Jihad is intrinsic to Islam

America at the Crossroads “Islam vs. Islamists” shines a spotlight on the grave difficulties faced by moderate Muslims.

America at the Crossroads

“Islam vs. Islamists” shines a spotlight on the grave difficulties faced by moderate Muslims.

PBS’s refusal to air, as part of the series, this powerful documentary about the threat Muslim supremacists present to moderate Muslims (and non-Muslims) is very troubling. Many terrorism experts believe a vital key to winning the war against Muslim radicals lies within Islam itself, that moderate Muslims must be supported and encouraged in challenging extremism in their own faith.

You can now judge for yourselves by viewing the film which is in 8 parts below :-

Part 1 , Part 2 , Part 3 , Part 4 , Part 5 , Part 6 , Part 7 , Part 8

Posted by Ted Belman @ 6:22 am |

Bloody Islam Very graphic

Bloody Islam

By Ted Belman

Islam in pictures NOW UPDATED

If anyone has more pictures to add to this Power Point Presentation please forward.

Palestinian “Love”

Hitler’s Palestinian Progeny

Posted by Ted Belman @ 9:20 am |

Iran buys 250 long-distance Sukhoi fighter-bombers, 20 fuel tankers, from Russia

Iran buys 250 long-distance Sukhoi fighter-bombers, 20 fuel tankers, from Russia

DEBKA Reports: July 27, 2007,

Tehran and the Russian Rosoboronexport arms group are about to sign a mammoth arms deal running into tens of billions of dollars for the sale to Tehran of 250 Su-30MKM warplanes and 20 IL-78 MKI fuel tankers. DEBKAfile’s military sources report Iran has stipulated delivery of the first aircraft before the end of 2007.

The transaction, Russia’s largest arms deal in 30 years, will endow Iran with a long-range aerial assault capability. The Sukhoi can sustain a four-and-a-half hour raid at its maximum range of 3,000 km against long-distance, marine and low-lying ground targets across the Persian Gulf and Middle East, including Israel and Lebanon.

The fuel tankers extends the Su-30MKM’s assault sustainability to 10 hours and its range to 8,000 km at altitudes of 11-13 km. The closest comparable plane in the West is the American F-15E fighter bomber. Iran’s acquisition of an exceptionally large fleet of the Russian fighter-bomber will elevate its air force to one of the two largest and most advanced in the region, alongside the Israeli Air Force.

Iranian air crews are already training on the new Sukhoi aircraft, ready to start flying them early next year with only a short delay after delivery. DEBKAfile’s sources report that Moscow is selling Tehran the same Sukhoi model as India received earlier this year. The Iranians leaned hard on New Delhi to let them have the Israeli avionics and electronics the Indian Air Force had installed in the Russian craft. India refused.

Russia began delivering the same craft in June to Malaysia, which also sought Israeli avionics without success. The Su-20MKM has won the nickname of “Islamic Version of Sukhoi.”

Its two-member crew shares the workload. The first pilot flies the aircraft, controls weapons and maneuvers the plane in a dogfight. The co-pilot employs BVR air-to-air and air-to-ground guided weapons in long-range engagements, sweeps the arena for enemy craft or missiles and performs as command-and-control in group missions.

Some of the plane’s systems are products of the French Thales Airborne Systems company. Moscow’s contract with Tehran for the sale of the Su-30MKM must therefore be cleared with Paris.

There is no decision in Jerusalem about asking Paris to withhold its consent to a deal which would substantially upgrade the long-range air assault capabilities of the Islamic Republic whose leaders want to wipe Israel off the map. However, President Nicolas Sarkozy is in mid-momentum of a diplomatic drive in the Arab and Muslim world and unlikely to be receptive to an Israeli approach. The only chance of aborting the Russian sale would be to route the approach through Washington.

Posted by Ted Belman @ 1:15 pm |

It’s Time to Worry about Global COOLING

It’s Time to Worry about Global COOLING
Kevin Roeten

Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest solar cycle of the past two centuries. They say this will likely lead to unusually cool conditions on Earth. It is also predicted that this cool period will go much longer than the normal 11 year cycle, as the Little Ice Age did. The climate threat is actually cooling, especially to countries like Canada. On the northern limit to agriculture in the world, very little cooling would likely destroy much of its food crops.

The Little Ice Age—the coldest period in the past 1500 years—corresponded perfectly with the Maunder Minimum. There was virtually no sunspot activity for almost seven decades in the Maunder Minimum(per Willie Soon/ Harvard/Astrophysics). It turns out that for those 60-70 years the northern half of our globe was in a deep freeze. The New York harbor froze, allowing walkers to journey from Manhattan to Staten Island, and the Vikings abandoned Greenland–a once verdant land that became tundra. In that Little Ice Age, Finland lost 1/3 of its population and Iceland 1/2.

In the well-known 11-year “Schwabe” sunspot cycle, the output of the sun varies by about 0.1%. Sunspots are violent storms on the surface of the sun. Marine productivity and total irradiance match very well with records that have been kept for centuries on visible sunspots. Hundreds of studies of sunspots and earthly climate indicators(tree rings in Russia’s Kola Peninsula, to water levels of the Nile) show exactly the same thing—that the sun drives climate change.

Even though it has been discovered that the sun is brighter now than anytime in the past 8000 years, the increase in solar output was not calculated to be sufficient to cause all of the past century’s modest warming. But that amplifier was discovered(starting in 2002) with scientific papers from Veizer, Shaviv, Carslaw, and most recently Svendsmark(Danish National Space Agency).

All these scientists have proven(particularly w/Svendsmark) that the sun’s protective solar wind(from sunspots) blows away deep-space cosmic rays. With fewer sunspots there is less solar wind, more cosmic rays, and more cloud formation from those cosmic rays. More cloud formation means more cooling effect on the planet.

In a 2003 poll, 2/3 of more than 530 climate scientists from 27 countries did not believe greenhouse gases were the main reason for global warming. In fact, overlays of CO2 variations show little correlation with earth’s climate on long, medium, and even short time scales. The science is nowhere near settled.

Nigel Weiss(Mathematical Astrophysics/Cambridge) states that “Variable behavior of the sun is an obvious explanation.” He admits that we are now living in a period of abnormally high solar activity, and that these hyperactive periods do not last long(50-100 years), then you get a crash. “It’s a boom-bust system, and I would expect a crash soon.” And when the crash occurs, the Earth can cool dramatically.

Dr. Kukla(Czechoslovakian Academy of Sciences) say he and many others realize that global warming always precedes an ice age. Each lasts about 100,000 years, punctuated by briefer, warmer periods called interglacials.  We are in an interglacial now. This ongoing cycle closely matches cyclic variations in Earth’s orbit around the sun. Kukla says “The relationship is just too clear and consistent to allow reasonable doubt. It’s either that, or climate drives orbit, and that just doesn’t make sense.”

No one knows when a ‘crash’ will occur, but scientists expect it soon. Mainly because the sun’s polar field is now at its weakest since measurements began in the 1950’s.  A deep crash last occurred in the 17th century—and it was the Little Ice Age, or the Maunder Minimum. “Having a ‘crash’ would certainly allow us to pin down the sun’s true level of influence on the earth’s climate,” concludes Dr. Weiss. “Then we will be able to act on fact, rather than from fear.”

It’s not likely greenhouse ‘gassers’ will be converted in 12 years. They’ll be busy looking for something humans have done to make it so cold.

Kevin Roeten

‘Islam America’s ‘Greatest Strength’?’ Newsweek strikes again

‘Islam America’s ‘Greatest Strength’?’
By Warner Todd Huston (07/28/07)

Outrageously, Newsweek has published a so-called “special report”(1) in which Muslim Americans are called “one of this country’s greatest strengths,” but, Newsweek worries, that they are now “vulnerable as never before.” Yes, America, as far as Newsweek is concerned it is YOU, not Islam, that is the problem and therein lies the main reason why the west seriously misunderstands the war in which we are engaged, and why we could lose it.

As to the first claim, Newsweek offers not a single reason in their report why Muslims might be one of our “greatest strengths,” but of the claim of how “vulnerable” they are, Newsweek drones on and on endlessly. Naturally, Newsweek puts the onus on Americans to bend over backward for Muslims, but doesn’t once take Muslims to task for their barbarities and radicalism.

This “special report” starts out with a Muslim American from Cleveland, Ohio demanding of George W. Bush at a meeting in that city that the US take stronger measures to stop anti-Muslim sentiment from spreading in this country. “It’s the young people I’m concerned with,” Fareed Siddiq gravely claims.

Yes, Mr. Siddiq. I agree. It is the young Muslims who we are all concerned with as they are the ones that are most liable to wage Jihad on their fellow Americans in answer to your Muslim causes across the globe as was seen with the Lackawana Six. So, yes, Mr. Siddiq, we worry about the Muslim youth, too… but for a different, more legitimate reason than you.

Siddiq’s bloviation is especially hypocritical in light of the fact that Pakistan, the country of his birth, is nearly as radical and supportive of Jihad across the world as Saudi Arabia with Pakistan ranking as one of the world’s most active terror exporting and supporting countries.

Newsweek goes on to claim that Muslims in the USA consider themselves “Americans”, not radical Muslims. But, Newsweek fails to bother balancing their report with so many easily found anti-western speeches by Muslim Imams across this country. From the Nation of Islam to the common Muslim Mosque radical speeches are far more common than Newsweek wants to let on. Granted the anti-western ranting here is not yet nearly as bad as it is in Europe, still, like elsewhere in the world, we see few Muslim Imams forcefully standing against terrorism and radical Islam.

Newsweek next approvingly quotes the first Muslim Congressman, Keith Ellison of Minnesota, about how great this country is, wholly skipping over his recent claims that we are like the Nazis.

In fact, this Newsweek report is filled with glowing praise for American Muslims with little said of their lack of denunciation of terrorism.

One thing that the magazine says, though, is too true.

It wouldn’t be too much of an exaggeration to say that on September 10, 2001, the Muslim American universe was largely invisible. The only Muslims most people here knew by name were Malcolm X, Louis Farrakhan and Muhammad Ali. If their doctor or accountant was Muslim, the average American probably didn’t give it much thought.

That nonchalance cost this country nearly six thousand dead and counting. So, yes, in the 9/10 world, few Americans paid much attention to Islam. It cost us dearly, too.

But of radicalism here in the states, Newsweek tires its best to tone it down or turn away from discussing it. For instance, of the replacement of a more moderate Imam in Quincy, Massachusetts with a new one, all Newsweek can muster is that he was replaced with a “more conservative Imam.” But they do not bother to inform us what that might mean. What does “more conservative” mean? Why do they not take time to explain why the previous Imam was “moderate” and the next one “more conservative?” Do they want to avoid something here?

Next this “special report” ridiculously seems to blame Americans for the increasing numbers of Muslim women who are now wearing the veil here in the USA post 9/11.

The relative peace that came with invisibility disappeared after 9/11. When Muslims became objects of fear, “people who had never recognized and seen themselves as Muslims had no choice but to see themselves as Muslim,” says Muzaffar Chisti, director of the Migration Policy Institute at the New York University School of Law. Young women who had never before worn the traditional Islamic head covering—and whose mothers saw it as a symbol of the backwardness they had left at home—put on the veil. According to a 2002 study from Hamilton College, more than a third of Muslim American women now wear the veil every day.

So, we evil Americans have somehow forced Muslim women to begin degrading themselves and wearing the Muslim veil? What absurdity!

Then there is Newsweek quoting a Muslim in California who imagines that Islam is “under assault” by Americans in the USA. “Where do I stand?” they quote Razi Mohiuddin, a native of India, as saying. “Either I walk away from the faith or I become more involved in defending the faith, which [is] under assault.”

Nowhere in this report, however, does Newsweek prove that raving Americans endanger Muslims, nor do they show statistics that convincingly prove they are increasingly in danger anywhere in this country. Newsweek does lovingly praise CAIR for attacking American traditions and laws, as well as approvingly cites American Muslim’s attempts to combat “discrimination” here, though… again all without citing any statistics to prove this supposed growth in “discrimination.”

To their credit, Newsweek does wonder aloud about the dangers of foreign Imams coming here from radical countries like Saudi Arabia, but seems to claim that no effect from their radical teachings has taken root.

The concerns expressed by Newsweek about foreign Imams, however, seem to be the only sensible warnings in the entire self-flagellating story.

Also to their credit Newsweek deflates the canard that only being poor or uneducated leads to radical Islam, an idea that conveniently forgets that the 19 hijackers of 9/11 were middle class or well off Saudis. Poverty certainly didn’t lead to their heinous acts. Islam did.

The most amazing thing about this “special report” is that even in this story all the hate, fear, ignorance, fire and danger seems to be coming from Muslims in America, not the rest of us. They even quote the American born son of a Muslim from Bangladesh as saying he was glad 9/11 happened. The boy is quoted as saying, “… I remember thinking that I didn’t care that it happened. A lot of my friends didn’t care. I think it’s because we’re Muslim.” Yet all the while, as Newsweek cites such dangerous talk and separatist feelings among Muslims in America, they are claiming that it is the average American, rather than the Muslims living here, that is at fault. They refuse even to heed their own evidence that their finger pointing at America is in error. They refuse to even broach the possibility that Muslims might take responsibility for their fellow’s evil actions.

Where, Newsweek, is your call for Muslims to stand up against terrorism as a community?

No, to Newsweek, the average American is just a racist, hater.

In the end, this “special report” seems more like an apologia for radical Muslim reactions, fear mongering on their part, and a general desire to fall back into their own, enclosed communities while tsk tsking at non-Muslim Americans for their evil, racist attitudes.

But, one thing is certain. Newsweek’s report certainly makes one understand how easy it was for this country to ignore the things that led up to 9/11 and reveals that we are headed right back to a 9/10 attitude, paving the way for the next outrage perpetrated by these “discriminated” against Muslims to occur.

So much for Muslims being one of America’s “greatest strength.” Newsweek makes the claim but doesn’t spill one drop of ink to prove it.

What does the Pew poll actually tell us?

What does the Pew poll actually tell us?

Patrick Poole
The establishment media has been giddy this week reporting the results of a recently-released Pew Research Center poll which finds support for suicide bombings declining in parts of the Muslim world. This trend in itself should be heartening, and it can probably be tied to the fact that since 2002, when the last Pew poll to measure results on this question was taken, Muslims themselves have become the largest group of victims of this bloody tactic by their fellow co-religionists.
But what does this poll really tell us? There are some statistical reasons for some skepticism. As Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser notes in an NRO symposium on the Pew poll, “Suicide Reversal?”, the results are “dangerously oversimplified”. Indeed, the devil is in the details.
What’s most striking is that no follow-up question was asked by Pew. One recent study that asked about suicide bombings in a real-world context, in addition to the hypothetical, was the December 2006 Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) report, which polled American and Iranian opinions on a number of questions.
The PIPA poll  posed a question similar to Pew (though I have previously noted there are a few methodological problems with the PIPA study, “Lies, Damned Lies, and CAIR’s Statistics“):
Q-I23: Some people think that bombing and other types of attacks intentionally aimed at civilians are sometimes justified while others think that this kind of violence is never justified. Do you personally feel that such attacks are often justified, sometimes justified, rarely justified, or never justified?
                                                                                         Iranians              Americans
Often justified…………………………………………………               3%                   5%
Sometimes justified…………………………………………..              8                      19
Rarely justified…………………………………………………              5                      27
Never justified………………………………………………..                80                    46
Refused/Don’t know…………………………………………              5                      2

This, of course, makes Americans out to be bloodthirsty terror supporters – a point some Islamist apologists have attempted to draw. But when you look at the following question, it reveals a startling shift in Iranian opinions:
Q-I24: For each of the following types of attacks please tell me if you personally feel that these are sometimes justified or never justified?
Q-I24a: attacks by Palestinians against Israeli civilians?
                                                                                       Iranians             Americans
Sometimes justified…………………………………………                53                    13
Never justified………………………………………………..                41                    80
Refused/Don’t know…………………………………………              7                      7

When put in the real world context of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the Iranian attitudes shifted dramatically. In the first question, 80 percent of Iranians said suicide bombings would never be justified. But the very next question finds that 53 percent of Iranians would justify suicide bombing attacks against Israeli civilians, which seems to nullify, or at least call into question, the findings of the previous question. Also worth noting are the 13 percent of Americans who also justify bombings against Israeli civilians.
The devil is in the details, details the Pew researchers apparently weren’t interested in discovering. Dr. Jasser’s skepticism and his warning of the “dangerously oversimplified” results of the Pew study on this issue of support for suicide bombings in the Muslim world have some basis in fact, as shown in the earlier PIPA results. The Pew poll might be telling us something, but Pew has not bothered to ask enough questions to find out exactly what that is.

Obama Calls Hazleton Ruling a Victory

Obama Calls Hazleton Ruling a Victory

Marc Sheppard
Sen. Barack Obama called the voiding of a Pennsylvania town’s illegal immigrant crackdown law a “victory for all Americans.”
Hazleton, PA passed the Illegal Immigration Relief Act in July of 2006 in an effort to confront escalating violent crime primarily at the hands of illegal aliens.  Mayor Lou Barletta described the bill as the response of a terrorized town to drug-related homicides, domestic quarrels often ending in stabbings, and relentless gang violence.
The ordinance — which has served as a model by other desperate cities across the country — imposes fines on landlords who rent to illegal immigrants and denies business permits to companies that employ them
But on Thursday, U.S. District Judge James Munley ruled that the act was pre-empted by federal law and could potentially violate due process rights.
In his patently Hispandering statement praising the decision, Obama declared:

“The anti-immigrant law passed by Mayor Barletta was unconstitutional and unworkable – and it underscores the need for comprehensive immigration reform so local communities do not continue to take matters into their own hands.”

Perhaps, Senator, were Washington to properly take these matters into its own hands through the enforcement of existing immigration law, such local actions might quickly be rendered unnecessary.
But, of course, one does not formulate a new base of Democratic voters by broadening law enforcement, does one Senator?
Particularly, not when you still smell political blood flowing from the corpse of the flim-flam Amnesty Bill you so adore.
Consider Obama’s words when he attended the National Council of La Raza’s annual convention in Miami Beach earlier this week. There, he promised the nation’s largest Hispanic advocacy group that as President, an amnesty bill would be a first term priority, referring to the recent Senate immigration debate as

“both ugly and racist in a way we haven’t see since the struggle for civil rights.”

Illegal immigration and black civil rights — I’m sure Dr. King would have appreciated the parallel. 
Of course, his inexperience may lead some to believe that this rubbish stems from incredible myopia rather than incredible gall.
Speaking to that — is it possible that the man who would be America’s 1st Black White House resident actually can’t see the American taxpayer’s place in the immigration “debate?”  
Or that the only real “victory for all Americans” would be politicians that consider their safety and well-being first?

Posted in Uncategorized. Leave a Comment »

John Edwards: Too Paranoid to be President

Rick Moran
Trailing Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama badly in the polls, John Edwards is getting desperate.

In fact, the only way to describe this speech in Iowa yesterday made by the Senator is a full blown panic attack. Edwards believes that the reason late night comedians, bloggers, and others writing and talking about the campaign keep bringing up his $400 haircut is because dark, powerful forces do not want him to win:

“You remember the Swift Boat stuff? This stuff’s not an accident. Nobody in this room should think this is an accident. You know, I’m out there speaking up for universal healthcare, ending this war in Iraq, speaking up for the poor.

“They want to shut me up. That’s what this is about.  ‘Let’s distract from people who don’t have health care coverage. Let’s distract from people who can’t feed their children. Let’s people who can’t pay for their medicine. Let’s talk about this litlte silly frivolous nothing stuff so that America won’t pay attention.’

“They will never silence me. Never. I’ll tell you that right now.

Needless to say, Edwards never bothers to mention who “they” are although here, he seems to be talking about people who make over $100 million a year:

“They’re going to control the media. They’re going to control what’s being said. They do not want to hear us talking about health care for everybody.

“They don’t want to hear us talking about a fair tax system. You think these people who make $100 million a year, you think they want to pay their fair share of taxes? Thats why they hire all those lobbyists for in Washington, D.C.

“They hate listening to people like me. Well, I got bad news for ’em, they’re going to have to listen to me for the next eight years.”

That’s a pretty select group of people – perhaps no more than a couple of hundred at most who might be worth that much. Perhaps Edwards could name some names? And then he could give us the dates and locations of the meetings “they” attended to plot the destruction of John Edwards. And for good measure, Edwards might want to name the individual responsible for forcing him to get that $400 haircut which, after all, was part of the plan to destroy him that “they” concocted.

To hear a candidate for President in either party talk like this should send chills down your spine. If you think it sounds like Nixon you would be absolutely right. Of course, in Nixon’s case, it was all true – that people were out to get him – but wildly untrue that they actually plotted against him the way that Edwards seems to be saying here.

Maybe we should start talking about three Americas; rich America, poor America, and the America out to get John Edwards.


Ed Lasky points us to this Ben Smith piece in Politico which suggests that this was no off the cuff rambling by Edwards but rather a planned and canned moment to “get the message out.”

If so, it’s even more chilling. Edwards will be deliberately appealing to people’s darkest fears about “them” from here on out. It should be interesting to see if it works.

Posted in Uncategorized. Leave a Comment »

Not Even a Contest

Not Even a Contest

Russ Vaughn
I’m a soldier; haven’t been in uniform in forty years but the six years of active duty I did serve and the ensuing thirty-plus years I’ve spent working with the U.S. military, instilled in me certain qualities and beliefs that have grown and persisted within me all these decades and provide me with the basis for my stance on the war on terror. I may now be only an armchair warrior, but I’m still a soldier. As such, I understand the value of a rapid counterattack when your enemy has struck and badly hurt you.

I say this as a brief, prefatory explanation of why I believe the Bush Administration has done the right thing in carrying the war on terror into the heart of terrorism itself. Yes, I know there are legions of liberals, so blinded by their certainty that the Supreme Court cheated Al Gore out of the presidency that they actually profess to believe that there were no ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq. To them I would say consider this: Syria had ties to Al Qaeda; Jordan had ties to Al Qaeda; Egypt had ties to Al Qaeda; Yemen had ties to Al Qaeda; Somalia had ties to Al Qaeda; Saudi Arabia had ties to Al Qaeda; the various Gulf monarchies had ties to Al Qaeda; Iran had ties to Al Qaeda; Pakistan had ties to Al Qaeda; Indonesia, the Philippines, North Korea and several of the former Soviet satellites under Muslim rule had ties to Al Qaeda.