Saturday, May 30, 2009

Saudis Behead, Crucify Muhammad!

No, wait.

It was a different child-molester, murderer...

Islam is so confusing sometimes.

(Cross-posted at Avid Editor's Insights)

Monday, May 25, 2009

The Sword of Truth

We do not fight for land. We are loyal to an ideal - an ideal of liberty wherever man lives. We do not guard territory, bleed for a piece of dirt. We don't fight because we love violence. We fight for our freedom as individuals to live our own lives, to pursue our own survival, our own happiness.

Your unconditional rejection of violence makes you smugly think of yourselves as noble, as enlightened, but in reality it is nothing less than abject moral capitulation to evil. Unconditional rejection of self defense, because you think it's a supposed surrender to violence, leaves you no resort but begging for mercy or offering appeasement.

Evil grants no mercy, and to attempt to appease it is nothing more than a piecemeal surrender to it. Surrender to evil is slavery at best, death at worst. Thus your unconditional rejection of violence is really nothing more than embracing death as preferable to life.

You will achieve what you embrace.

The right, the absolute necessity, of vengeance against anyone who initiates force against you is fundamental to survival. The morality of a people's self-defense is in it's defense of each individual's right to life. It's an intolerance to violence made real by an unwavering willingness to crush any who would launch violence against you. The unconditional determination to destroy any who would initiate force against you is an exaltation of the value of life. Refusing to surrender your life to any thug or tyrant who lays claim to it is in fact embracing life itself.

If you are unwilling to defend your right to your own lives, then you are merely like mice trying to argue with owls. You think their ways are wrong. They think you are dinner.

If, hoping to appease it, you willingly compromise with unrepentant evil, you only allow such evil to sink it's fangs into you; from that day on its venom will course through your veins until it finally kills you.

Compromising with murderers grants them moral equivalence where none can rightly exist. Moral equivalence says that you are no better than they; therefore their belief - that they should be able to torture, rape, or murder you - is just as morally valid as your view - that you have the right to live free of their violence. Moral compromise rejects the concept of right and wrong. It says that everyone is equal, all desires are equally valid, all action is equally valid, so everyone should compromise to get along.

Where could you compromise with those who torture, rape and murder people? In the number of days a week you will be tortured? In the number of men to be allowed to rape your loved ones? In how many of your family are to be murdered?

No moral equivalence exists in that situation, nor can it exist, so there can be no compromise, only suicide.

To even suggest compromise can exist with such men is to sanction murder.

Many teach that saying someone is evil is prejudiced thinking. It's a way of belittling someone already in pain for some reason. Such people must be embraced and taught to shed their fears of their fellow man and then they will not strike out in violent ways.

They are dangerous to everyone because they embrace evil with their teachings. In so doing, in trying to be kind, to be unselfish, in trying to be nonjudgmental, you allow evil to become far more powerful than it otherwise would. you refuse to see evil, and so you welcome it among you. You allow it to exist. You give it power over you. You are a people who have welcomed death and refused to denounce it.

You are an empire naked to the shadow of evil.

These people think of themselves as enlightened, as above violence. They are not enlightened; they are merely slaves awaiting a master, victims awaiting killers.

(Hat Tip: Atlas Shrugs)

(Cross-posted at

Sunday, May 17, 2009

Islam Perfects Method To Kill Slaves And Apostates

Saudis have invented a "killer chip" - a small tracking device that can actually, on demand, kill the person it is implanted in. That sounds good on the surface. It would be useful to, say, to track a pedophile and then activate the deadly cyanide if he starts visiting school yards or nurseries...

But the media is so fascinated by the prospect of killing criminals on demand, they completely ignore the Saudis' own proud admission of the many other uses of this "killer chip" (emphasis mine):

The tiny electronic device, dubbed the "Killer Chip" by Swiss daily Tagesanzeiger, would be suited for tracking fugitives from justice, terrorists, illegal immigrants, criminals, political opponents, defectors, domestic help, and Saudi Arabians who don’t return home from pilgrimages [Ed: Apostates?].

"I apply for these reasons and for reasons of state security and the security of citizens," the statement reads.

This is frightening. That Saudi's would gloat over a device that could be used to kill escaped slaves. In 2009.

The Heavens weep.

(Cross-posted at Avid Editor's Insights)

Friday, May 15, 2009

Muslim Persecution of Christians

Robert Spencer writes about a new short video on the Muslim persecution of Christians in the Middle East.

Christianity, born in the Middle East, is in danger of losing its two millenia-long presence there. If that notion sounds alarmist to Western ears, it is acknowledged by Middle Easterners as a growing likelihood.

“I fear the extinction of Christianity in Iraq and the Middle East,” said the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Baghdad, Jean Benjamin Sleiman, as Pope Benedict XVI visited that troubled region this week. The Lebanese Christian columnist Sarkis Naoum added: “Unless there is a turn toward secularism in the Arab world, I don’t think there is a future for Christians here.” In 1909, the Middle East was 20 percent Christian; one hundred years later, that percentage has fallen to five percent.

This precipitous decline is chronicled and explained in a detailed historical video entitled Muslim Persecution of Christians, produced by the Terrorism Awareness Project. The video, which is embedded below, recounts contemporary examples of anti-Christian violence, and the Islamic theology that justifies and intensifies it.

As the video demonstrates, the resurgence of the Islamic jihad and Islamic supremacism around the world in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries can be directly correlated with the declining Christian population. As Muslims, influenced by Salafi movements to restore the “purity” of Islamic governance, reassert traditional Islamic legal stipulations mandating and institutionalizing discrimination against and harassment of Christians, Christians all over the Islamic world are feeling the heat.

Read the rest.

(Cross-posted at Avid Editor's Insights)

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

The Stoning of Soraya M.

Carl M. Cannon of Politics Daily reviews the movie "The Stoning of Soraya M."

Based on a true story, the film relates a grisly execution of an "inconvenient wife." Under the Sharia, which this event takes place, victims are often punished with little or no evidence - just the accusations of another. In this case, Soraya M. was accused of infidelity by her husband.

Only an Islamic court would give so much weight to a man's testimony that it would brutally stone a woman to death.

In the review, Cannon makes a point on the dangers of encroaching Islam:

In the anarchic days of the Iranian Revolution, Ghorban-Ali had found work as a prison guard in a neighboring town. There, he met a 14-year-old girl whom he wanted to marry. Polygamy was encouraged in Ayatollah Khomeini's Iran, but Ghorban-Ali didn't want to support two families, and did not desire to return his wife's dowry. How to rid himself of his "old" wife? That was the easy part. Accuse her of infidelity. No matter that her husband had not actually seen anything untoward, or that Soraya was completely innocent, or that her husband's cynical accusations were only backed up by his cousin, who as it turned out had been coerced into concurring with the vaguest of accusations: a smile here, a brushed hand there.

What court of law would find someone guilty on such flimsy evidence? A "sharia" court is the answer. And so Soraya was convicted. The sentence was death-death by stoning.


I do not know, as I told one of this movie's financial backers, whether Americans will sit through a film this sad and grisly. I only know that they should. It has been said many times since 9/11 that we are in a war of ideas -- and a shooting war as well -- with men who are confident that one day all the world will be governed by this kind of law. It would not be a world worth inhabiting. I am haunted by Soroya and her sisters.

Please, go see this movie. Its message is too important to ignore.

(Hat Tip: The Jawa Report)
(Cross-posted at

Sunday, May 10, 2009

AESOP's Fables Remix

The Frog and the Scorpion

A scorpion and a frog meet on the bank of a stream and the scorpion asks the frog to carry him across on its back. The frog asks, "How do I know you won't sting me?" The scorpion says, "Because if I do, I will die too."

The frog is satisfied, and they set out, but in midstream, the scorpion stings the frog. The frog feels the onset of paralysis and starts to sink, knowing they both will drown, but has just enough time to gasp "Why?"

The scorpion replies, "Its my nature..."

Peace FAQ adds a liberal slant to the ending:

"Yes," thought the frog, still puzzled that frogs and scorpions should think and act differently, after all, they are both small creatures of the forest. "Maybe I said or did something to anger him...?!"

And World Security Network adds a modern, Israel versus Islam and the world media twist:

First, in the new version the scorpion declares that he will sting the frog without any doubt. But the frog agrees to take the scorpion because he is encouraged or intimidated by onlookers’ remarks on onlookers—“What! You won’t take that poor scorpion on a ride? What kind of imperialist, racist aggressor are you?”

Second, after the duo drowns, the next day newspapers run the following headlines:

“Frog in Unprovoked Attack on Scorpion!”

“Cycle of Violence Continues”

“Frog Uses Excessive Force on Scorpion Civilian”

Damn frogs.

(Cross-posted at and Avid Editor's Insights)

Tuesday, May 5, 2009

Family Watchdog

One of the most vile practices of Islam is the sexual abuse of children. Individual muslims may be against this abuse, but since their perfect example encouraged it by his own behavior, no one in Islam can outright condemn the practice without violating his own faith.

Muhammad was engaged to a six year old girl. She became ill, so he had to wait until she was only nine before he could rape her.

I hate pedophilia, which, I suppose, is one of the reasons I hate Islam. Not all muslims practice this detestable behavior, but I don't find a person who worships a pedophile much better than the pedophile himself. Plus, no matter how many muslims reject this practice, they can't never completely condemn it without condemning a behavior of their own prophet, whom the quran calls "perfect."

Enough ranting. The purpose of this post is to introduce you to a great website - Family Watchdog. It is a national sex registry that includes maps to pinpoint the location of registered sex offenders living in your area. Use it to protect your children!

NOTE: This post is not intended to provoke a confrontation with sex offenders in your area! It is simply meant to help you be informed and aware of offenders who live near you! Harassing or confronting a sex offender could result in YOU being charged with a crime. Please use your head.

(Cross-posted at Avid Editor's Insights)

Sunday, May 3, 2009

Saturday, May 2, 2009

Delara Darabi Executed

Despite a worldwide effort to save this young woman's life, Iran went ahead with the execution.

Delara Darabi was executed in secret in Rasht Prison May 1 2009, without prior notification given to her attorney. She was sentenced to death for a murder that happened during a break-in when she was 17 years old.

According to Delara Darabi the murder of her father's female cousin was committed by her 19 year old boyfriend Amir Hossein Sotoudeh, whom she was in love with. Delara initially confessed to the murder, but soon retracted her confession. She claimed that Amir Hossein asked her to admit responsibility for the murder to protect him from execution, believing that since she was under the age of 18, she could not be sentenced to death.

R.I.P., another victim of the cruel and unjust legal system of Islam.

"Prisoner of Colors"

More on this story: - Delara Darabi Press Reports
Delara Darabi executed in Iran
Amnesty outraged at Iran juvenile execution
Iran Hangs Young Woman Convicted of Murder
Iranian Execution Provokes Outrage

Delara's artwork can be viewed HERE.

(Cross-posted at

Islam: A Religion or A Cult?


• noun
- a system of veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object.

(Video courtesy of AhmadsQuran3)

Is Islam a religion or a cult? You decide:

Common characteristics of a cult:

1) The group is focused on a living (or dead) leader to whom members display excessively zealous, unquestioning commitment.

2) The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members and/or making money.

3) Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged.

4) Mind-numbing techniques (for example: meditation, chanting, denunciation sessions, or debilitating work routines) are used to suppress members' doubts.

5) The group's leadership dictates how members should think, act, and feel (for example: members must get permission from leaders to date, change jobs, or get married;) leaders may determine types of clothes to wear, where to live, how to discipline children, and so forth.

6) The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, it's leader(s), and members (for example: the leader is considered the Messiah or an avatar; the group and/or the leader has a special mission to save humanity).

7) The group has a polarized "We" versus "Them" mentality that causes conflict with the wider society.

8) The group's leader is not accountable to any authorities (as are, for example, military commanders and ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream denominations).

9) The group teaches or implies that its "superior" ends justify means that members would have considered unethical before joining the group (for example: collecting money for bogus charities).

10) The group's leadership induces guilt feelings in members in order to control them.

11) Members' subservience to the group causes them to give up previous personal goals and interests while devoting inordinate amounts of time to the groups."

12) Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.

(Cross-posted at and Avid Editor's Insights)

'Misunderstanders' Of Islam

"Interesting, isn't it, how pockets of "extremists" and "militants" far removed from one another can end up "misunderstanding" and "hijacking" Islam in the same way?"

~Marisol, Jihad Watch

Friday, May 1, 2009

Charles Johnson Wins 'Dhimwit Of The Month' Award

Dhimwit of the Month Honors

Dhim·wit (dïm-wît) - A non-Muslim member of a free society that abets the stated cause of Islamic domination with remarkable gullibility and creativity. A dhimwit is always quick to extend sympathy to the very enemy that would take away his or her own freedom (or life) if given the opportunity.

Anyone who has made a fool out of the mainstream media as often as the Charles Johnson has can’t be all bad – even if he is making a bigger fool out of himself these days. Five years ago, the talented creator of the Little Green Footballs blog and “co-founder” of Pajamas Media (a top-notch web magazine) went toe-to-toe with CBS News and not only took down Dan Rather, but also won a great deal of respect for on-line journalism in the process…

Then things got weird. Really weird.

Read the rest: takes on LGF...

(Cross-posted at Avid Editor's Insights)

[UPDATE] - For the purpose of clarifying exactly what Charles meant in accusing Pam Geller and Robert Spencer of associating with "fascists," brave LGF commenter 'horatiolust' asked Charles to define the word.

Charles' great & insightful reply: