Myth vs Fact-Part 219

Myth	Fact
Islam: Religion of peace.	Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 9: Narrated Ibn Masud: We used to fight in the holy battles in the company of the Prophet and we had no wives with us. So we said, "O Allah's Apostle! Shall we get castrated?" The Prophet forbade us to do so.
Tafsir

Sphere: Related Content

Stop the ACLU! Weekly Roundup 01/13-01/26/2008

As usual, Jay has some incredible stuff over at Stop the ACLU! and this is just a small portion of it. Head over there and check out the rest of the articles! For a backlog of roundups, I've added an archive section entitled "Stop the ACLU! Weekly Roundups"; if you've missed any of them in the past, you can scroll through the section and click on the articles you missed.

Articles:

Westboro Hate Cult to Picket at Slain Marine's Funeral
Yes, they continue to prove how evil they are. They will now picket at the funeral of the slain pregnant Marine the media has been talking about so much. Of course, its predictible, but still sick, sick, sick.

ACLU Defends Sex In A Public Restroom
Once again the ACLU twist reality to be completely backwards from common sense.

Fred Thompson Ends Bid for White House

ACLU Hypocrisy On Privacy
Constitutional lawyer, Hans Bader, submitted some interesting and extensive thoughts on the ACLU's latest defense of sex in a public restroom being a privacy right to our blog.

Stop the ACLU Coalition Newsletter

Video/Audio:

Hillary Takes Credit for Surge She Opposed

MR. RUSSERT: If General Petraeus says, "Senator, in September you called the surge the suspension of belief. It has worked, and you know it's worked"–let me finish–"you can see on the ground. I'm saying to you, Senator, or president-elect Clinton, don't destroy Iraq. It's working, the surge is working. Keep troops there just a few more months to get this reconciliation complete."

SEN. CLINTON: …The point of the surge was to quickly move the Iraqi government and Iraqi people. That is only now beginning to happen, and I believe in large measure because the Iraqi government, they watch us, they listen to us. I know very well that they follow everything that I say. And my commitment to begin withdrawing our troops in January of 2009 is a big factor, as it is with Senator Obama, Senator Edwards, those of us on the Democratic side. It is a big factor in pushing the Iraqi government to finally do what they should have been doing all along.

ACLU Celebrates 35 Years of Killing Babies
Here is a video that will make some people remember why they shouldn't sit out and need to vote against the Democrats this election.

Go visit Jay at the main sit here and Nedd at the Coalition site here. Good stuff and it will definitely open your eyes.

Sphere: Related Content

Michigan State University and Old Blue Jacket ROCK!

This has been VERIFIED by Snopes:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/wichman.asp

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

Hooray for Michigan State University (The Spartans) and Professor Wichman!!!

Well, what do we have here? Looks like a small case of some people being able to dish it out but not take it. Let's start at the top. The story begins at Michigan State University with a mechanical engineering professor named Indrek Wichman.


Wichman sent an email to the Muslim Student's Association. The email was in response to the students protest of the Danish cartoons that portrayed the prophet mohammed as a terrorist. The group had complained the cartoons were "hate speech".


Enter Professor Wichman:


Dear Moslem Association:


As a professor of Mechanical Engineering here at MSU I intend to protest your protest. I am offended not by cartoons, but by more mundane things like beheadings of civilians, cowardly attacks on public buildings, suicide murders, murders of Catholic priests (the latest in Turkey ), burnings of Christian churches, the continued persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt, the imposition of Sharia law on non-Muslims, the rapes of Scandinavian girls and women (called "whores" in your culture), the murder of film directors in Holland, and the rioting and looting in Paris, France.


This is what offends me, a soft-spoken person and academic, and many, many of my colleagues. I counsel you dissatisfied, aggressive, brutal, and uncivilized slave-trading Muslims to be very aware of this as you proceed with your infantile "protests." If you do not like the values of the West-see the First Amendment-you are free to leave.


I hope for God's sake that most of you choose that option.


Please return to your ancestral homelands and build them up yourselves instead of troubling Americans.


Cordially,
I. S. Wichman
Professor of Mechanical Engineering

Well! As you can imagine, the Muslim group at the university didn't like this too well. They're demanding Wichman be reprimanded and impose mandatory diversity training for faculty and a seminar on hate and discrimination for all freshmen. How nice. But now the Michigan chapter of CAIR has jumped into the fray. CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, apparently doesn't believe the good professor had the right to express his opinion.


For its part, the university is standing its ground. They say the email was private, and they don't intend to publicly condemn his remarks. That will probably change. Wichman says he never intended the email to be made public and wouldn’t have used the same strong language if he’d known it was going to get out.


How’s the left going to handle this one? If you’re in favor of the Freedom of Speech as in the case of Ward Churchill, will the same protections be demanded for Indrek Wichman? I doubt it.


We ARE at war.

I think Professor Wichman sums it up quite nicely.

Another site brought to my attention by Snooper at A Newt One is called Old Blue Jacket and he has a great line of anti-hillary stuff as well as some common sense articles on this issue. I'm "borrowing" some of OBJ's pictures and text, but you really should go over there yourself and check out his whole site.

I swiped this from Old Blue Jacket who "lifted it from Grouchy Old Cripple, and he stole it from Boortz" (I've added my own emphasis):

Muslim outrage huh. OK ... let's do a little historical review. Just some low lights:


1. Muslims fly commercial airliners into buildings in New York City. No Muslim outrage.
2. Muslim officials block the exit where school girls are trying to escape a burning building because their faces were exposed. No Muslim outrage.
3. Muslims cut off the heads of three teenaged girls on their way to school in Indonesia. A Christian school. No Muslim outrage.
4. Muslims murder teachers trying to teach Muslim children in Iraq. No Muslim outrage.
5. Muslims murder over 80 tourists with car bombs outside cafes and hotels in Egypt. No Muslim outrage.
6. A Muslim attacks a missionary children's school in India. Kills six. No Muslim outrage.
7. Muslims slaughter hundreds of children and teachers in Beslan, Russia. Muslims shoot children in the back. No Muslim outrage.
8. Let's go way back. Muslims kidnap and kill athletes at the Munich Summer Olympics. No Muslim outrage.
9. Muslims fire rocket-propelled grenades into schools full of children in Israel. No Muslim outrage.
10. Muslims murder more than 50 commuters in attacks on London subways and buses. Over 700 are injured. No Muslim outrage.
11. Muslims massacre dozens of innocents at a Passover Seder. No Muslim outrage.
12. Muslims murder innocent vacationers in Bali. No Muslim outrage.
13. Muslim newspapers publish anti-Semitic cartoons. No Muslim outrage.
14. Muslims are involved, on one side or the other, in almost every one of the 125+ shooting wars around the world. No Muslim outrage.
15. Muslims beat the charred bodies of Western civilians with their shoes, then hang them from a bridge. No Muslim outrage.
16. Newspapers in Denmark and Norway publish cartoons depicting Mohammed. Muslims are outraged.


Dead children. Dead tourists. Dead teachers. Dead doctors and nurses. Death, destruction and mayhem around the world at the hands of Muslims .. no Muslim outrage .. but publish a cartoon depicting Mohammed with a bomb in his turban and all hell breaks loose.



Come on, is this really about cartoons? They're rampaging and burning flags. They're looking for Europeans to kidnap. They're threatening innkeepers and generally raising holy Muslim hell not because of any outrage over a cartoon. They're outraged because it is part of the Islamic jihadist culture to be outraged. You don't really need a reason. You just need an excuse. Wandering around, destroying property, murdering children, firing guns into the air and feigning outrage over the slightest perceived insult is to a jihadist what tailgating is to a Steeler's fan.


I know and understand that these bloodthirsty murderers do not represent the majority of the world's Muslims. When, though, do they become outraged? When do they take to the streets to express their outrage at the radicals who are making their religion the object of worldwide hatred and ridicule? Islamic writer Salman Rushdie wrote of these silent Muslims in a New York Times article three years ago. "As their ancient, deeply civilized culture of love, art and philosophical reflection is hijacked by paranoiacs, racists, liars, male supremacists, tyrants, fanatics and violence junkies, why are they not screaming?"

Indeed. Why not?

Now, every time I post anything remotely resembling the truth, the trolls come out from the left and from muslims trying to "sway" me, and on and on.

Let me state, UNEQUIVOCALLY, I don't want to hear it. I've got an on-going series here, posted by Ben, called "Myth vs. Fact". I have another series, also posted by Ben, called "Know Thine Enemy" as well as an entire section called "Exposing Islam". I am NOT swayed by the lying cant and hyperbole of "religion of peace". I have asked REPEATEDLY for verses to counteract what has been posted (as I will GLADLY give equal time) and been met with...silence. So, I don't want to hear it. You can find the series' and the sites in the sidebar--they have their own sections.

Nor do I want anyone providing me a link to "Muslims Against Sharia"...they have been exposed as the CAIR front group they are in previous posts of mine (here and here), wherein they show themselves as incapable of arguing definitely for the case of "a religion of peace" and indeed degenerate into the frothing, rabid, terrorist lovers they are. They refuse to answer point blank questions and keep referring you to their website (if I wanted to go read the site--which I have--I would do so.). The fact is they can't defend their purported stand in a coherent, educated fashion for themselves, degenerate into profanity and screech go to their site. No, answer the damn questions off the cuff as an educated, passionate, dedicated person would.

It's about time Americans woke up to the dangers of appeasing this degenerate, misogynistic, child molesting advocating, violence loving, barbaric zealotry style of an ideology as well as the fact it is no more a religion than my dog's bowel movements. It is in fact a societal ideology and not a religion at all. Further, take a good look at every place these "peace loving" people have claimed or are in the process of claiming (Britain comes to mind).

While they may have contributed to science and the arts in ancient times, they have become irrelevant since oh, say the 7th century. Every place they live looks like a moonscape from their destruction, bombings, war, etc. They are not productive in the least--except in procreating and indulging in child abuse in their methods of indoctrinating the next generation into the hate.



They are a blight on the face of the earth and until the "calm moderates" decide to speak out against the violence, they have no one to blame but themselves when they are lumped in with the more violent followers. How can we know they are truly "moderate and peace loving" if we don't hear from them--definitively and en masse?

If there are moderates out there who want a forum to let their voices be heard, I'm more than happy to provide that forum and equal time. Until that time comes, until someone steps forward and provides me the passages I've requested repeatedly, until then--don't expect me to distinguish between the so-called radicals and the so-called moderates. Until then, they are one and the same.

To you islamists out there, know this: I will NOT present my neck to you for chopping, nor any of my limbs. You'll have to fight me for I will not bow down and worship your rock. You will never convert this Catholic to your abomination of society. I will not submit.

THIS is islam:




And this is the left "on islam" and full of appeasement:



ANY QUESTIONS?

Sphere: Related Content

Liberals Agree With Conservatives About The Clintons?

Cross posted from Spree at Wake Up America!

(Cartoon by Glenn McCoy at Townhall)
When Bill and Hillary Clinton were bare-knuckle fighting the Conservatives in this country, the liberals all bought in to their "vast right wing conspiracy" theory; now that their tactics, lies and underhanded tricks are being used against the other members of the left, lo and behold, the liberals are starting to notice some thing they don't like about the Clinton Duo.

Poetic justice and greatly amusing at that.

Let me start with Hillary's latest gambit which is causing a little firestorm on the left side of the blogosphere and then I will get into the harshest outright criticisms of Hillary and Bill, about their "character"--again using the words from liberals.

I did a few pieces on the DNC refusing to sit the party delegates in states which broke the rules and moved their primaries forward; I even asked if they were slitting their own throats by making Michigan and Floria feel irrelevant, but they did and they agreed not to campaign there; in Michigan most candidates took their names off the ballot because of those agreements.

Hillary didn't.

Now Hillary wants to change the rules midstream, and you don't have to take my word for how the left is seeing through this gambit--we will show you how liberals are seeing it themselves.

Ezra Klein, a liberal, thinks this little game of Hillary's has the potential to tear the party itself apart:

This is the sort of decision that has the potential to tear the party apart. In an attempt to retain some control over the process and keep the various states from accelerating their primaries into last Summer, the Democratic National Committee warned Michigan and Florida that if they insisted on advancing their primary debates, their delegates wouldn't be seated and the campaigns would be asked not to participate in their primaries. This was agreed to by all parties (save, of course, the states themselves).

[...]

But if this pushes her over the edge, the Obama camp, and their supporters, really will feel that she stole her victory. They didn't contest those states because they weren't going to count, not because they were so committed to the DNC's procedural arguments that they were willing to sacrifice dozens of delegates to support it. It's as hard as hardball gets, and the end could be unimaginably acrimonious. Imagine if African-American voters feel the rules were changed to prevent Obama's victory, if young voters feel the delegate counts were shifted to block their candidate.

This next one shocked even me, because some liberals (as I will show below) might not like the Clintons, Hillary especially, but would be willing to hold their noses and vote for her anyway to keep a Republican out of the White House...not so with shamanic from NewsHoggers. Iff you have ever read NewsHoggers you already know they are so far to the left that they cannot even SEE the center anymore.

This is tough stuff for me to stomach, wanting a politics of aspiration and hope and progress. Call me crazy, but I have this thing that I do where when I agree to something, I do my best to fulfill my obligation to the agreement. I'd like to think it's possible to elect leaders who also do their best to fulfill their obligations.

But I look at Hillary Clinton's campaign and I see people lacking in goodwill, overcome by raw ambition, and devoid of principle. This is exactly what drove my parents and tens of millions of other Republicans crazy during the 90s, and I'm not looking forward to a repeat.

I'm crossing my fingers for John McCain if Clinton wins the nomination. I disagree with him on everything, but I'll take him over four more years of this kind of shady, leave no opponent standing politics.

Take a second to let that sink in. This radical left liberal would not just sit home on election night if Hillary was the nominee, but would actually go vote for McCain!!!!!

Pretty much makes Ezra's point above, wouldn't you say?

Lawyers, Guns and Money, perhaps not as radical as NewsHoggers, but still a liberal blog from the few times I have read it, starts off with "this is pretty appalling":

It's dirty business on the part of the Clinton campaign, no question. And cloaking the nasty little power grab with the language of democratic inclusion irritates me even more. I can't say that I'm completely surprised, but I would have preferred if Hillary had demonstrated more appreciation for party unity than this; it amounts to an effort to steal delegates.

As a side note...click that link and take a look at the comment section. They are even harsher, calling her out on exactly what she is.

You can find more liberals taking Hillary to task for this at Carpetbagger, Talking Points Memo and Rolling Stone.

That is simply but a small sample of the reactions against Hillary on the far left liberal side of the blogosphere and media.

Now for the meat and potatoes of this post, a very surprising article caught my eye from the Los Angeles Times Opinion page, from a liberal writer who seems to have just discovered what and who the Clintons are and finding their character, ethics and morals seriously lacking. (Notice this is written without mention of her latest little sleight of hand about the Michigan and Florida delegates)

The title itself gave me a huge chuckle when it asks "Is the right right on the Clintons?"

The sub header is just as amusing: "Hillary's campaign tactics are causing some liberals to turn against the couple."

Something strange happened the other day. All these different people -- friends, co-workers, relatives, people on a liberal e-mail list I read -- kept saying the same thing: They've suddenly developed a disdain for Bill and Hillary Clinton. Maybe this is just a coincidence, but I think we've reached an irrevocable turning point in liberal opinion of the Clintons.

The sentiment seems to be concentrated among Barack Obama supporters. Going into the campaign, most of us liked Hillary Clinton just fine, but the fact that tens of millions of Americans are seized with irrational loathing for her suggested that she might not be a good Democratic nominee. But now that loathing seems a lot less irrational. We're not frothing Clinton haters like ... well, name pretty much any conservative. We just really wish they'd go away.

It goes on to say the turning point for them was when the Clintons misrepresented what Barack Obama said about Ronald Reagan, they mention Hillary's email tactics against Obama before the New Hampshire primaries and goes straight into the robocalls happening now in South Carolina against Obama...lastly they find "the Clintons' habit of surrounding themselves with the most egregious characters: Dick Morris, Marc Rich and so on." (That was in relation to the Black Entertainment Television founder Robert L. Johnson invoking Obama's youthful drug use.)

The Clinton campaign is trying to make it seem as if the complaint is about negativity, and it is pointing out that Obama has criticized Hillary as well. That's what politicians are supposed to do when they compete for votes. But criticism isn't the same thing as lying and sleaze-mongering.

Am I starting to sound like a Clinton hater? It's a scary thought. Of course, to conservatives, it's a delicious thought.....

I am stopping there because I have no problem admitting that yes, it IS a delicious thought as well as poetic justice; the irony also comes into play.

But the conservatives might have had a point about the Clintons' character. Bill's affair with Monica Lewinsky jeopardized the whole progressive project for momentary pleasure. The Clintons gleefully triangulated the Democrats in Congress to boost his approval rating. They do seem to have a feeling of entitlement to power.

With all that said, they acknowledge that if Hillary ends up the Democratic nominee, with all those negatives they just listed themselves, they would probably hold their collective noses and vote for her again.

Talk about a lack of character...

Pot. Meet. Kettle.

From the right side of the blogosphere is some justified snark at the very fact it has taken members of the left 16 YEARS to FINALLY start seeing Bill and Hillary Clinton for what they are.

Captain Ed titles his piece "Rules? The Clintons Don't Need No Stinkin' Rules!" and PoliGazette asks if "Anyone really up for four years of this deceit?" That piece is appropriately named "Cheater".

Macsmind put the figures out there, a reminder of what happened under Bill Clinton when he held the office of presidency:

- GOP seats gained in House during Clinton: 48
- GOP seats gained in Senate under Clinton: 8
- GOP governorships under Clinton: 11
- GOP state legislative seats gained under Clinton: 1,254
- State legislatures taken over by GOP under Clinton: 9
- Democrat officeholders became Republicans under Clinton: 439

You can keep up with the firestorm of comments, blog posts and discussion about Hillary, Bill and this latest salvo in dirty politics, and left against left, over at memeorandum.

A quick note to the far liberal left here: You knew what they were and you didn't care as long as those tactics were only used against the right, so quit whining, quit bitching...... You are getting exactly what you deserve.

Sphere: Related Content

Myth vs Fact-Part 218

Myth	Fact
Islam: Religion of peace.	Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 493: Narrated Ibn Abbas: 'Umar asked the people regarding Allah's Statement: 'When comes the Help of Allah (to you O Muhammad against your enemies) and the conquest of Mecca.' (110.1) They replied, "It indicates the future conquest of towns and palaces (by Muslims)." 'Umar said, "What do you say about it, O Ibn 'Abbas?" I replied, "(This Surat) indicates the termination of the life of Muhammad. Through it he was informed of the nearness of his death."
Tafsir

Sphere: Related Content