By: Resa LaRu Kirkland
My anti-femmie articles have always been my most popular. I have gotten emails from people all over the United States, Canada, Australia, India, Europe, and a few letters that may possibly be from other planets.
And no, I don’t mean that because the people who were writing them were wrong in their outrage. I mean because the behavior and beliefs they describe are so completely out of this world.
That’s feminism for you…ugly aliens and constantly a pain in the butt (anal probe joke).
It started with this sweet letter from a young woman (I’ll call her “S”), who had more courage at 20 than I have at 44:
I received an A on the paper I wrote on your article, "Women Should Reject Feminism."
I am just getting my feet wet in school, and liberal politics run rampant in my classrooms. I have to do quite a bit of dissecting and analyzing, not to get caught up in "their" BS.
I have been reading some of your "stuff"; I am very impressed with your strong, unforgiving viewpoints. You are very inspirational to me. Thanks.
~ S
Needless to say, I was overwhelmed that something I wrote had affected this young woman so profoundly, and I feel uncomfortable saying that out loud. Truth is what it is, and the credit goes there. I’m consistently stunned that people are consistently stunned by stating the truth out loud, as if we’re all in on some agreement not to do so in the name of politeness. Apparently we have forgotten that our obligation is to truth, not “feewings.” And here’s the evidence.
After responding to S, she shared with me a raging debate going on between her and a friend who had the same hippy views she was running into in the ironically named halls of “higher education.” Remarkably, and predictably, her friend is more educated than S is, yet far less capable of a rational thought or cogent response.
And it began with a woman who rejected an education system overrun with communism and started thinking and studying for herself. It is clear as she explains herself and the debate with her “friend” that one of them follows the textbook behavior of evil: distract, divert, evade, deny, lie, ad hominem, and wear them out without ever actually addressing the subject at hand.
Anything but the truth. By their fruits…
In her own words, they are NOT in need of any editing other than names for privacy’s sake and personal commentary. What you are about to read about S makes the debate that follows, between her and her “educated” friend, even more remarkable…and inspiring (my commentary in red):
Warchick,
F*****g A right you have permission! I am tickled to death!!! =D
Speaking to her is utterly exhausting! Talking to her on everything from immigration to supporting our soldiers is mind numbing! Over Memorial Day weekend, she made comments about our girls and boys in uniform that turned my stomach and literally made me want to be sick! She is so lost and confused and it’s not even that her viewpoints, opposing my own, that bothers me, it is her complete lack of knowledge and the fact that she is ignorant of how to discuss anything in a clear, concise, logical manner. If she at least possessed some better argumentation skills, I could respect her opinion. She spews emotion after reaction after emotion. No logic. No freaking brain. Not like I have to tell you… I believe the conversation is now over so I will send it to you. Do your worst! (Best) =) (She stated this so concisely and accurately that my commentary is unnecessary.)
It ended with her realizing that she held no quarter to…my logic. Alas, she can see *some* light and now I remember why I bother with this sweet, uninformed girl. The saddest part about the whole thing is she is far more educated than I. I am not ashamed to say (due to excruciating family circumstances) I am a ninth grade dropout! She has an associate in psychology, and on her way to a bachelor. It is so scary to me; even the most educated people of this country are some of the most ignorant. Her degree, I think she feels, gives her the right to be an idiot! What does your education mean to you?! Scary! I just finished my first two college classes, with good grades. =) I haven’t been to school in more than eight years. “Diamond in the rough.” =)…
I was scared to show you the conversation, because of possible legal backlash. (My friend defaming your name or using threatening language) I should have known better! You are a real person, and you are intelligent enough to know political correctness is for people with idle minds. =)
I was also very surprised you took an interest in me at all or even replied to me at all. It took me a while to think over and realize why you even took the time to respond to my messages. I realize now that people like my friend are as disgusted by you, as we are them. (Left vs. Right) I also realize you need (well not exactly) people like me to encourage you. You are completely “Right” (pun intended) and out on a limb (and our numbers are not as strong as they should be) anything I can say or do to encourage you in your work is an honor. =)
~S
P.S. You can leave the bit out about me being an eighth grade drop-out, in your article. Like I said; I am not ashamed, I feel it may disparage your own point. (Dark past, extremely bright future) =)
Look at her reasoning, her perception, her decency, in the above and below, and contrast that with her friend’s convoluted logic and behavior below. You want to know the difference between the left and right? Read! It’s long, tough to get through, and as S said, exhausting. But it’s too important to shorten, and the perfect commentary on the idiocy of feminism and all leftist thinking. (Lightly edited for language, but not spelling, grammar, or logic…obviously).
FRIEND: I tried to send this as a message, but something is glitching, so i have to post it here. if it makes you mad, feel welcome to delete it w/out hurting my feewings. not that you really probably care about that. k? k.
i think it is soo ignorant (meaning lack of information or knowledge on subject) of you to be anti-femini...st, thats just f*****g stupid. So you dont think we have the right to be paid fairly, to vote, to divorce our husbands, to not wear dresses every f****n day, to question the men in our lives, to hold jobs besides teachers, nurses, secretaries and nannies????? Feminists and feminists alone brought about all the changes that brought these sort of rights to us. (Exactly how many women were in power? Oh right, those were majority old white European males who enacted laws on vote, land ownership, etc. But in femmie-speak, women did it because…well, I guess ‘cause they say so.)
S: No love-love you don't know my views we've never discussed this one I absolutely want everythin you mention above, we will talk...Haha friend you funny you think I'm so ignorant, you broke down ignorant for me... =D (Ooooooh! That’s gonna leave a mark!)
FRIEND: you might be right about modern feminism, but with everything i know about feminism in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, you're just wrong. (What does that have to do with the 21st Century?) There is nothing unequal and fascist about women wanting to vote, or having the right to disagree with their husbands or divorce them, or work in whatever field they aspire to work in and... be paid equally, which were all goals of feminism. (Which you got, baby, thanks to men in power who voted it in because they recognized it was the right thing to do.) I am not a modern day feminist I dont think, but I do believe in equal rights for women, and I dont see how equal rights for women puts men at a disadvantage at all or is fascist. Fascism refers to when corporations and private interests govern a country. wtf?
S: You missed the boat again love.
FRIEND: i dont want ure f****n boat. ure…f****n stupid on this. (You heard her. Throw her off the boat!)
S: (my other friend) was only comparing feminism and fascism in a superficial way, read his comment again. My interest is not in the feminist movement of over a hundred years ago my interest is where we are at now. I am interested in developing my own.
WARCHICK Resa Laru Kirkland<~~~ Look up some of this *amazing goddesses* work if you can not wait till we speak. =) You more than likely wil not agree with a single thing she believes in, but read her "stuff" she has some good points. =)
"feel welcome to delete it w/out hurting my feewings. not that you really probably care about that."
What are you talking about? You are one of my favorites!♥ You think I try to argue with you and what not but I think we are debating...If we didn't piss each other off sometimes I wouldn't be able to claim so much homie ♥ for you...
Wtf I would hope that if someone disagreed with you on any given subject, that they wouldn't call you f*****g stupid- that's a cop-out...You *really* pissed me off with the comments you said over Memorial Day weekend but I didn't delete you from my friends like some other a*****s who just blew you off...If you wanna know what I think let's talk don't just blow me off it sucks and you are lots and lots more bunches of smart than that!!! =)
FRIEND: u just frustrate the f**k out of me when you tell me im not getting something. because i feel like you're not gettin it. get it?
S: Yeah but I'm not saying you don't "get it" you don't have all the information that I want you to know...
FRIEND: i looked at that chick and i would f****n spit on her f****n soul. She is the embodiment of everything i find evil and wrong in this f****n world. (Oh how I love fan mail!) and as we are all connected and i truly believe in the Buddhist proverb that says that every person is you, or in every person you should see yourself, or something like that., I would be willing to take the world down just to watch cockroaches like her go down. including myself, if any part of myself is her. (Again, you heard her!) whatever do you get my point? (Kumbayah, baby! Keep reading…it gets better…and by that I mean sadder.)
S: Lol ok, that's what I thought you'd say... Well, you probably look up a bit more than some of the Anti-feminist articles she wrote... looked* Like her views on immigration, and terrorists, ect... I told you she would oppose your views, but back to the original topic Feminism we will talk when I see you...
FRIEND: i just looked at more of her s**t. someone should f****n shoot her in the head and perform some sort of deep magick to make sure her soul does not continue on but instead gets snuffed out never to be a part of the universe again. :) im feeling creative right now. (“Come on people now, smile on your brother” Ya feel da love?) sorry for calling you stupid, but i didnt really call you stupid, (Then why did you apologize?) i said you were being stupid about that topic. (No, you called her stupid. See, with the left, they tell you what they did or didn’t JUST do and you MUST take their word for it, not think for yourself. You misunderstand their name calling and death threats; you can’t be trusted to properly interpret what they say or do.) i didnt even read any of this worm's views on feminism. (Ummm, you didn’t even read my views but let loose with a hellish vitriol that only a broad’s emoting can unleash? This level of mental illness that has infected the left is beyond comprehension.)
S: Yeah I know you hate her... I get it... (No, S, clearly you misunderstand her f*****g name-calling and death threats. Only the right hates.) How can you know I'm stupid on this topic and you don't even have my opinion? (Elitists just know, silly girl!)
FRIEND: i dont know anything, i just feel and trust my intuition. :) (See what she just said right here? Right here? THIS SUMS UP THE LEFT PERFECTLY! Like Schultz, they “know nut-ting!” Why do we listen to them? We should give them a bottle and make them take a nap. I’m not changing those diapers, though…they’re on their own).
S: Well if you don't know anything why do you want to have this convo? I dislike. You jumped my s**t over something you don't even know where I stand (Oh no, you misunderstand) ...you think you know where I stand... Or your intuition is that you know where I stand. (You’re misinformed.) Am I not going to college? (for a career of my own) Do I not vote?...Do I believe women should have all of these rights? The answer is yes, love.
FRIEND: if you dont want people, including me, to assume that you are enti-female rights, than dont join two groups that belittle females. (Or else!) you might have some explanation of your beliefs (Explain how you DARE believe contrary to me!) that go beyond a persons first conclusion on the topic, but i cant know that unless you tell me, so i started the convo hoping it was a joke, or that you were mis-informed (See?) on what an anti-feminist was. and just because I admit to not KNOWING anything, does not mean that I am not right, i am just open to the possibility that I am wrong. (When you figure out what the hell she’s trying to say here, email me, OK? ‘Cause WOW just seems inadequate.)
S: Well good then. =D If there is a possiblity I still can salvage this conversation, I will email you my paper I wrote on feminism and Resa's paper I wrote it on. The question is: are you willing to discuss this matter in a logical manner with me? ( Not a you're f*****g stupid on this way ) And don't get so mad, you are not a martyr for Feminism! I understand your passion but don't let that lovely passion of yours blind you for your love of me!!! =) (Beautifully spoken, S.) I am equally as passionate, but jeez girl don't get so mad. "Don't let anyone rent space in your head."
FRIEND: i said you 'might' be right about modern feminism, because besides upholding the rights that have already been earned, i am ignorant as to what they are up to. (Finally, something we really, really, REALLY agree on.) There's nothing fascist about feminism no matter what your opinions on fascism though. the only way i could think feminism could be called fascist is if we leave the corporate reference out of the definition of fascism, AND if feminists are trying to take over the country (If???) according to their values. maybe i need to be enlightened, (Maybe???) but i just havent noticed any feminist organizations with a strong voice in our government. i eagerly await the reading of your paper. :) (Apparently she’s been on Mars…in a cave…with her fingers in her ears…with the lights off…with no TV…no radio…no news…no brain activity. Kind of supports that whole Schultz theory, doesn’t it?)
S: …Despite my anger towards the evil human beings my hope and faith in humanity has been renewed, recently.
Two bright spots: Resa LuRu Kirkland and Michael Robert Eagen...♥
FRIEND: omg shannon i feel like i shouldnt be associated w/ you because you admire this women. she is scum! how could you? (Translation: You cannot handle your free will, hand it over to me!) i only care about it because i am so close to you. (I know better than you what’s best for you) otherwise i wouldnt give a f**k who you admired. i probably sound like a huge hypocrite, (PROBABLY???) but even though i feel like i shouldnt be associated with you we have tried to get away from each other numerous times and always come back so its worthless to think about it really. im stuck w/ you.
Well. That was exhausting…I mean seriously. And confusing. And outrageous. And deeply, deeply embedded in this generation of spoiled, ruined, decimated femininity.
And here to stay, if we let it. Because THAT is the way of communism; logic and reason need NOT apply.
Now here’s where hope comes into play. Look at S. Isn’t she magnificent? She stayed the course of logic and reason, not giving in to ad hominem, four-letter rages, death threats, admissions of mind-boggling refusal to even search and ponder by her “friend” that would have depleted the heartiest soul. She is reason enough to fight on, and not grow weary.
At least I don’t have to worry about FRIEND reading this. My articles don’t come in “feel.”
Keep the faith, bros, in all things courage, and no substitute for VICTORY.
WARCHICK is a military historian/conservative commentator. She is a frequent guest on multiple talk-radio shows and is author of the forthcoming "Forgotten Warrior" series. She coined the phrases "Political Castration"--nothing correct about it--and ISLAMMUNISM--the secret combination of Islam/Communism. She sounds the war cry on North Korea and its unholy alliance with terrorism. She has a degree in Education but stands firm against the NEA. WARCHICK has been an online favorite since 2002.
Sunday, August 08, 2010
Tuesday, June 08, 2010
RubinReports: Reuters Airbrushes Knife Held by Jihad warrior "humanitarian" on Gaza flotilla Ship
RubinReports: Reuters Airbrushes Knife Held by Jihad warrior "humanitarian" on Gaza flotilla Ship
Everyone take a baby aspirin before you read up on this shocker!!!! Not recommended for those with weak heart or affected by the disease of Islammunism. -- WARCHICK
Everyone take a baby aspirin before you read up on this shocker!!!! Not recommended for those with weak heart or affected by the disease of Islammunism. -- WARCHICK
Monday, June 07, 2010
Not buying it
From the Korean Central News Agency, June 7, 2010...Apparently Kim and Mohammed are only sharing "football" secrets.
Workshop for FIFA Referees Held
Pyongyang, June 7 (KCNA) -- A workshop for FIFA referees was held from June 1 to 6 at Kim Il Sung Stadium in Pyongyang.
The workshop, divided into theoretical and practical courses, was attended by international and national referees of Korea, football coaches from different sports teams and teachers of juvenile sports schools in the country.
It deals with the match rules, referee's role and signals in match, warming-up exercise method, training of persevering in fast running, etc.
The courses were given by Mohamad Rodzali bin Yacob and Ahmad Khalidi Supian, lecturers of FIFA.
Workshop for FIFA Referees Held
Pyongyang, June 7 (KCNA) -- A workshop for FIFA referees was held from June 1 to 6 at Kim Il Sung Stadium in Pyongyang.
The workshop, divided into theoretical and practical courses, was attended by international and national referees of Korea, football coaches from different sports teams and teachers of juvenile sports schools in the country.
It deals with the match rules, referee's role and signals in match, warming-up exercise method, training of persevering in fast running, etc.
The courses were given by Mohamad Rodzali bin Yacob and Ahmad Khalidi Supian, lecturers of FIFA.
Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » Two American War Films
Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » Two American War Films
JACK MARINO---the man, the vision, the VICTORY!!! I'm so happy for him...please spread the word -- WARCHICK
JACK MARINO---the man, the vision, the VICTORY!!! I'm so happy for him...please spread the word -- WARCHICK
Sunday, June 06, 2010
THE CROSS WE BEAR; The Mosque We Won't
By: Resa LaRu Kirkland
On the West Side….
It first ended in 1918 (or so we thought), then began in 1934. It was replaced with a metal one in 1984, and became a subject of controversy in 2002. It was covered with a shroud while lawyers argued its offense factor until 2010, when courts ruled it could stay and lose the veil.
The majority wept with joy, secure in the thought that this friend would remain steady whenever they looked up.
The item of all the controversy, offense, lawyers, courts, and shrouding—a simple white cross honoring American warriors of WWI—joyfully returned for another 76 years standing guard over the harsh and unforgiving world it was willing to purchase with its own eternal vigilance.
And two weeks later, in a display of spoiled, spineless, hippy fagatronics, the Politically Castrated minority took their ball and went home like the cowards they are. They decided if they couldn’t get their way through the law, they’d take it into their own impotent, pathetic, mob-clenched hands.
They stole the 76 year old cross, secure in the thought that their gutlessness would not be offended by the stoic appearance of this symbol of unselfish love one more day.
On the East Side….
It first ended in 1993 (or so we thought), then began in 1998 and 2000. It was replaced with the largest one in 2001, and became a subject of outrage. It was left as is until 2010, when a community board ruled it no offense factor and ordered that it must wear a veil.
The majority wept, horrified by the thought that this fiend would remain whenever they looked up.
The item of all the controversy, offense, lawyers, boards, and shrouding—a massive, 13-story mosque honoring the satanic ideology that murdered Americans of 9/11 on the very sight of their slaughter—gleefully established for a beginning time and times, standing harsh and unforgiving over the world it was willing to purchase with its own psychotic bloodlust.
And two weeks later, in a display of courage born of ENOUGH, the freedom-motivated majority took their balls back from Political Castration and left their homes like the warriors they are. They decided if they could be abandoned by the law, they’d take a stand to remind the enemy exactly who that law served, and who it must obey.
They stole to the site where the destroyer had struck, where he desired his display less than a decade after felling ours, ensuring that this gutless enemy would be offended by their infidel appearance every single day.
It’s a tale of two coasts, both in the same nation, playing out in the media at the same time.
What a difference a time zone makes, apparently. In the West, it took 76 years of standing strong for the universal symbol of humility and unselfishness to get the official OK. In the East, it took less than 10 years of scar tissue for the universal symbol of force and selfish evil to get the official OK.
For the sake of truth and right, the West saw the light. For the sake of Political Castration and appearance, the East abandoned it.
On Sunday, June 6, 2010, a new D Day is going down. Two of the greatest warriors I know, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, are hosting a STOP THE MOSQUE rally in New York. All who understand what this mosque at this place in this nation at this time means—(the first thing Islam does when it conquers through jihad or more recently through Political Castration is to erect a massive mosque; this is a symbol of conquest to the Muslim world, and more ominous, a signal)—need to storm this beach, willing to risk gossip, harsh words, slander, stones, or worse, just as our grandfathers did on the 6th day of the 6th month 66 years ago. They risked more than their standing and hurt feelings when they placed their boots on the sands of Normandy to stop another beast in his froth against the free.
On the West coast, they stood for the cross. On the East coast, they will march against the mosque. Do not be distracted, do not be confused, do not be apathetic: this is our Normandy.
This mosque must not be. No amount of fancy words can distract from the truth of what is unfolding now, for it is truth to which we owe our obligation, not politeness. Our grandfathers knew it. June 6th is again D Day: Decision Day. Choose your side, for it has come to that, and you are free men. When faced with wickedness, choosing is inevitable, and the righteous fear it not.
Keep the faith, bros, in all things courage, and no substitute for VICTORY.
On the West Side….
It first ended in 1918 (or so we thought), then began in 1934. It was replaced with a metal one in 1984, and became a subject of controversy in 2002. It was covered with a shroud while lawyers argued its offense factor until 2010, when courts ruled it could stay and lose the veil.
The majority wept with joy, secure in the thought that this friend would remain steady whenever they looked up.
The item of all the controversy, offense, lawyers, courts, and shrouding—a simple white cross honoring American warriors of WWI—joyfully returned for another 76 years standing guard over the harsh and unforgiving world it was willing to purchase with its own eternal vigilance.
And two weeks later, in a display of spoiled, spineless, hippy fagatronics, the Politically Castrated minority took their ball and went home like the cowards they are. They decided if they couldn’t get their way through the law, they’d take it into their own impotent, pathetic, mob-clenched hands.
They stole the 76 year old cross, secure in the thought that their gutlessness would not be offended by the stoic appearance of this symbol of unselfish love one more day.
On the East Side….
It first ended in 1993 (or so we thought), then began in 1998 and 2000. It was replaced with the largest one in 2001, and became a subject of outrage. It was left as is until 2010, when a community board ruled it no offense factor and ordered that it must wear a veil.
The majority wept, horrified by the thought that this fiend would remain whenever they looked up.
The item of all the controversy, offense, lawyers, boards, and shrouding—a massive, 13-story mosque honoring the satanic ideology that murdered Americans of 9/11 on the very sight of their slaughter—gleefully established for a beginning time and times, standing harsh and unforgiving over the world it was willing to purchase with its own psychotic bloodlust.
And two weeks later, in a display of courage born of ENOUGH, the freedom-motivated majority took their balls back from Political Castration and left their homes like the warriors they are. They decided if they could be abandoned by the law, they’d take a stand to remind the enemy exactly who that law served, and who it must obey.
They stole to the site where the destroyer had struck, where he desired his display less than a decade after felling ours, ensuring that this gutless enemy would be offended by their infidel appearance every single day.
It’s a tale of two coasts, both in the same nation, playing out in the media at the same time.
What a difference a time zone makes, apparently. In the West, it took 76 years of standing strong for the universal symbol of humility and unselfishness to get the official OK. In the East, it took less than 10 years of scar tissue for the universal symbol of force and selfish evil to get the official OK.
For the sake of truth and right, the West saw the light. For the sake of Political Castration and appearance, the East abandoned it.
On Sunday, June 6, 2010, a new D Day is going down. Two of the greatest warriors I know, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, are hosting a STOP THE MOSQUE rally in New York. All who understand what this mosque at this place in this nation at this time means—(the first thing Islam does when it conquers through jihad or more recently through Political Castration is to erect a massive mosque; this is a symbol of conquest to the Muslim world, and more ominous, a signal)—need to storm this beach, willing to risk gossip, harsh words, slander, stones, or worse, just as our grandfathers did on the 6th day of the 6th month 66 years ago. They risked more than their standing and hurt feelings when they placed their boots on the sands of Normandy to stop another beast in his froth against the free.
On the West coast, they stood for the cross. On the East coast, they will march against the mosque. Do not be distracted, do not be confused, do not be apathetic: this is our Normandy.
This mosque must not be. No amount of fancy words can distract from the truth of what is unfolding now, for it is truth to which we owe our obligation, not politeness. Our grandfathers knew it. June 6th is again D Day: Decision Day. Choose your side, for it has come to that, and you are free men. When faced with wickedness, choosing is inevitable, and the righteous fear it not.
Keep the faith, bros, in all things courage, and no substitute for VICTORY.
ISLAMMUNISM...Two Fronts, One Enemy
By: Resa LaRu Kirkland
“…we have seen in the past – over and over again – that evil seeks out evil, that they create secret combinations and make blood oaths against the good people of the earth. They bond together in their mutual treachery, and no malevolence is too much for them to consider. They will try to distract us from their wickedness by claiming it is all for God – as Islam does. Or it is our fault for being fat, spoiled Americans – as North Korea does daily. Or, even more vile, they will point to American sins and excess and claim that we are merely "reaping what we've sown." And being kind, forgiving and self-evaluating people, we hesitate just long enough for them to strike at us. – 2-front war, by Resa LaRu Kirkland, October, 2002
I wrote those words almost 8 years ago now, in a three piecer on the chilling alliance that has been clearly forming between Islam and Communism for the past 2 decades. Given what’s going on now, can we dispense with the frantic attempts to call it what it isn’t and settle on what we are dealing with here: Islammunism, the coming together of Islam and Communism?
North Korea, that unresolved boil on the butt of humanity left over from our first unfinished war against Communism 60 years and counting now, has drastically ratcheted up the posturing since Pres. Obama took office.
And now it’s official: they sank the battleship.
South Korea’s study of the explosion came up with oodles of evidence. That, coupled with North Korea’s hellish tendency to lie, cover up, and threaten, means the most heavily guarded border in the world is in for a long, hot summer, full of tension, cowardly hit-and-run attacks from the commie side, and possibly a pinch of plutonium.
And that’s just the hand North Korea wants us to see.
The one we don’t see is up to its commie elbow in Islam, happy to achieve with jihad what it never could with a cold war. I guess concentration camps, famine, or the Dear Leader’s status as a partial deity just aren’t enough to keep the Stalinist state busy.
Now they’ve set their sights on the sea.
Motives? Well, since you’ve apparently been in a coma for the past two decades, Islammunism is the foundational cause, but mammon is ALWAYS the way. And greasing the skids is manipulated celebrity the Hippy Press is only too happy to give to the enemies of freedom.
As with the missile and nuke tests NK is infamous for, I’ve wondered if the attack was this nauseous nation’s “sample of the goods” for the entire jihadi world to witness. Yep, the good old “show me the money” aspect simply cannot be ignored. After all, NK sold the same nuke tech to Iran and Libya that Pakistan sold to them that AQ Khan swiped from UNESCO…Da Money Honey motive is always in play, and mammon continues to win the day.
No doubt about it, this was a resounding provocation in the Far East by one hand of Islammunism. And over the weekend, a deliberate provocation in the Middle East by the other. Both provocateurs on the same side—evil oppression—and both targets on the same side—freedom.
But was it also a signal? Was it NK saying, “Your product is ready?” Was it them saying, “Go ahead and start something, we’ve got this side?”
It really doesn’t matter, since both have the same intent: create multiple fronts to confuse, divert, and weaken the only force on earth capable of stopping them.
The result is the same too: “whatever you do, don’t make the bad guys mad, or they’ll do more. Why not alter the consequences their actions require? That’ll teach them to embrace love and rainbows and butterflies, the whole world will share a Coke and a smile, and society will transform into a hippy love-fest.”
That’s worked beautifully so far. Just wait until the “Ships of Chittim” add plutonium to the mix.
We’re on our own, and I don’t know about you, but I’ve had enough. I’m ready.
Keep the faith, bros, in all things courage, and no substitute for VICTORY.
Saturday, June 05, 2010
THE COGENT RESPONSE TO GAYS IN THE MILITARY; FROM THE ONLY ONES WHOSE OPINION MATTER
By: Resa Laru Kirkland
I was intending to write an article on this subject myself, but was blown away by a letter I received from a warrior who is overseas, doing history’s work: fighting for freedom. His response is the epitome of logical sequencing and reasoned analysis, scientific in its conclusions and mathematical in its preciseness.
In other words, indisputable in its truth, the final nail in the coffin of iron-gripped Political Castration.
There is no way I could have done better. I am printing it here unabridged, and as per his request, giving no clues to his name or service. Shame, really, that he must fear retaliation for truth. Such a response is supposed to be reserved for the lie.
Welcome to Armageddon…with our permission born of sloth.
The logical place to begin this discussion is in describing the purpose of the military. Despite recent mission changes that reflect a greater focus on stability operations, ie., nation-building, the primary purpose of the military is to violently execute political goals that cannot otherwise be effected through diplomacy and other non-violent avenues of approach (sanctions, boycotts, etc.). We exist to destroy those who would threaten our political and economic existence. Any change to the military, whether it is in training, equipment, doctrine, or social norms, should be to enhance the lethality of our Armed Forces.
Soldiers are trained to fight as a team, not as individuals. If you look at something as simple as the construction of sectors of fires in a defense, you understand immediately that the primary goal of individual fighting positions is to protect your team members to the left and right of your position. It is not to defend your front. Your front is covered by your buddies to your left and right. In other words, trust and reliance on your team members are absolutely essential. Soldiers live together- at times in conditions that most civilians would find completely uncivilized- sleep together, eat together, shower together, and even defecate together in open slit trenches, in order to accomplish the mission. It is a very strange relationship they share because their lives are so open and inter-connected. During combat, the intensity and necessity of that relationship grows. You must believe that your team members have your survival and well-being as the second highest priority during battle. Notice that I said, "second highest priority". The top priority of any military action is to accomplish the mission.
When Congress or the military attempts to inject social engineering, specifically open homosexuality in the ranks, into this relationship, it is a disaster in the making. Now- instead of mission accomplishment being the top priority- it is individual rights and relationships that become the priority. I find it to be very ironic that Congress and the President are choosing to deal with this issue in the midst of a two front war on Global Terrorism. It is very revealing that the top military concern of the Democrats is allowing open homosexuality into the ranks rather than defeating the enemy in our wars.
If we take homosexuals at their word, they did not choose to be gay. They are, according to them, born gay and are biologically attracted to people of the same sex. If that is the case, what impact does sexual attraction have on military teams? It has a huge and devastating impact. This is even true with heterosexuals and is why the Army has rules against establishing relationships between heterosexuals within the same chain of command. I have served for 26 years. One of the things that I have noticed is when a female is thrown in the mix of a male-dominated world, the males naturally begin competing for her attention. It is not, necessarily, that they are trying to sleep with her, but the natural tendency for heterosexual males is to attract the attention of the opposite sex. It throws a wrench in the relationship between the males. This is why men who serve in Combat Arms branches do not prefer to have women fighting on the front lines. The presence of a female skews the male mentality. Men, by nature, choose to protect women at the expense of protecting their male counterparts. Again, this has deadly consequences when the bullets are flying. If gays are biologically wired to be gay, than they, too, must have this desire to protect the males to whom they are attracted. Instead of focusing on accomplishing the mission and protecting the men to their left and right, they would be more concerned with protecting their attraction.
And how does Congress propose to house gay Soldiers? Are they going to billet gay men with females? What would Congress say if the Army started housing heterosexual males with females in the barracks? Is it not the same thing if you house openly gay males with heterosexual males or other gay Soldiers? Why should they be given special treatment? (I am quite certain that most heterosexual males who were housed with females would consider it special treatment...in a good way.) If the plan is to provide gay barracks, then why are they allowed to live and sleep with their sexual counterparts and heterosexuals are not? We are also talking about a very small minority of Soldiers. If gays are housed separately, then they would enjoy more living space than heterosexual Soldiers. If you have one gay in your company, does he get his own tent or own room, even if he is a Private? Is that just?
Has the military surveyed Soldiers to see how they feel? I receive dozens of surveys from the military in my email every year. I have never been given a survey on this issue. Why? Why has the military refused to even ask those who would be the most affected by this policy? Why are generals more concerned with appeasing politicians than doing what is best for those who fight and die for this country? I am trying to be unemotional about this, but what is occurring on Capitol Hill and even within the ranks of the senior leadership of the military is a disgrace. Thank God the Marine Corps Chief of Staff spoke like a Soldier. But when an Army general echoed the same sentiment as the Marine, he was disciplined. Why? Who in the Army leadership thinks that a general, who is echoing the majority sentiment of Soldiers, should be disciplined for stating an opinion that defends what Soldiers believe?
The heart of the issue boils down to this: Congress and the President (and I fear some in the military leadership) are more concerned about the sexuality of Soldiers than the efficacy of the military in destroying our enemies. This focus is so far off track and incredible that it is difficult to find the appropriate words to describe. It is further proof that American culture is in decline. I would be just as opposed to any move to make heterosexuality the primary focus of the military rather than destroying the enemy.
I acknowledge that gays have served in the military since military forces were created in ancient times. I have no issue with someone who is gay and serves in the military. But I do not want to know about it and I do not want my squad, platoon, or company to know about it. It is a divisive issue that destroys team integrity. And it will most certainly do this if a homosexual Soldier decides it his "right" to flaunt his gayness. I was most disappointed to read an article a few weeks ago when an alliance of milbloggers came out in support of open homosexuality in the service. I understand why they might make this decision. It is, in my view, based on the fact that we all know gays who have served. But I think people who are not currently in the tent, shower, foxhole, latrine...the fight...forget the detrimental impact that openly gay Soldiers would have on the front lines.
It is truly a sad day in our history when the most talked about issue of our Armed Forces, in the midst of two wars, is about the sexual preference of Soldiers. I think it is a sign of just how self-centered and immature the "adults" who lead our country have become. We are more concerned about satiating our sexual desires than we are about ensuring the very survival of our civilization. Don't ask, don't tell is a policy that has worked. It allows gays to serve in the military. It prevents elevating a Soldier's sexual preference above mission accomplishment and what is best for the military. Today, a gay, male Soldier can receive the Medal of Honor, reach the rank of General, and serve in any military occupation to which he is qualified. There are no restrictions placed upon him, other than the fact that he cannot announce his homosexuality. And why should he? Are gays so insecure in their sexual preferences that they must demand that others accept what, statistically, is deviant behavior? What benefit does the military derive in allowing open homosexuality? How does it make the military better, more effective, and stronger? If the answer is that it allows gays to feel better about themselves, then that is the wrong answer. The military is not about making gay or straight Soldiers feel better about themselves. It is about defending our nation. It should be about making our service members feel better about our nation. (But the Cult of Diversity, to which the homosexual debate belongs, has seriously damaged even this aspect of the military culture. See Gen. Casey's remarks after the Ft. Hood jihadist killed 13 people.) If the answer is that allowing open homosexuality does not make the military better, then we should not even be having this discussion. It is the topic of self-centered, immature "adults" who choose to identify themselves by a sexual act rather than the character and qualities that make a person, gay or straight, a truly responsible and mature citizen of this nation.
Warchick:
So I said it. I apologize for the length, but as you can tell, this issue seriously concerns me. Trash it if you want. Again, I did not mean to offend anyone. My concern is the effectiveness of our forces. This debate has nothing to do with improving the military. In fact, it is detrimental to the military...in my view. I would appreciate anonymity on this. Isn't it sad that I have to fear retribution for simply stating an opposing view to the gay lobby?
At ease, soldier…you did right, and we must NEVER apologize for truth, for if you are offended by truth, it is because you are on the wrong side of it. Our obligation is supposed to be to the truth, NOT politeness. ’Nuff said.
Keep the faith, bros, in all things courage, and no substitute for VICTORY.
I was intending to write an article on this subject myself, but was blown away by a letter I received from a warrior who is overseas, doing history’s work: fighting for freedom. His response is the epitome of logical sequencing and reasoned analysis, scientific in its conclusions and mathematical in its preciseness.
In other words, indisputable in its truth, the final nail in the coffin of iron-gripped Political Castration.
There is no way I could have done better. I am printing it here unabridged, and as per his request, giving no clues to his name or service. Shame, really, that he must fear retaliation for truth. Such a response is supposed to be reserved for the lie.
Welcome to Armageddon…with our permission born of sloth.
The logical place to begin this discussion is in describing the purpose of the military. Despite recent mission changes that reflect a greater focus on stability operations, ie., nation-building, the primary purpose of the military is to violently execute political goals that cannot otherwise be effected through diplomacy and other non-violent avenues of approach (sanctions, boycotts, etc.). We exist to destroy those who would threaten our political and economic existence. Any change to the military, whether it is in training, equipment, doctrine, or social norms, should be to enhance the lethality of our Armed Forces.
Soldiers are trained to fight as a team, not as individuals. If you look at something as simple as the construction of sectors of fires in a defense, you understand immediately that the primary goal of individual fighting positions is to protect your team members to the left and right of your position. It is not to defend your front. Your front is covered by your buddies to your left and right. In other words, trust and reliance on your team members are absolutely essential. Soldiers live together- at times in conditions that most civilians would find completely uncivilized- sleep together, eat together, shower together, and even defecate together in open slit trenches, in order to accomplish the mission. It is a very strange relationship they share because their lives are so open and inter-connected. During combat, the intensity and necessity of that relationship grows. You must believe that your team members have your survival and well-being as the second highest priority during battle. Notice that I said, "second highest priority". The top priority of any military action is to accomplish the mission.
When Congress or the military attempts to inject social engineering, specifically open homosexuality in the ranks, into this relationship, it is a disaster in the making. Now- instead of mission accomplishment being the top priority- it is individual rights and relationships that become the priority. I find it to be very ironic that Congress and the President are choosing to deal with this issue in the midst of a two front war on Global Terrorism. It is very revealing that the top military concern of the Democrats is allowing open homosexuality into the ranks rather than defeating the enemy in our wars.
If we take homosexuals at their word, they did not choose to be gay. They are, according to them, born gay and are biologically attracted to people of the same sex. If that is the case, what impact does sexual attraction have on military teams? It has a huge and devastating impact. This is even true with heterosexuals and is why the Army has rules against establishing relationships between heterosexuals within the same chain of command. I have served for 26 years. One of the things that I have noticed is when a female is thrown in the mix of a male-dominated world, the males naturally begin competing for her attention. It is not, necessarily, that they are trying to sleep with her, but the natural tendency for heterosexual males is to attract the attention of the opposite sex. It throws a wrench in the relationship between the males. This is why men who serve in Combat Arms branches do not prefer to have women fighting on the front lines. The presence of a female skews the male mentality. Men, by nature, choose to protect women at the expense of protecting their male counterparts. Again, this has deadly consequences when the bullets are flying. If gays are biologically wired to be gay, than they, too, must have this desire to protect the males to whom they are attracted. Instead of focusing on accomplishing the mission and protecting the men to their left and right, they would be more concerned with protecting their attraction.
And how does Congress propose to house gay Soldiers? Are they going to billet gay men with females? What would Congress say if the Army started housing heterosexual males with females in the barracks? Is it not the same thing if you house openly gay males with heterosexual males or other gay Soldiers? Why should they be given special treatment? (I am quite certain that most heterosexual males who were housed with females would consider it special treatment...in a good way.) If the plan is to provide gay barracks, then why are they allowed to live and sleep with their sexual counterparts and heterosexuals are not? We are also talking about a very small minority of Soldiers. If gays are housed separately, then they would enjoy more living space than heterosexual Soldiers. If you have one gay in your company, does he get his own tent or own room, even if he is a Private? Is that just?
Has the military surveyed Soldiers to see how they feel? I receive dozens of surveys from the military in my email every year. I have never been given a survey on this issue. Why? Why has the military refused to even ask those who would be the most affected by this policy? Why are generals more concerned with appeasing politicians than doing what is best for those who fight and die for this country? I am trying to be unemotional about this, but what is occurring on Capitol Hill and even within the ranks of the senior leadership of the military is a disgrace. Thank God the Marine Corps Chief of Staff spoke like a Soldier. But when an Army general echoed the same sentiment as the Marine, he was disciplined. Why? Who in the Army leadership thinks that a general, who is echoing the majority sentiment of Soldiers, should be disciplined for stating an opinion that defends what Soldiers believe?
The heart of the issue boils down to this: Congress and the President (and I fear some in the military leadership) are more concerned about the sexuality of Soldiers than the efficacy of the military in destroying our enemies. This focus is so far off track and incredible that it is difficult to find the appropriate words to describe. It is further proof that American culture is in decline. I would be just as opposed to any move to make heterosexuality the primary focus of the military rather than destroying the enemy.
I acknowledge that gays have served in the military since military forces were created in ancient times. I have no issue with someone who is gay and serves in the military. But I do not want to know about it and I do not want my squad, platoon, or company to know about it. It is a divisive issue that destroys team integrity. And it will most certainly do this if a homosexual Soldier decides it his "right" to flaunt his gayness. I was most disappointed to read an article a few weeks ago when an alliance of milbloggers came out in support of open homosexuality in the service. I understand why they might make this decision. It is, in my view, based on the fact that we all know gays who have served. But I think people who are not currently in the tent, shower, foxhole, latrine...the fight...forget the detrimental impact that openly gay Soldiers would have on the front lines.
It is truly a sad day in our history when the most talked about issue of our Armed Forces, in the midst of two wars, is about the sexual preference of Soldiers. I think it is a sign of just how self-centered and immature the "adults" who lead our country have become. We are more concerned about satiating our sexual desires than we are about ensuring the very survival of our civilization. Don't ask, don't tell is a policy that has worked. It allows gays to serve in the military. It prevents elevating a Soldier's sexual preference above mission accomplishment and what is best for the military. Today, a gay, male Soldier can receive the Medal of Honor, reach the rank of General, and serve in any military occupation to which he is qualified. There are no restrictions placed upon him, other than the fact that he cannot announce his homosexuality. And why should he? Are gays so insecure in their sexual preferences that they must demand that others accept what, statistically, is deviant behavior? What benefit does the military derive in allowing open homosexuality? How does it make the military better, more effective, and stronger? If the answer is that it allows gays to feel better about themselves, then that is the wrong answer. The military is not about making gay or straight Soldiers feel better about themselves. It is about defending our nation. It should be about making our service members feel better about our nation. (But the Cult of Diversity, to which the homosexual debate belongs, has seriously damaged even this aspect of the military culture. See Gen. Casey's remarks after the Ft. Hood jihadist killed 13 people.) If the answer is that allowing open homosexuality does not make the military better, then we should not even be having this discussion. It is the topic of self-centered, immature "adults" who choose to identify themselves by a sexual act rather than the character and qualities that make a person, gay or straight, a truly responsible and mature citizen of this nation.
Warchick:
So I said it. I apologize for the length, but as you can tell, this issue seriously concerns me. Trash it if you want. Again, I did not mean to offend anyone. My concern is the effectiveness of our forces. This debate has nothing to do with improving the military. In fact, it is detrimental to the military...in my view. I would appreciate anonymity on this. Isn't it sad that I have to fear retribution for simply stating an opposing view to the gay lobby?
At ease, soldier…you did right, and we must NEVER apologize for truth, for if you are offended by truth, it is because you are on the wrong side of it. Our obligation is supposed to be to the truth, NOT politeness. ’Nuff said.
Keep the faith, bros, in all things courage, and no substitute for VICTORY.
Friday, June 04, 2010
Thursday, June 03, 2010
YouTube - Flotilla Choir presents: We Con the World
Coming to your TV whenever we want...pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!!!
Monday, May 31, 2010
The evidence is overwhelming!
...taking bets now as to how quickly mohammed's monsters claim the videos are doctored, or who cares, it's only the Jooz, or they were justified because we say so, etc., etc., etc.
Sick of this yet? FOR ZION!
Any questions? If so, you're stupid. Your dad should beat you until you get it...and yes, I mean that!
WARCHICK out
Sick of this yet? FOR ZION!
Any questions? If so, you're stupid. Your dad should beat you until you get it...and yes, I mean that!
WARCHICK out
I shall bless those that bless the...
And so it begins .............. Jews Being Hunted Down in Europe Over the Jihad Warship [Flotilla] Offensive - Atlas Shrugs
...and curse those that curse thee.
Bye bye Europe.
...and curse those that curse thee.
Bye bye Europe.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
The incomparable Kevin Jackson
Teacher brings management to Atlanta school | The Black Sphere
If there are certain words or groups we can't teach about, how are we supposed to teach history? We're through the looking glass, people, and don't count on getting back through: Hilary, Pelosi, and Elena Kagan already tried that, but the mirror broke...
If there are certain words or groups we can't teach about, how are we supposed to teach history? We're through the looking glass, people, and don't count on getting back through: Hilary, Pelosi, and Elena Kagan already tried that, but the mirror broke...
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Monday, May 24, 2010
Robert Spencer and Pamela for Stop Islamization of America NOW group trying to stop Ground Zero Mosque
You know, imam, if you REALLY want to foster good feelings and community, how's about NOT killing people? That tends to work... at least better than your normal muzzie fagatronics.
Praise from the Overlords: Islamic Supremacist Universal Caliphate Group, OIC, Lauds Obama's Submission to islam - Atlas Shrugs
Praise from the Overlords: Islamic Supremacist Universal Caliphate Group, OIC, Lauds Obama's Submission to islam - Atlas Shrugs
Copying here, 'cause it's necessary.
Copying here, 'cause it's necessary.
I believe it is only a matter of time before Obama forces the USA to join the OIC, Organization of Islamic Conference. Absurd you say? Second term, I say.
He joined the Alliance of Civilizations last week and that is merely a proxy of the OIC. This is horrible.
OIC Praises Obama’s ‘Remarkable Decision’ to Close ‘Islamophobia Prison’ at Guantanamo, Drop Reference to Islam and Terrorism…Weasel Zippers
When the OIC is praising an American president then you know there’s a serious problem…
(CNSNews.com) – President Obama’s Cairo speech to Muslims, his plan to shut down the detention center at Guantanamo Bay and the dropping of language deemed offensive to Muslims are among the positive developments highlighted in the Organization of the Islamic Conference’s new report on “Islamophobia.”
Areas requiring more work include winning the Obama administration over to the OIC-held position on the need for legal tools to counter “religious defamation.”
The OIC made available copies of the third annual report compiled by a subsidiary body called the “Islamophobia Observatory” after its official release during a meeting of foreign ministers from the 56-nation bloc in Tajikistan last week.
“Defamation of Islam as well as personalities and symbols sacred to Islam and Muslims as well as other religions is a matter of grave concern to the OIC.”
Specifically, it recommends that abusive or insulting statements on matters held sacred by a religion and likely to outrage substantial number of its adherents, should be banned.
Governments should also help or encourage the creation of self-regulatory media bodies to deal with these issues.
The report also calls for international human rights law “to be evaluated and evolved in the interest of combating Islamophobia and defamation of all religions in an effective manner.”“The main important development was the Cairo speech by President Obama, who promised a ‘new beginning’ with the Muslim world,” it says. “It was also remarkable the decision he took to close down the ‘Islamophobia prison,’ Guantanamo, as well as the instructions to stop using derogatory concepts against Muslims such as ‘War on Terror.’ ”
It also praises the appointment of Rashad Hussain, formerly a White House deputy associate counsel, as Obama’s special envoy to the OIC, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s visit to OIC headquarters in Jeddah last February – the first by a secretary of state in the organization’s 40-year history.
How much more, oh Lord? Answer? As long as the PEOPLE bear it! TO ARMS! WARCHICK
Friday, May 21, 2010
When did FACTS become subjective?
...apparently about the same time TRUTH became OUTLAWED!
Is Factcheck.org working with Obama? | The Post & Email
Is Factcheck.org working with Obama? | The Post & Email
» Unindicted Co-Conspirator CAIR Tries To Ban Free Speech At Tennessee Tea Party - Big Journalism
» Unindicted Co-Conspirator CAIR Tries To Ban Free Speech At Tennessee Tea Party - Big Journalism
Don't you just love the smell of Pamela in the mornings? WARCHICK
Don't you just love the smell of Pamela in the mornings? WARCHICK
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Monday, May 17, 2010
Friday, May 14, 2010
Pajamas Media » The Ground Zero Mosque Developer: Muslim Brotherhood Roots, Radical Dreams
Pajamas Media » The Ground Zero Mosque Developer: Muslim Brotherhood Roots, Radical Dreams
**I'm copying and printing here...too important! SHARE!!**
by: Alyssa Lappen
**I'm copying and printing here...too important! SHARE!!**
by: Alyssa Lappen
The prospective developer of a $100 million, 13-story mosque 600 feet from Ground Zero presents himself as a Muslim moderate (1). Yet Kuwait-born Faisal Abdul Rauf also boasts of his issue from an “Egyptian family steeped in religious scholarship” (2). Indeed, Feisal Rauf’s Muslim Brotherhood provenance, radical by definition, is as authentic as it gets.
Rauf’s father, Dr. Muhammad Abdul Rauf (1917-2004) — an Egyptian contemporary of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna — conveyed to Feisal his family’s long tradition of radicalism, which he acquired at Islam’s closest equivalent to the Vatican, Al-Azhar University. The elder Dr. Rauf studied and taught there before fleeing Egypt in 1948. That year, Feisal Abdul Rauf was born in Kuwait.
Feisal Rauf has planned for some time to further develop his father’s U.S. Islamic expansionism. In 1990, Rauf opened the tiny al-Farah Mosque at 245 West Broadway in lower Manhattan. Area residents did not even notice the mosque until 2006, when the New York State Liquor Authority (SLA) refused to license a new bar on the same block and started yanking others’ liquor licenses (3).
Rauf attended grammar school and high school in the UK and Malaysia, according to his biography. He probably first lived in America only in 1965, at age 17, when his father moved from Malaysia to New York to plan and head the Islamic Cultural Center (not built until the mid-1980s) (4). Rauf then obtained a BS in physics at Columbia University (5). In 1971, the family moved to Washington, D.C., where Rauf’s father headed the Islamic Center on Massachusetts Ave (6). His father, buried in Suitland, MD, at the for-profit Washington National Cemetery, also founded three Malaysian Islamic studies programs, including the International Islamic University of Malaysia (7).
Rauf’s early UK education and familiarization with American popular culture and values made him an acutely adept practitioner of Islamic taqiyya — deceptive speech and action to advance the interests and supremacy of Islam (8). To further that Islamic advancement, Rauf in 1997 established the American Society for Muslim Advancement (ASMA). His Kashmir-born wife Daisy Kahn, an interior designer by profession, has run the organization since 2005 (9).
Rauf then began cultivating new spheres of influence. In about summer 2002, Rauf started lecturing on Islam at the 750-acre southwestern New York campus of Chautauqua Institution, a 136-year-old non-profit where religion director Joan Brown Campbell took Rauf under her wing. Under the rubric of the “Abrahamic” faiths, a convenient cover for Rauf’s Islamic activities, Campbell subsequently named him the prospective head of a Muslim house now planned on campus by another Rauf brainchild — the 501(3)c organization Muslim Friends of Chautauqua. Rauf also befriended Karen Armstrong, the former British nun and devotee of Islam.
In summer 2002, as a “theologian in residence,” Armstrong advocated for the Muslim Brotherhood — as if the father of all Islamic terrorist organizations was a progressive charity:
[The MB] set up a wonderful welfare program before it was suppressed. … Factories where Muslims could work, had time for prayers, had vacation time, insurance, [learned] labor laws, [provided] clinics, they taught people how to treat sewage, drainage, and it was always the religions response to try to help modernity to give to the ordinary people the benefits of modernity in an Islamic setting that made sense to them and made things more balanced (10).
In 2003, Rauf befriended leaders of Denver’s Aspen Institute, including former executive director and four-term Aspen mayor John S. Bennet. In 2004, under ASMA auspices, Rauf organized a meeting of 125 young Muslims and formed Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow. With Bennet’s help, he co-founded the Cordoba Initiative in Aspen, purportedly to “improve” Muslim-West relations (11). Rauf gets funding from a variety of other liberal organizations, including, for example, Gloria Steinem’s Ms. Foundation.
However, Rauf directly contradicted his conciliatory behavior with a firebrand interview with the Sydney Morning Herald. Terrorism, he stated, will end only when the West acknowledges the harm it has done to Muslims:
The West’s role during World War II was strictly defensive, and in no way religious. Moreover, Rauf’s statements — which Daisy Kahn glossed over in a December 2009 Fox News interview with Laura Ingraham — ignored Islam’s continuous attacks, from the 7th to 16th centuries, on non-Muslim peoples throughout the Mideast, Africa, Europe, central Asia, and India (12). Rauf further reflected his antagonistic sentiments in the 2006 Copenhagen gathering he organized for the Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow. To enhance his moderate cloak, Rauf invited such liberal Muslims as Irshad Manji and Mona Eltahawy. However Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow also includes radicals like Yasir Qadhi, a favorite speaker at conferences of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and Dhaba “Debbie” Almontasser, who works closely with Hamas’ U.S. arm — the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), itself an unindicted co-conspirator in terror financing.
The Islamic method of waging war is not to kill innocent civilians. … It was Christians in World War II who bombed civilians in Dresden and Hiroshima, neither of which were military targets (12).
Rauf further revealed his antagonistic sentiments in the 2006 Copenhagen gathering he organized for the Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow. To enhance his moderate cloak, Rauf invited such liberal Muslims as Irshad Manji and Mona Eltahawy. But he also hosted radicals like Yasir Qadhi — a favorite speaker at conferences of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), among others.
Perhaps Rauf founded the Cordoba Initiative in 2004 intending to build a mosque in downtown Manhattan directly across from Ground Zero. However, Rauf tipped his hand to authorities only in April 2009, when he incorporated the Cordoba Initiative in New York (13). Within months, in July 2009, he bought a future mosque site at 45 Park Place for $4.58 million in cash from the heirs to New York’s Pomerantz family.
As Islamic attacks on September 11, 2001, destroyed the World Trade Center towers, falling jet debris simultaneously crushed the five-story 1923 structure some 600 feet away that until that morning housed a robust Burlington Coat Factory store (14). Over the ruin of the former retail outlet, Rauf now plans to build a 13-story, $100 million mosque. Rauf says the Cordoba Initiative bought the former retail building to prove to the world that Islam is not a violent faith (14).
Imam Rauf says that New York Muslims provided nearly $5 million in cash to buy the Park Place building (16). Yet in fiscal 2009, Rauf’s ASMA received large international donations. In the year ended June 30, 2009 — days before Feisal closed the purchase — ASMA received at least $1.3 million. The largest donation, $576,312, came from Qatar (17). That Persian Gulf nation has long harbored terror financiers, and even the government stands accused of funding international terrorism. Qatar also has, for decades, hosted Muslim Brotherhood spiritual chief Yusuf al-Qaradawi. The elderly sheikh, a large and founding shareholder in the terror-financing al-Taqwa Bank, champions sharia law, wife beating, and suicide bombing.
ASMA also received $481,942 from Holland’s Millennial Development Goals Fund (MDG3), $144,752 from New York’s Carnegie Corporation, $53,664 from the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA), plus donations from the Rockefeller Brothers and Hunt Alternatives funds, among others (18). The Ground Zero mosque plan is more than a little reminiscent of a program initiated by Rauf’s late father in 1965. That year, Muhammad R. Abdul Rauf moved to New York to plan and head a huge Islamic Cultural Center that took decades to realize (19). He bought prime Manhattan real estate at 96th St. and 3rd Ave — roughly two thirds of a city block — apparently with $1.3 million in funding from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Libya. The late Rauf long retained some of that land in a personal trust (19). But when construction started on the $17 million mosque in 1984, it had received funding from 46 Islamic nations. By 2010, the enormous Islamic complex had added another two buildings. Since 1984, its founders-envisioned apartment unit has been restricted to Muslims alone (20). Whenever Feisal first considered building a mosque across from Ground Zero, he had the idea firmly in mind by 2004, when he wrote What’s Right with Islam. The book was translated into many languages. In Indonesia’s Bahasa, its title translates as “The Call from the WTC Rubble.” Rauf promoted the book in December 2007 at a Kuala Lumpur gathering of Hizb ut Tahrir (20) — an organization banned in Germany since 2003, and also outlawed in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia, among other places — and ideologically akin to the MB. Both seek to replace the U.S. Constitution with Islamic law (sharia), and eventually impose Islam and sharia law worldwide. Most North American MB organizations avoid widely publicizing that aim. The HT however, at a July 2009 Khalifah conference at a suburban Chicago Hilton, openly promised to replace capitalism with Islam and sharia law (21).
Feisal Rauf supports sharia law, too.
Described in one Asian report as an Egyptian citizen living in the U.S., he has repeatedly stated, and writes in his 2004 book, that the U.S. Constitution is sharia-complaint. The “American Constitution and system of governance uphold the core principles of Islamic law,” Rauf wrote in his book. The “American political structure is Shariah-complaint,” he contends, since Muslim jurists over the centuries have “defined five areas of life” to be protected by Islamic law — life, mind, religion, property, and family. Only two further actions could render the U.S. more Islamic than it is already, Rauf contends:
[Inviting] voices of all religions to join the dialogue in shaping the nation’s practical life, [and allowing] religious communities more leeway to judge among themselves according to their own laws (22).
These assertions, however, merely fulfill the Muslim Brotherhood doctrine of flexibility — adapting to each and every environment in which the brothers eventually hope to force Islamic law upon the masses. Rauf’s claims starkly represent taqiyya, the Islamic practice of deception, to further theocratic and essentially fascist Islamic advances (23). And the additional “leeway” Rauf seeks for intra-community religious-law enforcement is a thinly veiled attempt to impose shariah more widely in the U.S., in direct contravention of the U.S. Constitution.
President Obama’s June 2009 speech in Cairo challenged Muslims, as Rauf wrote in a June 5, 2009 Washington Post column (24): “Live up to the tenets of our religion, embrace Shariah law as conceived by the Prophet, and see what happens.” But sharia inhibits all kinds of freedoms, especially those of women and non-Muslims. Islamic law protects only the lives, minds, religion, property, and families of Muslims — not all peoples of all faiths, as Rauf would have us believe (25). Since at least 2006, Rauf’s Cordoba Initiative has partnered with the Gallup Organization and “a team of Sunni and Shi’a scholars from Morocco to Indonesia” to create “an Islamic legal benchmark for measuring ‘Islamicity’ of a state” for use by the public, pundits, “and state officials in both the Muslim and Western worlds.” If the U.S. is so sharia-complaint, and Rauf so strongly supports Western democracy and separation of mosque and state, why has his U.S.-based institution initiated such a project? Funded by Malaysia and many other Muslim nations in the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), no less?
Rauf has often directly contradicted his seemingly tolerant and peace-loving pronouncements with harsh, antagonistic assessments of the U.S. In his May 7 Khutbah (Muslim sabbath sermon), delivered at 1:00 p.m. at 45 Park Place in Manhattan, Rauf implied that Muslims did not perpetrate 9/11 at all, according to writer Madeline Brooks, who attended (26): “Some people say it was Muslims who attacked on 9/11 … ” he stated, before trailing off into another topic.
He also expressed this view in an interview with 60 Minutes aired on Sept. 30, 2001 as well (27):
The attacks were “a reaction against the U.S. government politically, where we espouse principles of democracy and human rights, [yet] … ally ourselves with oppressive regimes in many of these countries. … [U.S.] policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.
Not the crimes Muslims committed: “the crime that happened.” He continued:
In … the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden was made in the USA (28).
Rauf explained the Islamic disdain for life, as well:
In the Islamic belief system, the next life is the primary life. The next life is more real, more intense, and more vivid.
In short, Islam reveres death. Indeed, Islam orders its adherents to conduct jihad warfare, and promises paradise and 72 virgins to those who die in the service of Allah (29).
Even Cordoba Institute’s name telegraphs the organization’s deceptiveness. Cordoba (also the name for Chautauqua’s proposed new Muslim house) was the seat of the Islamic Caliphate that ruled most of Spain from Tariq ibn Zayid’s 711 invasion through 1248, and controlled parts of Spain until its full liberation in 1492. However, neither the Umayyads (who ruled monolithically until about 1031), nor the particularly vicious Almoravids (who swept over the Atlas mountains and, in 1080, into Spain) ruled non-Muslims kindly. While Islamic harshness varied, it remained unquestionably ever-present.
Rauf is not alone in his blatant whitewash of Islam’s brutal history in Spain. Many others purvey the same historical falsehood. Yet Muslim rule in Spain never remotely approached the mythic level of beneficence that Rauf pretends (30).
The surviving victims of 9/11 and families of the deceased should not be alone in opposing Rauf’s proposed 13-story mosque, 600 feet from the World Trade Center site. Traditionally, Muslims have destroyed houses of worship built by virtually every other faith under the sun. Worldwide, Islam has plundered tens of thousands (if not more) of Christian churches, Jewish synagogues and holy archaeological sites, plus Hindu, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Sikh, and other temples and monasteries. Then, in the interest of jihad, Islam has claimed all these religious places of others as their own “mosques,” forever Muslim.
To allow a mosque at a place a Muslim gang destroyed on 9/11 would amount to formally blessing Islam’s 1,400-year-old tradition of exclusivity and suppression of all persons of all other faiths. It would be a 100% victory of Islam and sharia law over the U.S. Constitution and America’s time-honored democracy and pluralism.
DOWN TO DAYS The Luxury of Time is Over
By: Resa LaRu Kirkland
May is an interesting month.
On May 1st we have the official day that Commie Bastards everywhere embrace, celebrating the rise of the most evil of all TOTALitarian DICtatorS: the Communist Slaughterers of the Soviet Union and various other nations it engulfed and devoured.
On May 5th, we have Cinco de Mayo, a Spanish holiday that celebrates the victory of the Mexican Army over the French at the Battle of Puebla in 1862.
The last Monday in May, this year the date will be May 31st, is Memorial Day, the day we celebrate the warriors who defeated many enemies in the past, including from the above countries.
The above days are very well known and widely celebrated. But with the exception of Memorial Day, they aren’t even close to being the most reverent days.
There is May 8th, known for 65 years now as Victory in Europe, or VE, Day. This commemorates the official surrender of Germany Europe with a ferocity and a technological efficiency that the Romans could only have imagined. Germany Rome
The most wonderful May celebration saw its genesis only 6 days and 3 years after VE day. Israel Independence Day occurred on May 14th, 1948 . The very next day the entire Arab world attacked Israel Israel Zion
My May 15th celebration will have to wait until May 20th this year, when I will be busy drawing a picture of Mohammed in honor of SOUTH PARK and the free speech this country used to fiercely defend with the strength of its political perception, moral core, and unapologetic military might.
And next to Israel America
In a month of 31 days, there are 8 days of note. Israel Independence Day is upon us, followed by “World Bloodthirsty Get ‘dem Jews” day.
Make that 9 days of note, for on Cinco de Mayo I was filled with venerate thinking of Denmark
By the time I had reacquainted myself with stories like A BRIDGE TOO FAR and the bombings that literally caused those ancient cities to have one part antique and everything across the street less than 5 decades old, I was properly hallowed when I turned on the TV, only to see the ghosts of Hitler and Stalin in Juarez Drag doing their best to burn the Reichstag and force the purges.
It was then that it all became clear, and why I titled this article as I did.
I wrote that we are Down to Days not to reference the celebrations—good and bad—that occur this month, although their proximity has a lesson for us, our priorities, and how quickly we’ve squandered our birthright.
My reasons are far more hopeful. Yes…hopeful.
We have grown complacent because of time—we had centuries to get it right, then started losing it in less than a century, around the end of the Civil War. Then it hastened to decades; from WWI to WWII to Korea/Communism to the Hippy take-over and utter Political Castration of that wasted generation, the 60’s, from which so many of our most wretched current leaders have sprung.
And now? Well, next year it will be 10 years since 911. One decade. Years.
We are having attacks closer and closer now, not decades apart, not even years apart, but months, even weeks now. In 2009, beginning in May, just in the land of the free, there were 4. Since January 1, 2010 , there have been 2. This doesn’t include American interests or allies who have been attacked. They went from decades apart, to years, to months, then weeks.
And now the only thing left is days. We are down to days…then it will be hours.
And that is where this article takes a hopeful turn. For you see, history is nothing but repeated patterns, mathematically precise, and it always comes to the down to days point that is born of those “moment of truth’s travails,” when free people remembered who they are, what freedom means, and how to preserve it: with a great deal of pain but without apology.
This was when they refined themselves of the flux and were left with pure steel. And how did they do it? With one simple but time-tested rule: they understood the importance of choosing sides.
…And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.
We are down, as Joshua was, to our day of choice, and therefore, our day of freedom. But we are down to days. The act of refusing to choose is still an act of choice, for inaction, oddly enough, never benefits good—only malevolence.
Not to speak, IS to speak. Not to act, IS to act.
Choose this day in May what you really believe…for there are foul men out there determined to stop your choice AND your day. Literally for some of us, there may be no tomorrow. And for all of us, inevitably, we’re getting there, day by day.
Keep the faith, bros, in all things courage, and no substitute for VICTORY.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)