Watergate committee staff boss: Hillary was fired for lies, unethical behavior

Clinton didn’t pay health insurance bills

Clinton didn’t pay health insurance bills
By: Kenneth P. Vogel
March 31, 2008 12:11 PM EST

Among the debts reported this month by Hillary Rodham Clinton’s struggling presidential campaign, the $292,000 in unpaid health insurance premiums for her campaign staff stands out.

Clinton, who is being pressured to end her campaign against Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination, has made her plan for universal health care a centerpiece of her agenda.

The campaign provides health insurance to all its employees, their spouses, partners and children — and that wasn’t interrupted by any lag in payments to insurance providers, said Jay Carson, a Clinton campaign spokesman.

He said the campaign this month paid off all outstanding bills to Aetna Healthcare and CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield. Those payments will be reflected on a report the campaign will file this month with the Federal Election Commission, which Carson said will show “zero debt owed to both vendors.”

“Sometimes invoices are not paid immediately because we need additional information for our records, or to verify expenses,” Carson said in a statement e-mailed to Politico. “Sometimes invoices arrive at the very end of the month at the cutoff of the reporting period, which means that we are required to report them as a debt on the current FEC report, even where they are paid in regular course during the next month.”

But the unpaid bills to Aetna were at least two months old, according to FEC filings.

They show the campaign ended last year owing Aetna more than $213,000 for “employee benefits.”

During the first two months of the year, the campaign did not pay down any of that debt. In fact, it accrued another $16,000 in unpaid bills last month, and it finished the month owing Aetna $229,000.

Though the campaign reported owing $63,000 to Carefirst at the end of February for employee benefits, it appears Clinton paid that company on a more frequent basis. The New York senator’s presidential campaign began the month owing $299,000 to Carefirst, but paid that amount in its entirety, and the $63,000 it owed at the end of the month appears to be from services rendered last month.

Campaigns resemble businesses in many ways. Like businesses, one of their biggest costs is salaries, payroll taxes and the benefits of their employees. Also like businesses, they tend to carry unpaid bills as debt from week-to-week or even month-to-month.

But Arizona Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, did not report any unpaid bills to insurance providers at the end of February. And the only insurance-related debt reported by Obama, an Illinois senator, was $908 to AIG American International Group for “insurance.”

Their campaigns also reported substantially less debt overall than Clinton’s, which owed $8.7 million at the end of February. Obama owed $625,000 and McCain $4.3 million, though most of his debt was from a bank loan, and only $1.3 million was in the form of unpaid bills to a dozen vendors.

Carson stressed that Clinton’s campaign pays all its bills “regularly and in the normal course of business.”

The new Barack Obama logo: Agent of left-wing same old; Update: Let’s change…the subject

UK: Jihadists recruiting British converts for terror attacks

January 13, 2008

UK: Jihadists recruiting British converts for terror attacks

But Bashir Maan, “one of Scotland’s leading Muslims,” says security services are overreacting, because it is impossible to convert immoral Westerners to such a strict moral code as Islam. Aside from the insulting undertones of this — Western non-Muslims are semi-bestial, immoral, out-of-control louts who resist what is good and pure — it is absurd. Many of the converts are in fact reacting against Western materialism and relativism. Others, straitlaced morals aside, are attracted by the prospect of religious sanction for polygamy. That Bashir Maan’s oversimplistic, inaccurate and insulting assessment would be repeated uncritically in a major British newspaper is yet another indication of just how clueless the mainstream media is about these issues.

“Al-Qaeda’s white army of terror,” by Richard Elias for The Scotsman (thanks to PRCS):

HUNDREDS of British non-Muslims have been recruited by al-Qaeda to wage war against the West, senior security sources warned last night.As many as 1,500 white Britons are believed to have converted to Islam for the purpose of funding, planning and carrying out surprise terror attacks inside the UK, according to one MI5 source.

Lord Carlile, the Government’s independent reviewer of anti-terrorism legislation, said many of the converts had been targeted by radical Muslims while serving prison terms.

Security experts say the growing secret army of white terrorists poses a particularly serious threat as they are far less likely to be detected than members of the Asian community.

Since the 7/7 and 21/7 London bombings, police and intelligence services have had considerable success in identifying, disrupting and stopping extremist plots. As a result, groups such as al-Qaeda, Lashkar-e-Taiba and Harkat-ul-Mujahideen have been forced to change tack. Converting white non-Muslims has been one response.

The trend is well established in the United States. American-born Adam Gadahn is one of the FBI’s top 10 most-wanted terrorists after converting to Islam and rising through al-Qaeda’s ranks to become a prominent spokesman.

One British security source last night told Scotland on Sunday: “There could be anything up to 1,500 converts to the fundamentalist cause across Britain. They pose a real potential danger to our domestic security because, obviously, these people blend in and do not raise any flags.

“The exact figure of those who have converted to Islam and turned to terror is not precisely known. Not everyone who converts becomes radicalised and it may be that just two-fifths go down that path, but it remains a significant and dangerous problem.”

Carlile said he was not aware of specific numbers, but confirmed to Scotland on Sunday that Whitehall was aware of the new threat and was actively tackling it. He said: “These people are an issue and are potentially very dangerous. There have been cases of non-Muslims converting before, and of these, Richard Reid, the so-called Shoebomber, is the most obvious example.

“They are more difficult to detect and the security services are right to place some focus on this issue.”

Carlile said the majority of converts were targeted when they were in prison: “These (converts] are outside the standard type of profile which most police forces would have of a terrorist, which is male, young, and of Middle Eastern or Asian appearance. That is why they are so potentially dangerous.”

Carlile added: “The Home Office has a lot of money, millions of pounds, which is being put forward for communities and fighting radicalisation. There is no question how tackling this issue is best achieved: it is achieved at a community level.”

Security experts say radical Muslims in prison have become adept at identifying potential new recruits to their cause. Those in custody for the first time, the young and the lonely are particularly susceptible.

Initially, the approach is made to comfort, console and support, with very little reference, if any, to religion.

However, after several ‘chats’, the conversation will be turned towards the subject and, gradually, over a period of weeks or months, it is possible to complete the conversion.


But one of Scotland’s leading Muslims disputed the claims of radicalisation, saying Islam’s strict moral code made it unattractive to many westerners.

Bashir Maan added: “I do not know of any Islamist terror group in Scotland and, considering as a Muslim a person must pray five times daily, abstain from drinking (and] sex outside marriage, adhere to strict dietary and many other rules, it is impossible to convert to Islam a young person brought up in this very liberal society.

“I agree that the security services must be vigilant and keep their eye on everybody, but I think in this case they seem to be over-reacting.”

It’s the Ideology, Stupid !!!

It’s the Ideology, Stupid !!!

by Warner MacKenzie
Islam-watch.orgThe West’s propensity for ignorance is nothing short of astounding when one considers that, in this first decade of the 21st century, a veritable gold mine of information, on any topic, is available at one’s fingertips via the internet. Never before have books on the subject of Islamic history and terrorism been so prolific, yet the same old dangerously erroneous opinions on the causes of Islamic violence remain as popular, uninformed and widespread as ever.

Seemingly unwilling to make the effort to research the true causes of modern Islamist violence, many in the West, including the media, are ever ready to proffer an autoethnophobic (cultural self-loathing) root-cause as to how “We Westerners must have, somehow, caused the problem and therefore deserve what we are getting”. The apologists, propagandists and appeasers continue to confidently promote the view that Islamic terrorism is born of, and nurtured by, poverty, social marginalisation, and Islamophobic bigotry. A raft of other exculpatory justifications for the current global violence is put forward with the one common theme that, in one way or another, the West is to blame and its chickens are simply coming home to roost. So when the recent revelation emerged that a number of medical professionals were involved in two failed terrorist attacks in Britain, the naively deluded went into a confused tailspin, scratching their, cognitively dissonant heads. Their beloved paradigm of the disempowered, impoverished and alienated Muslim now had more holes than a lace tablecloth. No doubt they are busily readjusting their theories to explain how these privileged, intelligent, middle-class professionals could be driven to their wits-end, and forced to lash out with such blind destructive fury at the “evil” West.

The number of medicos involved indicates that the Hippocratic Oath appears to be held in the same contempt as oaths of citizenship or, for that matter, any other. Of course, as emulators of their Prophet Muhammad’s example– an obligation incumbent on all Muslims– it’s little wonder that the dishonouring of one’s sworn oath is regarded so carelessly “By Allah, and Allah willing, if I take an oath and later find something else better than that. then I do what is better and expiate my oath” Sahih Bukhari 7:67:427.

True patriots and loyal citizens they can never be, as no sworn undertaking, irrespective of how solemn or binding, is capable of trumping a Muslim’s primary loyalty and overriding obligation to the “cause” of Islam. Nor is there anything novel in the involvement of medically trained jihadis in radical Islam.

A few prominent extremist doctors include:

  • Dr. Ayman Al-Zawahiri–Al-Qaeda mastermind and number two man, a surgeon.
  • Dr. Mohammad Rabi Al-Zawahiri–Ayman’s father and a Muslim Brotherhood enthusiast, pharmacologist and professor.
  • Dr. “Abu Hafiza”– Moroccan psychiatrist andAl-Qaeda master planner.
  • Dr. Abdel Aziz Al-Rantisi–Late HAMAS leader, pediatrician;
  • Dr. Mahmoud Al-Zahar–HAMAS co-founder and leader, surgeon and lecturer at the Islamic University in Gaza;
  • Dr. Fathi Abd Al-Aziz Shiqaqi- physician -Late founder of Islamic Jihad and active in Fatah.

Another widely accepted myth is that Islamic radicalism is merely an understandable and predictable response to post WW II Western foreign policy, particularly that of the United States due to its support for Israel and involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan etc. This simplistic explanation totally disregards the inflammatory effect of the radical Islamic ideologues of the 1920s, ‘30s and ‘40s, before America had any involvement with the Middle East and well before Israel even existed. The inescapable historical truth is that influential thinkers such as Hassan al Banna, Sayeed Qutb and Mualana Sayeed Abul Ala Maududi were the modern revivalists of an ideology as old as Islam itself ; an ideology founded on the belief of Islamic superiority with its dream of world domination. It was the later Saudi and Iranian windfall oil wealth that allowed those countries to promote, finance and export radical Wahabbi and Khomeinist armed jihad to countries both within and outside the Middle East, Hizbollah being a prime example. Hassan al Banna’s al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun (Muslim Brotherhood) is indisputably the progenitor of all modern radical Islamist groups.

The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Maududi’s Jamaat-e-Islami in Pakistan sought to restore the Islamic theocratic ideal, namely the union of religion and state, whilst conveniently blaming the decline of Muslim societies on the contrary secular Western idea of the separation of church and state. Qutb and Maududi inspired a whole generation of Islamists, including Ayatollah Khomeini, who developed an Iranian version of their works in the 1970s.

Despite the gullible Westerner’s certitude that terrorist attacks are “all to do with Iraq and Afghanistan”, they are, in fact, all about Islam’s desire to rule the world as a borderless Caliphate. Whenever the willfully deluded Westerner or duplicitous Muslim seeks to explain away these terrorists attacks as reactions to U.S or British foreign policy, simply ask them what it was that precipitated the first world trade centre attack in 1993 – ten years before Iraq and eight years before the U.S. became involved in Afghanistan!

What was it in Khomeini ‘s revolution , if not expansionist ideology, that refused to be satisfied with their stated objective of ridding Iran of the Shah and Western influence, but then, going on to spread Islamic revolution to the rest of the world ?

Khomeini tells us that:

“Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to paradise, which can be opened only for holy warriors!

There are hundreds of other [Koranic] psalms and hadiths urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.”

“Islam grew with blood . . . . The great prophet of Islam in one hand carried the Koran and in the other a sword . . . . Islam is a religion of blood for the infidels but a religion of guidance for other people.”

—Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

But of all the ideologues whose works were a source of radical inspiration to tens, if not hundreds, of millions, Maududi is the most direct and unambiguous in his description of Islam’s ultimate aspirations:

“Islam is not a normal religion like the other religions in the world and Muslim nations are not like normal nations. Muslim nations are very special because they have a command from Allah to rule the entire world and to be over every nation in the world.”

“Islam wishes to destroy all States and Governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam regardless of the country or the Nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a State on the basis of its own ideology and programme, regardless of which Nation assumes the role of the standard bearer of Islam or the rule of which nation is undermined in the process of the establishment of an ideological Islamic State.”

“Islam is a revolutionary faith that comes to destroy any government made by man. Islam doesn’t look for a nation to be in a better condition than another nation. Islam doesn’t care about the land or who owns the land. The goal of Islam is to rule the entire world and submit all of mankind to the faith of Islam. Any nation or power that gets in the way of that goal, Islam will fight and destroy. In order to fulfill that goal, Islam can use every power available every way it can be used to bring worldwide revolution. This is Jihad.”

—Sayeed Abdul A’la Maududi, ‘Jihad in Islam’

The following comments, by other prominent Muslims, leave us in no doubt how widely these views are held.

“One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.”
—Former Algerian President Houari Boumedienne’s prophetic warning to Europe in a speech at the U.N. In 1974. Thirty three years later, his prediction is in the process of unfolding.

“Soon we will take power in this country. Those who criticize us now, will regret it. They will have to serve us. Prepare, for the hour is near.”
— Belgium-based imam in 1994. “De Morgen”, Oct. 5, 1994. Cited in Koenraad Elst, “The Rushdie Rules”, Middle East Quarterly, June 1998.

“The Quran should be America’s highest authority”. “Islam is not in America to be equal to any other religion but to be dominant.”
— Omar Ahmad, CAIR’s (Council on American-Islamic Relations) chairman of the board.

“I would like to see the Islamic flag fly, not only over number 10 Downing Street, but over the whole world,”
— Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed, (former leader of the extremist Al-Muhajiroun movement in Britain) in an interview with Reuters.

“I want to see the U.S become an Islamic nation.”
—-Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR.

“We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you.”
—Hussein Massawi, the former Hezbollah leader behind the slaughter of U.S. and French forces 20 years ago.

“Jihad and the rifle alone. NO negotiations, NO conferences and NO dialogue.”
—Sheikh Abdullah Azzam— (Osama bin Laden’s late mentor.)

“Allah revealed Islam in order that humanity could be governed according to it. Unbelief is darkness and disorder. So the unbelievers, if they are not suppressed, create disorder. That is why the Muslims are responsible for the implementation of Allah’s Law on the planet, that humanity may be governed by it, as opposed to corrupt man-made laws. The Muslims must make all efforts to establish the religion of Allah on the earth”
—Muhammad ‘Abdus Salam Faraj, “Jihad: The Absent Obligation”, p43

And finally, Anjem Choudary, Omar Bakri Mohammed’s successor, claim Islam’s sovereignty in the U.K. and U.S.A.

What is it in these clear statements of intent that Western people find so hard to comprehend and come to terms with?


American Congress for Truth
P.O. Box 6884
Virginia Beach, VA 23456

Every day, American Congress for Truth (ACT) a 501c3 non-profit organization is on the front lines fighting for you in meeting with politicians, decision makers, speaking on college campuses and planning events to educate and inform the public about the threat of Islamofascism. To maintain and bolster our efforts, we need your continued solidarity, activism and financial support. We are only as strong as our supporters. We thank you for helping us carry on this important work.

Do not respond to this e-mail for any reason. To discontinue your membership automatically please, follow the link below. You are registered to receive email as Bud Simmons at the following e-mail address: budsimmons@cox.net. You must use the correct e-mail address to discontinue your membership.

Send a personalized version of this message to your friends.

Make a secure online credit card donation.

Demolishing the Foundations of Islam

Demolishing the Foundations of Islam

by Bill Levinson

Civilized people are raised from birth with the injunction to never attack another person’s religious faith, but recent abuses by militant “Muslims” have risen to the point where doing this becomes a reasonable and necessary act of self-defense. The problem is not that militant “Muslims” want to pray to Mecca, follow Islamic dietary rules, and so on, but that they want to impose their beliefs and way of life on others. At that point, civilized society has to stop them, even at the price of attacking the foundation of their religion.

Before proceeding, however, we will make a clear distinction between militant “Islam,” or Islam Release 1.0, and moderate or peaceful Islam, or Islam Release 2.0. Islam Release 1.0 was created by a violent and self-serving bandit to get his followers to kill and die for him, but it also included concepts like the umma (”community”) that called upon Muslims to treat each other with kindness, respect, and charity. It also opened the door to ethnic and racial tolerance with the concept of the Dar-el-Islam (House of Submission) in which all Muslims are brothers, regardless of ethnicity, race, or tribe. This basic principle is benevolent even if Mohammed’s motive–getting quarrelsome tribes to cooperate so he could conquer his neighbors–was totally selfish and malevolent.

Some Muslims later evolved their religion into a civilized one by separating Mohammed’s good ideas (community, brotherhood) from his self-serving agenda. The result was Islam Release 2.0, or moderate/peaceful Islam. These Muslims are not the problem, and they are in fact often murdered or abused by the followers of Islam Release 1.0. Many of them came to the United States to get away from Islam 1.0, just as many Jews and Christians came here to get away from what passed for Christianity in parts of Europe through the 19th century.

We will say clearly up front that Muslims, like everyone else who has immigrated to our country, are more than welcome to live and let live. That is what America is about: doing what you want, as long as you don’t infringe on the rights of others. Most Muslim-Americans, as followers of Islam 2.0, behave in this manner. On the other hand, anyone who comes to this country to attack its freedoms or impose his way of life on others is our country’s enemy, and he will be treated as an enemy to the extent that our laws allow. These are the enemies about whom we are talking:

(1) In Scotland, militant “Muslims” have gotten a medical organization to ban staff members from eating at their desks during the fast of Ramadan, because this “offends” the Muslims. In contrast, observant Jews do not object to other people eating on Yom Kippur, nor do they force Gentiles to eat matzohs during Passover. Workplaces often offer matzohs during Passover, but they don’t take the leavened bread away for fear of “offending” Jews. Catholics do not demand that non-Catholics desist from eating meat on Fridays, nor do they object to non-Catholics who don’t give up something for Lent. Only militant “Muslims” seem to think they can impose their beliefs and customs on others, and this is what has to come to a screeching halt.

(2) In the United States, “Muslim” taxi drivers have refused to transport blind passengers with seeing-eye dogs. Their excuse is that they consider dogs “unclean,” although a service animal has far more value to a civilized nation than anyone who refuses service to a disabled person. These drivers have also refused to transport passengers who have alcoholic beverages, even though Islam simply prohibits the driver from drinking those beverages. Come to think of it, so do laws against drunk driving.

(3) Muslim Student Associations have made trouble at at least two universities (Penn State and Tufts), where they got complicit college administrators to interfere with the First Amendment rights of other students. At Bucknell University, college administrators stepped in to condemn a conservative student group for using the phrase “hunting terrorists,” and Republicans at another college were called on the carpet for desecrating an Al Qaida flag (because it has Allah’s name on it in Arabic). This also has to come to a screeching halt, with these Muslim Student Associations being denounced forcefully. If their members don’t like it, the United States has no Berlin or other wall to keep people in who don’t want to be here.

(4) http://www.muslimdayparade.com/, to be headed by Keith Ellison–the same individual who compared 9/11 to the Reichstag fire, while making a McCarthyite remark to the effect that he wasn’t going to say that the United States perpetrated the atrocity itself. See also New York Islamist Day Parade, By Joe Kaufman and Beila Rabinowitz.

(5) The “flying imams” who frightened a planeload of innocent people by chanting to Allah, behaving as if they might hijack the airplane, and then trying to sue passengers who did exactly what those repetitious announcements at airports tell them to do: report suspicious behavior to authorities.

(6) In Europe, public demonstrations have included slogans like “Europe, you will pay, your 9/11 is on its way” and “Behead those who insult Islam.”

(7) In Europe and Australia, militant “Islamic” rape gangs have called unveiled women “uncovered meat” whom they are free to “take.”

(8) Some American schools are making children role-play Muslims in direct contravention of church-state separation. Schools that would not dare for an instant to make children sing Christmas or Hannukah songs are compelling children to take Islamic names and, according to some reports, even pray toward Mecca.

It stops here, and it stops now. Militant “Islamic” groups have marched through our streets, which they have a First Amendment right to do, while proclaiming that Islam will dominate the United States. We have a First Amendment right, which we will now exercise, to denounce the foundations of their religion as a self-serving scam by a desert bandit whose primary motivation was to enrich himself with money and power. This can be done with a simple statement that can be printed on stickers (we would not recommend a bumper sticker) that can easily be put up in public places:

Jesus died for Christians
Muslims died for Mohammed

Note that this statement passes no judgment on whether Jesus was actually the son of God. Christians can say that Jesus died as a sacrifice for their sins, while Jews can say that Jesus was motivated by a desire to serve his followers instead of himself. Never did Jesus use his teachings to enrich himself at the expense of others, or to lead aggressive wars of conquest. Furthermore, according to John Keegan’s A History of Warfare (and contrary to Tufts University’s Committee on Student Life, which proclaimed that “labeling Islam violent is unacceptable in any way, shape, or form”),

Muhammad, unlike Christ, was a man of violence; he bore arms, was wounded in battle and preached holy war, jihad, against those who defied the will of God, as revealed to him. His successors perceived the world as divided into Dar-al-Islam–the House of Submission, submission to the teachings of Mohammed, as collected in the Koran–and Dar al-Harb, the House of War, which were those parts yet to be conquered.

This is an excellent summary:
(1) Mohammed was a violent man who preached holy wars against those who defied the will of God, as revealed to Mohammed.
(2) His successors divided the world into the House of Submission and the House of War, i.e. the part yet to be conquered. Adolf Hitler was just as explicit when he said, “Germany today, tomorrow the world.”
(3) While Jesus never sought riches for himself, Mohammed was a merchant who knew the value of money. This was yet another motive to create a religion that would help him enrich himself.

Christianity’s Superiority over Islam
It is easy to judge a culture, or even a religion, by its stories, legends, and role models. Which characters appear as heroes, and who is denounced as a villain? The concept of servant leadership permeates Christianity. Jesus is said to have washed his disciples’ feet, thus underscoring the principle that the leader must serve his or her followers. Numerous Christian stories reinforce this idea.

(1) Wanda (pronounced “Vanda”), a legendary Polish queen, drowned herself to save her people from an ambitious German prince who wanted to take over her kingdom by marrying her. Had she fought him, her smaller army would have been destroyed. The story does not explain why he did not invade her kingdom anyway, but perhaps without a female monarch upon whom he could force a marriage, other kings and dukes would not have recognized the legitimacy of his actions.
(2) Henryk Sienkiewicz’s With Fire and Sword describes how Jarema Wisniowiecki, a voyevode or provincial governor, shared the hardships of his soldiers whenever he was at war. When bad weather destroyed a harvest, he suspended the rents of his peasants and even gave them food from his own stores.
(3) Frederick the Great proclaimed that the prince is the first servant of his country.
(4) The following speech was delivered by Queen Elizabeth I when England was in danger of invasion by the Spanish Armada:

We have been persuaded by some that are careful of our safety, to take heed how we commit our selves to armed multitudes, for fear of treachery; but I assure you I do not desire to live to distrust my faithful and loving people. Let tyrants fear. I have always so behaved myself that, under God, I have placed my chiefest strength and safeguard in the loyal hearts and good-will of my subjects; and therefore I am come amongst you, as you see, at this time, not for my recreation and disport, but being resolved, in the midst and heat of the battle, to live and die amongst you all; to lay down for my God, and for my kingdom, and my people, my honour and my blood, even in the dust.

This principle is not unique to Christianity, because the Chinese general Sun Tzu wrote more than 2500 years ago that the general must not take comforts that are not available to his followers. In China, the Mandate of Heaven refers to the authority a king gains by serving his subjects. A king who serves himself at his subjects’ expense loses the Mandate quickly, along with his people’s loyalty. India’s Kshatriya Dharma (the Right Way of the Warrior) says that a king cannot abandon even a dog, if the dog is his follower.

While Japanese speak of the Way of Lord and Retainer (with a code of mutual obligations), the history of Islam 1.0 is the Way of Master and Slave. Even the Sultan, as the son of a female slave, regards himself as Allah’s slave. It’s possible that some sultans and caliphs took this seriously enough to act as though they held their kingdoms in trust for Allah, but most understood that, for all practical purposes, they were answerable to no one. Janissaries and Mamelukes were military slaves. Keegan’s A History of Warfare reports that, once they completed their military training, Mamelukes were technically free, although not free to choose another occupation or any master but the Sultan!

The Way of Master and Slave is obvious in the recruitment of suicide bombers. The gray-bearded mullahs who tell teenage boys and young men that they will get seventy-two dark-eyed virgins by blowing themselves up did not become gray-bearded mullahs by following their own advice. This practice dates back to the Assassins, or hashish-users. Their leader, the Old Man of the Mountains, got them high on hashish, and then led them to a beautiful garden full of compliant and beautiful women. He told them they were in the Islamic Paradise, and would go there forever if they died while serving him. Today, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad creates phony miracles (his followers say that a green aura surrounds him when he speaks) while claiming to be in contact with the Twelfth Imam. He has made no secret of his plans to start a nuclear war with Israel or even the United States, even if millions of his followers die from the inevitable retaliation.

In summary, then, the concept that leaders exist to serve their followers permeates not only Christianity, but also Hinduism and Asian belief structures. The concept that slaves and followers exist to serve their masters permeates both contemporary and historical Islam 1.0. The latter is so antithetical to the basic principles of organizational behavior that Islam cannot stand for long on such a flimsy foundation. We can, by expanding upon and circulating this information, demolish the foundation of Islam 1.0 to bring it crashing down in any country in which its dictators do not exercise control over what people can read or hear. The recent activities of militant “Muslims” make this a reasonable and necessary act of self-defense on behalf of our countries and freedoms, and we must carry it out aggressively and decisively.

Posted by Bill Levinson @ 6:08 pm |

Islam has expired

Islam has expired

By: Amil Imani

Islam has expired, according to Muhammad himself.“How long your faith shall endure?” Muhammad was asked.

(1)“En salahat ummati fa laha yom. Va en fasadat fa laha nesfe yom. Val yomo ende rabbeka alfe sanaton men ma taedoon”—if my Ummeh becomes righteous, it shall last one day; if corrupted, it shall last half a day. “And a day of your lord is equivalent of a thousand years of your accounting,” he replied.

This account is as recorded by a contemporary chronicler of Muhammad. So, even if his Ummeh had lived up to his standards of righteousness, one thousand years have come and gone. Yet, a greatly fractured system of belief called Islam is still around as judged by over a billion who call themselves Muslims.

Muhammad’s allusion to “righteousness” and “corruption” deserves a close look. All things on earth are subject to a limited life span, be they bacteria, trees, mountains, humans or ideas—including religions. Renewal seems to be a core principle of the planet earth and its inhabitants. And in order for renewal to take place, the old by necessity, must give way.
The moment a new entity is formed, an array of forces work to end it. Death, in effect, is pre-birth. Without death, everything freezes in place. Death often provides the raw material for the new birth. The death and decay of a tree, for instance, supplies the needed nutrients for the seed to grow: the Newtonian physics’ obsolescence provided the foundation for Einstein’s relativity theory.

Death and renewal are also fundamental to religion. It is for this reason that many religions promised renewal in the person of another savior or the return of the same person. The Jews, for instance, expect the Messiah; the Christians long for the second coming; and some Muslims pray for the appearance of the Mahdi, while other Muslims supplicate God for “Rejateh Hossain,”—the return of Hossain.

What Expires Religions?

The death of a biological entity is caused by trauma, viruses or bacteria. Viruses and bacteria are major killers of humans and present great challenges to medicine. They can be deadly and have the uncanny ability to mutate. Yet, they are there for their mission of ending life.

Poorly understood and little appreciated are psychosocial viruses—PSVs. As is the case with their biological kin, psychosocial viruses also work to corrupt any idea, mental functions or belief and help supplant them with new ones. Various forms of mental disorders are the result of interaction between the PSVs and the person’s pre-disposition for the condition. Not all mutations caused by PSVs are pathological. Many serve to advance the human enterprise. Without the contributions of the beneficial PSVs humanity would still be stunted in its development at the level of day one.

In the case of Islam, a special group of PSVs set out to work the minute Muhammad launched his faith, and mutation rapidly followed. First, there was the Islam of Mecca or the Islam of Meekness. For thirteen years, Muhammad’s teachings, as recorded in the early Suras of the Quran, were about many good things. Very few people became attracted to what he preached. In fact, the people scorned the man, harassed him and eventually made him flee his hometown of Mecca for Medina. Then a major mutation took place: the Islam of Medina or the Islam of Tyranny arrived on the scene. The Quran Suras of Medina are replete with exhortations of intolerance, exclusivity, and sanctioning of violence against non-Muslims. This mutation deeply appealed to the temperament of the Arab savages and they flocked to Muhammad’s faith.

The PSV of the time of Muhammad continued to mutate as it reached other peoples and other lands. Each peoples’ own ideas and beliefs—their cognitive immune system—responded differently to the invader. Some completely resisted the assault and defeated it. Others were overwhelmed and forced into submission. Yet some of the vanquished, over time, managed to repel the invader while others incorporated it to various extents into their own system of belief. In due course, the mutation among the vanquished people has become so divergent that some of the variants can hardly be recognized as the progeny of the original.

Islam of today is composed of a dozen major sects and hundreds of sub-sects and schools. Just two examples should demonstrate the fact that Muhammad’s Islam has expired and decomposed.

One branch of Sunni Islam, the Wahhabi for instance, has interbred with the Pashtune culture of Afghanistan and Pakistan and the result has been the Taliban version of Islam: a most reactionary, repressive and savage “religion.”

On the Shiite side, for example, there is a sect of the Ghulat Alavi that holds only to one of the five pillars of Islam: the Shehadah, an Islamic credo that says, “I testify that there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger.” This sect does not subscribe to the remaining four pillars of praying five times a day, fasting one month a year, pilgrimaging Mecca at least once in a lifetime, and paying the religious tax of zakat. The Alavi women are allowed participation in all religious events and are not required to don the hijab—a stark contrast to the Taliban who deny even rudimentary education to women and forbid them from leaving home without the accompaniment of a male relative.

The Ghulat Alavis deify the Imam Ali and the other Imams. They particularly revere the Imam Ali and worship him as a co-rank of God. They profess, “Ali khoda neest, valee as khoda joda neest”—Ali is not God, but he is not apart from God. This very same sect places Imam Ali above the Prophet Muhammad.

In conclusion, Muhammad’s dating of his faith notwithstanding, the facts conclusively show that Islam has expired. Over time, its component parts have undergone drastic mutations to the extent that the only thing that all Muslims have in common is the name of Islam and the Quran.

(1) The Hadith is found in ‘Abdu’l-Wahháb  Sha‘rání’s“al-Yaváqít wa’l-Jawáhir”,

volume 2 (Cairo: Mu=>afá al-Bábí al-?alabí and Sons,1959), page 142