I join the cheers of Americans at home and abroad.

Now let’s withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan and send troops to the Mexican border.

11/6/09: Let’s see. He’s a Muslim, and he shouted “Allahu Akbar!” before the slaughter. I wonder what that’s about.

————————————————————————————–

Update: Thought I was being gutsy posting an unconfirmed photo of the killer, but MSNBC’s just published it.

Later…CBS will have a live-feed of the press conference at Fort Hood, which hasn’t started yet (7:31 p.m. ET). News people are walking around waiting and talking. Do they know we can hear them? Don’t say anything you’ll regret, guys!

Even later…Nidal Malik Hasan is still alive.
————————————————————————————–

The dead murderer at Fort Hood was a shrink and an Army major named Dr. Nidal Malik Hasan. Hasan was headed to Iraq and was “upset about it.”

The obvious question is why didn’t he just kill himself if he was so distraught? Why kill and wound so many others? What an idiot. Rest in peace? I doubt it.

(The Center for the Study of Traumatic Stress (the irony!) site is down, but I screen-capped the cache version.)

Excerpted from September 11, 2006:

Conventionally, countries fight wars against other countries. Territory is well-defined, and the objective — unconditional surrender — is clear. World War II is always a good illustration. Adolf Hitler’s desire for power obviously consumed him. As he marched through Europe, plotting, conquering, and destroying, weaker or just plain cowardly countries surrendered. Germany was eventually defeated and Hitler killed himself before he could face man’s justice.

While some Americans hand-wring over the atomic bombs dropped on Japan — which ended the war, by the way — lost in the lament are Japan’s atrocities. Declaring war on us, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and conquered other territories in the Pacific. The Allied forces asked Japan to surrender unconditionally in July of 1945, and the country refused. Then came the bombs. Japan surrendered in August.

In the current war against terrorism, we’re fighting against an enemy who hides like a rat everywhere. I call him the Islamofascist, a psychotic and murderous adherent of a religion under which “freedom” and “peace” (as reasonable people define it) are entirely foreign concepts. There are billions of Muslims around the globe, and Islamofascists hide among them. The war against terrorism is an unconventional war, so one can’t expect it to look, feel, or sound like WWII.

As wild as it may seem to Americans, especially heathens, the war against terror is a religious war. Whether the enemy chooses to conquer us by force with bombs and flaming airplanes, or by our own suicidal and weak-willed acceptance of their demands to change our way of life to adhere to their religious laws, he will attempt to conquer us by any means necessary.

But he is a weak enemy, one that America could easily vanquish.

As flawed as America may be, it is unique among the ordinary. “Freedom” is not just a word or an idea; this country, above all others, every last one, has been able to put the word into action as the world has never seen. In this country, you can be a Muslim without fear of persecution. The problems begin when you, as a Muslim, demand that our banking system, our legal system, our whole way of life, change to accommodate you. I’m convinced that changing this country to accommodate Islam is the goal of even moderate Muslims.

People like me see clearly what’s going on, but so far, speaking out against Islam is unpopular at the moment, even in the middle of a freakin’ war against their radical members. But speak out, I will continue to do until I’m in my grave.

Update (6/5): Still no statement from DOJ about Pvt. William Long’s murder by an American Muslim (as of 7:30 a.m. PT), but the AG released a statement about protecting American Muslims. Cruel irony. Cold irony. Can’t decide which fits.

Later…My non-political sister just pointed out that Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad’s attack on the military recruiters was an attack against the entire U.S. military. STILL no response from AG (as of 11:39 a.m. PT).

*************************************************************************

Update (6/4): The U.S. Attorney General issued a statement on private citizen Tiller’s murder the day it happened:

“The murder of Doctor George Tiller is an abhorrent act of violence, and his family is in our thoughts and prayers at this tragic moment. Federal law enforcement is coordinating with local law enforcement officials in Kansas on the investigation of this crime, and I have directed the United States Marshals Service to offer protection to other appropriate people and facilities around the nation. The Department of Justice will work to bring the perpetrator of this crime to justice. As a precautionary measure, we will also take appropriate steps to help prevent any related acts of violence from occurring.”

So far, there’s no statement posted about the murder of Pvt. Long (as of 10:34 a.m. PT), a member of the U.S. armed forces, three days after it happened.

*************************************************************************

Well, what do you know? Two days after military recruiter Private William Long’s murder (as opposed to hours after abortionist George Tiller’s murder on a Sunday, no less) by a Muslim convert, President Barack Obama finally released a statement, though it’s not posted on the White House web site yet (as of 9:26 a.m. PT):

“I am deeply saddened by this senseless act of violence against two brave young soldiers who were doing their part to strengthen our armed forces and keep our country safe. I would like to wish Quinton Ezeagwula a speedy recovery, and to offer my condolences and prayers to William Long’s family as they mourn the loss of their son.” (Source)

Obama’s statement about Tiller:

“I am shocked and outraged by the murder of Dr. George Tiller as he attended church services this morning. However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence.”

This is how Obama’s statement about Long should read:

“I am shocked and outraged by the murder of Pvt. William Long as he performed his duty. However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as sending our men and women overseas to preserve our freedom, protect others from tyranny, and contain global Islamic terrorism, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence.”

Our military men and women serve and protect. One of the commander-in-chief’s own men was killed by a follower of Allah while on duty. Relevant in the age of Islamic terrorism, don’t you think? That’s the murder that should have been responded to within hours. But why quibble? I suspect the only reason Obama released a statement at all was because conservative bloggers kept daring him to.

(Photo credit: KATV)

***Scroll down for updates***

I’m embarrassed to admit I only recently heard of Joel Rosenberg, a Jewish evangelical Christian who writes biblical speculative political thrillers in the “what if” fashion. I haven’t read his novels, yet, but I’m fascinated by his non-fiction book (can’t put it down!), Epicenter: Why the Current Rumblings in the Middle East will Change Your Future. (Israel is the epicenter of the world, Jerusalem is the epicenter of Israel, and the Temple Mount is the epicenter of Jerusalem.)

Rosenberg’s novels seem to stay one step ahead of events in the Middle East. In fact, some call him a modern-day Nostradamus. For example, the day Islamofacists flew airplanes into the World Trade Center towers, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania, Rosenberg was working on a novel about Islamofacists attacking an American city.

He’s not a genius or a psychic; he reads and understands biblical prophecy.

In Epicenter, Rosenberg tells the story of how he came to write fiction based on biblical prophecies. In 1992, he read Coming Peace in the Middle East, by Tim LaHaye of Left Behind fame. The book was about the future rise of a military alliance between Iran and Russia and a period of peace and prosperity in Israel. As Rosenberg notes, the former seemed ludicrous. In the early 1990s, the Soviet Union was no more. With its missiles dismantled, it was hardly a threat to anyone, especially Israel. Where did Tim LaHaye get such an idea?

Ezekiel 36 and 37.

Allow me to digress. Even if you only scan defense news headlines, you know Russia is resurgent, and something’s brewing between the former Soviet Union and Iran. Additionally, the U.S. has signed agreements with Poland and the Czech Republic to build missile defense shields in those countries to protect them if Iran attacks. Russia has threatened to deploy missiles to the Polish border if the U.S. continues its course of action. So far, President Barack Obama, unlike President George Bush, appears ready to appease Russia.

I’ll bet you didn’t know Cold War II was underway, did you? I ghost-blog about missile defense, so I’m knee-deep in the muck.

Back to Rosenberg. People are accustomed to analyzing world events through the lenses of economics and politics, he says. But there’s a third lens we can’t afford to ignore: Scripture. Bible-believing and reading Christians know what God teaches about the fate of Israel and her enemies. God promised that Israel would become a nation again, and a prosperous one, and that’s exactly what happened. In 1948, after 2,000 years of dispersal, the State of Israel was established. Jews from all over the world poured into their homeland. The nation is rebuilding former desolate cities and has become wealthy.

Ezekiel prophesied that Israel would be wealthier than even King Solomon. LaHaye speculated that Israel would discover oil. Rosenberg thought it was ridiculous, but in 2000, LaHaye’s prediction came true.

Much, much more to say on this, of course, but I want you to read it for yourselves. Looking through the lenses of economics, politics, and Scripture, Rosenberg lays out and analyzes ten future headlines about events in the Middle East. He isn’t the first to look to Scripture to understand world events, of course, but his foreign policy experience and engaging writing style makes it all the more…interesting, to use a generic word. Buy a copy of Epicenter today.

Update: More stories like this, please: Tass Saada, a former Muslim and hater of Jews and Christians, was redeemed by the blood of the Lamb. (Hat tip: Digital Karen via Twitter)

I remember how angry I was on September 11, 2001.

When I realized we’d been attacked by Islamic terrorists, I wanted the U.S. to do something strong and quick like leveling all countries that were helping Osama bin Laden elude capture and hunting down and locking up people with even the remotest connection to Al-Qaeda until they started talking. I wanted to see heads rolling, literally.

My anger has abated after seven years, naturally, but I still think we should have responded much more aggressively.

I urge you to think about the consequences of and real meaning behind September 11, 2001. It was not a random event perpetrated by lone-nut type fanatics who hate America. It was and is a defining moment in Muslims’ desire to destroy our way of life. It was an affront to Western civilization, and we’ve got to fight it with everything we’ve got. Forget weak “surges” and sending our men and women to fight a rag-tag bunch of thugs. Bomb them out, smoke them out, hold public executions — whatever it takes.

(I received an advance copy of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Western Civilization. I haven’t started reading it yet, but with section headers like, “Beauty is not merely in the eye of the beholder,” “Knowing God yields science,” “How Christians elevated culture,” and “Islam v. Civilization,” I can’t wait to dive in. On the cover: “Warning: Contains Moses, Plato, Jesus, and Shakespeare. Contents May Be Offensive.” Too cool.)

Forget jets crashing into buildings. That’s not the worst. Remember global Islamic terrorism. Think about living under sharia. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather be dead. That’s how strongly I feel about my freedom.

Victory over Islamic terrorism won’t take place in a desert battle zone but in our hearts and minds. We need a strong will and zero tolerance for weakness and apathy.

I have issues with George Walker Bush, but man, was I glad to have someone like him at the helm. Imagine a similar or worse terrorist attack under President Barack Hussein Obama. How do you think he’d handle it? The words appeasement and understanding and root causes come to mind. I shudder to think…

Update: I’ve got a pile of books ahead of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Western Civilization, but I started reading it after I published this post. I can’t put it down! An excerpt:

“Christianity. Judaism…Dead white males. Old-fashioned morality…The traditional family. Tradition itself.

“These are the betes noires of the elites. They are the pillars of political correctness. Together, they constitute that thing called Western civilization.

“Political correctness, at its heart, is the effort to dissolve the foundation on which American and European culture has been built. It has been a demolition project: undermine Western civilization in whatever way possible, and build a brave new world from the rubble.

“Multiculturalism has nothing to do with genuine love for natives of the Australian outback or the monks of Tibet. It is an effort to crowd out our own cultural traditions.”

Add it to your collection.

In January, I blogged about Christian parents suing a school district near St. Louis to stop Bible distribution in classrooms. Christians suing to stop Bible distribution? I tagged the post “Comedy” and “Lunacy” because I thought it was, well, funny and crazy.

As I was writing the post, however, something occurred to me. Maybe those parents had a point. Toward the end of the post, I wrote:

[L]et’s look at this a different way. Although a majority of Americans would identify themselves as Christians (as opposed to Muslims), the country isn’t religiously homogenous anymore. How would you feel about Muslims distributing Korans in public school classrooms? If a Muslim teacher visited your kid’s classroom every week to give a Koran lesson, what would you do? I wouldn’t like it. I’d probably file suit. Does that make me a hypocrite?

Perhaps that’s why these Christian parents in South Iron School District sued, to pre-empt such scenarios, to get rid of all religious books in classrooms before Muslims and others demand to distribute their literature.

Christians have fought for issues like prayer in government schools, access to meeting rooms on school grounds, etc., citing religious freedom, but the tide is turning. Although followers of Islam are a minority in the United States, they’re becoming more vocal every day.

Will Muslim students start asking for (or demanding) breaks to pray (as they must do five times a day)? What if prayer times fall during class hours? Would it be unlawfully discriminatory against other students and a violation of the Establishment Clause to excuse Muslim students from class to pray? Will Muslim parents begin demanding special accommodations for foot baths? Perhaps these things are already happening.

The un-PC among us (ME!) can openly and without reservation acknowledge that terrorism around the globe is being committed by followers of Allah. That is relevant to the discussion.

While I don’t believe the Establishment or Free Exercise Clauses created any such doctrine called “separation of church and state,” maybe the idea isn’t such a bad one after all.

Sort-of-Related Update: Five reasons Muslims convert to Christianity, according to a survey of 750 former Muslims. An excerpt:

1. The lifestyle of Christians. Former Muslims cited the love that Christians exhibited in their relationships with non-Christians and their treatment of women as equals.
…
4. The spiritual truth in the Bible. Muslims are generally taught that the Torah, Psalms, and the Gospels are from God, but that they became corrupted. These Christian converts said, however, that the truth of God found in Scripture became compelling for them and key to their understanding of God’s character.

5. Biblical teachings about the love of God. In the Qur’an, God’s love is conditional, but God’s love for all people was especially eye-opening for Muslims. These converts were moved by the love expressed through the life and teachings of Jesus. The next step for many Muslims was to become part of a fellowship of loving Christians.

Last Friday, head of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Michael Chertoff (whom I gave the evil eye in a CNN green room) announced the final regulations of the REAL ID Act.

Among other things, states have until May 2008 to comply with the law to keep residents’ current IDs valid for air travel (intent to comply is OK at this point), or seek waivers. Final implementation will be delayed until 2017.

Signed into law in 2005, the REAL ID Act was a response to the September 11 terrorist attacks, or more specifically, to the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations that the federal government set standards for identification cards. REAL ID requires states to comply with these standards if they wish to continue receiving federal dollars.

Perhaps the most distinguishing feature of REAL ID (and my favorite) is the requirement that people seeking a driver’s license prove they’re in the country legally. States must verify that these proof-of-status documents and social security numbers are legitimate. And DMVs will be required to take license photos at the beginning of the process instead of at the end. Why? If the person ends up not getting a license because they don’t have the necessary documents, their photos will be on file. The idea is to link up state databases, so if such people attempt to get a license in another state, a record of their failed attempts will show up. Additionally, the new IDs supposedly will be tamper-proof.

Americans will need a REAL ID-compliant driver’s license or photo ID card for “official purposes” like boarding airplanes and entering federal buildings. Residents of non-complying states will be hassled more than usual when trying to board planes and enter federal builders. A regular driver’s license won’t cut it. They’ll have to show ID like passports.

REAL ID implementation will take place in stages. For instance, by the end of 2009, states must check the legal status of driver’s license applicants with DHS. By 2014, license holders born after 1964 will be required to have a REAL ID driver’s license. By 2017, all license holders will be required to carry one. The extensions are designed to reduce the costs of implementing the new law.

Seventeen states openly oppose REAL ID (including my home state of SC), citing funding and/or privacy concerns. Some believe the idea of a national database is dangerous. Others say it’s too much government control. They fear that one day, REAL IDs will be required to vote or open a bank account or even rent a DVD.

Other say we’ll be vulnerable to computer hackers with access to our personal information. DHS says REAL ID is not a “national ID,” and the information contained in DMV databases will not be available “willy nilly,” whatever that means.

While I also have concerns about privacy, I’m willing to take the risk if REAL ID will make it tougher for terrorists and illegal aliens to obtain valid IDs and stop them from entering or remaining in the country. Islamofascists have mucked it up for everybody. Don’t be angry with the federal government for trying to do something to secure the homeland; vent your anger on thugs who make it necessary for us to secure the homeland.

Is REAL ID borderline Big Brother-ish? Probably. But the older I get, the more willing I am to give up just a little bit of my privacy to make the country safer for all Americans. How about you?

(Photo source: Hartford Courant)

Sources:

• New Driver’s License Rules Are Issued
• New ID Rules May Complicate Air Travel
• REAL ID required for under-50 by 2014

Update (12:27 p.m.): Speaking of Islamofascism, Pakistan’s Benazir Bhutto, first female PM of a Muslim country, has been assassinated. Read more at Hot Air and Michelle Malkin’s.

Later…On a lighter note, my review of Net, Blogs and Rock ‘n’ Roll has been posted.
————————————————————

Jeff Jarvis, blogger, journalist, and media critic I credit for my appearances on MSNBC a couple years ago, points to an article about an American author sued in an English court for libeling a Saudi.

Rachel Ehrenfeld wrote in Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed – and How to Stop It accused a rich Saudi named Khalid Salim A. Bin Mahfouz of funding Islamofascist groups like al-Qaida.

Ehrenfeld sought protection under New York state law and asked that the judgment against her be rendered unenforceable, but the courts contend Bin Mahfouz is not subject to New York jurisdiction. It’s a procedural matter, but substantive to Ehrenfeld all the same.

Jeff is concerned, perhaps rightly so, that such a judgment chills free speech and postulates that such actions could extend to speech that merely criticizes Islamofascists. It’s not so far-farfetched, once you consider that Islam is incompatible with the West, given its propensity toward free expression, which includes the right to offend. But are we talking about libel, censorship, or both? Ehrenfeld accused the man of funding terrorism. What “free speech” right does she have to do that?

As scary as it seems, anyone who publishes anything in print or online is subject to libel laws all over the globe. Either Ehrenfeld libeled Bin Mahfouz or she didn’t. But what if she did? One can only imagine the resultant damage of being accused of funding terrorism.

Findlaw’s Julie Hilden says libel laws in the UK are more “pro-plaintiff” than such laws in the US. She briefly analyzes what libel is and the standard of proof applied if the plaintiff is a public figure as opposed to a private individual. The UK doesn’t have a strong legal tradition of tightly defining libel and requiring standards of proof that leave wiggle room for defendants. The US has a longer and much stronger tradition of giving defendants the benefit of the doubt. Indeed, the very idea is embodied in our Constitution.

If the UK is censorship prone, that’s a problem. Hilden writes:

Make no mistake, this is a clash of cultures: one that so values speech and openness that it leaves significant room for irremediable, damaging error; and another that so values reputation and privacy, that it errs in favor of what is, in effect, government censorship accomplished by the courts.

In other words, under America’s legal system, one can write or say irremediably damaging things about someone, but if the subject is a public figure and if the alleged defamer had no knowledge and did not act in reckless disregard for whether the accusation was false or not, the defamer is not guilty of libel. Dig?

The US v. UK libel laws discussion should concern everyone, of course, but more interesting is the Internet’s role in all this. Can Americans claim “No jurisdiction!” in foreign courts (and vice versa) when the Internet has “globalized” practically all aspects of communication? As Hilden says, writers are responsible for whatever they publish, for whatever ends up getting republished, and even “foreseeable republication.” People in the UK read this blog, for instance. If I libel a UK citizen from my perch in the nation’s capital, I may be liable under UK law for damaging that person’s reputation in the UK. (I hope I dig.)

Damages awarded by a jury in defamation cases hinge on the level of damage (perceived or actual?) to the defamed person’s reputation. Theoretically, the more widely published the libel, the more damaging it is to the person’s reputation. Thanks a lot, Internet!

In that regard, we Americans should be subject to libels laws around the globe, no matter how speech-suppressing. Hilden tacitly acknowledges that if a writer targets a foreign audience, he should be subject that country’s libel laws. As Americans, such a scenario leaves us queasy and shouting, “First Amendment violation!” But are foreign government’s obligated to honor our Constitution? Of course not. Hilden’s proposed solution to the mess (emphasis added):

Rather than contending with these elusive trans-hemispheric cases as the Internet slowly makes borders and oceans less and less relevant for distribution and reputation purposes, it might make the most sense for the U.S. and U.K. to enter into a defamation treaty. The treaty would ask both U.S. and U.K. courts to give up jurisdiction in defamation cases in which the other country has a stronger interest, based on factors such as the intended dissemination of the allegedly defamatory statement, personal jurisdiction over the defendant, and the location of the plaintiff’s primary reputation, and therefore, of his or her alleged damages.

A workable solution? (I still want to go to the UK, by the way, despite its pro-plaintiff, censorship-like quality. Working on it!)

One concern I have about foreign laws is the censorship of religious speech. It may seem ridiculous to us Americans, but I envision a world in which sharing the Gospel will be considered hate speech. Isn’t it already the case in Canada? Think it can’t or won’t happen here? American politicians already tried to make it so.

Remarkable thing, the Internet. In fact, the implications of digital technology specifically are far-reaching and profound. As knowledgeable as we think we are, we can only guess the far-ranging consequences of the so-called digital age. Even if you don’t have a blog or video blog or podcast, the implications of all this technology will affect you, too.

This morning I finished writing a review of Net, Blogs and Rock ‘n’ Roll, which examines one aspect of the digital age: how people discover entertainment products like music and how creators of these products and marketers can make digital discovery easier. Fascinating stuff. I’ll post the link once the review’s up on BlogCritics.

Monday, October 22: Islamofascism Awareness Week. Has a nice ring to it.
——————————————————————————-

So I was standing in a security line at Reagan National Airport couple weeks ago when I saw a poster titled, “The Faces of Global Terrorism.” (PDF copy – also see the State Department press release) All 26 appeared to be light- to medium-brown skinned, young, Middle Eastern men of Arab descent – every last one. No women. No whites. No blacks. No Asians.

I couldn’t help but spot the almost painful irony of standing in a long security line – where I was required to take off my shoes and stand on a dirty airport floor and empty my laptop bag and watch comically serious TSA agents confiscate lotion in 8-ounce containers instead of the requisite 3 ounces and eye little old white ladies as they walked through metal detectors – of mostly white passengers, women, and a few blacks and Asians. I don’t recall seeing one person in line who looked or dressed like any of the men on the poster.

Statistically speaking, a forty-ish black woman like myself (esp. one wearing jeans, a Carolina Panthers t-shirt, and Reeboks, as opposed to a burka) should have been allowed to walk straight to the gate, unchecked.

Our government isn’t afraid to hang “faces of global terrorism” posters in airports and ask for our help in looking out for these thugs, but it’s afraid to actually profile men who resemble them. Instead, they send everybody through tedious security lines and randomly select individuals for “personalized” screenings. These lucky folks get to watch as TSA agents, with filthy hands, go through their personal items. Woe to those who get the pat down!

Why waste resources on general security lines and random screenings? Why not narrow the focus and target the people most likely to plant bombs and crash airplanes in the name of Allah? Better yet, send American troops home, drop leaflets in the desert, and give the people 48 hours to turn over Al Qaeda and other terrorist operatives before we level the place. Hold public executions. Raid suspected hideouts. Put some fear into the people, for crying out loud.

Terrorists laugh at our suicidal stupidity. America’s gotten soft, and they know it. We’ve lost our nerve, only half-heartedly “fighting” Islamic terrorism. Our heart’s not in it. After the older, America-loving folks die out, who’ll be left to do the dirty work of protecting Americans and safe-guarding what’s made our culture the greatest on the planet?

You think this is the worst that can happen?

Global Islamic terrorism is an affront to Western Civilization, and we’ve got to fight it with everything we’ve got. Forget weak “surges” and sending our men and women to fight a rag-tag bunch of thugs. Bomb them out, smoke them out, hold public executions — whatever it takes.

Forget jets crashing into buildings. That’s not the worst. Remember global Islamic terrorism. Think about living under sharia. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather be dead. That’s how strongly I feel about my freedom.

Victory over Islamic terrorism won’t take place in a desert battle zone but in our hearts and minds. We need a strong will and zero tolerance for weakness and apathy.

(Hat tip: MM)

Update: Blogger Rocco DiPippo attended the annual Muslim Day Parade in NYC. Check out the post with pictures and videos.

Related post:

• A Religious and Unconventional War

1:17 p.m. PDT: This report should surprise no one. Anyone with half a brain can figure out that if Central Americans are crossing the southern border with ease, Muslim terrorists can and have been doing the same thing.

In related news:

The terrorist network Al-Qaida will likely leverage its contacts and capabilities in Iraq to mount an attack on U.S. soil, according to a new National Intelligence Estimate on threats to the United States.

The declassified key findings, released Tuesday, laid out a range of dangers — from al-Qaida to Lebanese Hezbollah to non-Muslim radical groups — that pose a “persistent and evolving threat” to the country over the next three years. As expected, however, the findings focus most of their attention on the gravest terror problem: Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida network.

The report makes clear that al-Qaida in Iraq, which has not yet posed a direct threat to U.S. soil, could become a problem here.

Let’s link it up: Al-Qaida likely will use or is using smugglers to import Muslim terrorists into the United States. But the man in the White House doesn’t want to build a fence or install more agents on the border or enforce current immigration laws or allow profiling. Instead, he wants Congress to write new laws to grant amnesty to illegal aliens and encourage more to flood the country. And he pays lip service to border security. I can’t plead ignorance or drunkenness. When I voted for Bush the second time, I knew his true position on border enforcement (as opposed to his sound bites), but I certainly wasn’t voting for John Kerry.

Fighting the so-called war on terror and securing the southern border are forever linked, despite what politicians say. American men and woman are dying in the Middle East for “democracy,” while the enemy sneaks in the back door here at home.

I say we need to resurrect the policy of internment.

Last night, the feds arrested six Islamofascist idiots for plotting to blow up Fort Dix, an army base in New Jersey. Fortunately, the plot was foiled. (Source)

Said a Fort Dix information officer: “I understand that they weren’t just targeting Fort Dix, that it was a multiple-base plan to attack several bases in the Northeast.” (Updates here)

Meanwhile, law-abiding citizens are being made to drink their own breast milk to prove it’s not “threatening,” strip to their metal hips and knees, and face daunting and wholly unnecessary airport security lines because we’re too darn PC to target the people most likely to commit terrorist acts.

It’s a shame that scrutinizing mostly young Middle Eastern and/or Arab men is more controversial than grabbing grannies.

Oh, and did I mention that illegal aliens work in sensitive areas in airports and on aircraft engines? In the scheme of things, it’s no big deal that I have to remove my shoes and my laptop from its case and endure tedious “security” checkpoints in the name of “homeland security,” is it? Still…

I say let the ethnic and religious profiling begin! What say you?

(Hat tip: MM)

Update: More info from The Smoking Gun. By the way, it will save time if you read the whole post and follow links before commenting. And notice that I advocate ethnic and religious (Muslim) profiling, not just “Middle Eastern” or “Arab” profiling. Ethnic Albanian Muslims fall within the target range, pardon the pun.

Update II: MM has lots more with links, including this tidbit: some of the terrorists were illegal aliens. More here.

I’ll be away from the computer most of the day, so feel free to post updates in the comment section.

Related posts:

• Two Iraqis Caught Near SOUTHERN Border
• How Empires End
• Third World PC BS
• A Religious and Unconventional War

Unbelievable.

A study found that “some” teachers in the United Kingdom are dropping the Jewish Holocaust from history lessons because Muslims, including those who deny the Holocaust ever happened, might be offended. The study also found that some teachers avoid teaching about the Crusades because “their balanced treatment of the topic would have challenged what was taught in some local mosques.”

So how history is taught and whether certain events are discussed depend on whether they contradict the teachings of local mosques? Can you imagine something like that happening in the United States? I haven’t stepped foot in a government school in eons (I don’t think), so for all I know, it could be happening here, too.

Oh, sharia, sharia…

Update (4/3): Since blogger Debbie Schlussel covers Muslim antics in Michigan, I asked her if what was happening in U.K. schools was happening here, particularly in Michigan. Her reply: “Here in Michigan (and throughout the U.S.), Muslims pretend to embrace the Holocaust to put up the ruse that they are not anti-Semitic. In fact, they often mention the Holocaust to attack Israel and compare it to the Nazis…The Muslims here in the U.S. are much smarter PR-wise or find it necessary to be so, because they have not yet reached the critical mass that they have in Britain.”

Related posts:

• Phyllis Chesler’s Islamic Education
• A Religious and Unconventional War

*** Scroll down for updates ***

A western feminist stepped down from her Ivory Tower and moved to a Muslim country with her Muslim husband and received the kind of education she never would have received in any left-leaning western university.

Phyllis Chesler, a professor of “women’s studies,” witnessed Muslim barbarity firsthand. She married a Muslim she’d met at an American school, then moved to his country. She writes:

When we landed in Kabul, an airport official smoothly confiscated my US passport. “Don’t worry, it’s just a formality,” my husband assured me. I never saw that passport again. I later learnt that this was routinely done to foreign wives — perhaps to make it impossible for them to leave. Overnight, my husband became a stranger. The man with whom I had discussed Camus, Dostoevsky, Tennessee Williams and the Italian cinema became a stranger. He treated me the same way his father and elder brother treated their wives: distantly, with a hint of disdain and embarrassment.
…
Individual Afghans were enchantingly courteous — but the Afghanistan I knew was a bastion of illiteracy, poverty, treachery and preventable diseases. It was also a police state, a feudal monarchy and a theocracy, rank with fear and paranoia. Afghanistan had never been colonised. My relatives said: “Not even the British could occupy us.” Thus I was forced to conclude that Afghan barbarism was of their own making and could not be attributed to Western imperialism.

Naysayers will claim Chesler’s account is an isolated story or merely one woman’s account, but it is not. Though some Muslim countries may not be as brutal and backward, there is no such thing as “women’s rights” in Islam or even “individual rights.” This is why people say that Islam is incompatible with western societies. The suppression of individual rights is an integral part of living under Sharia, and it is not racist or bigotry to say so.

My problem isn’t with “radical” Islam. I have a problem with the entire religion, especially the desire of its followers to live under religious law and to have that law imposed on westerners. In western countries. Every time I blog about my issues with Islam, somebody somewhere calls me a religious bigot. Whatever. Sticks and stones, you know?

My first question to Chesler and women like her is why she married a Muslim in the first place? (And don’t give me that love stuff.) Based on the fact that she’s a women’s studies professor and probably majored in women’s studies in college, she, like so many feminist elites in the West, held a romanticized and false notion that followers of Allah were no different from secularists like herself. But she knows the truth now. After having lived in Afghanistan, she says (emphasis added):

Long before the rise of the Taleban, I learnt not to romanticise Third World countries or to confuse their hideous tyrants with liberators. I also learnt that sexual and religious apartheid in Muslim countries is indigenous and not the result of Western crimes — and that such “colourful tribal customs” are absolutely, not relatively, evil.

My best guess is that Chesler, who is Jewish, is not an observant Jew, which is why she married a non-Jew. As a Christian, I am forbidden to marry an unbeliever. An unbeliever is anyone who does not profess Christ. (This doesn’t mean that someone who became a Christian after marriage should divorce an unbelieving spouse. The admonition is against Christians intentionally marrying non-Christians.)

My second question to Chesler is why in god’s name she even thought about moving to a backward Muslim country, let alone actually doing it? The most likely explanation is that she, like so many liberal westerners, bought the insipid multicultural all-cultures-are-equally-valid line. Strangely enough, these same people tend to hold Islam and other religions in higher esteem than they do Christianity, a religion that played and continues to play a huge role in the fact that even Christianity’s harshest critics can denigrate the faith without worrying about having their heads chopped off!

After witnessing Islamic brutality, Chesler is telling the world what she knows. But she has to put up with people who don’t know what the hell heck they’re talking about:

Western intellectual-ideologues, including feminists, have demonised me as a reactionary and racist “Islamophobe” for arguing that Islam, not Israel, is the largest practitioner of both sexual and religious apartheid in the world and that if Westerners do not stand up to this apartheid, morally, economically and militarily, we will not only have the blood of innocents on our hands; we will also be overrun by Sharia in the West

Islamophobe. What a stupid word. If that label describes anyone who thinks the West is far superior to the Middle East and that an Islamic state is a less than ideal place to live, Islamo-lovers can call me whatever they like. The irony is totally lost on them. Only in a western country, particularly the U.S., do individuals even have the freedom to broadcast their bloody opinions about us Islamophobes in the first place! Dolts.

You know, it’s really easy to sit in the comfort and luxury of the U.S. and fantasize about some Third World country, full of barbarity, and blame that barbarity on “imperialism.” I believe the word is code for hostility and envy toward white “Christian” men. I strongly suspect this is the case among feminist bloggers, who shall remain nameless and unlinked. They seem not to care about actual brutality toward women by Muslims, only perceived brutality perpetrated by white men.

Let’s do an experiment. Go to the top feminist political blogs and search for criticism of Muslims’ treatment of their wives specifically and women in general, and Islam. Now do a search for disparaging references to the “patriarchy,” which also is code for “white men,” and for Christianity. Additionally, search for criticism of rape where the rapist is someone other than a white man. Let me know what you find.

Chesler of the Open Eyes has a word of warning for western liberal snots and their cohorts:

Now is the time for Western intellectuals who claim to be antiracists and committed to human rights to stand with these dissidents. To do so requires that we adopt a universal standard of human rights and abandon our loyalty to multicultural relativism, which justifies, even romanticises, indigenous Islamist barbarism, totalitarian terrorism and the persecution of women, religious minorities, homosexuals and intellectuals. Our abject refusal to judge between civilisation and barbarism, and between enlightened rationalism and theocratic fundamentalism, endangers and condemns the victims of Islamic tyranny.

Western so-called anarchists antiracists [I misread the word, but that's OK. So-called tolerant "antiracists" are spoiled brats, too!] and multiculturalists are nothing more than brats, spoiled on the fat hog of American wealth and freedom, which provides them with plenty of leisure to fantasize that barbaric Third World countries and uncivilized religious zealots are somehow morally equal or even superior to the society that gives them the forum and safety to criticize American wealth and freedom.

They lean back in cushioned comfort bad-mouthing the hog while biting into it. May they suffer gut-wrenching indigestion.

Update: Commenter Jeff Turner writes:

For six years of my life I was a devout Muslim who followed the “path” (sirat) of the Salif-as-Salih (those who follow their righteous predecessors) or Wahabibism (a name we didnt particularly like), and I can tell you that everything that this woman has written is true. I’ve seen Muslim men beat their wives, marry other women without their first wife knowing and then one day springs it on his first wife that she is now a co-wife. I remember watching a jihadist tape which was used as a recruiting tool to get the Muslim men to fight jihad in Bosnia via Afghanistan. Islamic life focuses on death and returning to Allah. I have never been so miserable as when I was a Muslim; I could not stop thinking about death. It is a very repressive and oppresive lifestyle in which you are not in control your actions or your thoughts; you’re always living in fear that Allah will punish you not only for your bad actions but your bad thoughts.

Commenter Margaret shares insight on why Chesler traveled to a Muslim country (edited for spelling):

La Shawn, you asked why a feminazi would marry a muslim and go live in Afghanistan.

The answer is because of Chesler’s age. She is in her early 70’s. She went to college in the late 50’s early 60’s married and went to Afghanistan in 1961.

She, like most of the early feminazis such as Betty Freidan was a marxist from a communist background.

In the fifties when Chesler was growing up, Islam was unknown in this country. Most of the Mediterranean islamic countries such as Algeria, Egypt etc were officially very secular at the time. This secularism was because the communists had been very helpful in ridding those countries of their European colonial rulers.

African nationalists also depended on communist help in ending colonial European rule.

So most leftists in America and Europe thought of muslims as fellow fighters against evil colonial white men.
It was really a different time. There was no such thing as women’s studies. The only people who were into women’s rights were the communists. But they weren’t really for women’s rights of course.

The communists became pro women’s rights back in the thirties when the labor movement and MALE working class rejected communism. so the communists decided to focus on women, minorities and regional conflicts, (Spanish Basques, Irish catholics etc)

A marxist rebel beatnik young woman of the 1950’s, ignorant of the muslim treatment of women would be very likely to reject all the boring bourgeois boys in her college and marry a stranger from afar country simply because he was not a drab American.

Barack Obama’s Mother is the same age as Chesler. She did the same thing, not once but twice. I am older than you who were exposed to women’s studies at an early age. I am younger that Chesler but knowing the marxist, anti american beatnik New York milieu from which she came I can understand why she chose to marry an Afghan, as far from middle America as possible.

Ten years later, women like Chesler joined the weather underground and bombed the ROTC building on their college campuses, married Black Panthers and rioted for their causes.

Related posts:

• In Defense of Virgil Goode
• If I Were The Pope…
• A Religious and Unconventional War
• Third World PC BS
• Gunpoint Conversions and Martyrdom
• Let the Ethnic/Religious Profiling Begin!