AmeriCAN-DO Attitude

Are you an AmeriCAN or an AmeriCAN'T?

We Could Have Gone Full Roman on Anyone We Wanted, but We Didn’t. And We Won’t.

Some good comments in the thread to this post at AoSHQ: Merry Christmas: Muslim Terrorist Group May Be Planning Big Terror Attack In Mumbai

133 It really is inevitable. I remember that Three Conjectures article when it came out. Reading it again just hammers in the point that this period of bootlicking and fawning over our enemies in hopes they “give up” on their aim to murder us all is just delaying the inevitable.

The intent will determine the response, not the capability once the nuclear threshold has been crossed – and any rational actor must recognize that the intent of Islam is to conquer and enslave. Period.

We can’t be waiting for a Muslim Martin Al’Luther anymore. We’ll have to either eliminate Islam by application of thermal/pulsed EM energy or we’ll have to eliminate it by replacement wtih a form of religion we can trust – basically, they have to become Amish. Or we’ll ripple-burst nukes over their faces and countries for a few months.

Either or.

Posted by: Inspector Asshole at December 24, 2010 03:32 PM


138 Going back, I found linked at that Belmont Club article an earlier one from Lileks. These were in 2003, remember, when the unAmerican left just started to get it’s howl going – that howl of insanity that resulted in our current President.


Here was the perfect summation of both the domestic enemy- the hard left – and of what will happen if we don’t want the war to go on any longer.

They hate this nation. In their hearts, they hate humanity. They would rather cheer the perfect devils than come to the aid of a compromised angel. They can talk for hours about how wrong it was to kill babies, busboys, businessmen, receptionists, janitors, fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers – and then they lean towards you, eyes wide, and they say the fatal word:


And then you realize that the eulogy is just a preface. All that concern for the dead is nothing more than the knuckle-cracking of an organist who’s going to play an E minor chord until we all agree we had it coming.

I’ve no doubt that if Seattle or Boston or Manhattan goes up in a bright white flash there will be those who blame it all on Bush. We squandered the world’s good will. We threw away the opportunity to atone, and lashed out. Really? You want to see lashing out? Imagine Kabul and Mecca and Baghdad and Tehran on 9/14 crowned with mushroom clouds: that’s lashing out. Imagine the President in the National Cathedral castigating Islam instead of sitting next to an Imam who’s giving a homily. Mosques burned, oil fields occupied, smart bombs slamming into Syrian palaces. We could have gone full Roman on anyone we wanted, but we didn’t. And we won’t.

Which is why this war will be long.

I have highlighted what I think are quite good and quite effective policy changes.

Posted by: Inspector Asshole at December 24, 2010 03:43 PM

This is one of the major reasons why I detest America-hating, “anti-war” people who do nothing but trash America, trash our military and consider everything wrong in the world to be the fault of America… all while claiming that the rest of the world are just innocent victims of our horrible oppression. These people have NO idea what is true oppression and how oppressive we could be, if we actually wanted to be.

December 24, 2010 , 3:59PM Posted by | Anti-War Groups, Dhimmitude, Islam, Islamofascism, Jihad, Liberalism, Muslims | Comments Off on We Could Have Gone Full Roman on Anyone We Wanted, but We Didn’t. And We Won’t.

We Need Immigration Laws that are Strict and Enforced

Absolutely great comment regarding immigration reform (with which I agree completely) left in response to this post at AoSHQ: The Old “Nation of Immigrants” Trick, Eh?

Yes we need immigration reform, but NOT what has been rolled out the last half dozen times. Every bill that has come out since the first major rewrite in 1965 has basically been amnesty and open invitation for illegals to flood across the border.

We are no longer the country of the 19th century with vast open areas in the West. Our cities are overcrowded shit holes run by corrupt communist hacks AND there is no longer a vast area open for the inhabitants to flee to and take up farming.

This is not to mention that we have entire towns in CA with a population > 20,000 in which none of the citizens speak English. The current crew of “immigrants” do not appear to desire to assimilate and the current crowd of liberals do not think they should. The schools have gone from teaching America as a mixing pot to America as a salad bowl where “diversity” is celebrated and heritage counts for all, unless you have a European heritage then you are a racist.

Yes, there are a lot of things that need to be done to “fix” our immigration laws. The first one of these should be to repeal that POS of Amnesty Round I that got us where we are today.

We need immigration law that does the following AND that is enforced:

1. Eliminate the BS anchor baby interpretation by providing a definition of what the term “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means, which is not dashing across the border to deliver a baby. Personally, I would require that at least one of the parents of any child born in the U.S. be a citizen before that child was eligible for “birthright” citizenship. If not, then the child would have to undergo naturalization.

2. Provide a reliable means for employers to check the status of employees.

3. Provide severe punishments for knowingly hiring illegals (or reckless disregard). That punishment should include jail time for repeat violations.

4. Eliminate ALL benefits for illegals including schools for children.

5. Rewrite legal immigration to allow in immigrants with a desirable education and/or skill set and arrange the waiting list to have the most skilled/educated at the top of the list. (Australian system) Also include a check for communicable diseases (as we did in the past) and provide for immunization. Immigrants from countries on the list of terror support need not apply.

6. For groups that already have large populations in the U.S. who have not assimilated, reduce the allowable numbers until they do (eliminate whole towns that do not speak English)

7. Provide severe penalties for mules.

8. Provide the death penalty for people involved in sex slavery.

9. Eliminate all forms of asylum. That system has been abused to the point of making it a joke. Any true case that needs to be let in should be a case by case special act passed by congress. Get them on record.

10. Immigrants who become involved in any serious crime prior to becoming a citizen should be deported back to their home country.

11. Absolutely no dual citizenship allowed.

Posted by: Vic at October 05, 2010 09:07 AM

Also, great points made by Geoff in the original post:

This is based on the old canard that because the nation was founded by immigrants and continued to welcome large influxes of immigrants through its first 130 years, we must continue to honor that same ethic today. So even though the Constitution is considered by these sorts of folk to be a “living document,” our immigration policy must never change.

Well, I’m here to tell you that times do change, and that in this case they changed a long, long time ago. In fact, the notion that we are a “Nation of Immigrants” was, until relatively recently, an antiquity. A few years ago I wrote a post where I plotted up the number of foreign-born residents over the past 100 years:

The plot below shows the number of foreign-born people residing in the US (click on the graph for a better view). This includes both legal and illegal residents. As you can see, the total number of foreign-born residents stayed fairly constant from 1910 to 1970, even as the population of the US doubled. The foreign-born percentage of the total population dropped to just under 5% by 1970.

Today we have a foreign-born population of about 15%, which I would guess is a little high for easy assimilation. But the point is, until Ted Kennedy pushed the Immigration Act through back in 1965, we were not at all a “Nation of Immigrants.” We were a nation of Americans, 95% of whom were born and raised right here.

Heh, great point in the comments:

Casanova compared the hostility toward Muslims to the hostility toward Catholics from the mid-19th to the mid-20th century. A wave of Catholic immigration unsettled the dominant Protestant establishment.

Funny, I must have missed the part in history class where those whacky Catholics attacked and killed thousands of innocent civilians during the mid 19th-20th centuries.

I must have also missed the part where American citizens were brought to the Vatican and beheaded when they refused to convert. Or the part where Catholics kept commandeering ships and taking those people hostage. Or the part where those darned Catholics kept gathering together in large groups, burning the American flag and chanting about how they wanted us all dead.

Yup, I must have missed all that, otherwise I would have to find Casanova’s entire comparisson to be way off base and quite frankly stupid.

Posted by: StuckOnStupid at October 05, 2010 09:22 AM

Yeah, I must have been asleep in History class the days they taught about Catholic immigrants chanting “Death to America!”, asking for honor killings and asking to build Churches and Cathedrals on the ashes of our war dead. “Off-base” and “stupid” comparison is an understatement.

Good follow-up by Geoff:

I dont have a problem with appealing to the concept of “nation of immigrants” but with some caveats… which were all mentioned here… willingness to assimilate politically and willingness to support oneself economically.

I’m not suggesting restricting legal immigration, though some updating of that policy could be considered. I’m just saying that we don’t need to feel obligated to continue acting as a “Nation of Immigrants” when that isn’t an appropriate descriptor for much of the 20th century. Our policies should be based on today’s needs and realities, not a reference to policies of the 18th and 19th centuries.

I can’t count the number of libs who have quoted the Statue of Liberty inscription at me to argue in favor of illegal immigration. But that’s just a poem, not a policy.

Posted by: geoff at October 05, 2010 09:40 AM


That “give me your huddled masses” plaque is not our constitution, it was just put in the base of the statue by people that donated money. And as HeatherRadish says:

“…if you didn’t work when you immigrated here in 1890, you starved to death. If you didn’t pass your physical examination at Ellis Island (or Boston, where my ancestors came through), they sent you back to Europe.

It’s all so f-ing simple.”

Only the destructive left could come up with “diversity is our strength”. Now Obama has advanced that to “America has taken too much from the world, time to redistribute”. Barry would water down any “exceptionalism” to where we are “equal” with the failures of the world.

Instead of the advancing the rest of the world, Barry would “diversify” America down to the insanity of mundanity.

Posted by: bill at October 05, 2010 09:43 AM

Another good point regarding assimilation (or lack there of):

Yes, I am really tiring of the “Muslims are the new Catholics!” meme. As has been pointed out above, the analogy is historically bankrupt. More to the point, Muslims are immigrating to America in an era in which assimilation is actively discouraged by the left.

Here’s the difference: when the Catholics heaved up off the boat in the 19th Century, Catholic community leaders immediately began to integrate them into the wider community, via churches, schools, employment, voter registration, military service and social organizations (e.g., the Knights of Columbus).

By and large, the current crop of Muslim community leaders issues them a grievance card at the airport and works hard to instill a distrust of the authorities (e.g., CAIR trying to close off the Minnesota Somalis from speaking with the Feds). There ain’t no Muslim K of C, that’s for sure. Just the flying Imams and lawfare.

Posted by: Steve the Pirate at October 05, 2010 10:10 AM

Great, great comments:

Every nation is a nation of immigrants if you go back far enough. What makes a nation is not the fact of one time immigration, but the shared ideals, history, culture, and, over time, ethnicity of the people. America has had long stretches of low immigration, most notably from 1924-1965, and these periods have done a lot to allow earlier waves of immigrants to assimilate.

The current wave of immigration is troubling for several reasons:

First, unlike the past, we now have a generous social welfare apparatus, and immigrants tend to be poor and overuse these entitltments.

Two, immigrants today are deliberately skewed to the Third World, and these include Muslims. Earlier waves, even Catholics, were mostly white. In a few generations, they were indistinguishable from native born Americans. New groups are more insular and obviously of foreign heritage long after they arrived. Plus our public schools and national leaders do little to encourage assimilation, even going so far as to be indifferent to savage foreign customs like the Burqa or polygamy.

Three, our country has fewer jobs for low IQ people with the loss of its manufacturing sector, and many of these newer groups are lower education and lower IQ, and this is true for their kids as well. This is a formula for multi-generational poverty. Look at East LA.

Finally, the earlier wave is not as successful as sometimes it’s made out; consider the Wobblie Riots, Soviet spies of the 1940s (i.e., the Rosenbergs, David Greenglass), strong support for European style socialism among immigrants vis a vis FDR, and the rise of labor unions at the turn of the century.

Immigration is America’s false consciousness. It is not what we’re about either historically or as part of our founding documents and way of life. It is a small part of our national character and only seems dominant because of the dominance of immigration in the identity of America’s Northeast, which has disproportionate influence on our media and national conversations. In any case, immigration today is clearly out of control, leading to an unnecessary population boom, the erasure of native born Americans in large parts of the country (Miami, Arizona) and straining our national unity and limited government ideals. It is also deliberately erasing America’s founding stock and majority and replacing them deliberately and thereby marginalizing them, not least because of the multiplier effect of affirmative action. This is not right, and, more important, we were never asked by our elites in politics and business if this is what we want. We are a generous and welcoming people; but there is a world of difference of a few guests and a de facto colonization.

Posted by: Roach at October 05, 2010 10:10 AM

Short response:

It’s not that the immigrants changed, it’s that our expectations changed.

You came here, you were expected to assimilate. You don’t set out to change America, America changes you. That was the expectation, and immigrants didn’t question it.

Early in the 20th century, it was not shocking to hear the president proclaim that the main purpose of public education was to assimilate immigrants. Early in the 21st century, no politician could utter “assimilate” without chocking on the word – or being choked.

Immigrants will try to live up – or down – to our expectations. It’s only human nature. Newcomers, anywhere, will change as little as possible, as little as expected.

Everytime a liberal says the right has forgotten we are “a nation of immigrants,” that we’ve changed our attitude because the immigrants now have brown skin, just note that no, you changed. You changed the contract between America and immigrants. We’re not anti-immigrant, we’re anti-YOU.

Posted by: CJ at October 05, 2010 10:29 AM

October 5, 2010 , 12:30PM Posted by | Illegal Immigration, Islam, Muslims | Comments Off on We Need Immigration Laws that are Strict and Enforced

Founder of Local Tea Party Group Convicted of Funneling Money to Domestic Terrorists

Pretty shocking headline, huh? Surprised that this is not all over the news? Well, the reason this is not leading news all across the nation is probably because:

(1) Obama’s best buddies were/are domestic terrorists (Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, etc), so this person would just be on par with their activities and
(2) it wasn’t the founder of a local Tea Party Group, but
a founder of an Islamic Charity and they didn’t funnel money to domestic terrorists, but to Muslim jihadists

But just imagine if a local Tea Party group had gotten convicted of supporting terrorists. Think it would be news? With that in mind, ask yourself why it is not news that local Muslim “charities” are supporting Muslim jihad.

Islamic “charities” supporting jihadists: funny how that keeps happening. And it does because there is not the traditional separation between combatant and charitable activities in zakat as there is in the Western tradition, where charitable groups are strictly non-combatant. Rather, Qur’an 9:60 makes no such distinction when discussing groups to whom zakat may be allotted, including those fighting “in the cause of Allah” (jihad fi sabil Allah).

An update on this story, and yet another report related to the “volatile Caucasus.” One can’t help but wonder which attack (or attacks) in our years archived stories about the region might have been the fruits of Sedaghaty’s “charity.”

“Founder of Islamic Charity Convicted,” from Right Side News, September 11:

After a week-long trial, a federal court in Eugene, Oregon has convicted Pete Seda, the founder of an Islamic charity accused of funneling $150,000 to Chechen mujahideen.

Seda, also known as Pirouz Sedaghaty, was charged with conspiring to move money out of the United Sates without declaring it, as required by federal law, and with filing false tax returns to hide the fact that the money ever existed. According to federal officials, Seda accepted a large donation intended to support “our Muslim brothers in Chychnia,” and then surreptitiously shifted the money to Saudi Arabia in the form of difficult to trace traveler’s checks.

Let’s also not forget that it did not make news when the Commies at CODE PINK fund-raised and sent $600,000 to support the terrorists in Fallujah, Iraq in 2005. The same CODE PINK which is best buddies with Obama, Howard Dean and deceased former Congressman John Murtha. CODE PINK’s support of terrorism against the United States was known in 2005. Yet, DEMOCRATS Barack Obama, Howard Dean and John Murtha all associated with them and accepted their support. And, despite that, the American electorate continued to support all three politicians. Despicable.

RELATED: Here’s a story, generating massive national news coverage, of a Tea Party member gunning down her coworkers in Philadelphia. Oops, no, wait… that would be a Muslim woman gunning down her coworkers in Philadelphia and it’s not being covered by national news at all. Imagine that.

September 12, 2010 , 8:48AM Posted by | Dhimmitude, Islam, Jihad, Muslims | Comments Off on Founder of Local Tea Party Group Convicted of Funneling Money to Domestic Terrorists

Is Islamization the Future of the United States?

Considering we are allowing a Ground Zero Victory Mosque to be built in the heart of New York City and are allowing rioting Muslims in the Muslim World to dictate American policy and freedoms to our President, Secretary of State, SECDEF and leading General in our war effort, it appears to me that ‘the future is now’ and Islamization has already happened.

Via RushBabe in a comment to this post at AoSHQ: September 11th, 2001, In Memoriam

Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult.

In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life.

Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components.

Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges.

When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well.

Here’s how it works:

As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:

United States — Muslim 0.6%
Australia — Muslim 1.5%
Canada — Muslim 1.9%
China — Muslim 1.8%
Italy — Muslim 1.5%
Norway — Muslim 1.8%

At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in:

Denmark — Muslim 2%
Germany — Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom — Muslim 2.7%
Spain — Muslim 4%
Thailand — Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:

France — Muslim 8%
Philippines — 5%
Sweden — Muslim 5%
Switzerland — Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands — Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago — Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. In Russia, grade-schools were attacked. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam, with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:

Guyana — Muslim 10%
India — Muslim 13.4%
Israel — Muslim 16%
Kenya — Muslim 10%
Russia — Muslim 15%

After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:

Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8%

At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:

Bosnia — Muslim 40%
Chad — Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon — Muslim 59.7%

From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:

Albania — Muslim 70%
Malaysia — Muslim 60.4%
Qatar — Muslim 77.5%
Sudan — Muslim 70%

After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, beheadings, stoning, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:

Bangladesh — Muslim 83%
Egypt — Muslim 90%
Gaza — Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia — Muslim 86.1%
Iran — Muslim 98%
Iraq — Muslim 97%
Jordan — Muslim 92%
Morocco — Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan — Muslim 97%
‘Palestine’ — Muslim 99%
Syria — Muslim 90%
Tajikistan — Muslim 90%
Turkey — Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates — Muslim 96%

Is this the future of the United States?

Posted by: RushBabe at September 11, 2010 12:43 PM

September 11, 2010 , 11:52AM Posted by | Dhimmitude, Islam, Islamofascism, Muslims, Sharia Law | 4 Comments

Proclaiming that Violent, Mass-Murdering Psychopaths are “Victims” is the Problem

I left this comment in response to this post at Blackfive: KORAN BURNING CHURCH CONNECTED TO FRED PHELPS?!

The Westboro Baptist Church does not like homosexuals. So they express their views by protesting military funerals.

The Dove church does not like Islam. So they express their views by burning Korans.

Muslims don’t like homosexuals, women with full equal rights, Mohammad Cartoons, teddy bears named Mohammad, Jews, Christians, the United States, Americans, infidels, soccer balls that may depict an Islamic symbol, fast food cups that may depict an Islamic symbol, etc etc ad naseum. So they express their views with riots, violence, firebombing, terrorism, fatwas and mass murder.

Yet, currently in this nation, to whom is the outrage directed? The violent psychopathic ideology threatening riots, violence and murder or the groups who peacefully protest?

There’s the problem.

Violent, mass-murdering psychopaths are being coddled and called victims and the people peacefully protesting are being considered a threat to international peace.

I also left these comments in response to discussion at this post at This Ain’t Hell: Petraeus warns that Koran burning is bad for the troops

Michael in MI Says:
September 8th, 2010 at 8:17 pm

Has anyone here, or anywhere claimed that they don’t “have the right”?

The State Department called it “un-American“.

State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley called a Florida church’s threat to burn copies of the Quran to mark the Sept. 11 attacks “un-American” and said the plan was “inconsistent with the values of religious tolerance and religious freedom.”

I’d say that is the opposite of stating that they “have a right”.

And it’s amazing that when any non-Muslim religious group wants something, the Left crows about “separation of church and state!!!!!”. But when Muslims want something, the Left finds “religious tolerance” and “religious freedom”.

Debra Says:
September 8th, 2010 at 8:36 pm

Michael in MI, I either don’t follow you, or I don’t see it quite like you do.

I myself consider the church’s threat to burn the Koran to be both inconsistent with American values of religious freedom as well as within the realm of protected free speech.

Matthis’ burning of the American flag was handled in the same way by the overwhelming majority of TAH commenters, including myself, and also including even those who were threatening physical violence against him for burning the flag. But none of those threatening to beat the crap out of him, to my recollection, thought that he didn’t have the “right.”

Michael in MI Says:
September 8th, 2010 at 9:28 pm

I myself consider the church’s threat to burn the Koran to be both inconsistent with American values of religious freedom as well as within the realm of protected free speech.

So this means that when TV shows, such as the many on Comedy Central, go out of their way to insult Christians and Jews and Mormons, that is “inconsistent with American values of religious freedom as well as within the realm of protected free speech”?

This also means that when “artists” throw dung at a picture of the Virgin Mary and put the crucifiction in urine, that is “inconsistent with American values of religious freedom as well as within the realm of protected free speech”?

I have to wonder then, why when Christians and Jews and Mormons get offended by those actions, they are told to shut up and get over it and there are no statements from Angelina Jolie or Hillary Clinton or the State Department about showing “religious tolerance”.

Here’s my opinion on this matter… When ALL religions are treated with equal respect, THEN I will denounce someone who insults Islam and Muslims. Until then, f*ck Islam and f*ck Muslims for not reforming Islam and putting the entire MF-ing world at risk of rioting, violence and mass murder.

Where were the State Department and Hillary Clinton and Angelina Jolie making statements for anti-Prop 8 people to stop harassing Mormons and Christians who voted for Prop 8? Where were these people when the report came out that the most hate crimes in this nation are against Jews and there are hardly any at all against Muslims or Christians? Where were these people when the Muslim killed the military recruit in Arkansas? Where were these people when the Muslim mass murdered soldiers at Fort Hood?

The fact is that Muslims literally get away with murder in this nation and are coddled, while some nutjob Christian church wants to do nothing more than burn some books and it’s made into an international incident and an insult to Islam?

Are you kidding me?

All this does is tell Jews and Christians and Mormons that if they want any respect from people, they need to start threatening violence and murder as well. THAT is the lesson in all this.

All this situation has taught people is that violence and murder and threats of such earn groups power.

Michael in MI Says:
September 8th, 2010 at 9:59 pm

Or at least that is apparently what it has taught you…

No, logic dictates that lesson.

Logic also dictates the lesson that Muslims will get whatever they want, if they keep threatening us with violence over anything that offends them. It worked with the Mohammad Cartoons, it worked with Comedy Central, it worked with ‘Everybody Draw Mohammad Day’ and now, it has worked to get the top commander of the world’s superpower to tell his countrymen to stop doing things to offend Islam.

From The Jawa Report:

Does that justify bigotry in the West or burning Korans? Of course not. But there’s something else it doesn’t justify:

Refusing in the West to report, analyze, and condemn what goes on daily with far more public support and official approval in the Muslim-majority Middle East.

What are the wrongful motives for that behavior?

–Fear that telling the truth will make “Muslims” angry.
–Belief that one only has the right to criticize one’s own country (or allies) and religion but that exercising rational judgment in discussing others is somehow “racist.”
–Panic that reporting on the bigotry and extremism of millions of others will encourage a minister in Florida with 50 followers to burn a Koran.

Such a paralysis is not how democracies are supposed to function. That is not how people keep their freedoms and way of life.

And, yes, I read the Westboro Baptist Church connection at The Jawa Report earlier. It changes nothing.

Funny how the Westboro Baptist Church can travel all around the nation going to the funerals of military families and protesting at their funerals with hateful messages and, in response, the military members — known to liberals as right-wing, deranged, baby-killing terrorists suffering from PTSD who could snap at any moment — react with non-violence.

Yet, a similar nutjob religious group can stay on their own church property and burn Korans, and the “religion of peace” members react with riots, protests and threats of violence, murder and fatwas.

Seems to me that the baby-killing, psychopathic nutjobs belong to Islam and the true “religion of peace” is the United States Military.

Yet, our political leaders are more outraged over Muslims getting their wittle feewings hoited, than they are when those same Muslims mass murder our military members on their own base in the heart of Texas.

September 8, 2010 , 10:33PM Posted by | Dhimmitude, Islam, Muslims, Sharia Law | Comments Off on Proclaiming that Violent, Mass-Murdering Psychopaths are “Victims” is the Problem