Friday, October 21, 2011

Out Go the Dictators and in Come the Islamists

The fall of Kadaffy’s regime and his death marks the most recent end of a dictatorship within the Islamic bloc. Over the several decades since the end of Ottoman then European colonization of the Middle East and North Africa, such violent changes in governments have occurred on a regular basis. While one might hope that Kadaffy’s demise would lead to freedom and justice, onlookers must realize who is consolidating power in Libya now. The logo of the crescent moon and five-pointed star has been an omnipresent symbol among the rebels. That symbol indicates the antithesis of representative democracy and of equal rights for all people.

In Egypt, the autocracy of Hosni Mubarak came to an end earlier this year. Under this regime, Islamists such as the Mooslum Brotherhood could not participate in political campaigns. Thus, Islamists were unable to impose their totalitarian agenda on Egyptian society. The somewhat secular government of Mubarek merely discriminated against Christians by making construction of churches impossible for all intents and purposes. Since the tumult and the new government, Islamists have murdered and assaulted Christians along with vandalizing and destroying churches. Police and military personnel have permitted the jihadis’ crimes against Christians, including siding with the jihadis in committing atrocities then arresting Christians for defending themselves.

The fascist entity of Saddam Hussein never singled out Christians for persecution. Since the American and British-led coalition toppled the Baathists, Islamists have declared jihad on the three percent of the Iraki population, which Christians constitute. Rampant church bombings have driven a large portion of that minority into emigration.

Anyone searching for the model of what will become of post-dictatorial countries in the Middle East and North Africa needs to study Iran. This country under the non-Islamist absolute monarch called the Shah permitted women more freedom than any other within the Islamic bloc. Since the rise of the theocracy, rampant misogyny swept Iran. In a matter of weeks, women with successful careers and control over their lives ended up in suffocating outfits and confided to their homes.

An observer of politics among the nations subjugated by Islam should see more possible seizures of power by Islamists in Turkey. Its staunchly secular legal code has been eroded by the rising tide of Islamization. The current prime minster belongs to an openly Islamist political party. In fact, a wife of his insists on wearing a head-rag in public in defiance of Turkish law forbidding the centuries’ old display of women’s inferior status.

Syria also appears high on the list of imminent victims of Islamist takeover. Despite Bashir Assad’s continuation of his father’s legacy of virulent anti-Jewish policies, including funding jihadist murderers who attack Israel, the Islamists expect more. Nothing short of full implementation of sharia will satisfy Islamists who have organized protests in Damascus and elsewhere.

The nations of the Free World cannot force Mohamadans to renounce their totalitarianism. Additionally, the civilized countries of the world should not favor either side in conflicts between nominally Islamic dictators and blatant Islamists. As long as the supporters of those two factions are destroying each other, the rest of the world remains less of a target of jihad.


Sunday, July 31, 2011

Etiquette for Ramabomb

In response to Mohamadans and their useful idiots who stipulate that civilized people cater to the absurd dictates of a seventh century criminal during Ramabomb, I am reprising this list of demands.

-Remove your burkas, nikabs, and all other suffocatingly misogynistic clothing that Islamists demand that every woman wear. We object to women being forced to hide under oppressive outfits because some men erroneously think that they cannot control their libidos. If Mohamadans refuse to control their little minarets, then they need to be deported to the infernal regions where Islam reigns supreme. These shroud-like outfits particularly gall those of us in the Free World during the summer when they exacerbate your noxious body odors.

-Leave your absurd superstitions like fear of sitting toilets and dogs plus your phobias of pork and alcohol in the Islamic bloc when you enter the Free World. We do not like to be told what we are allowed to eat or drink based on others’ delusions.

-Cease quoting from the Koran or any other Islamic texts that encouraged those terrorists to commit mass murder and condones their actions. We know that your supposedly sacred scriptures are full of hateful oppression directed toward us. We resent the threats which your ilk spews in reciting these totalitarian texts.

-Dispense with any absurd and baseless conspiracies that anyone other than nineteen Arab Mohamadans committed these crimes. At least have the decency to admit that your totalitarian cult wants to kill us.

-Stop the plan to build the monument at Ground Zero to the Islamic terrorists who carried out the hijackings. The same sentiments are directed toward the construction of any more terrorist recruiting and training centers. Whether you label them as a "mosk, "madrassa, "community center" or any other moniker makes no difference. Such constructions will provoke a formidable backlash against those who wish to gloat over our losses.

I wish a peaceful August to all civilized people. To all Mohamadans, I hope for your complete failure in all your attempts at violence, better known as jihad, during Ramabomb.


Saturday, July 30, 2011

Questions for Christophobic Media

The joy of several prominent media outlets in response to the mass murder in Oslo more than a week remains unmistakable. The New York Times proclaimed Anders Behring Breivik as a “Christian extremist”. CNN referred to him as a “Christian fundamentalist”. The Washington Post insinuated that he is a “Christian terrorist”. Even Islamists such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations have gleefully spouted such inanities in the promotion of their totalitarian agenda.
In response, I submit these questions to all the Christophobes among the media and those in the blogosphere.
1. What evidence do any of you possess that Breivik practiced Christianity such as membership in a church? How can you willfully ignore his reference to his oxymoronic term “Christian atheism” to describe himself? Why do you instinctively assign his motivations to his supposed Christianity but not to his atheism?
2. Can you cite any Christian scriptures, Biblical or otherwise, which explain his murderous spree? On what basis do you ascribe his crimes as fundamentally Christian considering that no words attributed to Christ condone murder?
3. Why are you so reluctant to label blatantly and fervently violent jihadis as adherents to and practitioners of Islam? Since Breivik’s rampage, two reminders of the peril of Islamic terrorism to the Free World have occurred. A jihadi, Abdulhakim Muhammad, who murdered Private William Andrew Long, a recruiter for the U.S. Army, in Memphis received a life sentence for his crime committed in June of 2009. Also, a Mohamadan soldier, Naser Abdo, abandoned his assignment in Kentucky and gather weapons for another jihadist slaughter at Fort Hood before being arrested this week. These stand out among numerous other episodes of attempted or actual episodes of Islamic terrorism in the United States.
4. Why do you erroneously deny that Islamic texts repeatedly sanction violence in furtherance of imposition and maintenance of Mohamadan hegemony? Why do you ignore blatant verses that do permit, even celebrate, violence against non-Mohamadans?
5. If Breivik was motivated by hatred of Islam, why were his targets decidedly non-Islamic? Why did he plant a bomb near the Prime Minister’s office and then go on a shooting spree at a Labor Party children’s day camp? Mosks and other obvious Islamic targets dominate the ghettos in eastern Oslo.
6. Why are none of you blaming his homicidal streak on anabolic steroids when you are willing to consider other criminals’ usage of alcohol, stimulants, Twinkies or other substances as the true motivating force behind their horrific deeds?


Wednesday, May 4, 2011

Post-mortem on Osama Bin Laden

Americans rightfully celebrated Osama Bin Laden’s demise. Now, they have returned to the routine of life under the continual threat of jihadist violence. This includes preparing for anticipated reprisals by Mohamadans seeking revenge for the death of their poster boy. Before closing this chapter of Islam’s war against the Free World, a bit of review and some plans for the future are needed.

Soon after seeing reports that American forces had killed Osama bin Laden, I initially questioned the whereabouts of his corpse. Eventually after scanning various channels for more than an hour, the journalists announced that his body had been dumped into the Arabian Sea. While awaiting confirmation, I began to formulate a suitable fate for the cadaver. Although the United States Navy has disposed of Bin Laden’s remains, I offer these suggestions, both as an exercise in retributive brainstorming and ideas for any other Islamists eradicated in the future.

The American government could have exploited his corpse as a prop for videos to dishearten jihadis. His carcass could have been shown with a beer in one hand and a pork chop in the other, sitting on a beach in a Speedo man-bikini, apparently gawking at sunbathing beauties. This would have included captions indicating that Obama had renounced Islam after realizing what a miserable existence that he had endured following the absurd dictates of a seventh century criminal from Arabia. This first proposal combines the film Weekend at Bernie’s with hedonistic Koranic portrayals of paradise spun by the fabricator of Islam.

The Navy Seals could have attached some underwater cameras to Bin Laden before they dumped his body. Arrangements for pay-per-viewing would have been established so people could have seen his remains. The segment of the population who enjoys so-called “reality shows” would have loved this type of broadcast. Perhaps those hungering for ultimate justice could have been satiated by watching aquatic life forms feasting on him. British Petroleum managed to submerge a camera to monitor its leaking oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico long before it found a solution to the problem. Why should the federal government not have generated some revenue from the former “Public Enemy Number One” considering all that he had cost us?

Another possibility of benefitting financially from Bin Laden’s departure for Hell involves selling the jihadi’s carcass. Uncle Sam would have placed his corpse up for public auction for museums to purchase with the proceeds going to paying for the costs of combating against his fellow jihadis. I prefer that alternative to raising taxes. His digestive tract would have been stuffed with scraps of rancid pork and his body dressed in an outfit made of dog fur after it had been embalmed.

Continuing in the vein of incorporating Bin Laden’s cadaver into efforts to raise revenue for the federal government, what if it were publicly displayed at Ground Zero? I envisage a spectacle similar to that inflicted on Benito Mussolini’s corpse after his execution. People would have paid a fee for five seconds with his body to spit upon, kick, punch or otherwise defile as long as they do not unsecure it from its moorings. I suspect that competitions would have occurred in which Americans wait in line for their opportunity to inflict humiliation then try to outperform those who have already had their chance. Repeat business would have resulted, thus, increasing the profits to pay down the debt from the anti-jihadist effort.

Perhaps a specific type of business would prefer to claim Bin Laden’s remains. A pork processing plant could have dumped his corpse in a pit which is used for disposal of swine excrement. That exhibit could have been turned into tourist attraction. The company could have made it the highlight of the tour of its facility. If breweries and candy-making operations can invite customers inside their plants for tours, why should a pork processor not follow the same model?

Osama Bin Laden’s body could have been buried somewhere in the United States with a public pay toilet installed on top of it. Not only would the tolls to use the toilet defray the costs of operating the facility, it could easily become a cash cow. Every civilized human being needs a toilet at some point. Why not use one that makes a statement against the savage whose ideology would have precluded the invention of an implementation of sanitation?

Finally, this operation has shattered any delusions of Pakistan’s importance in the struggle against jihadis. The Obama administration plus the American intelligence and armed forces conducted the operation to eliminate Bin Laden without involving or even informing Pakistan. Previous experiences have taught Americans that Islamists have infiltrated Pakistan’s military, intelligence services and law enforcement. With this in mind, all American aid to Pakistan should be halted immediately in order to stop funding this regime of double-talking backstabbers. Those who turned a blind eye to the presence of the most famous jihadi in the world for years inside a conspicuously high security compound in the vicinity of their capital should never receive another penny from the taxpayers of the United States.


Thursday, March 24, 2011

Do Not Give Them Hell, Barry

On the day after Nazi Germany declared war on Soviet Russia in 1941, Senator Harry Truman stated publicly: "If we see that Germany is winning, we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning, we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible,” That type of proposal has been branded as cynical, callous and Machiavellian in addition to other negative labels. However, Truman’s wish for mutual destruction of the forces of two different totalitarian ideologies resonates even in the current century. Those who hold the security of the Free World and that of the United States in particular as paramount should be wary of involvement in the ongoing civil war in Libya.

People clamoring for military, financial and other forms of aid should delve deeper into the words and deeds to the insurgents in Libya. Those rebels are shouting “Allahu Akbar!”, the equivalent of “Sieg Heil!” for Nazis and “Destroy the bourgeoisie!” for Marxists. Granted, Muamar Kadaffy has funded and sheltered terrorists who have killed Americans. However, those seeking to topple him show clear indications of having Islamist agenda. Their flag sports the crescent moon and star, the most recognizable symbol of Islam. Kadaffy’s regime instituted a flag without any Islamic reference. Kadaffy’s police have not instituted wide-scale imposition of Sharia such as suffocating clothing for women or stoning for rape victims on the scale as can be seen daily in Saudi Arabia or in Iran. Have any of the cheerleaders for the rebellion considered that the victory of Kadaffy’s opponents could easily turn Libya into another base from which Islamists spawn jihadist terrorism in the future?

If Obama wants to topple a regime headed by terrorist-coddling thugs, why has he not supported the protestors in Iran? Kadaffy gave up its research program into developing weapons of mass destruction. In contrast, the theocrats in Tehran have accelerated their quest to obtain nuclear weapons. His regime’s legal status of women is somewhat permissive by the misogynistic standards of the other Islamic states in the region, especially Iran. Kadaffy has curtailed the anti-American vitriol over the past few years while the verbal venom from Mahmood Ahmadinejad has escalated. In short, support for the opposition in Iran could not result in a government more hostile to freedom and civilization than the one already in power.

It is glaringly logical for the leader of the Free World to avoid doing anything that would assist those who want to destroy liberty and subjugate free people. Truman commented about not committing exclusively to one side in the war between Nazis and Communists, hoping they would annihilate each other in the long run. Likewise, President Obama should heed this example from the past and go one rational step further: sit back and let totalitarians destroy each other without aiding any of them. That provides a bulwark against the victors in this intra-savage war from turning their aggression on the Free World.


Sunday, March 13, 2011

Goats' Head-butts and Crocodile Tears

Representative Keith Ellison’s crocodile tears flowed freely in front of Congress and the general public last week. He lamented the death of a Mohamadan fireman caused by Ellison’s fellow Islamists on the eleventh of September in 2001. Evidently, Ellison could not be bothered to mention or mourn any of the other nearly three thousand others who were murdered by those sharing Ellison’s ideology. After all, the brutal extermination of non-Mohamadans is not something over which two goats will butt heads, as the fabricator of Islam was fond of saying.

So what else moves Ellison to tears and angry denunciations? Where was his overt display of grief over the non-Mohamadans slaughtered by the Nidal Malik Hasan at Fort Hood? When did he express indignation over the thousands of American armed forces personnel killed by jihadis? How many times did he decry the recent foiled bombing and murder plots by jihadis such as those directed at Fort Dix, in Times Square, at the Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Portland or in the vicinity of Wrigley Field and elsewhere? His lack of any similar outburst following these true crimes reveals his indifference to the suffering of those outside of his totalitarian cult.

What did Ellison accomplish with his opening of the water works? Only time will tell. He drew another card from the deck of perpetual Mohamadan victimhood and played it in front of the entire nation. His tantrum may succeed in squelching any further investigation of the Islamist agenda of undermining national security and general tranquility of the American public. Likely, he will add more irrelevant tear-jerking rants to halt improvements in security that focus on the most likely and recurring perpetrators of terrorism, his fellow Mohamadans. Given his Islam-supremacist viewpoints, any discomfort of or offense taken by Mohamadans supersede the peace of mind and right to live of infidels.


Tuesday, February 1, 2011

Obama's Missed and Dismissed Opportunities

The specter of a secret allegiance to Islam has hung over Obama since the presidential campaign of 2008. His membership in a church led by a racist and anti-American preacher did little to dismiss the speculation. His pronouncement of his Islamic middle name during his taking of the oath of office seemed like a taunt toward those questioning his affiliation. His Ameriphobic speech in Cairo threw into doubt whether he considered the United States as more of a threat to the world than Islamists whose goal is imposition of a world-wide caliphate, the Mohamadan version of a totalitarian regime. His reaction to uprisings in Islamic countries has further heightened the uncertainty over his true loyalty.

Obama has repeatedly shown his affinity for heavy-handed governmental policies. He and his wife want to dictate how and what people eat and what types of foods are permitted to be sold. He has hinted at suppression of media that have been used to express criticism of governmental officials or historical personalities. His administration has attempted to mandate how and on what Americans spend their money in terms of their own health. Obama and his underlings have committed multiple incidents of overreaching statist commandments while scoffing dismissively at proponents of individual freedom.

Islam manifests itself in similarly collectivist and dictatorial fashion. Islamists demand the banning of consumption of or even the presence of food which its adherents do not eat such as pork. Islamists expect to censor all media that question or criticize their ideology or the megalomaniac who fabricated it. Islamists demand that their cohorts and even non-Mohamadans hand over sums of money in order for redistribution to those deemed worthy by those Islamists in power. Proponents of Islam give its followers license to threaten and kill anyone impeding their seizure of power over societies, dismissing the very concept of freedom of religion, of speech and other inalienable liberties.

Obama has embraced the Egyptian protestors demanding the ousting of an autocratic yet non-Islamist regime. Mubarak would never be confused for a supporter of human rights or representative democracy. However, his government has maintained the bulwark against the tide of complete Islamization which has been overwhelming other areas in the Middle East and starting to infect Europe and North America. The unmistakable presence of the terrorists known as the Mooslum Brotherhood within the demonstrations demands that someone claiming to support democracy should not align himself with those jihadis.

In contrast, Obama refrained from publicly supporting demonstrators against the Islamic theocracy in Iran. Instead of doing anything to exhort those demonstrating against a regime hostile to the Free World, Obama remained mute. He could have fanned the flames of discontent within a hostile state, possibly resulting in the toppling of that totalitarian state. Someone looking out for the vested interests of the United States had an incentive to foment chaos in Iran, if only to disrupt and delay the Iranian program seeking nuclear weapons. The occupant of the White House ignored Rahm Emanual’s credo of “never letting a crisis go to waste” when presented with a chance to sabotage his country’s enemies while distancing himself from any association with Islam.