 The Defense Department released its report Friday on the jihad massacre at Fort Hood, and it is hard to imagine a document more full of denial and deception. Above all, the Pentagon seems intent on ignoring and obfuscating the reasons why Nidal Hasan murdered thirteen people at Fort Hood in November. Although there were numerous signs that Nidal Hasan was an Islamic jihadist who believed it part of his religious responsibility as a Muslim to wage war against Infidels, the words “jihad,” “Muslim,” “Islam” and even “Islamist” never appear in the 86-page mélange of droning bureaucratese. Echoing hapless Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s reaction to the Christmas Day attempted bombing of Northwest Flight 253, the report claims that, despite the thirteen murders, the system worked well at Fort Hood: “Leaders at Fort Hood had anticipated mass casualty events in their emergency response plans and exercises. Base personnel were prepared and trained to take appropriate and decisive action to secure the situation. The prompt and courageous acts of Soldiers, first responders, local law enforcement personnel, DoD civilians, and health care providers prevented greater losses.” The only negative note in the report is the delicately stated idea that the military could be better prepared for the next jihad attack -- uh, that is, the next “tragedy”: “The tragedy, however, raised questions about the degree to which the entire Department is prepared for similar incidents in the future -- especially multiple, simultaneous incidents.” And how does the report propose to make sure that the military is prepared for “similar incidents in the future”? By acting upon a series of empty, platitudinous recommendations: “identifying and monitoring potential threats;” “providing time-critical information to the right people;” “employing force protection measures;” and “planning for and responding to incidents.” That’s right: the Pentagon is recommending that the military could be more prepared for the next terror attack by “planning for” it. And the irony is thick when the report recommends that the military improve its ability to identify and monitor “potential threats” -- this from a report that steadfastly refuses even to acknowledge the existence of the Islamic jihad doctrine that motivated Nidal Hasan to murder in the first place. Could belief in that doctrine be a “potential threat”? Of course not. At least not in a military which permits the Chief of Staff of the Army -- Gen. George Casey -- to say that as bad as the Fort Hood shootings were, it would be an even greater tragedy if the Army’s diversity were damaged. A glimmer of reality threatens to break through when the report suggests that “DoD standards for denying requests for recognition as an ecclesiastical endorser of chaplains may be inadequate” -- in other words, the Pentagon has no efficient way to screen the groups that endorse chaplains for the military. And that is certainly true: for a considerable period only two Islamic groups, both Saudi-funded, had the authority to train and approve Muslim chaplains for the military: the Graduate School of Islamic and Social Sciences and the American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council. Both of these were linked to the Islamic activist Abdurrahman Alamoudi, who is now serving a 23-year prison sentence for financing jihad terrorism. If the Pentagon increased scrutiny of such “moderate” organizations, well and good. But by what criteria will it do so, since it doesn’t seem to have noticed that there is any problem of supremacism or violence in Islam in the first place? Political correctness was responsible for the murders of thirteen people at Fort Hood. If it had not held the political and military establishments in a stranglehold, Nidal Hasan would never have remained in the U.S. military, much less risen to the rank of major. He would have been removed from the ranks long before he had had a chance to murder anyone at Fort Hood. Political correctness was responsible for the fear among his superior officers -- they knew that if they disciplined or removed Hasan, they would have faced charges of “discrimination” and “bigotry.” And such charges can ruin careers these days. But that same political correctness is still very much in place, as the Fort Hood report abundantly indicates. And so for all its bluster about preventing the next attack, it will stand -- after the next jihad attack, and the one after that -- as a monument to the cowardice and myopia that held sway at the highest levels in Washington during the first year of the Obama Administration. 
 The depths of treachery, mind-numbing legal prejudice and undisguised prosecutorial malice in the upcoming trial of Parliamentarian Geert Wilders within Amsterdam’s Criminal Court are a truly alarming indication of how deeply Islam has sunken its tentacles into the Dutch government. Wilders goes to trial on January 20 for numerous accusations that are crafted to kill Free Political Discourse.
A December 4, 2009 indictment was handed down after Muslims voiced objections to Wilders’ movie “Fitna”, which exposes bellicose Koranic verses, acts of Islamic violence and the in-progress Islamization of Europe. The fix is in, ladies and gents. Members of the Press were summarily barred from a January 13 pre-trial hearing, prosecutor Paul Vellerman said that the trial will not occur in a “super-secured” Courtroom, and more charges were added, to wit: Racism Against Muslims and Moroccans.
The tentacles of Islam and PC have a strangle-hold. There will be no fair trial. Besides facing two years in prison if convicted, Wilders’ life will be at risk. The trial will be held in a Courtroom that is not equipped to afford adequate security, making him more accessible to jihad assassins. Diana West’s take is in her blog here. Danish Free Press’ Arthur Legger’s coverage is here: “Any one who still claims that the trial against Geert Wilders MP, leader of the Party for Freedom (9 seats in Parliament and 27 in the polls), which starts on the 20th of January, is not a political process: get a grip. Accused by the Dutch ‘Openbaar Ministerie’ exactly a year ago for insulting Islam, comparing the Koran to Mein Kampf and delivering hate speeches, the coming trial against Wilders suddenly got a Kafkaesque and potentially murderous twist… … “It is irrelevant whether Wilder’s witnesses might prove Wilders’ observations to be correct”, the ‘Openbaar Ministerie’ stated, “what’s relevant is that his observations are illegal”… This is incredible. It does not matter to the prosecutor that Wilders might be telling the truth.
It is illegal to speak the truth. Please, awaken me from the nightmare and tell me that this cannot be happening in a “free” nation in the 21st Century. “…(the indictment) which Wilders received on the 4th of December and sums up in verbatim all of his Islam and Koran critique in interviews and Fitna, was amended with new accusations of racism against muslims (sic) and Moroccans… Paul Vellerman, the public prosecutor of the Amsterdam Court decided that the Wilders trial had to be regarded as “an ordinary trial open for public and with a normal procedure, which doesn’t deserve the Department of Justice’s highly secured bunker…” Really? Parliamentarian Pim Fortuyn and film maker Theo van Gogh, outspoken Dutch opponents of Islamic doctrine and Islamization, were both murdered on public streets, in the day time, in plain view of passers-by. A Muslim killed van Gogh and a pro-Muslim-immigrationist dispatched Fortuyn. Vellerman, knowing full-well Wilders’ status as a marked target of Islam, refuses to give him the protection of a properly secured Courtroom during trial. This is dastardly. It is villainy. A squid kills by attaching its tentacles and drawing the victim toward its beak-like mouth, where it is torn apart and eaten. We are now witnessing no less than the devouring by prosecution of an unarmed and innocent prey in The Netherlands’ Court. NewsReal Blog
 by Lt. Col. Ralph Peters
There are two basic problems with the grotesque non-report on the Islamist- terror massacre at Fort Hood (released by the Defense Department yesterday): * It's not about what happened at Fort Hood. * It avoids entirely the issue of why it happened. Rarely in the course of human events has a report issued by any government agency been so cowardly and delusional. It's so inept, it doesn't even rise to cover-up level. "Protecting the Force: Lessons From Fort Hood" never mentions Islamist terror. Its 86 mind-numbing pages treat "the alleged perpetrator," Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, as just another workplace shooter (guess they're still looking for the pickup truck with the gun rack). The report is so politically correct that its authors don't even realize the extent of their political correctness -- they're body-and-soul creatures of the PC culture that murdered 12 soldiers and one Army civilian. Reading the report, you get the feeling that, jeepers, things actually went pretty darned well down at Fort Hood. Commanders, first responders and everybody but the latest "American Idol" contestants come in for high praise. The teensy bit of specific criticism is reserved for the "military medical officer supervisors" in Maj. Hasan's chain of command at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. As if the problem started and ended there. Unquestionably, the officers who let Hasan slide, despite his well-known wackiness and hatred of America, bear plenty of blame. But this disgraceful pretense of a report never asks why they didn't stop Hasan's career in its tracks. The answer is straightforward: Hasan's superiors feared -- correctly -- that any attempt to call attention to his radicalism or to prevent his promotion would backfire on them, destroying their careers, not his. Hasan was a protected-species minority. Under the PC tyranny of today's armed services, no non-minority officer was going to take him on. This is a military that imposes rules of engagement that protect our enemies and kill our own troops and that court-martials heroic SEALs to appease a terrorist. Ain't many colonels willing to hammer the Army's sole Palestinian-American psychiatrist. Of course, there's no mention of political correctness by the panel. Instead, the report settles for blinding flashes of the obvious, such as "We believe a gap exists in providing information to the right people." Gee, really? Well, that explains everything. Money well spent! Or "Department of Defense force protection policies are not optimized for countering internal threats." Of course not: You can't stop an internal threat you refuse to recognize. The panel's recommendations? Wow. "Develop a risk-assessment tool for commanders." Now that's going to stop Islamist terrorists in their tracks. The Fort Hood massacre didn't reflect an intelligence failure. The intelligence was there, in gigabytes. This was a leadership failure and an ethical failure, at every level. Nobody wanted to know what Hasan was up to. But you won't learn that from this play-pretend report. The sole interesting finding flashes by quickly: Behind some timid wording on pages 13 and 14, a daring soul managed to insert the observation that we aren't currently able to keep violence-oriented religious extremists from becoming chaplains. (Of course, they're probably referring to those darned Baptists . . .) To be fair, there's a separate, classified report on Maj. Hasan himself. But it's too sensitive for the American people to see. Does it even hint he was a self-appointed Islamist terrorist committing jihad? I'll bet it focuses on his "personal problems." In the end, the report contents itself with pretending that the accountability problem was isolated within the military medical community at Walter Reed. It wasn't, and it isn't. Murderous political correctness is pervasive in our military. The medical staff at Walter Reed is just where the results began to manifest themselves in Hasan's case. Once again, the higher-ups blame the worker bees who were victims of the policy the higher-ups inflicted on them. This report's spinelessness is itself an indictment of our military's failed moral and ethical leadership. We agonize over civilian casualties in a war zone but rush to whitewash the slaughter of our own troops on our own soil. Conduct unbecoming. Ralph Peters' latest book is "The War After Armageddon." NYPost
 If you’re looking for a bullet-proof job in this recession, become a Muslim Hate Cleric. It’s worked for Anjem Choudary. He rakes in £25,000 a year in benefits, paid for by you and me, so he can spout his vile, extremist views at the coffins of dead soldiers. While Choudary plans a parade by Muslim hardliners through the streets of Wootton Bassett to spit on our fallen heroes, we pay him £15,600 a year in housing benefit. This is on top of his £1,820 council tax allowance, £5,200 in income support and £3,120 in child benefit. Nice work if you can get it. Why settle for a salary of £17,000 a year to fight for Queen and country when you can make £8,000 more by slagging it off? You’d think someone who brands our courageous troops “murderers”, “rapists”, “child-killers” and “Nazis” would be banged up for inciting racial hatred. But no, you can’t do that! This country is so crippled by political correctness this foul and dangerous man is given free rein to “speak his mind”. When told of Choudary’s plan to stage his hate-filled protest in Wootton Bassett, Gordon Brown could only utter: “I am personally appalled by the prospect.” Well, you know what? I am personally appalled that a Muslim extremist is allowed to publicly rant in the most vile and offensive way. I am personally appalled there’s one rule for him and a completely different set of rules for the rest of us. I am proud to live in a country where racism is unacceptable. Our kids are taught from birth never to call each other names and to treat everyone, not matter what their ethnicity, with respect. So how do I explain that what Anjem Choudary does is not illegal or even considered wrong by the authorities? How can I explain to my kids that if they call another child a name in the playground they’ll be hauled in front of the headmaster and possibly the police. But if they walk through the streets of Wootton Bassett waving a Nazi placard in the air, that’s not racism, that’s “freedom of speech”. I am fed up with these fundamentalist nutters. I am fed-up with the way our legal system lets them get away with murder because punishing their racism is considered a racist act in itself. I feel for Britain’s Muslim community who are unfairly branded by these extremists and live in fear of reprisals. I am furious that we pay these dangerous men to live in our country so they can plot against us. We are so blinded by PC rubbish we can no longer see the wood for the trees and it’s affecting every part of our lives. Last week when I returned from visiting my family in Australia, the airport security was a nightmare. I know we have to protect ourselves from psychos with bombs in their shoes, but is it really necessary to scan my seven-year-old daughter TWICE? Not even al-Qaeda would recruit them that young. It’s another example of PC madness. British airports scan everybody, regardless of age, gender or ethnicity. We are so scared of “discrimination” and “human rights” my kid is forced through the same security checks as a known Muslim hate preacher. Passengers should be profiled for risk, as they are in many other countries. Anyone with a faintly dubious background or dodgy connections should be put through maximum security – and to hell with their hurt feelings. The rest of us should have our bags checked then be left to get on with our travels. But this is about as likely to happen as Choudary losing his swag bag of benefits. This Government has castrated itself with ludicrous PC laws. It should be punishing dangerous fundamentalists, stripping them of benefits, not effectively paying them to incite hatred. Neither the Government nor the Tories are showing any teeth on this issue. More fool them at the ballot box. Mirror UK
 The recent Christmas terror attempt by the Nigerian Muslim Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab raised several concerns about failure of the system in the U.S. to connect the dots.
There is no single doubt that this event among many others such as the Fort Hood massacre point to a serious problem in connecting the data.
The question that must be raised is, "Have we only failed to connect the dots or have we failed to see them to begin with?"
Since Sept. 11 and in fact before it, we failed miserably to see several clear dots and threats that could have changed our approach to the problem of radical Islam and enhanced our capabilities in fighting it.
Some of the dots that we failed to see include the following: - We failed to see that in most approved Islamic Shariah books, jihad is predominantly taught in a violent manner. We believed in our dreams and imaginations that jihad is a peaceful concept instead of doing our homework to learn how it is defined by mainstream Islamic books and media. We obviously failed to confront the reality until the reality confronted us.
- We could not see that the problem of terrorism is clearly linked to a religious ideology. Our political correctness made us unable to see the most apparent thing, which is, when thousands of terror attacks and suicide bombings are conducted predominantly by dedicated and devout Muslims who belong to several economical and educational levels, it is imperative to think of the ideology as the number one cause for the problem.
- We did not recognize that Shariah, still today, allows stoning of women until death for adultery, kills people for converting from Islam, and promotes wars against non-Muslims to spread Islam. It is a violent and inhumane law that carries major threat to the future of our civilizations.
- We were unable to see the clear link between teaching violence and barbarism in Islamic jurisprudence books and the development of a violent mind that can ultimately lead to terrorism and barbarism.
- We kept talking about moderate and radical Islam without setting parameters to define them. This made us support some radical Islamic groups, organizations, and individuals thinking that they are “moderates.”
- We failed to comprehend that the lack of a strong reaction in the Muslim street against the terrorists is indicative of a serious cultural problem that encourages and supports radical Islam.
- We failed to see that allowing radicals in our military who clearly express sympathy and support for our enemy — such as the case of Nidal Hasan who committed the Fort Hood massacre — is a form of insanity.
- We could not realize that carrying a U.S. passport or having U.S. citizenship does not grant immunity from becoming radicalized.
- We could not figure out that Muslims killing one another in extremely barbaric manners in Iraq and Afghanistan cannot be due to or explained by the presence of an Arab-Israeli conflict or by U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. We failed to ask the basic question: Why do Muslims kill one another?
- We failed to see that disrespect for the life of non-Muslims, as currently taught in main stream Islamic jurisprudence books, is a — if not the — main underlying factor behind terrorism. We simply could not see that the barbarism practiced by radical Islam has its roots in what we call “moderate Islam,” or Shariah.
In brief, our failure to defeat radical Islam is not simply a failure in connecting dots. It is primarily a failure to see these dots.
 The attempted bombing of Delta/Northwest 253 on Christmas Day was not the first from the Islamic terrorists nor will it be the last. Since I am a pilot, I have had people ask what can a passenger do onboard an airplane to help thwart a terrorist attack. Having personal experience with a few events myself, as well as reading articles and hearing stories from other crewmembers, I can give you some information which might assist you in dealing with a suspicious passenger or situation.
The first thing to realize is that there are a few different scenarios which the terrorists could be using on your particular flight. (Also realize that it could happen on any flight, not just one originating from a non U.S. location.)
Options include testing TSA and law enforcement personnel, testing passengers and crewmembers, observation, dry run/practice, and actual execution of an attack. Of course it is hard to differentiate which scenario is playing out until after your flight lands, but it might assist you in recognizing the threat and knowing how serious your reaction should be if you know all of the options. In most of these instances, their job is to also scare you.
Terrorists create terror. If you stop flying, they win. So be pro-active. Maybe something you do will cause them to call off the attack.
As a passenger you must be observant and vigilant. Most often someone notices some unusual activity or behavior. It doesn’t have to be just a person either. Suspicious bags, luggage, packages, notes, pillows, and electronic devices have been found on planes. One of the biggest advantages you have is the ability to profile. TSA refuses to do the obvious thanks to political correctness.
Everyone knows who is committing these attacks -- Muslim, Middle-Eastern men between 18 and 40. Maybe al Qaeda is trying to recruit others than don’t fit this profile but it sure fits the mold right now.
Some things to look for: groups or pairs of men, a passenger talking to themselves, speaking Arabic, watching crewmembers (this is different than looking), staring at the cockpit door, long stays or multiple trips to the lavatory, reading a book but not turning any pages, nervousness, being unusual by trying to fit in, taking pictures/videos, not making eye contact.
When you are at the boarding area and on the plane if you notice a suspicious passenger, look for others. How many? If it is one or two then they could be planning on bombing the aircraft or just making observations of crew procedures. 6 or more? Then this cell’s objective would be hijacking the plane by brute force. Also remember that there are sleepers that try to blend in with the other passengers and could be very hard to notice.
A website reports a well-dressed man in custody that was also a passenger on Delta Flight 253. After an incident, your entire plane might be delayed for security and they will treat everyone as suspects. Also expect the government and airline to try to cover up parts or all of an event.
A recent example of a possible test occurred on Nov 17 with an Airtran flight from Atlanta to Houston. Eleven Muslim men got on the plane and caused a big disturbance and ended with passengers assisting the flight attendants in the commotion. TSA was called, they took the men off, talked to them, and put them back on.
The crewmembers walked off the plane refusing to fly it, and then passengers walked off as well. The terrorists tested the TSA and passengers but probably also threatened lawsuits to the government and Airtran.
This could be setting up a later mission with hopes the TSA and airline would be afraid to take them off the plane. Just like the Delta flight, the final layer of security, the crewmembers and passengers, are the ones who might have prevented an attack, nothing the government did was successful.
 On Christmas Day a brave Dutchman, Jasper Schuringa, played a very big role in preventing yet another terrorist triumph. He was able to subdue the young Islamist Nigerian man, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and stop him from murdering a plane-load of people and then getting his virgins, raisins, or whatever these brain-washed Islamists think is waiting for them in Paradise.
Now the airlines of the world have to think hard about what they can do, yet again, to keep the airlines safe.
But can they? Christopher Hitchens doubts it, and wonders why the majority of us have to endure these basically useless procedures. People who follow the activities of Islamists worldwide would not have been at all surprised.
Thwarted terror plots and Islamist Militants' incidents are almost daily occurrences. The only surprises are the out-of-the-box methods that are constantly updated. It seems these people have nothing better to do than figure out new ways of killing people they hate and disagree with!
What a "noble goal" in life that must be!
This is a global problem yet the leaders of the world simply don't want to know about it, let alone deal with it effectively.
Yes, there is a river in Egypt called "Denial".
Another fact often overlooked is that these attempts at mass murder do not only occur in the west, but in many Islamic countries. Pakistan is a good example of this. Muslim on Muslim murder. And of course who can forget the beheadings by the Taliban.
In 2009 there was quite a string of such plots and incidents and they have been well-documented by those who follow these issues.
It is indeed astonishing that people, Moderate Muslims and non-Muslims alike, do not protest in front of their respective government agencies constantly and say "enough already!"
It is quite unbelievable. Is it fear? Political Correctness? Apathy? Ignorance? All of these and maybe more? Why should any civilized person have to put up with any form of medieval behavior in the twenty-first century?
Mention must also be made here of the "gifts" bestowed on Israel and the rest of the world by Jimmy Carter. His apology for his comments about Israel, and his role in adding to the global jihad should not be underestimated.
It is as if they are totally ignorant of what is actually happening, and ignorant of the fact that not only the Israelis, but also the Egyptians control the crossings to Gaza. It is not just ignorance. It is deceit, and it is affecting many people who live in the Middle East: Muslims, Jews and Christians alike.
But I forget: Gaza is a fashionable cause, and Israel, that tiny strip of democratic land in an ocean of Islamic theocracies and dictatorships, is the cause of ALL the problems in the world - yep,,sure it is! All those "occupied territories"..err.."disputed territories" are the root cause of it all!!
And please dismiss from your mind the thousands of rockets that were launched into Israel which eventually lead to the Gaza war and the infamous Goldstone Report. I am not trying to demean the suffering of the Palestinians, especially the Gazans, who, under Hamas have indeed suffered, yet most of this is due to their leaders who are obsessed with maintaining power, accumulating wealth, and are totally disinterested in the welfare of their citizens.
Corruption is king. Teach your children to hate. Get money for weapons from the West and build almost NO infrastructure. Make sure the United Nations helps you all the way, and perpetuates this ridiculous situation. Can't have a bunch of UN employees out of a job, can we?
Yesterday I read that New Zealand is protesting an Israeli tennis player, Shahar Peer. This is not this first instance of "Tennis Jihad". It has happened in Sweden too.
Is it not strange that two western democracies allow politics to interfere with a sporting event in this day and age? Am I being naive? Are all sporting events tied to politics like they were in Hitler's time? They shouldn't be. Is history repeating itself? .
This is the disconnect: every day we hear of Islamist terrorism all over the world. No one says a word; no one protests, no one minds being patted down and removing their shoes at airports.
People of all races and creeds everywhere are threatened by radical Islamist extremists who are willing to kill and die in the name of their belief system. (I hesitate to call it a religion).
Blame must also go to the left-wing post-modernists who ably support them in the name of political correctness and self-loathing.
But one Israeli tennis player in New Zealand, and one in Sweden, cause demonstrations. These two countries, fine examples of Western liberal democracies, should hang their heads in shame.
This situation is very hard to comprehend.
"You can't be serious!" Indeed, Mr McEnroe!
 by Newt Gingrich After the Christmas Day near disaster in Detroit, it is time for Americans to demand effective anti-terrorist actions.
Over eight years after 9/11 and 30 years after the Iranian illegal seizure of the United States embassy and the 444 day Iranian hostage crisis, Washington is still avoiding being intellectually honest about the war we are in.
Our Politically Correct Government is Making Life More Miserable For the Innocent. America is long overdue for a serious global strategy that includes targeting threats such as the terrorist killer at Fort Hood, the individuals recently arrested in Detroit, Denver and New York, and the five Americans detained in Pakistan. The scale, persistence and sophistication of the enemy requires an honesty, a clarity, and a scale appropriate to the response. Once again, instead of targeting the source of the threats, our politically correct government decides to make life more miserable for the travelling public by imposing hopelessly meaningless rules such as not allowing passengers to leave their seats in the last hour of the flight. Bound by cultural sensitivities, the default reaction of the bureaucracy is to review the procedures and wring its hands ineffectively. Today, because our elites fear politically incorrect honesty, they believe that it is better to harass the innocent, delay the harmless, and risk the lives of every American than to do the obvious, the effective, and the necessary.Before a lot more Americans are killed we must acquire the courage to tell the truth and to act on that truth.It is time to be honest about what we know. We know our opponents are radical extremists of the irreconcilable wing of Islam (Islamists, some would call them). We know they have an ideology which is anti-female, desires to impose fundamentalist Sharia as a form of law, is hostile to other religions and is prepared to kill the innocent to achieve their goals.We know how to identify these enemies but our elites have refused to do so. In the Obama Administration, protecting the rights of terrorists has been more important than protecting the lives of Americans. That must now change decisively. It is time to know more about would-be terrorists, to profile for terrorists and to actively discriminate based on suspicious terrorist information. The United States should track down the owners of every website that promotes terrorism and systematically root them out. It should be as dangerous to a person promoting terrorism as it is to execute an act of terrorism.The same should apply to the electronic communications of every known radical (and using these communications to track down every unknown radical). The people behind these websites should be barred from getting a U.S. visa if not in the United States (concurrently, we should make it easier -- not harder -- for non-terrorists to get visas because we want to encourage the law abiding while discriminating against the potential terrorist). An integrated data base for threats should have been expected, we now learn that it does not exist. This must be fixed. It should be reasonable for the flying public to have expected that when the Nigerian terrorist's father reported he was going to a terrorist training camp he should automatically have been barred from getting a visa and from flying into the United States. The emergence of Yemen as the new planning, equipping, and training center for terrorism should remind us we need a worldwide "grand national strategy" (to use the World War II term) that is far bigger than our current debate over Afghanistan. Americans should also note that ABC News is reporting that two of the plotters to blow the Amsterdam to Detroit flight out of the air were released from Guantanamo in 2007, attended an “art rehabilitation program” in Saudi Arabia, were released and took up senior leadership positions in al Qaeda in Yemen. Americans should also know that nearly half of the remaining detainees in Guantanamo are from Yemen.The recent arrest of five Americans in Pakistan and the report there are 25 British citizens training to be bombers in Yemen should remind us this is a global war. Moreover, the report that 74 Guantanamo detainees who have been released are back in the war trying to kill Americans should stop any further effort to close Guantanamo or to release terrorists. This new honesty about the threat should end any thought of a civilian trial in New York for 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammad with its dangers for exposing American intelligence information. All terrorists including would-be bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab should be tried in military tribunals as part of a serious war strategy. The Attorney General and every Justice Department appointee whose law firms provided pro bono counsel for terrorists should be fired and replaced with lawyers who believe the lives of Americans are more important than the rights of terrorists. The United States must have a policy of effective interrogation to understand our enemies and disrupt their planned attacks (read Marc Thiessen’s column from yesterday). Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano's claim that the Detroit bomber was allowed to board a plan with explosives hidden in his underwear proved the system worked is proof we need a new Homeland Security Secretary who knows we need a new strategy and a new focus. These are the first steps toward defeating the extremists. We should take them before there is a tragic attack that kills a lot of people. We have been warned. Again. Will we now act? Your friend, 
Human Events
2010 GUIDE TO FREE SPEECH
(A PC'ers for Sharia Production)
White Males
It Is Hate Speech If You Offend non-Whites, Females, non-Christians or Muslims
Christians
It Is Hate Speech If You Offend non-Whites, non-Christians, or Muslims
Jews
It Is Hate Speech If You Offend non-Whites, Females or Muslims
Females
It Is Hate Speech If You Offend non-Whites or Muslims
Non-Whites
It Is Hate Speech If You Offend Muslims
Muslims
It Is Hate Speech To Offend Your Imam
Source: Guy DeWhitney's Heretic's Crusade
 The experience of reading The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran brought to mind two other “radical” texts, each exploring a different kind of faith. The first is Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts about the Sixties, the classic critique of the New Left by Peter Collier and David Horowitz.
Destructive Generation is a dense book that overwhelms with the sheer number, variety, and intensity of its facts and arguments. One completes it almost exhausted.
Spencer’s Infidel’s Guide produces a similar effect. The author packs his text with so many quotes from the Koran, the Hadith, and prominent Muslim commentators that it’s profoundly difficult to argue with him. (Which perhaps explains why the usual anti-Spencer retort is to slur him as a bigot and not bother to even quote him.) The second is this year’s Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don’t Know About Them) by agnostic New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman. The new book by the author of Misquoting Jesus and God’s Problem provided a more thoughtful alternative to critiquing religion than the Christopher Hitchens/Richard Dawkins militant atheism. Spencer’s approach to the Koran is identical to Ehrman’s to the New Testament. He’s a nonbeliever who seeks to look at a holy text critically, examining how it was made and what the text itself actually says – not how it’s allegedly divine and infallible.
Yet why is Spencer the “bigot” of the two? Why is it acceptable to look at Christianity critically but “racist” to do so for Islam? Why have we built an advantage to our enemies right into the fabric of our “politically correct” culture? And it’s here where we return to understanding Spencer as a radical. Because Spencer is not just a radical intellectual – willing to take an idea to its root no matter how maligned the left-dominated intellectual culture might make him.
He’s also a radical activist. Consider another of the American Heritage Dictionary’s definitions of radical: “One who advocates fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions.” Possessed of the conservative’s understanding of human nature and loyalty to individual liberty he knows the only way one can both effectively and morally change society is to change people’s ideas. And so the “fundamental or revolutionary change” that he advocates is a revision in the way Americans understand Islam. Let us support him as he pursues this intellectual revolution. Our very society is dependent upon its success. NewsReal Blog
 Posted by The MaryHunter It's been 36 days since the terrorist attack that left 14 dead, 32 wounded, and the nation scratching its collective head, asking why the Muslim extremist U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan, was so effortlessly able to perpetrate this act of jihad on American soil. The reason, of course, is Political Correctness.
Texas Rep. John Carter's district includes Fort Hood and he is more than just a little concerned that our government has apparently learned nothing from this horrid event. We must not wrongfully prejudge people. However, we also can no longer refuse to take the steps necessary to defend ourselves, as clearly was the case with the Fort Hood attack. We can't allow political correctness to intimidate Americans from speaking out against clear and present dangers out of fear they will be ridiculed or penalized for offending any group. We should have learned that lesson in 2001. Let's review the historical record beginning in 2001:
- Muslim males with ties to radical Islamic groups and persons - including Imam Anwar Al-Awlaki, then of Northern Virginia - rammed airliners into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania on Sept. 11, 2001, killing 2,976 men, women and children.
- A Muslim male with ties to radical Islamic groups and persons attempted to bomb a U.S. airliner with a shoe bomb in December 2001.
- A Muslim male with ties to radical Islamic groups and persons attacked the Los Angeles airport in July 2002, killing two persons and wounding four.
- A Muslim male with ties to radical Islamic groups and persons engaged in a sniping attack with a juvenile accomplice in the Washington area in October 2002, killing 10 and wounding three.
- A Muslim male with ties to radical Islamic groups and persons attacked his fellow U.S. Army soldiers in their tents in Kuwait in 2003, killing two and wounding 14 of his own comrades, a foreshadowing of the Fort Hood attack.
- Muslim males with ties to radical Islamic groups and individuals attempted to plan the bombing of the Sears Tower in Chicago in August 2006.
- Muslim males with ties to radical Islamic groups and persons, including Mr. Al-Awlaki - now in Yemen - plotted in 2006 to attack the Canadian Parliament and other buildings in Toronto.
- Muslim males with ties to radical Islamic groups and individuals - including the same Mr. Al-Awlaki in Yemen - were arrested in May 2007 for planning an automatic weapons attack on U.S. soldiers at Fort Dix, N.J.
- A Muslim male with ties to radical Islamic groups and persons attacked a U.S. Army recruiting station in Little Rock, Ark., in June, killing two recruiters.
...which led to this:
- Another Muslim male with ties to radical Islamic groups and persons, including Mr. Al-Awlaki in Yemen, stands accused of attacking our soldiers and civilians at Fort Hood, Texas, on Nov. 5, killing 14 and wounding 32. Mr. Al-Awlaki is publicly praising Maj. Hasan as a "hero."
...which could probably have been prevented, because of this:
The FBI and the Defense Department were aware that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was in contact with the same Mr. Al-Awlaki in Yemen with ties to the Sept. 11 attackers and the plot to attack Fort Dix, and that Maj. Hasan made verbal and written statements justifying attacks. Maj. Hasan's profile, associations, communications and actions were a perfect match with multiple previous attacks in this country that had killed nearly 3,000 Americans since 2001. Yet no action was taken. So, what's been done since?
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano's chief concern apparently is not why the FBI and other authorities failed to prevent another attack, but whether the public might be led to blame Muslims in general, which would be politically incorrect. This is the same Department of Homeland Security that had no problem warning law enforcement agencies earlier this year of a supposed threat from "right-wing extremists," defined as Americans who believe in the Constitution and oppose Obama administration policies. Rep. Carter hastens to point out that the American public comprises, on the whole, "good people who have developed a very strong aversion to judging others because of their race, ethnic background, religion or factors other than individual character and conduct." That said (and help me out here if this seems out of line): ...our virtue is being used as a powerful weapon against us by political extremists within our country and enemies without. [...] when a Muslim male contacts the radical Islamic colleague of the Sept. 11 hijackers, the Fort Dix shooting plot and the Canadian Parliament bombing plot; tells responsible people that he sympathizes with our enemies; and claims that jihad against the United States is justified, somebody needs to stop him instead of failing to act from fear of violating the unwritten taboos of political correctness. And why does this need to even be pointed out? Because: We are letting political correctness destroy our nation. It cost the lives of 14 Americans at Fort Hood, and the current administration apparently has not learned a thing. There is a simple definition of political correctness. It is just another word for a lie. When we say we have no need to fear or take action against people with clear ties to radical Islamic terrorists, that's a lie. We must start acknowledging the truth if we want to survive as a free nation. God willing. With thanks to Moonbattery
 By Jim O'Neill
“The Muslims refuse our culture and try to impose their culture on us. I reject them, and this is not only my duty toward my culture—it is toward my values, my principles, my civilization.” —Oriana Fallaci (1929-2006) “There exists a law, not written down anywhere, but in our hearts…. I refer to the law which lays it down that, if our lives are endangered by plots, or violence, or armed robbers, or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right.”—Cicero (106-43 BC) It is well known that the Far Left and Islamic terrorists are in cahoots, as are liberals and “moderate” Muslims. Both sides are using the other as “useful idiots” to further their agendas—one ideological, and the other theological. One is using clandestine sabotage and subterfuge, while the other openly promotes global jihad. Their common enemy is the “Great Satan” of the United States of America, which they agree, must be destroyed in order for their plans to proceed. For the time being, they are in league with one another. Meanwhile, the Pentagon remains asleep at the wheel, busily enmeshed in asinine internecine squabbles, hamstringing our fighting forces, and covering their butts from charges of being politically incorrect. They have taken an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies—foreign and domestic. But you sure wouldn’t know it from their betrayal of America’s fighting men and women, America’s citizens, and America herself. Political correctness is a poison introduced by the Far Left over a period of decades. The infiltration of the U.S. Military by Muslims, is a fairly recent phenomenon traceable to Saudi Arabia, and the first Gulf War (1990-1991). According to Harvard’s Dr. Gal Luft, “While the Saudis were adamantly opposed to any expression of religious practice by their guests, including a ban on Christmas carols, bible classes and Christian and Jewish prayers, they embarked on a well-orchestrated and generously funded effort sponsored by the Saudi government to convert as many American military members as possible to Islam.”
Luft concludes, “...it is time to investigate what exactly happened back then in the desert, and assess how serious and deep-rooted the damage is.” Indeed, but will the quislings now pulling the strings in the higher echelons of the Pentagon, do so? I doubt it. They are much more concerned with promotions, pay grades, and political correctness; than with valor, integrity, and honoring their oaths. The Pentagon is infested with politically correct drones, who place what’s good for their careers, over what’s good for America. Elaine Donnelly of CMR (Center for Military Readiness) states, “Both [Adm. Mike Mullen, and Gen. George Casey] have put the culture of the armed forces at risk with numerous statements advocating ‘diversity’ first, and the needs of the military second. ...No matter what the issue is, when officials make decisions…favoring individuals at the expense of the whole, they undermine key elements of military culture…. The culture of the military must not be taken for granted—it could be irreversibly degraded in a single generation.” Ms. Donnelly is correct. A mere generation ago, it would have been unconscionable for the U.S. military to follow the orders of a CIC who surrounded himself with Communist and Marxist aides, refused to disclose his past, bowed to the king of Saudi Arabia, “forgot” to salute the American flag, and supported a Justice Department that was blatantly anti-American. (Here and Here) America’s fighting men and women are still second to none, and our junior officers are generally first class, but it appears that a number of the military’s high command are unwilling to honor the oaths they’ve taken, and are an insult to the brave history of America’s armed forces, and a disgrace to the uniforms they wear. It would seem that flag officers like Boykin, Petraeus, and McChrystal are in short supply these days. (Source) We are forced to witness the insanity of our military men and women being shackled by idiotic ROE (Rules of Engagement), and punished for any mishandling of America’s enemies, who hate us, do not “play fair,” and are committed to America’s destruction by any means. Here are a few of the ROE currently in effect: No night or surprise searches. Villagers have to be warned prior to searches. U.S. soldiers may not fire at the enemy unless the enemy is preparing to fire first. U.S. forces cannot engage the enemy if civilians are present. Troops can fire at an insurgent if they catch him placing an IED (Improvised Explosive Device) but not if insurgents are walking away from an area where explosives have been laid. What kind of suicidal “shoot yourself in the foot” garbage is this? It can only be the result of some REMF idiots, passing along their lame-brained ideas, in order to buff up their PC credentials. Stop listening to these fools—get rid of them! The next thing you know, we’ll be required to read enemy combatants the Miranda, as if…. Never-mind, we already are. Given the caliber of much of the Pentagon’s “leadership.” one can only hope that the military’s version of Homeland Security, USNORTHCOM (U.S. Northern Command), is not as paranoid of a civilian revolt as Homeland Security apparently is. Can you imagine the U.S. military attacking patriotic Americans, for daring to stand tall for the Constitution? Farcical irony indeed, but I don’t hear anybody laughing—except for the Far Left, and global jihadists. The U.S. Military is, of course, not alone in being politically corrected and Islamized. America itself, is well along the road of Islamification and emasculation. Burka Barbies and Che Guevara onesies. What’s next, Osama Bin Laden sippy cups? Maybe Burka Barbies that reveal acid-scarred faces when you pull back the veil, or bloodstained Che Guevara onesies, would slap some of these liberal morons awake. Probably not—invincible ignorance runs deep. Regarding the global jihad, Americans really need to wake up and pay attention to what has happened, is happening, and will happen in Europe—or as Oriana Fallaci called it, Eurabia. (Here and Here) The Islamification of Europe is largely a fait accompli. If you like the idea of an Islamic America, then you’ll be happy—because we’re next. And the process is already well underway.
The Islamic threat to America is not limited to acts of outright terrorism. The left-wing and the Muslims share notes, of course, and the Islamic jihadist movement in America has taken to heart the Alinsky/Chicago model of bribery, threat, and intimidation.
If you are not up to speed on this subject, then you really should educate yourself—really. Laus Deo. Here are a few websites that you may find helpful:
Faith Freedom International—ex-Muslims against hate
Act! For America—Brigette Gabriel is one gutsy lady
Jihad Tube—“A picture is worth a thousand words”
Islam: the Religion of Peace (and a big stack of dead bodies)
Christian Action Network (CAN)—Christianity with backbone
Jihad Watch
Global Jihad
Get a copy of “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America”
By P. David Gaubatz and Paul Sperry CFP
 There is no discussing Islam without discussing the Moderate Muslim. Like the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus, the Moderate Muslim is often a topic of conversation, but rarely has much to say about himself. And even those who note that the Moderate Muslim is somewhat less in evidence than the Dodo or the Mammoth, turn instead to the project of reforming Islam. It is of course possible to reform Islam. It is also possible to reform a serial killer. It is however not likely, and certainly not safe to stake your serial-killer prevention strategy on letting the serial killer run free, while you try and talk to him about the virtues of not cutting off people's heads and wearing their skin.
For over a thousand years Islam has been the serial killer of world civilization, decimating entire cultures and religions, practicing ethnic cleansing, genocide, terrorism and endless war.
Islam is currently involved directly or indirectly in conflicts or terrorism on virtually every continent.
Modern Islamist movements have fused the modern tools of war from IED's to Lawfare to Social Media, with ancient fanatical beliefs blended with the leavings of National Socialism and Communism to create a global killing machine.
Now how do you go about reforming something like that? A rational proposal for reforming Islam must first begin by asking why proposals to reform Islam have gotten nowhere before.
The simple answer is that it's because the unreformed version of Islam is far too success for there to be much of a market for a reformed version. Al Capone wasn't interested in reform when he was shoveling in money hand over fist. The old blood and guts version of Islam is doing better than ever around the world, more so than any pale reformed versions.
The Wahhabis have shown that it's possible to live in America or the UK, get a degree as a doctor, preach terrorism and still get educated at the infidel's expense.
The infidels will then fast during Ramadan to avoid offending you, ignore your incitement to violence and look the other way when you send money to terrorists. They will draw the line when you actually open fire or set off a car bomb-- but not to the extent of looking at your mosque or at Islam itself.
If you can be an Islamic extremist while finding career success in the West. If you can be an Islamic extremist and get an invitation to the White House or 10 Downing Street. If you can be an Islamic extremist and still have liberals compete to defend you and promote your agenda-- what possible reason is there for reform?
Non-Muslims may want Islam to reform, but why would Muslims want Islam to reform? The key to answering that question is also the key to reforming Islam. Right now Muslims, particularly those in the West, have very little incentive to reform Islam.
And you can thank the Cult of Tolerance and its ugly sibling, Political Correctness for that. If anything, violence and extremism has actually made Islam more successful by intimidating and extracting more concessions from the Dar Al Harb.
 Women and young girls at risk of being taken abroad and forced into marriage are being failed because local officials fear 'offending' minority communities, according to a Government report.Social workers are being slow to use new court orders aimed at stopping potential victims being spirited overseas to be married without their consent, the report said.
It pointed to 'a fear of being accused of racism or not being culturally sensitive'.
Judges who rule on applications for the orders warned of a 'political correctness agenda' hampering efforts to help.
Schools were accused of failing to alert pupils to the issue, for fear of offending parents.
Children as young as nine have been taken overseas by their parents and forced to marry complete strangers. Around 70% of cases are from families originally from Pakistan and 10% of Bangladeshi origin.
At least 1300 Britons have been involved in forced marriages in the last four years. As well as very young children, cases have involved adults with mental health problems.
Last month a Muslim father who threatened to kill his wife for blocking a forced marriage in Pakistan for their daughter became the first person to be prosecuted for breach of an order.
(..)
The report praised police for being 'active' in bringing cases to the courts. But it pointed to 'issues' with social services, who have tried to negotiate between victims and their families instead of offering immediate protection.
In some 'closed' minority communities community leaders were acting as 'gatekeepers' to forced marriage instead of challenging the practice, the report found.
Charities helping victims of forced marriage backed the report's findings.
Kiran Cheema, regional adviser at Karma Nirvana, which runs a helpline for victims said schools had refused to put up posters warning children because parents might object.
'The reason for not enough orders is because people are worried about cultural sensitivities,' she said.
'They are worried about stepping on people's toes in regards to their culture. That's why people don't bring those orders forward - because they are afraid.'
(more)
Source: Daily Mail With thanks to Islam in Europe
 Are you worried — like so many Americans after the Fort Hood massacre — about the growing threat of Islamist subversion and terror here at home?
Worried, beyond that, about what we’re doing — or not doing — militarily in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq? Worried about the growing reach and power of Islamist movements in Europe and South America, as well as Asia, the Middle East, and Turkey?
Worried about the military alliances Islamist governments are forging with their secular mirror images: socialist-god governments in places like North Korea, Russia, and Venezuela?
Then focus like a laser on Iran, now, because Islamists will score major victories in all those places and more if we fail to prevent the ruling mullahs from openly, triumphantly making Iran the world’s first Islamist nuclear power.
The danger isn’t only Iran’s own catastrophic recklessness, once she gets the bomb, or the fact that all her Arab neighbors will respond by scrambling to go nuclear too.
It’s also that Islamists everywhere — joined by growing masses of previously undecided Muslims — will see Iran’s success in achieving nuclear status the way Iran’s mullahs see it: as a historic defeat for the West, blasting open the gate to a 21st-century world where Islam rules and Christians, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists are subservient or worse. Islamist ranks will swell, everywhere, as confidence grows that the Islamist side is the winning side, and victory is near.
THE WAR WE MUST WIN Most Americans can scarcely imagine an Islamist-ruled world. Most Muslims can, and they respond in one of three ways. Moderate Muslims wholeheartedly reject the Islamist vision and the support for jihad that is inseparable from it; Muslim extremists embrace it, many with growing fervor; and a third group sits on the fence, waiting and watching. Constant politically correct reassurances that only a minority of the world’s Muslims support violence against us are based on the fantasy that only “Islamist extremists” do that; “moderate Islamists” don’t. In fact, there is no such thing as a “moderate Islamist.” All Islamists are extremists. It’s an extreme creed. Moderate Muslims do exist, millions of them, many bravely fighting against the rising Islamist tide, but they aren’t “moderate Islamists.” Moderate Muslims are anti-Islamist Muslims, who oppose the imposition of Sharia and all the oppressive baggage that comes with it. They are on our side — freedom’s side — and we should be on theirs. Instead, we mostly ignore them and fail to heed their warnings, reaching out to “moderate Islamists” instead, welcoming them into our critical institutions — as our military, aided by the FBI, welcomed Major Hasan. When it comes to Islamists abroad, poll data make it clear that they are the overwhelming majority in the Middle East. Iran and Turkey were the two great Middle Eastern exceptions, as Islamism swamped competing ideologies in all the Arab lands. Iran may still be, if popular majorities in that once great nation were allowed free choice, but they are governed by an Islamist regime more despotic than any Persian shah, ancient or modern. Turkey, once the freest, most proudly westernized and progressive country of them all, is on the verge of the same sorry fate. If you doubt that, look again at the new Turkey, governed by an Islamist party since 2002, a Turkey that is right now preparing to embrace Iran. H/T: David F.
 |
|
|
Copyright Muslims Against Sharia 2008. All rights reserved.
E-mail: info AT ReformIslam.org
|
|
|
The Defense Department released its report Friday on the jihad massacre at Fort Hood, and it is hard to imagine a document more full of denial and deception. 
Posts
