Posts
Among the ongoing debates within the Obama Administration and the rest of the American society about the fate of the war criminals detained at Guantanamo Bay, jihadis reminded those paying attention why the facility exists in the first place. Four career criminals were in the process of waging jihad in New York. In the nearly eight years since the Islamic terrorists destroyed the World Trade Center, the Koran and its exhortations to violence and oppression of non-Mohamadans have not changed. The Islamists' will to impose Islamic dictates on the Free World has not evaporated either.
The continued detainment of jihadis at Guantanamo Bay does inspire other Mohamadans to respond to calls for jihad, as well as it should. If they die in the process of killing non-Mohamadans, they believe an eternity in a free bordello awaits them. If they succeed in murdering so-called "infidels" yet survive the attacks, they will be hailed as heroes throughout the Islamic bloc. If they are captured in the process of jihad, they will be rewarded with three halal meals per day plus a Koran, prayers beads and rug in addition to exercise equipment and furnished living quarters, all paid for by the suicidally naive U.S. government. With these three possible outcomes serving as the only consequences of engaging in jihad versus Americans, one must wonder why all Mohamadan males are not pursuing this path to limitless sex, fame or leisure.
This latest Islamic plot to attack Americans also raises an inexplicable phenomenon. The sheer stupidity of permitting Islamic clerics to enter American prisons stands out as astounding act of national self-immolation. These Islamists prey on criminals who already have little to no regard for the lives and property of law-abiding Americans. The Islamists give them an excuse for their rage against democracy, capitalism and freethinking. Then they encapsulate their lusts for murder, theft and rape by justifying such crimes as permissible by following the example of Mohamad ibn Abdullah (May he burn in hell forever) as recorded in the Koran and the hadiths.
Never in the history of the United States were enemy agents allowed to enter the country so openly and operate so freely as during this current war. The Nazi regime was not allowed to send representatives to scour Depression-era American jails for potential recruits for the SS or Wehrmacht. Without a doubt, Americans with Fascist or Marxist sympathies cruised "Hoovervilles" to stir up anti-republicanism or anti-capitalism. However, they did not do so with explicit approval of federal, state or local governmental sanction. The politically-correct acquiescence to Islamists' demands will continue to produce future enemy agents bent on murder and destruction within the United States. Prison authorities or the politicians controlling the funds supporting those authorities must halt this treacherous permissiveness before more home-grown jihadis strike again.
COPYRIGHT MAY 2009 BY CHARLES KASTRIOT. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Catering to Islamists' tastes
We, the members of the Society for the Defeat of Islam, are promoting a boycott of both Kentucky Fried Chicken and Domino's Pizza. As detailed in these two links below, both companies have kowtowed to demands by Islamists to implement "halal only" locations. We must not allow these incidents of Sharia-creep to continue unchallenged. If these two dhimmified corporations value the business of Mohamadans this much, then they should try to survive financially without the business of freedom-loving people. Credit for the links goes to Cuhraytin Erumy.
KFC: http://tinyurl.com/c7jl5v
Domino's: http://tinyurl.com/r87nq5
Additionally, we ask for everyone to contact both KFC and Domino's to voice our objections to their pandering to Mohamadans. It is vital to inform them of our campaign. If we succeed in reducing their profits yet they do not know about our campaign, they may just assume the losses were due to the economic decline.
Here is the contact information for KFC: http://www.kfc.com/contact
This is for Domino’s: https://info.dominos.com/dominos_pizza/contact.nsf/frmContact?openform
We must inform both that we will continue with the boycott of all their restaurants until they end all halal menus. This means revoking halal menus at corporate-owned locations and terminating franchises for those who maintain halal outlets.
Will you join our effort?
COPYRIGHT MAY 2009 BY CHARLES KASTRIOT. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
KFC: http://tinyurl.com/c7jl5v
Domino's: http://tinyurl.com/r87nq5
Additionally, we ask for everyone to contact both KFC and Domino's to voice our objections to their pandering to Mohamadans. It is vital to inform them of our campaign. If we succeed in reducing their profits yet they do not know about our campaign, they may just assume the losses were due to the economic decline.
Here is the contact information for KFC: http://www.kfc.com/contact
This is for Domino’s: https://info.dominos.com/dominos_pizza/contact.nsf/frmContact?openform
We must inform both that we will continue with the boycott of all their restaurants until they end all halal menus. This means revoking halal menus at corporate-owned locations and terminating franchises for those who maintain halal outlets.
Will you join our effort?
COPYRIGHT MAY 2009 BY CHARLES KASTRIOT. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Echos of the 1930s
In the 1930s, adherents to Fascism and to Communism both claimed to stand on the verge of seizing control of various nation-states, with the goal of inevitable global domination. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics had been carved out of the corpse formerly known as the Russian Empire. Fascists in Italy had bullied their way into power, threatening ideologues who opposed them then bludgeoning or incarcerating those who persisted in resistance. Their German counterparts followed suit several years later. Communists were sowing havoc within the fragile society of China throughout the 1930s, provoking a civil war. With the Great Depression gripping most of the world's economies, it appeared that capitalism and representative democracy were stumbling toward extinction.
Fortunately, Fascists and Communists spent a considerable amount of time and resources attacking each other. These two sects of totalitarianism fought each other in venues such as the Spanish Civil War and in the streets of towns in Germany, the Netherlands and other European lands. In the next decade, they continued their blood feud on the Eastern Front of the Second World War. The Free World survived in part due to the fact they did not focus solely on destroying freedom first before turning on each other.
In our current decade, Islam and neo-Marxism both threaten the Free World.
Neo-Marxists seek to destroy the Judeo-Christian cornerstone of Western societies; Islamists share the same objective. Neo-Marxists have knee-jerk sympathies for "people of color" if those people have disputes with Europeans or descendants of Europeans, regardless of the merits of the claims of either side. Islamists have insidiously convinced their useful idiots that the jihad to destroy Western civilization exists as merely a response to the establishment of Israel and prevalence of American influence in the world. Neo-Marxists instinctively lionize those perceived as "poor", regardless of the poverty resulting from centuries of contempt of scientific research, the creation of works of art or the study of history or philosophy except for those glorify or propagate Islam. Neo-Marxists' immoderate paranoia of receiving accusations of exhibiting any politically incorrect "ism" leads them into moral contortions like justifying or excusing suicide bombings of civilians, oppression of women's rights and freedoms in addition to death threats against and murders of critics of Islam. Socialist governments throw open their borders to Mohamadans for immigration in hopes of gaining future voters. In turn, Islamists readily accept state-supplied housing, food allowances and financial support from the governmental girth created and maintained by Socialist governments. Anyone paying attention can easily discern their symbiotic relationship.
Further credence to this alliance can be found in a widely-reported event from a few years ago. In an audio recording broadcasted on the al-Jazeera Network on the eleventh of February 2003, Osama bin Laden referred to the impending battles in Iraq. He advocated, "Under these circumstances, there will be no harm if the interests of Muslims converge with the interests of the socialists in the fight against the crusaders, despite our belief in the infidelity of socialists." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2751019.stm) What a ringing endorsement of cooperation from the world's most famous jihadi!
Recent news has demonstrated that the British government has strengthened this totalitarian alliance. Home Secretary Jacqui Smith released the list of personae non gratae. The Labor Party-led government played the role of Socialist appeasers by banning radio talk-show host, Doctor Michael Savage, from entering the United Kingdom. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/16-banned-from-britain-named-and-shamed-1679127.html
Apparently with a straight face and no hint of sarcasm, Secretary Smith stated, "This is someone who has fallen into the category of fomenting hatred, of such extreme views and expressing them in such a way that it is actually likely to cause inter-community tension or even violence if that person were allowed into the country."
Despite having never engaging in public demonstrations against any "community" in Britain, Doctor Savage has been offered as a sacrificial lamb to Islamists. Savage's frequent denouncements of Islam and those who advocate it has already led to the fifth column calling itself the Council on American Islamic Relations to file suit against him in American courts in an effort to silence his dissent. Considering that Savage's show is not broadcast in Britain, one must question how Brown's socialist regime decided that Savage deserved the ban and public defamation accompanying it.
The current British government has revealed its hypocritical enforcement of standards. Where was Smith's concern about tension or violence when five thousand Mohamadans marched in London on the third of February in 2006? (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1509664/Muslim-protests-are-incitement-to-murder-say-Tories.html)
Were their signs with messages such as "Slay those who insult Islam", "Europe, take some lessons from 9/11" and "Butcher those who mock Islam" not likely to provoke tension or violence? Have Britons already kowtowed to Islamists and accepted dhimmitude so those slogans no longer qualify as threats? Who is more of a threat to public order, someone who criticizes a totalitarian ideology or someone who advocates the murder of that critic? This spineless administration has chosen to bar one Savage instead of the tens of thousands of savages already within its borders, poised for a demolition of the last vestiges of liberty in Britain.
COPYRIGHT MAY 2009 BY CHARLES KASTRIOT. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Fortunately, Fascists and Communists spent a considerable amount of time and resources attacking each other. These two sects of totalitarianism fought each other in venues such as the Spanish Civil War and in the streets of towns in Germany, the Netherlands and other European lands. In the next decade, they continued their blood feud on the Eastern Front of the Second World War. The Free World survived in part due to the fact they did not focus solely on destroying freedom first before turning on each other.
In our current decade, Islam and neo-Marxism both threaten the Free World.
Neo-Marxists seek to destroy the Judeo-Christian cornerstone of Western societies; Islamists share the same objective. Neo-Marxists have knee-jerk sympathies for "people of color" if those people have disputes with Europeans or descendants of Europeans, regardless of the merits of the claims of either side. Islamists have insidiously convinced their useful idiots that the jihad to destroy Western civilization exists as merely a response to the establishment of Israel and prevalence of American influence in the world. Neo-Marxists instinctively lionize those perceived as "poor", regardless of the poverty resulting from centuries of contempt of scientific research, the creation of works of art or the study of history or philosophy except for those glorify or propagate Islam. Neo-Marxists' immoderate paranoia of receiving accusations of exhibiting any politically incorrect "ism" leads them into moral contortions like justifying or excusing suicide bombings of civilians, oppression of women's rights and freedoms in addition to death threats against and murders of critics of Islam. Socialist governments throw open their borders to Mohamadans for immigration in hopes of gaining future voters. In turn, Islamists readily accept state-supplied housing, food allowances and financial support from the governmental girth created and maintained by Socialist governments. Anyone paying attention can easily discern their symbiotic relationship.
Further credence to this alliance can be found in a widely-reported event from a few years ago. In an audio recording broadcasted on the al-Jazeera Network on the eleventh of February 2003, Osama bin Laden referred to the impending battles in Iraq. He advocated, "Under these circumstances, there will be no harm if the interests of Muslims converge with the interests of the socialists in the fight against the crusaders, despite our belief in the infidelity of socialists." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2751019.stm) What a ringing endorsement of cooperation from the world's most famous jihadi!
Recent news has demonstrated that the British government has strengthened this totalitarian alliance. Home Secretary Jacqui Smith released the list of personae non gratae. The Labor Party-led government played the role of Socialist appeasers by banning radio talk-show host, Doctor Michael Savage, from entering the United Kingdom. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/16-banned-from-britain-named-and-shamed-1679127.html
Apparently with a straight face and no hint of sarcasm, Secretary Smith stated, "This is someone who has fallen into the category of fomenting hatred, of such extreme views and expressing them in such a way that it is actually likely to cause inter-community tension or even violence if that person were allowed into the country."
Despite having never engaging in public demonstrations against any "community" in Britain, Doctor Savage has been offered as a sacrificial lamb to Islamists. Savage's frequent denouncements of Islam and those who advocate it has already led to the fifth column calling itself the Council on American Islamic Relations to file suit against him in American courts in an effort to silence his dissent. Considering that Savage's show is not broadcast in Britain, one must question how Brown's socialist regime decided that Savage deserved the ban and public defamation accompanying it.
The current British government has revealed its hypocritical enforcement of standards. Where was Smith's concern about tension or violence when five thousand Mohamadans marched in London on the third of February in 2006? (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1509664/Muslim-protests-are-incitement-to-murder-say-Tories.html)
Were their signs with messages such as "Slay those who insult Islam", "Europe, take some lessons from 9/11" and "Butcher those who mock Islam" not likely to provoke tension or violence? Have Britons already kowtowed to Islamists and accepted dhimmitude so those slogans no longer qualify as threats? Who is more of a threat to public order, someone who criticizes a totalitarian ideology or someone who advocates the murder of that critic? This spineless administration has chosen to bar one Savage instead of the tens of thousands of savages already within its borders, poised for a demolition of the last vestiges of liberty in Britain.
COPYRIGHT MAY 2009 BY CHARLES KASTRIOT. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)