“The way ahead will be neither quick nor easy.”

That’s what Lt. Gen. David Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services Committee this morning. It needs to be underlined and it is up the Commander-in-Chief to bolster national will moving forward.


What Thomas Jefferson learned from the Muslim book of jihad

What Thomas Jefferson learned

from the Muslim book of jihad

By Ted Sampley
U.S. Veteran Dispatch

January 2007

Democrat Keith Ellison is now officially the first Muslim United States congressman. True to his pledge, he placed his hand on the Quran, the Muslim book of jihad and pledged his allegiance to the United States during his ceremonial swearing-in.

Capitol Hill staff said Ellison’s swearing-in photo opportunity drew more media than they had ever seen in the history of the U.S. House. Ellison represents the 5th Congressional District of Minnesota.

The Quran Ellison used was no ordinary book. It once belonged to Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States and one of America’s founding fathers. Ellison borrowed it from the Rare Book Section of the Library of Congress. It was one of the 6,500 Jefferson books archived in the library.

Ellison, who was born in Detroit and converted to Islam while in college, said he chose to use Jefferson’s Quran because it showed that “a visionary like Jefferson” believed that wisdom could be gleaned from many sources.

There is no doubt Ellison was right about Jefferson believing wisdom could be “gleaned” from the Muslim Quran. At the time Jefferson owned the book, he needed to know everything possible about Muslims because he was about to advocate war against the Islamic “Barbary” states of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Tripoli.

Ellison’s use of Jefferson’s Quran as a prop illuminates a subject once well-known in the history of the United States, but, which today, is mostly forgotten – the Muslim pirate slavers who over many centuries enslaved millions of Africans and tens of thousands of Christian Europeans and Americans in the Islamic “Barbary” states.

Over the course of 10 centuries, Muslim pirates cruised the African and Mediterranean coastline, pillaging villages and seizing slaves.

The taking of slaves in pre-dawn raids on unsuspecting coastal villages had a high casualty rate. It was typical of Muslim raiders to kill off as many of the “non-Muslim” older men and women as possible so the preferred “booty” of only young women and children could be collected.

Young non-Muslim women were targeted because of their value as concubines in Islamic markets. Islamic law provides for the sexual interests of Muslim men by allowing them to take as many as four wives at one time and to have as many concubines as their fortunes allow.

Boys, as young as 9 or 10 years old, were often mutilated to create eunuchs who would bring higher prices in the slave markets of the Middle East. Muslim slave traders created “eunuch stations” along major African slave routes so the necessary surgery could be performed. It was estimated that only a small number of the boys subjected to the mutilation survived after the surgery.

When American colonists rebelled against British rule in 1776, American merchant ships lost Royal Navy protection. With no American Navy for protection, American ships were attacked and their Christian crews enslaved by Muslim pirates operating under the control of the “Dey of Algiers”–an Islamist warlord ruling Algeria.

Because American commerce in the Mediterranean was being destroyed by the pirates, the Continental Congress agreed in 1784 to negotiate treaties with the four Barbary States. Congress appointed a special commission consisting of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, to oversee the negotiations.

Lacking the ability to protect its merchant ships in the Mediterranean, the new America government tried to appease the Muslim slavers by agreeing to pay tribute and ransoms in order to retrieve seized American ships and buy the freedom of enslaved sailors.

Adams argued in favor of paying tribute as the cheapest way to get American commerce in the Mediterranean moving again. Jefferson was opposed. He believed there would be no end to the demands for tribute and wanted matters settled “through the medium of war.” He proposed a league of trading nations to force an end to Muslim piracy.

In 1786, Jefferson, then the American ambassador to France, and Adams, then the American ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the “Dey of Algiers” ambassador to Britain.

The Americans wanted to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress’ vote to appease.

During the meeting Jefferson and Adams asked the Dey’s ambassador why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.

In a later meeting with the American Congress, the two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja had answered that Islam “was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

For the following 15 years, the American government paid the Muslims millions of dollars for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. The payments in ransom and tribute amounted to 20 percent of United States government annual revenues in 1800.

Not long after Jefferson’s inauguration as president in 1801, he dispatched a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress.

Declaring that America was going to spend “millions for defense but not one cent for tribute,” Jefferson pressed the issue by deploying American Marines and many of America’s best warships to the Muslim Barbary Coast.

The USS Constitution, USS Constellation, USS Philadelphia, USS Chesapeake, USS Argus, USS Syren and USS Intrepid all saw action.

In 1805, American Marines marched across the dessert from Egypt into Tripolitania, forcing the surrender of Tripoli and the freeing of all American slaves.

During the Jefferson administration, the Muslim Barbary States, crumbling as a result of intense American naval bombardment and on shore raids by Marines, finally officially agreed to abandon slavery and piracy.

Jefferson’s victory over the Muslims lives on today in the Marine Hymn, with the line, “From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli, we will fight our country’s battles on the land as on the sea.”

It wasn’t until 1815 that the problem was fully settled by the total defeat of all the Muslim slave trading pirates.

Jefferson had been right. The “medium of war” was the only way to put and end to the Muslim problem. Mr. Ellison was right about Jefferson. He was a “visionary” wise enough to read and learn about the enemy from their own Muslim book of jihad.

Democrats’ New ‘Fairness’ Push May Silence Conservative Radio Hosts, Critics Say

Democrats’ New ‘Fairness’ Push May Silence Conservative Radio Hosts, Critics Say
By Fred Lucas
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
January 17, 2007

(CNSNews.com) – Democrats in Congress are pushing for legislation that they say would bring more balance to the media, but critics say would muzzle conservative voices.

The Fairness Doctrine, a federal regulation requiring broadcasters to present both sides of a controversial issue, was enforced by the Federal Communications Commission from 1949 to 1987, when it was dropped during the Reagan administration.

Many in the broadcast industry credit the dropping of the rule to the rise of conservative talk radio that became a booming industry, featuring personalities like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham.

Bringing back the regulation will ensure more even-handed coverage of political issues, said Jeff Lieberson, spokesman for Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.), who has proposed the “Media Ownership Reform Act.”

“The political interests of media owners can have a direct and indirect effect on the way news is presented to the public, so it’s important that all sides are heard,” Lieberson told Cybercast News Service Tuesday.

The Fairness Doctrine is a key component of Hinchey’s bill, which also sets tighter limits on media ownership. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has proposed a companion bill in the Senate.

“This is not an attempt to muzzle them at all,” Lieberson said of conservative talk show hosts who are opposed to the Fairness Doctrine. “They will still be heard. This will ensure that different views that are not theirs will also be heard.”

But muzzling is exactly what such a law would do, charged Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in the Media, a conservative media watchdog group.

“Make no bones about it, they want to force the conservative media to hand over air time to liberals,” Kincaid said in an interview. “When federal bureaucrats dictate the content of radio and TV shows, it’s muzzling to tell them what to say and how to say it.”

Many conservatives have long argued that the bulk of major newspapers, news magazines and network news programs tilt left and regard talk radio as an antidote.

“Liberals used to dominate the media, and they are irritated there are competing voices, so now they want to reign in the conservative media using the federal government,” Kincaid continued. “There is no prohibition against liberal talk radio. Liberals tried talk radio and it was not successful in the market place.”

Kincaid pointed to Air America, the liberal talk radio network started in 2004 that is now in bankruptcy but still operating with a limited audience.

The Fairness Doctrine was adopted by the FCC in 1949 as a regulation, never a law enacted by Congress. The effort now by Democrats in Congress is to codify the doctrine into law.

When the rule was in place, radio and TV stations could face hefty fines if their stations aired controversial statements on public affairs without providing equal time to opposing viewpoints. Critics said the result was self-censorship by timid broadcasters who avoided politics to escape any potential government retaliation.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that the doctrine did not violate the First Amendment, because the airwaves belonged to the public and thus could face government regulation to which print media were not subjected.

After the FCC ditched the rule in 1987, Democratic lawmakers made several attempts to bring it back in statute. Those attempts were unsuccessful even when Democrats controlled both the White House and Congress in 1993 and 1994.

Despite the 1969 court ruling, Dennis Wharton, spokesman for the National Association of Broadcasters, told Cybercast News Service Tuesday it was fundamentally a First Amendment question.

“It was not appropriately named,” Wharton said of the doctrine. “It was unfair in inhibiting broadcasters’ free speech rights.

“There has been an explosion of viewpoints and coverage of issues since the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine,” Wharton said. “It’s been a boon for free expression.”

Hinchey, chairman of the “Future of Media Caucus” in the House, is among several
Democratic lawmakers who spoke at the National Conference on Media Reform in Memphis, Tenn., this past weekend.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), chairman of the House subcommittee on domestic policy, announced he would hold hearings on the media, which would include looking at restoring the Fairness Doctrine.

“We know the media has become the servant of a very narrow corporate agenda,” Kucinich, a candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, reportedly told the Memphis event.

“We are now in a position to move a progressive agenda to where it is visible,” he said.

Bush Eyes Pardon for Border Patrolmen

 Bush Eyes Pardon for Border Patrolmen

Thursday, Jan. 18, 2007 8:41 p.m. EST

President Bush on Thursday said a pardon was possible for two Border Patrol agents serving prison sentences for shooting a Mexican drug dealer as he fled and then covering up the crime.

“There’s a process for pardons,” Bush said, adding the case has to work its way through the system. In an interview with KFOX-TV in El Paso, Bush urged people to “take a sober look at the case.”

“People need to take a tough look at the facts, the evidence a jury looked at, as well as the judge. And I will do the same thing,” he said.

Several lawmakers have urged the president to pardon former Border Patrol agents Jose Alonso Compean and Ignacio Ramos for the shooting of Osvaldo Aldrete Davila, who retreated to Mexico after he was shot and later admitted he was transporting marijuana while in the country illegally.

The agents began serving their federal prison sentences Wednesday — 11 years and one day for Ramos and 12 years for Compean. Both were fired after their convictions on several charges, including assault with a deadly weapon, obstruction of justice and a civil rights violation.

Rancor over the convictions and sentencing of the agents has been simmering for months, and the two have become a cause celebre among conservatives and on talk shows. Their supporters have said they were defending themselves and have called them heroes.

Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., introduced a bill Thursday calling for a congressional pardon of the agents. Congress has never issued pardons to anyone convicted of a crime, said Joe Kasper, Hunter’s spokesman. But Kasper said Hunter believes there’s enough ambiguity in the law on pardons to give it a try.

Why Liberals Defend Islamic Jihad

Why Liberals Defend Islamic Jihad

Columnist Christopher Hitchins gives us an explanation for liberals’ suicidal mindset that leads them, in the name of tolerance, to oppose American military efforts to combat Islamic jihad.  Included in the liberal fold unfortunately are many nominally Christian churches that have abandoned the Bible and disavowed God’s commandment to Moses to worship only Him.

Read More…

function showHide(entryID, entryLink, htmlObj, type) { if (type == “comments”) { extTextDivID = (‘comText’ + (entryID)); extLinkDivID = (‘comLink’ + (entryID)); } else { extTextDivID = (‘extText’ + (entryID)); extLinkDivID = (‘extLink’ + (entryID)); } if( document.getElementById ) { if( document.getElementById(extTextDivID).style.display ) { if( entryLink != 0 ) { document.getElementById(extTextDivID).style.display = “block”; document.getElementById(extLinkDivID).style.display = “none”; htmlObj.blur(); } else { document.getElementById(extTextDivID).style.display = “none”; document.getElementById(extLinkDivID).style.display = “block”; } } else { location.href = entryLink; return true; } } else { location.href = entryLink; return true; } }
In a City Journal commentary on Mark Steyn’s new book America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It, Christopher Hitchins makes the following points:

How does one respond, in other words, when an enemy challenges not just your cherished values but additionally forces you to examine the very assumptions that have heretofore seemed to underpin those values? Two things, in my experience, disable many liberals at the onset of this conversation. First, they cannot shake their subliminal identification of the Muslim religion with the wretched of the earth: the black- and brown-skinned denizens of what we once called the “Third World.” You can see this identification in the way that the Palestinians (about 20 percent of whom were Christian until their numbers began to decline) have become an “Islamic” cause and in the amazing ignorance that most leftists display about India, a multiethnic secular democracy under attack from al-Qaida and its surrogates long before the United States was. And you can see it, too, in the stupid neologism “Islamophobia,” which aims to promote criticism of Islam to the gallery of special offenses associated with racism.

The second liberal disability concerns numbers. Any emphasis on the relative birthrates of Muslim and non-Muslim populations falls on the liberal ear like an echo of eugenics. It also upsets one of the most valued achievements of the liberal consensus: the right if not indeed the duty to limit family size to (at most) two children. It was all very well, from this fatuously self-satisfied perspective, for Paul Ehrlich to warn about the human “population bomb” as a whole, just as it is all very well for some “Green” forces to take a neo-Malthusian attitude toward human reproduction in general. But in the liberal mind, to concentrate on the fertility of any one group is to flirt with Nuremberg laws. The same goes for “racial profiling,” even when it’s directed at the adherents of an often ideological religion rather than an ethnic group. The Islamists, meanwhile, have staked everything on fecundity.

……Compounding the problem, Europe’s multicultural authorities, many of its welfare agencies, and many of its churches treat the most militant Muslims as the minority’s “real” spokesmen. As Kenan Malik and others have pointed out in the case of Britain, this mind-set cuts the ground from under the feet of secular Muslims, encouraging the sensation that many in the non-Muslim Establishment have a kind of death wish.

Steyn cannot seem to make up his mind about the defense of secularism in this struggle. He regards Christianity as a bulwark of civilization and a possible insurance against Islamism. But he cannot resist pointing out that most of the Christian churches have collapsed into compromise: choosing to speak of Muslims as another “faith community,” agreeing with them on the need for confessional-based schooling, and reserving their real condemnation for American policies in the war against terrorism.

Mr. Hitchins concludes his commentary with an interesting set of policy proposals.

Steyn is much more definite about the cultural side of his argument, in other words, than about the counterterrorist dimension. If I wanted to sharpen both prongs of his thesis, I would also propose the following: 1. An end to one-way multiculturalism and to the cultural masochism that goes with it. The Koran does not mandate the wearing of veils or genital mutilation, and until recently only those who apostasized from Islam faced the threat of punishment by death. Now, though, all manner of antisocial practices find themselves validated in the name of religion, and mullahs have begun to issue threats even against non-Muslims for criticism of Islam. This creeping Islamism must cease at once, and those responsible must feel the full weight of the law. Meanwhile, we should insist on reciprocity at all times. We should not allow a single Saudi dollar to pay for propaganda within the U.S., for example, until Saudi Arabia also permits Jewish and Christian and secular practices. No Wahhabi-printed Korans anywhere in our prison system. No Salafist imams in our armed forces.

2. A strong, open alliance with India on all fronts, from the military to the political and economic, backed by an extensive cultural exchange program, to demonstrate solidarity with the other great multiethnic democracy under attack from Muslim fascism. A hugely enlarged quota for qualified Indian immigrants and a reduction in quotas from Pakistan and other nations where fundamentalism dominates.

3. A similarly forward approach to Nigeria, São Tomé and Príncipe, and the other countries of Western Africa that are under attack by jihadists and are also the location of vast potential oil reserves, whose proper development could help emancipate the local populations from poverty and ourselves from dependence on Middle Eastern oil.

4. A declaration at the UN of our solidarity with the right of the Kurdish people of Iraq and elsewhere to self-determination as well as a further declaration by Congress that in no circumstance will Muslim forces who have fought on our side, from the Kurds to the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, find themselves friendless, unarmed, or abandoned. Partition in Iraq would be defeat under another name (and as with past partitions, would lead to yet further partitions and micro-wars over these very subdivisions). But if it has to come, we cannot even consider abandoning the one part of the country that did seize the opportunity of modernization, development, and democracy.

5. Energetic support for all the opposition forces in Iran and in the Iranian diaspora. A public offer from the United States, disseminated widely in the Persian language, of help for a reformed Iran on all matters, including peaceful nuclear energy, and of assistance in protecting Iran from the catastrophic earthquake that seismologists predict in its immediate future. Millions of lives might be lost in a few moments, and we would also have to worry about the fate of secret underground nuclear facilities. When a quake leveled the Iranian city of Bam three years ago, the performance of American rescue teams was so impressive that their popularity embarrassed the regime. Iran’s neighbors would need to pay attention, too: a crisis in Iran’s nuclear underground facilities—an Iranian Chernobyl—would not be an internal affair. These concerns might help shift the currently ossified terms of the argument and put us again on the side of an internal reform movement within Iran and its large and talented diaspora.

6. Unconditional solidarity, backed with force and the relevant UN resolutions, with an independent and multi-confessional Lebanon.

7. A commitment to buy Afghanistan’s opium crop and to keep the profits out of the hands of the warlords and Talibanists, until such time as the country’s agriculture— especially its once-famous vines—has been replanted and restored. We can use the product in the interim for the manufacture of much-needed analgesics for our own market and apply the profits to the reconstruction of Afghanistan.

8. We should, of course, be scrupulous on principle about stirring up interethnic tensions. But we should remind those states that are less scrupulous—Iran, Pakistan, and Syria swiftly come to mind—that we know that they, too, have restless minorities and that they should not make trouble in Afghanistan, Lebanon, or Iraq without bearing this in mind. Some years ago, the Pakistani government announced that it would break the international embargo on the unrecognized and illegal Turkish separatist state in Cyprus and would appoint an ambassador to it, out of “Islamic solidarity.” Cyprus is a small democracy with no armed forces to speak of, but its then–foreign minister told me the following story. He sought a meeting with the Pakistani authorities and told them privately that if they recognized the breakaway Turkish colony, his government would immediately supply funds and arms to one of the secessionist movements—such as the Baluchis—within Pakistan itself. Pakistan never appointed an ambassador to Turkish Cyprus.

Islam converts change face of Europe

Islam converts change face of Europe

As many as 100,000 French and British citizens have converted to Islam over the last decade, according to a new book by an Israeli historian.

The figures cited by Hebrew University Prof. Raphael Israeli in his upcoming book The Third Islamic Invasion of Europe are representative of the fast-changing face of Europe, which the Islamic history professor says is in danger of becoming “Eurabia” within half a century.

He noted that about 30 million Muslims currently live in Europe, out of a total population of 380 million., adding that with a high Muslim birthrate in Europe, the number of Muslims living in the continent is likely to double within 25 years.

Israeli also cited massive immigration and Turkey’s future inclusion in the EU as the primary reasons why the face of Europe will be indelibly changed within a generation.

European concerns over a fast-growing Muslim population is at the center of opposition to Turkey’s entry into the EU, he said, as the inclusion of Turkey into the EU will catapult the number of Muslims to 100 million out of a total population of 450 million.

“The sheer weight of demography will produce a situation where no Frenchman or Dutchman could be elected to parliament without the support of the Muslim minority,” he said Monday in an interview with The Jerusalem Post.

“Muslims will have a more and more decisive voice in the makeup of European governments.”

“With Turkey as a member of the EU, the process will be accelerated, without [Turkey] it will be slower but it will still happen,” he added. Turkey has strong relations with Israel.

The historian, who has authored 19 previous books, said that Muslim political power in Europe would directly impact domestic politics, including Europe’s immigration policy, with millions of additional Muslims waiting at the door to gain entry to the EU as part of “family reunification” programs.

“Every European with a right mind has every reason to be frightened,” Israeli said.

The 50,000 French and 50,000 British who have converted to Islam over the last decade, including many from mixed marriages, did so for personal convictions, romanticized notions of Islam, as well as for business reasons, while others see Islam as the wave of the future at a time when Christianity is on the wane, Israeli said.

He said that Muslims converting to Christianity existed but their numbers were significantly smaller.

Israeli noted that conversions in mixed marriages worked only in one direction since a Muslim woman who marries a Christian is considered an apostate in her community, and faces physical danger.

“It is time one should wake up and realize what is happening in Europe,” he concluded.

Israeli’s book is due out in London in the coming months.•

Dear CAIR: Please Boycott Airlines Serving Hawaii–In May! (satire)

Dear CAIR: Please Boycott Airlines Serving Hawaii–In May! (satire)

By John Lillpop

Of all the bloody cheek!

No longer content with just ramming airplanes into skyscrapers, devotees of the “Religion of Peace” have raised the terror bar another couple of notches.

Now these neurotic stowaways from the 7th century have flexed their financial muscle by threatening to boycott Northwest Airlines. It seems as though agents at Northwest had the audacity to demand that Muslim travelers follow international and airline rules by checking in least one hour before scheduled departure time.

It had something to do with security, 9/11, Jihad on America etc. Nothing that would concern any card-holding Jihadist. Right?

In any event, travelers returning from a pilgrimage to Mecca, Saudi Arabia, allegedly arrived just twenty minutes before departure, rather the required hour.

That is when Northwest Airlines personnel acted responsibly and refused to allow 40 of Allah’s best and brightest to board the plane.

Of course, lawyers from CAIR subsequently gathered to address the issue in the spirit of fairness, reasoned logic, and common sense.

When all of those approaches failed, CAIR resorted to their standard policy book and screamed Racism! blah, blah, blah. And they then threatened to boycott the company, meaning that Muslims would get even by not flying Northwest Airlines.

Excuse me, did I read that correctly? The Muslims threatened to stay away from Northwest Airlines?

Good grief, how lucky can any airline get?

Immediately after confirming this report, I checked the itinerary for my Hawaii vacation in May and dispatched the following letter to the San Francisco branch of CAIR:

Dear CAIR:

Knowing how racist and belligerent some airlines can be, I thought it my civic duty to inform you of a situation that is untenable for any ax-wielding Jihadist.

I refer to XXX Airlines, Flight XX, on May 5, 2007. This flight is non-stop from San Francisco to Honolulu, and leaves at 730 a.m., PDT. Gate 2a, Terminal 3.

In addition, please make note of the return flight from Honolulu to San Francisco on May 19, 2007.

Both of these flights are to be avoided by Muslims at all costs. The pilots, flight attendants, security personal, bartenders, and Red Caps at the airports for these flights are all racists. Some are even reported to be closet Jews.

Please confirm receipt of this advisory and CAIR’s firm commitment to boycott the identified flights.

Praise be to Allah,

Infidel, Second Class

John Lillpop is a recovering liberal, ‘clean and sober’ since 1992 when last he voted for a Democrat. Pray for John: He lives in the San Francisco Bay Area, where people like Nancy Pelosi are considered reasonable! Writing is his passion. He loves creating lively copy with irony and humor!

The Ignorant Leading the Stupid

The Ignorant Leading the Stupid
By Alan Nathan
FrontPageMagazine.com | January 23, 2007

Nothing like a good troop surge debate to reinstate everyone’s faith in our lawmakers’ grasp of the Constitution – which is rivaled only by a cadaver’s handshake. We’re watching this comically grotesque dance between the mindless and the moronic, as representatives boast to media allies about their upcoming power struggles “on behalf of the American people.” Shakespeare knew this type when he wrote:  Thou concludest like the sanctimonious pirate that went to sea with the Ten Commandments, but scraped one out of the table. (Measure for Measure, Act I, Scene II) 

On the January 14, 2007, edition of ABC’s This Week, House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee Chairman John Murtha, D-PA, discussed restrictions he could place on supplemental spending bills as a way to block the president’s 21,500 troop surge. He added:

 They say I’m trying to recommend micromanaging of the Defense Department. Well, they need to be micromanaged. 

This was almost exactly what he had said earlier this month except then he added, “What we decide is the direction of the country on this war.”

 Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-NY, recently announced her proposal for legislation requiring that Bush obtain congressional authority for any troop increases.  

CNN reported on January 9, 2007, that Senator Ted Kennedy, D-MA, actually submitted his own troop capping legislation even before the president had announced his new strategy:

 No additional troops can be sent and no additional dollars can be spent on such an escalation unless and until Congress approves the president’s plan.  A week later, Kennedy repeated those sentiments on NBC’s Meet The Press.  Unlike most politicos coming together on other more innocuous, non-binding resolutions of rebuke for the president’s plan, Murtha, Clinton, and Kennedy are either impervious to how constitutional law trumps legislative law, or they are openly trying to usurp an authority beyond their own separated powers.  

This usurping represents a hostile act against the people’s long-term interests as defined and protected by the Constitution. This fact remains even when the breach is based upon a popular sentiment of the day. (It’s the reason O.J. gets to live though most want him dead.)


Congress is not entitled to supplant the commander-in-chief’s inherent authority (i.e., intrinsic constitutional power) as outlined in Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution. This never changes, despite the Democrats’ recapture of Congress and their screaming demands for more checks and balances.


The only reason our three co-equal branches of government have the leverage to place checks and balances on one another is because each has certain absolute powers beyond the reach of the other two.


The president fights while the Congress funds, and neither may encroach upon other – that’s how we avoid divergent militias. The Supreme Court referees those passing constitutional muster, but the court is also barred from changing constitutional laws that ultimately define the separation of powers. Yes, each has a check upon the other, but they’re indirect checks and all three branches are answerable to those dynamics.


Thankfully, there’s often a difference between the whims of a poll and the direction chosen by those we elect. Buffering us from what would be the jarring of a nation, their power outranks the polls for the duration of their term in office. If there’s too much of a disconnect between their decisions and our wants, the voters can show them the door at election time.


That’s why the Democratic winning of Congress takes nothing away from the Constitutional powers belonging to the last winner of the presidency. The will of the people has always included its own baggage of earlier choices, and the responsibilities associated with them invariably come with committed timetables. Hence, the one getting the most votes can do what the fewest want.

 When the legislative branch declares “war light” under the auspices of the War Powers Act of 1973, it’s either in the form of an Authorization for the Use of Military Force such as after 9/11, or a War Resolution as with Iraq.  After that, Congress becomes subordinate to the president as it relates to the prosecution of that war. Conversely, the president’s leeway to continue that prosecution is always subordinate to Congress’ willingness to maintain the funding.  

If they want to reduce that budget, fine, that is their check and balance card. However, they’re not permitted to use targeted funding restrictions and contingencies as a way to abscond with powers over troop assignments and other battlefield decisions not vested in them by the Constitution.

In the name of a supposedly noble cause, you cannot trample on far nobler principles. We are a representative, democratic republic – not a mobocracy. Live with it!

Islamic Prejudice, Islamic Denial

Islamic Prejudice, Islamic Denial
By Robert Spencer
FrontPageMagazine.com | January 23, 2007

For last week’s “Dispatches” program on Britain’s Channel Four, a reporter with a hidden camera entered Birmingham’s Green Lane mosque (which has won praise from Britain’s Muslim peer, Lord Ahmed) and other leading mosques in Britain. He found they preached Islamic supremacism, hatred of Jews and Christians, and the subjugation of women. The mosques, of course, are in heavy damage-control mode. A press release at the Green Lane mosque website complains that “it is extremely disappointing but not at all surprising that ‘Dispatches’ has chosen to portray Muslims in the worst possible light. ‘Dispatches’ has opted for sensationalism over substance with total disregard for peaceful community relations.” And not only that: “This so-called ‘undercover’ investigation merely panders to age-old anti-Muslim prejudices by employing the time-honoured tradition of cherry picking statements and presenting them in the most inflammatory manner.” The statement doesn’t address the obvious fact that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to cherry-pick statements anywhere near as hateful and inflammatory as those recorded in the Green Lane mosque from proceedings in any Jewish, Christian, Hindu, or Buddhist house of worship. Among the statements recorded in the Green Lane mosque were these about women: 

  • “Allah has created the woman – even if she gets a Ph.D. – deficient. Her intellect is incomplete, deficient. She may be suffering from hormones that will make her emotional. It takes two witnesses of a woman to equal the one witness of the man.”
  • “By the age of ten, it becomes an obligation on us to force her to wear hijab, and if she doesn’t wear hijab, we hit her.”
  • “Men are in charge of women. Wherever he goes she should follow him, and she shouldn’t be allowed leave the house without his permission.”

How inflammatory! How extremist! And how inveterately Qur’anic!  The Muslim holy book declares that a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man: “Get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her” (Qur’an 2:282). It also says that men are in charge of women, and that disobedient women should be beaten: “Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them” (4:34). The same is true of other statements made in the mosque, including these about Britain and the Islamic state: 

  • “You have to live like a state within a state until you take over.”
  • “We want the laws of Islam to be practiced, we want to do away with the man-made laws.”
  • “Muslims shouldn’t be satisfied with living in other than the total Islamic state.”
  • “I encourage all of you to be from amongst them, to begin to cultivate ourselves for the time that is fast approaching where the tables are going to turn and the Muslims are going to be in the position of being uppermost in strength, and when that happens, people won’t get killed – unjustly.”
  • “Allah has decreed this thing, that I am going to be dominant. The dominance of course is a political dominance.”

Such statements have been vividly expressed in the writings of twentieth century jihad theorists such as the Egyptian Sayyid Qutb and the Pakistani Syed Abul Ala Maududi. Said Qutb:


It is not the function of Islam to compromise with the concepts of Jahiliyya [the society of unbelievers] which are current in the world or to co-exist in the same land together with a jahili system….Islam cannot accept any mixing with Jahiliyyah. Either Islam will remain, or Jahiliyyah; no half-half situation is possible. Command belongs to Allah, or otherwise to Jahiliyyah; Allah’s Shari’a [law] will prevail, or else people’s desires…The foremost duty of Islam is to depose Jahiliyyah from the leadership of man….


Maududi likewise wrote that non-Muslims have “absolutely no right to seize the reins of power in any part of God’s earth, nor to direct the collective affairs of human beings according to their own misconceived doctrines.” If they do, “the believers would be under an obligation to do their utmost to dislodge them from political power and to make them live in subservience to the Islamic way of life.”

 But Qutb and Maududi did not originate these ideas. They are an extrapolation of Qur’anic passages such as 9:29, which assumes that Muslims will wield state power over Jews and Christians, exacting from them a poll tax (jizya) and making sure that they pay it “with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” There is no concept in the Qur’an, Islamic tradition, or Islamic law of non-Muslims living as equals with Muslims in an Islamic state: Muslims must be in a superior position. The Muslim prophet Muhammad emphasized this when he told his followers:
Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war…When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them…If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them. (Sahih Muslim 4294) Of course, there are many ways to understand all these passages and others like them. But the fact that the views expressed by the Muslims in the Channel Four documentary can be found in the Islamic scriptures without much effort suggests that the problem is far larger than a few mosques that were thought to be “moderate” but turn out to be “extremist.” It is a problem that is deeply rooted within traditional Islam, and must be treated as such. Muslims in Britain who sincerely reject the idea that Islam must be dominant and that Islamic law must be instituted in Britain, and that women and non-Muslims must be subjugated, and who accept the idea that non-Muslims and Muslims should live together as equals on an indefinite basis, should not condemn the “Dispatches” documentary. Instead, they should welcome it as a opportunity not only to expel “extremists” from their ranks, and to formulate a comprehensive rejection and refutation of their literalist understanding of the Qur’an and Sunnah. But so far they are not doing that. Instead, the Muslim Council of Britain, the Muslim Public Affairs Committee of the United Kingdom, the Federation of Student Islamic Societies, and the UK Islamic Mission have all denounced the program as “Islamophobic.” None have taken even a single step to combat the spread of the understanding of Islam depicted in the show, or to mitigate the elements of Islam that incite to violence and inculcate Islamic supremacism.And that itself is very, very telling.