Mainstream Media and Democrats: Terrorists’ Best Friends

Mainstream Media and Democrats: Terrorists’ Best

 Friends

Written by Sher Zieve
Saturday, November 04, 2006
     It’s difficult to believe that the American left could hunker down even further, under the saturated-with-innocent-blood covers, with terrorists who have unequivocally announced their intentions to destroy us.  But, it has. 

      Recently, Bill O’Reilly of ”The Factor” program, asked leftist celebs Rosie O’Donnell and David Letterman if they wanted the
United States of America to win the war against terrorists.  Neither would answer.  In fact, when O’Reilly commented to Letterman that it was an easy question requiring a simple yes or no answer, instead of answering Letterman said that he was “being thoughtful.” 

 

     Thoughtful?  Letterman has to “think” about whether or not he wants the
United States or the Islamic terrorists to win?  These Islamists regularly and with impunity blow up infrastructures in the United Kingdom, Indonesia, Spain, and myriad other countries (including the
World
Trade
Center and the Pentagon in the
United States) and behead people on videotape.  And this leftist representative of the New York and Hollywood Industrial Entertainment Complex has to think about whether or not he wants the
United States or the terrorists to win?  

          This attitude is both reprehensible and appalling.  It is also the attitude voiced by the many elitist leftist celebrities (including George Clooney, Alec Baldwin, Barbra Streisand, and others) who have become extremely wealthy due to the ideologies and opportunities within the
USA.  Thesee are opportunities that, should the terrorist entities take over or destroy the country, would be lost to all of us.  But, the socialist Democrat “principles” allow for only the haves and the have-nots–“the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.”  One only need look to
France’s form of government for proof.

 

     Prime examples of Democrat politicians working to destroy the
United States seem to crop up almost every day.  We have Senate minority leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) voting against any programs that would protect the country–including the Patriot Act and the NSA terrorist surveillance programs.  Both of these politicos falsely claimed that the NSA program is wiretapping American citizens, instead of the reality that it was monitoring terrorist and potential terrorist calling patterns. Instead, the Democrats and even some of our liberal Republican leaders are proposing and passing legislation that gives terrorists U.S. constitutional rights!  Shameful. 

 

     Then, we have Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) who calls U.S. soldiers Nazis and worse and Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) accusing U.S. troops of committing torture–not the terrorists. 

 

     Note:  Those now continual thumping sounds, growing ever louder, you hear are our founding fathers rolling over in their graves.

 

     Not to be outdone by his buddies Durbin and Kennedy, on Monday Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) trashed U.S. troops–again.  Kerry began actively vilifying U.S. soldiers in the 1970s, when he lied before a Senate committee about their having committed “atrocities” in the manner of “Genghis Kahn.”  In 2005, vilifying U.S. troops in Iraq, Kerry told CBS’s Face-the-Nation Bob Schieffer:  “And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking historical and religious customs.”  On Monday, Kerry decided it was time for him to deliver another blow to the
U.S. military. 
 

     Speaking before a group of assembled students at California’s
Pasadena
City
College, Kerry denigrated
U.S. soldiers’ educational level with: 
“You know education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well.  If you don’t, you get stuck in
Iraq.” 

     Under pressure from some of his colleagues, predominantly due to the fact that the November elections are almost upon us, Kerry offered a “non-apology apology.”  He said that his comments reflected a “botched joke.”  A joke?  Hardly.  I’ve watched the video of Kerry’s performance.  He was not joking.  Kerry even released an obviously rewritten sample of what he was “supposed” to say.  It was typical Kerry format: bobbing and weaving but always deceiving.

 

     Kerry’s comments are strongly indicative of the real Democrat attitude toward our troops–our frontline, some would argue our only line, against the terrorists enacting their terror on our shores.  But Democrats, despite some who are feigning a more “conservative” stance in their attempts to win elections, don’t like the military–at all.

 

     Last, but certainly not least, we have the mainstream media–far left in both design and practice.  Since shortly after 9/11/2001, these media have been working solidly to help the Islamo-fascists and to hurt the
United States.  The New York Times has published classified information on our national security programs over and over again–from printing U.S. programs that tracked terrorist financial transactions to our NSA call-monitoring programs.  It even gave specifics as to how the programs worked and were implemented.  The Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, and others quickly followed suit in publishing the specific programs’ data.  The leftist mainstream media’s hatred for President Bush has trumped their ostensible reason.  Do these actions constitute working for the terrorists?  Of course, they do.  We also have the CNN embedded-with-Islamic-terrorists “journalist” Michael Ware who reported on and sent a videotape of the terrorists performing the snuffing of an American soldier back to the CNN Mother Ship–the terrorists’ U.S. network.   

 

     Little to no doubt remains that the majority of Democrats and their media work against the
United States and for the Islamo-fascists–whether by design or due to naiveté.  The reason behind their madness doesn’t really matter.  The mere fact that it exists should send chills down the spines of each thinking and rational American.  The data are inimitable and compelling.  Want the possibility of losing the country to the very real threat of an Islamic caliphate?  Then, vote Democrat.  If you’d like the
United States to continue as a country, vote Republican.  It really is that straightforward.

 

     Your vote counts.  

George Soros Interview On 60 Minutes

George Soros On Helping The Nazis During The Holocaust

Here is a partial transcript from an interview done by Steve Krost for CBS’ 60 Minutes George Soros on December 20, 1998:

George Soros Interview On 60 Minutes

When the Nazis occupied Budapest in 1944, George Soros’ father was a successful lawyer. He lived on an island in the Danube and liked to commute to work in a rowboat. But knowing there were problems ahead for the Jews, he decided to split his family up. He bought them forged papers and he bribed a government official to take 14-year-old George Soros in and swear that he was his Christian godson. But survival carried a heavy price tag. While hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews were being shipped off to the death camps, George Soros accompanied his phony godfather on his appointed rounds, confiscating property from the Jews.

(Vintage footage of Jews walking in line; man dragging little boy in line)

KROFT: (Voiceover) These are pictures from 1944 of what happened to George Soros’ friends and neighbors.

(Vintage footage of women and men with bags over their shoulders walking; crowd by a train)

KROFT: (Voiceover) You’re a Hungarian Jew…

Mr. SOROS: (Voiceover) Mm-hmm.

KROFT: (Voiceover) …who escaped the Holocaust…

(Vintage footage of women walking by train)

Mr. SOROS: (Voiceover) Mm-hmm.

(Vintage footage of people getting on train)

KROFT: (Voiceover) …by–by posing as a Christian.

Mr. SOROS: (Voiceover) Right.

(Vintage footage of women helping each other get on train; train door closing with people in boxcar)

KROFT: (Voiceover) And you watched lots of people get shipped off to the death camps.

Mr. SOROS: Right. I was 14 years old. And I would say that that’s when my character was made.

KROFT: In what way?

Mr. SOROS: That one should think ahead. One should understand and–and anticipate events and when–when one is threatened. It was a tremendous threat of evil. I mean, it was a–a very personal experience of evil.

KROFT: My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted godson.

Mr. SOROS: Yes. Yes.

KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.

Mr. SOROS: Yes. That’s right. Yes.

KROFT: I mean, that’s–that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?

Mr. SOROS: Not–not at all. Not at all. Maybe as a child you don’t–you don’t see the connection. But it was–it created no–no problem at all.

KROFT: No feeling of guilt?

Mr. SOROS: No.

KROFT: For example that, ‘I’m Jewish and here I am, watching these people go. I could just as easily be there. I should be there.’ None of that?

Mr. SOROS: Well, of course I c–I could be on the other side or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn’t be there, because that was–well, actually, in a funny way, it’s just like in markets–that if I weren’t there–of course, I wasn’t doing it, but somebody else would–would–would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the–whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the–I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt.

Of course most of us here are already aware of Mr. Soros’ highly questionable actions during the Nazi occupation. (Though the public at large undoubtedly has a different perspective, if they know anything about his earlier days at all.)

But the statements he made in this interview to my mind are quite chilling. He forgives himself everything. He says that if he hadn’t done it somebody else would have.

All of which would seem to indicate that Mr. Soros has no conscience. A lack of conscience is said to be a common symptom of sociopaths.

Related Articles:

The Dems embrace an anti-war hoaxer

I Was Also Wondering

I Was Also Wondering
November 4th, 2006

Exhausted from covering J-Lo, T.O., Foley-o, and other uh-ohs, will the media ever find time for minor matters?

Such as that 8,000 Iraqi soldiers and police – volunteers all – have died in just two years, with 16,000 more wounded.

That Iraqi recruits still sign up to defend their country despite threats to their families.

That Baghdad has as many people as Dallas, Houston, Austin, San Antonio, and Fort Worth combined in area smaller than Fort Worth.

That more Americans are murdered in New York and LA than US troops die in Iraq in a year, 43 times as many commit suicide, 21 times as many die in drunk-driving crashes.

That less than ½ of 1% of American troops serving in Iraq have been killed and 97% haven’t been injured at all.

That American troops by the thousands volunteer to re-enlist and return to Iraq, while tens of thousands new recruits sign up year after year.

That Iraq went from tyranny to new constitution seven times faster than America did.

That Iraq’s prime minister has been in office less than six months (will network ratings and newspaper circulation turn around that quick?).

Though wearied from pursuing Paris Hilton, the media might ask why land mines were barbaric when Princess Di spoke but IEDs – causing half of American deaths – are no worse than Gangsta rap?

Since World War II’s the standard for some, they might ask if Baghdad should have been nuked, 16 million U.S. soldiers have served, 400,000 die in combat, 700,000 others be wounded? They could ask who was left to resist in Germany and Japan and with what?

They could probe why the NFL is more serious about steroids than the UN is about WMD. Players have to prove they’re clean, the NFL doesn’t have to prove they’re not.

Then why did the press say it was up to the US to prove Saddam had WMD when the UN decreed he had to prove he didn’t?

UN inspectors proved he produced WMDs. They proved he had been developing even more. Saddam couldn’t prove he’d destroyed them. He lied repeatedly. Take his word? Saddam?

But the UN only barked. Saddam could wait, keep scientists and technologies with zero sanctions, billions from Oil for Food, continue killing more people than have died in Darfur, and have Uday and Qusay waiting in the wings.

France promised President Bush it would send troops as part of a US-led liberation army. Colin Powell then went to the UN. France then went back on its word. Surprise.

Didn’t the press notice the Senate Intelligence Committee lied about what the UN found? That Senators Levin, Rockefeller, and Durbin doctored intelligence documents?

Why didn’t it stress that the UN refused U.S. security in Iraq, saw its ambassador killed, accused the U.S., then belatedly confessed the disaster was its fault?

The ambassador had cited Iraq’s “broadly representative” Governing Council as a “significant step” towards democracy, called it “an achievement to be recognized, applauded and nurtured,” “urged all Iraq’s neighbors to play their supportive role to the full, to embrace the Governing Council and provide it with whatever assistance it may request,” sought to “help facilitate and build consensus among Iraqis, and between Iraqis and the CPA,” discussed with Iraqis “the process of de-Baathification” and “the dissolution of the Iraqi army.”

Then Al Qaeda attacked. The UN ran.

Kofi Annan had said – before the bombing – that his ambassador was “working very closely with the Iraqis and Mr. Bremer to ensure that we do have this smooth transition from the Coalition to the establishment and creation of an Iraqi government down the line. And we are working very well together.”

Nice words.

Pooped from Martha Stewart reporting, the press also couldn’t emphasize that Ayatollah Al Sistani refused even to meet with Ambassador Bremer to rebuild Iraq and reconcile factions.

Bremer still sought Iraqi ideas, formed a Governing Council, wrote,

“The coalition wants them to exercise real power and will thrust authority at them,”

and asked in a broadcast address,

“What things are not working? What can we do better?”

Silence. From Sistani. From his followers.

How many fewer would have died if he hadn’t shut Bremer out? Would Sadr have surged, the domed mosque been bombed, oil fields attacked, electrical grids destroyed if Sistani – supreme leader to the Shia majority – had told Bremer, “These are our demands”?

But why worry about any of that? 

We have all the news that’s fit to print.

Michael J. O’Shea

Times Echoes

Times Echoes
November 4th, 2006

A distinct subculture, a belief system if not a religion, exists in the United States. Its members draw their instruction on what to believe and how to live from the New York Times. I call them the Times Echoes. They exist in urban social ecosystems all across American.

There are certain people you never forget.  One is a man I knew who was an anomaly in more ways than one.  He was a politically conservative Jewish septuagenarian living in Westchester County, NY, within the gravitational pull of the Den of Iniquity (that would be NYC).  Possessing a genius IQ and intrepidity to match, on more than one occasion he told me of a technique he used when debating liberals. 

He’d say, “I can tell you what you believe on any issue.  Name for me any issue, and I’ll tell you what your position is.”  Not that he claimed powers of divination.  He explained, “I can do this because I know they get their beliefs from the New York Times.  All I have to do is open the Times, and that’s what they believe.”

This came to mind when I read Clay Waters’ piece on Timeswatch, “Richard Berke Bashes Blogs that Criticize the Times.”  Reporting on an event called Times Talk, at the New York Historical Society in Manhattan, Waters writes,

 . . . what struck me was the condescending and sometimes paranoid liberalism of the audience questioners. Of the seven or eight audience members who addressed the panel, none said anything that could be remotely construed as Republican or even moderate. Instead, the panelists got foreboding questionings of whether Bush believed in democracy and whether Red State folk are as ignorant as they are because they don’t read the New York Times.

Don’t think this is unusual.  For instance, I remember another septuagenarian, a woman I engaged in a political debate.  She was an avid reader of the Times and when I asked her if she believed everything contained therein, her response was “yes.”  When I asked why, I was informed that it was because the people who write for them are “very intelligent.”

To Times Echoes, the Times isn’t merely an information source.  It isn’t even just the newspaper of record.  It is an oracle, an inerrant purveyor of wisdom, compared to which the Bible pales.  But the Times Echo is most certainly human.  Although, if Christian theology is correct that it’s intellect and free will that separate man from the animal kingdom, perhaps just barely so.

If you’re offended by the Times Echo’s query about ignorant Red Staters, don’t be.  Despite their delusion that they’re possessed of sophistication, Times Echoes are the most callow, provincial of creatures.  You see, they don’t actually interact with people from the hinterlands and consider sufficient study of the latter’s culture to be a screening of Deliverance.

Oh, it’s not that they don’t travel.  They like bucolic vistas and toasty winter climes as much as anyone, and they have plenty of money. But they tend toward places previously civilized by other Times Echoes. Thus, jaunts to the Hamptons, cozy Vermont Inns (Vermont is rural but acceptable, since Times Echo hegemony was achieved long ago.  Hello, Bernie Sanders?) and trips to Aspen, Boca Raton and the Carribean are definitely on the itinerary. The areas in-between are akin to the Planet of the Apes, inconvenient badlands that only make travel between the aforementioned venues more time consuming.

And Times Echoes’ habitat really is that insular.  For example, despite the fact that Times Echoes fiercely oppose erecting a wall along the southern border, you shouldn’t be fooled.  It’s not that they oppose such barriers in principle, it’s just the location with which they take issue.  Manhattan Island already has its own moat.

And it is this very insularity that enables the Times Echo to exist.  Much like the ground-dwelling birds of Madagascar, the Times Echo’s isolated original habitat on the narrow island of Manhattan is even narrower. Guns, big stick foreign policy, adequate punishment for criminals and forced interrogation of terrorists seem like antiquated tools of Cro-Magnons to the Times Echo, ensconced as it is on the thirty-first floor of its doorman-protected building.

It is life in this bubble that blinds the Times Echoes to the real world.  And, insofar as they are cognizant of the “quirks,” “oddities” and “prejudices” of the barbarians beyond the realm, they have the expectation that their grand mission should remain totally unfettered by them.  It is this attitude that explains the comments of Times Assistant Managing Editor Richard Berke.  Waters reports from memory Berke as stating,

There are some good blogs, like Dick’s [fellow panelist Dick Polman]. The bad blogs are the ones that take on the New York Times.  Some of the blogs take a toll on our reporters.  One question on our minds is, ‘What are the blogs going to say?’ . . . Reporters have to be careful not to pull their punches . . . There are people dedicated to analyzing and picking apart whatever we say and do, not always in a bad way, but sometimes it’s just mean-spirited . . . The bloggers are after us . . . we try not to be affected, but foremost in our mind, we know that everything we write will be picked apart . . . you have to ignore those people that go after you . . . I’m afraid that blogging . . . creates problems for people to do their job.  

Well, well, what a cross he has to bear.  No man should have to labor under such conditions. 

Retirement comes to mind. 

What really upsets Pinch and his minions is that bloggers harm their ability to spawn more Times Echoes. Declining circulation shows how serious a problem this is.

A Times Echo is a creature of human respect, although he doesn’t show it as much as he craves it.  He sees nothing above his caste, and when he casts his myopic eyes downward, is assaulted by the visage of the common man.  This explains his paternalism. He is also a creature of his age, being too disconnected from that which is ageless to transcend it.  He is trapped in time and place, the servant who fancies himself a king, the simpleton posing as a savant.

This would explain why publisher Pinch Sulzberger, waxing contemporary, once is reported to have said that the Times

“ . . . can no longer offer our readers a predominantly white, straight, male vision of events . . ..” 

Personally, I don’t remember such a practice, unless he meant the vision of a white, straight male named Pinch.  But what vision are we to expect?  A black, lesbian, female vision?  Is the paper to be known henceforth as the “Gay Lady”?  A green, reptilian, cold-blooded vision?  An orange, beta-carotene, vegetable vision?  A brown, sedimentary, mineral vision?    

This is why the times of the Times’ woes are times for hope.  The near-religion that is the Times dying, its Echoes are becoming fainter.  And this is perhaps why they hate the Internet media so.  They fear its ascendancy, for they know what fate befalls creatures that cannot or will not adapt to changing times.  The oblivion of extinction.

Contact Selwyn Duke.

Selwyn Duke

STOP LETTING ISLAM MAKE YOU LIVE DEFENSIVELY

STOP LETTING ISLAM  MAKE YOU LIVE DEFENSIVELY

The more I think about it, the madder I get.  The madder I get, the more I refuse to let it happen any more, and I hope this applies to you as well.

What I am talking about is how all of the West, including so many in America, have become self-consciously guilty and ashamed of our Western values and culture by accepting the ceaseless howling of militant Muslims who are always attacking us.  People are falling all over themselves not to “offend” Muslims, who in turn keep increasing their bad manners and braggadocio just to watch Western chickenshits dance to their tunes. 

It is international in scope.  Read this from Tashbih Sayyed’s Why Is The World Afraid Of Muslims? in Jihad Watch.

A number of recent apologies made to the Muslims by non-Muslim leaders clearly indicate that the world has grown increasingly fearful of Muslim rage. Political Islam, as is obvious by the reactions of the socio-cultural and political institutions in countries of Europe, Britain and the U.S. has come of age. It has been allowed to establish itself into a position from where it can manipulate the host country’s social and political systems to its advantage. The significance of this achievement cannot be denied. Political Islam’s disabling fear has already deprived the West of its ability to stand up and defend its values. The Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten apologized for publishing the Prophet Muhammad’s caricatures, next, Pope Benedict XVI felt compelled to repeatedly explain his comments, and now Germany’s leading opera house, the Deutsche Opera of Berlin has cancelled a production of Mozart’s Idomeneo, because it was determined that it would offend Muslim sensibilities.

A report on combating terrorism issued by the Netherlands Interior Minister Johan Remkes and Justice Minister Piet Hein Donner states that radical Muslims are gaining influence in the Netherlands. According to the report, the ultra-orthodox Salafism that seeks to return to the “pure Islam” of the days of Prophet Mohammed is making its presence felt in an increasing number of mosques. The adherents of Salafism shun western society and work against the moderate Muslims who want to integrate into Dutch society. The report pointed out that the followers of radical Islam have successfully used the internet and lectures to win over more followers in order to gain control of moderate mosques, Remkes said.

U.S. experts believe that radical Islam in France was responsible for Last year’s rioting in France that began in a poor, mostly Muslim, neighborhood near Paris and then spread to other suburbs and cities across France and parts of Europe. They claimed that despite the characterization by several media outlets that those perpetuating the violence were primarily disaffected youth upset with French economic and social policies, the reason the unrest spread so quickly and was virtually limited to Muslim neighborhoods signifies a deeper and more ideologically driven motive.

Great Britain, America’s closest ally in the war against terrorism is also a major base of operation for some of the most radical Islamic organizations, including some direct supporters of Osama bin Laden. Radical Islam has exploited the cultural and moral vacuum which has been emerging in Britain over the past 30 years. The London terrorist bombings last July, perpetrated by homegrown Islamist terrorists, shocked British society who until then thought radical Islam was confined to distant places of which British people knew little and cared less.

What has happened is that people have allowed militant Muslims with their 1400 year old rhetoric and behavior to change our way of life.  Put another way, very many people nationally and internationally have allowed them to make us live defensively, as though we in West have all the shame and evil and must atone for it because  Islam is the gold standard.

It has to stop and stop right now.  Fortunately, I find more and more bloggers, web owners, commentators, radio hosts, and citizens beginning to chafe about this.  Still, I want to hear something universal along the lines of “I’m mad as hell, and I won’t take it any more!”

Just to get some things crystal clear right now, I have never seen or met a so-called “moderate Muslim.”  I know nothing of their existence, although quite a few people, including some whom I trust and respect tell me they exist.  That there might be some seems only logical.  However, whatever “moderate Muslims” are there, they are silent, and their silence is their assent to all the verbal and physical attacks by overtly militant Muslims.  Both groups merit moral contempt.  I know there is no such thing as “moderate Islam,” so anyone not totally orthodox and consistent with Islam’s violent teachings is a “bad Muslim” in the eyes of the orthodox; that means any “moderate Muslims” are subject to aggression from the “good Muslims.”  I also know that “Muslim” does not designate any race–it is solely a term for adherents to the toxic ideology of Islam.  So, being anti-Islam is not the same as being racist any more than being anti-illegal immigrants is racist.  I have studied Islam in depth and continue to, so I know what the foundation documents actually say, and that constitutes the basis for my appraisals of Islam and its advocates.  There is no good Islam, not in part, nor in whole.  Muslims who buy into Islam do so just as Germans who bought into Nazism; there is no “cherry-picking” in Islam.  Many Muslims are said to want peace while having their Islam; that analogizes to Nazis wanting peace while having their Nazism.  The parallels between Islam and Nazism are overwhelmingly super-imposable.  And, I never forget that Islam demands conquest of all peoples who are not Muslim by Muslims, and that deception is central to Islam.  That means I have no way to tell if a “peaceable” Muslim is for real or is just being a dissimulating “sleeper.”  Finally, I am 100% American, and I expect all Americans to be the same (fundamentally allegiant to America), including naturalized Americans.  So-called “Muslim-Americans” clotting together to exclude non-Muslims, refusing to assimilate, and refusing to stand up for this country fully exceed my tolerance.  I have no such feelings about immigrants to America from anywhere who assimilate.  Muslims are the odd-man-out, and so far, since 11 September 2001, I have see NO EVIDENCE to the contrary, but I remain open to examine any such evidence should it become available.

What is emulative about Islam and its products, given its 1400 year history?  Answer:  Nothing.  Destruction of human potential is the hallmark of Islam, along with destruction of everyone and everything not Islamic.  Ignorance, poverty, backwardness, and all out war on human nature are not attractive, but Islam gives nothing more.  That does not make it superior.  Quite the opposite, it makes Islam and all that it touches totally inferior.

What is making the Islamic gambit work?  It is very, very simple.  Muslims have what Western intellectuals have taken away from us in the West:  MORAL CERTAINTY.  Yes, Islam is evil; Islam is intellectual detritus; Islam is small enough to fit the minds of Muslims.  Were Islam complicated in any way, it would hold no sway.  But, as we have been developing in this website, Islam mutates young minds to deform a normal child into a Muslim, always under sway of a simple-minded script and a huge mass of fellow “believers,” all of whom clot together to try to form one independent mind.  What results is the Muslim herd, stuffed with the sense of any true believer that his and her ideology is the ONLY TRUE PATH.  It is moral certainty, all right, but it is an edifice standing on nothing substantial.  That is why Islam is so afraid of questioners and doubters, and seeks to kill them.

Moral certainty coming from rationally perceiving and understanding reality by an independent mind is unbelievably powerful, but this is no description of Islam.  Seeing, metaphorically speaking, that the emperor has no clothes and announcing the same is the cardinal fear of Islam.

Moral certainty no longer characterizes so very many in the West.  That is a major reason why the moral abomination called the United Nations exists, why it stands on valuable property in New York City, and why America pays 22% of its bills PLUS endless other contributions.  What does the USA get in return?  Scorn.

The instances of moral uncertainty leading to retreating from Western values populate a vast list.  Take Christmas alone:  “Must not offend the Muslims.”  It goes on seemingly ad infinitum.

So, let’s make some morally certain statements.  The West is superior to the Middle East and all of Islamia in all things.  The West produces while Islamia only destroys what it does not consume parasitically.  Islam is completely evil and should be banned just as Nazism was banned, and for the same reasons.  Muslims are inferior because of Islam, and it does not matter to what race a Muslim belongs.  Islam deserves NO respect from anyone at any time.  It has proved itself too evil to merit any respect.

I am tired of their insisting that we give up our advances and our principles to join them in their intellectual and physical squalor.  They are wrong; we are right.  I do not care about their sensibilities.  I have had more than enough of their bad manners, bad temperaments, and hostility. 

The problem is Islam, and the solution for Muslims is for them to apostatize.  It is not for us to change, not in any way.  Barring their renouncing of Islam, they must engage in the policy of live and let live as opposed to forcing Islam on non-Muslims.  They are the ones with the bad manners and the moral turpitude, so they are the ones who must clean up their acts.  If they are unwilling, then get out and go to those countries under the yoke of Islam.

I will not kowtow in deed or in speech or in word before Muslims or Islam.  NO MORE LIVING DEFENSIVELY FOR ME, FOR YOU, FOR OUR COUNTRY!

So, I say to you and you and you:  Stop living defensively before Islam and its true believers.  Stand up straight.  Be proud of your freedoms and your culture.  Never again let Islam or Islamists ever get to you.

Go TO this site and look at the picture at the end Priceless

http://www.6thcolumnagainstjihad.com/editor.htm#stop

Saudi court sentences rape victim to 90 lashes

Saudi court sentences rape victim to 90 lashes

More proving my points here. From the DPA, with thanks to Morgaan Sinclair:

A Saudi court has sentenced a gang rape victim to 90 lashes of the whip because she was alone in a car with a man to whom she was not married.The sentence was passed at the end of a trial in which the al- Qateef high criminal court convicted four Saudis convicted of the rape, sentencing them to prison terms and a total of 2,230 lashes.

The four, all married, were sentenced respectively to five years and 1,000 lashes, four years and 800 lashes, four years and 350 lashes, and one year and 80 lashes.

A fifth, married, man who was stated to have filmed the rape on his mobile phone still faces investigation. Two others alleged to have taken part in the rape evaded capture.

Saudi courts take marital status into account in sexual crimes. A male friend of the rape victim was also sentenced to 90 lashes for being alone with her in the car.

The court heard that the victim and her friend were followed by the assailants to their car, kidnapped and taken to a remote farm, where the raping occurred.