS

Feds funding Ground Zero imam's Mideast trip

The imam behind a plan to build a mosque near Ground Zero is set to depart on a multi-country jaunt to the Middle East funded by the State Department -- raising concerns that taxpayers may be helping him with the controversial project's $100 million fund-raising goal.

Feisal Abdul Rauf is taking the publicly funded trip to foster "greater understanding" about Islam and Muslim communities in the United States, the State Department confirmed yesterday.

"He is a distinguished Muslim cleric," said State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley, when asked about the journey, reportedly to include stops in Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Bahrain and Qatar.

"I think we are in the process of arranging for him to travel as part of this program, and it is to foster a greater understanding about the region around the world among Muslim-majority communities," he added.

Crowley said no fund-raising for the mosque and cultural center during the trip would be permitted. "That would not be something he could do as part of our program," he said.

Abdul Rauf said funds for the center will come from Muslims and members of his congregation.

But a London-based Arabic-language newspaper that interviewed Abdul Rauf reported that he says he also will collect money from Muslim and Arab nations around the world -- raising the possibility his goodwill mission could help him build contacts in oil-rich states.

"Does the State Department have any idea they are sending a guy to the Middle East who is going to be fund-raising perhaps among the very same people he will be meeting with?" asked Debra Burlingame, a 9/11 family member.

"We know he has a fund-raising association with Saudi Arabia," Burlingame said, noting that the Saudis have contributed money to underwrite programs by the American Society for Muslim Advancement, a not-for-profit that Abdul Rauf runs with his wife and that is one of the sponsors of the Ground Zero mosque. "He's going to the well, and how can they say they do or don't know what he's doing?"

Meanwhile, state regulators said the sale of an adjacent Con Ed building needed to complete the Ground Zero mosque -- as disclosed by The Post on Sunday -- might be subject to review after all, even as Mayor Bloomberg insisted the project has "nothing to do with Con Ed."

Public Service Commission spokeswoman Anne Dalton said state law requires the agency to sign off on the "transfer or lease" of any property a utility owns within its franchise area.

The question is whether Con Ed satisfied that requirement nearly four decades ago, when it granted a 99-year lease on the former substation site at 49-51 Park Place

NYP

Opinion: Building A Mosque Two Blocks From Ground Zero Is A Grievous Insult To The People Who Died On 9/11

BY: John Hawkins

On 9/11 radical Muslims murdered almost 3,000 Americans in the name of Islam. Now, Islam is going to be allowed to profit from those attacks? Manhattan liberals say "yes,"

A New York community board has resoundingly backed a controversial plan for an Islamic cultural center and mosque two blocks from Ground Zero.

The non-binding vote by the Manhattan community board late Monday passed 29:1 with 10 abstentions in a strong endorsement of the planned project.

The equivalent of this would be building a "tribute to Japanese military history" at Pearl Harbor. Why do you think they're building a mosque on that spot? They're not blind to the symbolism of it. It's to send a message: "We killed your people and benefitted from it. In your face!" How many smirking radical Muslims will go to that mosque, so that they can laugh over the graves of dead infidels? It won't be a small number. You know it, I know it, and the people who want to build that mosque know it, too.

The liberals who are turning a blind eye to this are not just wrong; they're doing something that's extremely provocative, potentially dangerous, and utterly immoral. Isn't it ironic that the same liberals who are always going on and on about sensitivity don't give a d@mn about urinating on the graves of the thousands of Americans who were murdered by radical Islamists on 9/11 by building a mosque at Ground Zero?

RWN

On trial for blasphemy, two Christian brothers murdered in Faisalabad

Gunmen shot to death Rashid Emmanuel and Sajid Masih Emmanuel, two Christian brothers on trial for blasphemy, as they left court in Faisalabad city (Punjab). The men were handcuffed together when the attack took place; they were on their way back to prison after their court appearance.

When they were arrested on 2 July, the Christian community sounded the alarm bell, fearing possible attacks. Immediately right after their arrest, Muslims organised a protest demonstration, calling for the two Christian brothers to be put to death.

The brothers were killed by two gunmen outside the Faisalabad courthouse, where they had been taken for a hearing. They were an easy target for an execution-style assassination since they were shackled together. A police officer accompanying the two victims was also wounded. The killers escaped.

For several days, Muslim religious leaders in Faisalabad had been fanning the flame of hatred against the two brothers, calling for their death. The two were arrested less than a month ago after leaflets allegedly bearing their names and featuring derogatory remarks against the Prophet Muhammad were found around town.

Local sources said that police were going to clear them because an analysis of the hand-written leaflets showed that the two brothers were not the authors.

For Pakistani Minority Minister Shahbaz Bhatti, the accusations against the Christians were fabricated by people who had a grudge against them. One of the two brothers was a Protestant clergyman. Their families maintained their innocence all along.

Peter Jacob, executive secretary of the National Commission for Justice and Peace of the Catholic Church of Pakistan, slammed the crime without mincing his words. He called the death of the two brothers, plain and simple murder, on allegations of blasphemy. He also renewed a call for the repeal of the law, stressing the “deep concern” of Pakistan’s Christian community. He also criticised the government for doing little to stop the abuses of the law.

Last week, many Christian families fled Faisalabad’s Waris Pura neighbourhood, where the incident allegedly occurred, for fear of violence. On 15 July, Muslim protesters marched through the city calling for the death of the two brothers. The next day, at the end of Friday prayers, Muslim religious leaders egged on the Muslim faithful to demonstrate against the Christians. During the demonstration, the Holy Rosary Catholic Church was attacked with stones and rocks.

The murder of the two brothers, whose arrest had shocked the Christian world, coincides with a visit to Pakistan by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Asia News

Islam Must Be Stopped In America

BY: Amil Imani

Islam has spawned many sects that are master practitioners of the art of double standards. As far as Muslims are concerned, what is good for Muslims is not good for the non-Muslims; and what is bad for Muslims is good for non-Muslims.

What complicates matters is that there is no way of knowing which of the dozens of at-each-other's-throat sects is the legitimate Islam. As soon as Muhammad died, his religion of peace became a house of internal war: jockeying for power and leadership started, sects formed and splintered into sub-sects, and bloodletting began in earnest.

The internal infighting in Islam is presently playing in full color - in red - most dramatically, in the Iraqi theater. Shiite raid Sunni civilians, slaughter them like sheep, and toss their bodies like trash in the streets or the rivers. The Sunnis return the favor with just as much viciousness and savagery.

Question: If this is the way these Muslims treat each other, how would they deal with the infidels if they had the chance?

Answer: These devoted followers of Muhammad would deal with the infidels exactly the way Muhammad did: behead the non-believers, take them as slaves to hold or sell, or make them pay back-breaking jizya - poll taxes.

Some may object that writings like this are little more than hate-mongering and fanning the fire that rages between Islam and the non-Islamic world. They may further play the Islamic apologists' few, well-worn propaganda cards as evidence for their contention that Islam is not what its detractors claim.

Here are the few favorite cards:

* "There is no compulsion in religion," says the Quran. (But the full context is never shown.)

* Islam means "peace," so Islam is a religion of peace.

* "For you, your religion, and for me, my religion," Muhammad reportedly said.

The Muslims and their apologists quickly run out of their few cards, and the rest of the Islamic deck is all about intolerance, hatred and violence toward the infidels, toward all others who are not true Muslims, and even toward those who consider themselves Muslims. Shiites, for instance, judge the Sunnis as traitors to Islam, and Sunnis condemn the Shiites as heretics. Each side deems the other worthy of death and hellfire.

This internecine Islamic war of the religion of peace is not confined to the Shiite-Sunni divide. There are so many internal divisions within each side that listing and describing them comprehensively would be an encyclopedic work.

So, who is right? What are the facts about Islam and how does Islam impact the ever-shrinking village Earth and its inhabitants? Admittedly, this is a huge question and cannot be answered satisfactorily in one article. However, some facts can be presented to help the reader decide.

There is no need to belabor the point that Islam is not, and has never been, a religion of peace. The word Islam is derived from taslim, which purely means "submission," while the term for "peace" is solh. Another derivation of the word taslim is "salema", which means "good health" and so on.

Irrespective of what the term Islam may mean, the facts on the ground conclusively demonstrate Islam's violent nature from its very inception. No need to go back to the time of Muhammad and examine the historical records. Just a few contemporary events should make the point.

Here is a partial list: the savage Shiite-Sunni bloodletting in Iraq; the barbarism of the resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan; the genocide in Sudan's Darfur region; the Somali killings; the Iranian mullahs' murder of their own people and support of mischief abroad; the incessant terrorist acts of Hamas, Hizbollah and Islamic Jihad on Israel, and numerous fatwas on infidels and apostates; the bombing of Shiite mosques in Pakistan and Iraq and the Shiite retaliation against soft, innocent and civilian targets.

Clearly, there is no place on the planet where Muslims reside that is in peace from the religion of peace. America, Spain, France, Netherlands, England, Thailand, India and Indonesia have already been attacked, while others, such as Denmark, have been threatened and sanctioned.

Stretching the benefit of the doubt beyond limits, one may believe that all these acts of horrors are committed by a small minority of thugs and radicals who happened to be Muslims. Fine, let us ignore all those "fringes" for now - those who are giving Islam a bad reputation. And never mind Saudi Arabia, the cradle of barbarism, fixed in formaldehyde since Islam's inception. Also, let us overlook the dastardly Shiite fanatics presently ruling (ruining) the great nation of Iran. Iranian Shiite Hitlerists are hell-bent on wiping Israel off the face of the planet, while viciously devastating Iran's own largest minority - the Baha'is, people universally-recognized as law-abiding and peaceful.

Would someone account for what is happening in the "civilized" Islamic country of Egypt? The world owes Egypt a debt of gratitude for giving it the Muslim Brotherhood - the lead promoter of Sunni hatred toward the infidels, with chapters and front organizations in much of the world. With typical hypocrisy, the Egyptian government claims that the Muslim Brotherhood is outlawed, when, in actuality, the Brotherhood holds twenty-five percent of the seats in the Egyptian parliament. The same country that gave the world vicious American-killers like Al-Zawahiri is the recipient of huge largess from the American taxpayer.

Islamic rules are called Sharia law or the Islamic law. Sharia law is a misnomer, for laws must be squarely based on justice and fairness to all, while Sharia law is nothing more than a primitive set of dogma stipulated by men for the benefit of Muslim men.

Sharia law disenfranchises women from their legitimate equal rights with men; prescribes barbaric punishments such as stoning, amputation of limbs and death. Sharia law, contrary to what its advocates claim, does not limit application of its draconian provisions to Muslims only: it considers any and all disputes involving Muslims with non-Muslims also in its purview to adjudicate. Sharia law is inherently arbitrary, obsolete, and discriminatory to the extreme. Wherever Sharia law rules, injustice prevails. Non-Muslims, women, and even children are victimized by its biased and cruel provisions.

Sharia law represents a twist to the concept of Blind Justice: It is indeed blind to justice. Even a cursory examination of Sharia's family law, for instance, proves unequivocally its blindness to justice: it makes the shameful past laws, such as Jim Crow laws, seem as paragons of fairness by comparison.

These are the conditions on the ground wherever Sharia rules. Violence of all forms is endemic to Islamic law and is not confined to any fringes. Sharia law itself is the fringe--a fringe that is oppressive, hateful of others and violent to the core. Presently, fanatical Islam is lashing out with mad fury before its own final demise. The "infidel" world has been complicit in the surge of Islamism through its mistakes, complacency, and greed.

Warning: Islam is not a religion but a political ideology which incites hate, violence, intolerance and terror. Islamists are terminators. You cannot bargain with them. You cannot reason with them. They do not feel pity or remorse, or fear. And they absolutely will not stop, ever, until all the infidels are dead or have submitted to Islam. The only language the Islamists understand is the language of force.

In non-Muslim lands, Islamism, flush with Petrodollars, has been accelerating in its drive for the world Caliphate and is moving at the speed of light by building more mosques, printing more indoctrinating Islamic books, imposing more of its presence in the western culture, in our schools and university campuses, bullying, intimidating and challenging more Christians and other peaceful people of faith and by using our democratic laws against us.

In the Islamdom, they can dish out insults to non-Muslims; arrest Christians, Bahia's or the Jews just for praying. They can confiscate their Holy books and toss them in the trash. They call the Jews pigs and monkeys, and spit on anyone that isn't Muslim. But they go into frenzies of righteous outrage at the slightest criticism of their barbaric and highly dangerous beliefs.

They never need to challenge the existing political order in our country, but can achieve all their goals without bothering or violating the Constitution of the U.S. because that Constitution guarantees complete government non-interference toward religion. Finally and the most important element perhaps is the extreme coziness and appeasement by the current U.S. administration towards Islam, Muslims and radical Muslims which will recklessly and unknowingly drag the whole country and her citizens into an everlasting Islamic inferno, an inferno similar to the Islamic Republic of Iran and other Islamic terrorist countries.

A constitutional amendment must be passed quickly defining Islam as a hostile political force with a global totalitarian agenda, and as such is totally inimical to our constitution and our national security, and that further to this definition, all practicing Muslims must either renounce this cult or be deported to their countries of origin, and all mosques must be demolished, since their goal is to propagate political propaganda, which has nothing whatsoever to do with 'religion' - let alone one of 'peace'. That's going to be the final 'solution' for Islam in America.

"Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war." Qur'an:9:5

"Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission." Qur'an:9:29

We must also end the deadly practice of "Political Correctness." Truth, only naked truth, can set us free. And freedom is our greatest gift of life. Life without freedom is death disguised as life. Remember Patrick Henry's cry: Give me liberty or give me death. Humanity cannot afford, and must not ignore, the emergence of the latest threat to its very existence on this planet. We must fight for life, for liberty, for freedom and end the nightmare of Islamic hellfire.

Opponents pack hearing on mosque near ground zero

NEW YORK -- Dozens of opponents to a mosque planned near ground zero have attended a raucous hearing about whether the building should become a New York City landmark.

Rick Lazio - the Republican candidate for governor - was among the witnesses testifying Tuesday in support of landmark status for the building near the site of the Sept. 11 attacks.

He said the building was "a place of deep historical significance" because it was struck by airplane debris on 9/11.

Landmarking status could complicate plans by Muslim groups to develop a community center and mosque at the site.

The city's Landmark Preservation Commission was not expected to rule Tuesday on whether the building should become a landmark.

Sun Herald

Stossel: More Pointless Government Work

By: JOHN STOSSEL
The pressure is on Washington to spend that $862 billion in stimulus funds. Uncle Sam has doled out only $300 billion so far, so now they want to waste more of your money to expand a sleepy customs border station in Forest City, Maine; year-round population: Five.

The current station is sizable, with radiation detectors and a private residence for customs agents. Although only 5 cars cross the border on an average day, the Feds want to build additional residences, even though no one lives in the current one. They also want to add parking, but these ambitious plans call for more land than the government owns.

Jane Johnson is one of Forest City's 5 residents. Johnson says the government wants to take half of her property. The parking lot would be within 12 feet of her home.

Dale Wheaton owns Wheaton's Lodge, a fishing camp. Wheaton's land is also under scrutiny. Like Johnson, Wheaton refuses to allow government surveyors onto his property. But he is realistic about his chances against the government.

"I learned in primary school not to pick on people that are bigger than you because they usually beat the living crap out of you. And they’re gonna beat the crap out of me too."

The customs station is only open from 8 am to 4 pm and it’s closed Sundays. Johnson says that even if it did need expansion…

"That’s not going to stop any terrorists from coming into this country. They can come across the lake, they can come through the woods, they can come across the stream."

But that Recovery Act stimulus money must be spent. Homeland Security tells us that the expansion will address a “critical national security need.” But none of the five folks in Forest City believe that. Bob Parker told us:

"Somebody in Washington has decided we need to spend this stimulus money by Sept 30. Let’s go spend some of it in Forest City, Maine."

Pennsylvania Woman Tied to Plot on Cartoonist

By CHARLIE SAVAGE

A Pennsylvania woman who called herself JihadJane was tied Tuesday to an alleged assassination plot against a Swedish cartoonist who depicted the prophet Muhammad atop the body of a dog.

In an indictment unsealed Tuesday, federal prosecutors accused Colleen R. LaRose, an American from the Philadelphia suburbs, of linking up through the Internet with militants overseas and plotting to carry out a murder.

Ms. LaRose, 46, was arrested in Philadelphia in October, but her case was kept under seal. Although the indictment does not identify the target, a law enforcement official said her case was linked to the arrests Tuesday of seven Muslims in Ireland in connection with a scheme to kill the cartoonist, Lars Vilks. A group linked to Al Qaeda had put a $100,000 bounty on his head for the cartoon, which the group perceived as an insult to Islam.

European news reports said Irish police, who arrested the four men and three women, had coordinated the operation with the United States.

A police statement issued Wednesday in Dublin said the Irish arrests followed a joint investigation by police in Ireland, the United States and “a number of European countries,” and that the suspects were being held at four police stations in an area about 100 miles south of Dublin, under a law that allowed for them to be held for up to seven days for questioning.

The New York Times

Obama advisers set to recommend military tribunals for alleged 9/11 plotters

Move seen as a precursor to closing Guantanamo Bay Military Prison and move detainees to U.S. soil

By Anne E. Kornblut and Peter Finn

President Obama's advisers are nearing a recommendation that Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, be prosecuted in a military tribunal, administration officials said, a step that would reverse Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.'s plan to try him in civilian court in New York City.

The president's advisers feel increasingly hemmed in by bipartisan opposition to a federal trial in New York and demands, mainly from Republicans, that Mohammed and his accused co-conspirators remain under military jurisdiction, officials said. While Obama has favored trying some terrorism suspects in civilian courts as a symbol of U.S. commitment to the rule of law, critics have said military tribunals are the appropriate venue for those accused of attacking the United States.

If Obama accepts the likely recommendation of his advisers, the White House may be able to secure from Congress the funding and legal authority it needs to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and replace it with a facility within the United States. The administration has failed to meet a self-imposed one-year deadline to close Guantanamo.

The administration officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, said the president's legal advisers are finalizing their review of the cases of Mohammed and four alleged co-conspirators. Asked about the process, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said that "no decisions have been made."

Washington Post