Posts
Friday, May 21, 2010
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Out of Sight, Not out of Mind
A recent press release has faded too quickly from the national consciousness. Like fireworks, some news stories burst into public view then fade immediately upon the explosion of another event. In contrast to the awesome beauty of fireworks displays, this announcement deserves a glaring spotlight to expose one of the most awfully ugly aspects of Islam. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/health/policy/07cuts.html?partner=rss&emc=rss)
The American Academy of Pediatrics decided to change its previous opposition to any medically unnecessary procedure performed on the genitals of a girl. Its members indicated that the federal law barring such procedures should be modified to allow some form of restricted cutting of female genitals. Their argument supposes that families will take their girls outside of the United States in order to lacerate them if not allowed to undergo genital mutilation in the USA. Does the AAP consider the words of Mohamad (May he burn in Hell forever) in the Hadith of Umm ‘Atiyyah condoning cutting female genitalia as superseding proven gynecological evidence of the harm of female genital mutilation? Such compromise at the expense of girls’ physical and mental health reeks of acquiescence to Sharia-creep.
The line of reasoning of the proposed change in policy stands out as tragically laughable. A counter analogy that I would offer is the advice to leave the doors and windows open in one’s house for the benefit of burglars. Following the rationale of the AAP, burglars are just going to break into houses anyway. Why not make it easier for them? With this type of submission to their demands, the results would end less destructively. Sure, the appliances, jewelry and other valuables will be stolen but at least the burglars will not be prosecuted and homeowner will not incur the cost of replacing damaged doors or windows.
Any form of female genital mutilation is a totally unnecessary procedure. It not only robs the victims of sexual pleasure it also interfere with proper functioning of female excretory system. This criminal act involves intentionally damaging or amputating a healthy organ and surrounding vital tissue. One has to wonder if Islamists would endorse castration for a lustful man who refuses to control his sexual impulses. Given that Islam’s inventor felt no need to rein in his libido, why would those following his ideology have such concerns?
This inhumane butchery follows in the vein of misogyny rampant throughout Islam. The Mohamadan mentality rooted in Sharia holds a woman responsible for all perceived problems related to sexuality. If she is raped, she must prove herself innocent with the testimony of four male witnesses. The burden falls on women to wear suffocating and dehumanizing outfits in order to hide themselves from the gazes of men. Instead of teaching boys to respect women as equal members of humanity, Islamists consider women as inherently inferior. Boys are indoctrinated into viewing females as either subordinate family members or as inferior objects created for their sexual gratification. Of course, all of this negativity directed toward the feminine half of humanity originated in the mind of and out of the libido of Islam’s fabricator (May he burn in Hell forever).
This tradition of savagery occurs solely for the benefit of Mohamadans who believe that its victims will not commit fornication or adultery. Apparently these Neanderthals never considered other, non-sadistic alternatives. A few come to my mind. First of all, the marriage of pre-pubescent or teenage girls to men twice their age or older would certainly motivate a girl to rebel by seeking affection of someone else. If women are allowed to choose their own husbands, they are much less likely to try to seek extramarital relationships with men. Women’s fidelity is easier to secure if their husband respond in kind. Why should a woman feel compelled to remain monogamously loyal to her husband while he is allowed to engage in de facto debauchery under the guise of polygyny and unrestricted sexual activity with his female slaves or servants called "concubines"?
As long as men view the Koran and Islamic texts as the guide to proper treatment of women, atrocities like FGM will continue. If Mohamadan men want to dabble in some radical measures to maintain the loyalty of their wives, perhaps they might consider thinking of a wife as equal partner in a relationship, not merely as an inherently inferior outlet for their sexual urges. If Mohamadan men want to engage in some further extremism, they could include some flowers and breaks from domestic drudgery from time to time. I am sure that women would appreciate that "outside of the Koran" type of thinking.
Islamists and their useful idiots relish attempts of conflation of female genital mutilation and circumcision. No scientist would make an analogy between circumcision and FGM unless he is hopelessly blinded by devotion to every word in Islamic texts. Circumcision involves the cutting of a section of superficial skin. This procedure does not obstruct normal functioning of the incised area. For the women and uncircumcised men in my readership, I relate circumcision to the removal of an earlobe. Obviously, the ear’s appearance would be altered. Nevertheless, the functioning of the ear would not be damaged or destroyed. Normal hearing would continue despite such a superfluous procedure. The hygienic benefits resulting from circumcision have been discussed for decades and will probably be up for debate in the foreseeable future. However, clitorectomies or any cutting of female genitals provides no benefit to the victim, only pain and degradation.
A clear-thinking person must certainly wonder about the silence of feminists on this issue. The mere discussion of anything short of totally unrestricted abortion at any point of a pregnancy fully funded by taxpayers elicits shrieks of ”misogyny” from the National Organization for Women and its cohorts. Where are demonstrations in the streets demanding harsher penalties for those mutilating the genitals of girls? Why are no feminists protesting outside the offices of the Council on American-Islamic Relations and those of other Islamists clamoring for those groups to condemn publicly all forms of female genital mutilation? Does the feminists’ fear of jihadist reprisal override their often bellowed concern for women’s health and choice? Apparently, feminist allegiance to political correctness precludes any criticism that Mohamadans would label as "Islamophobic".
The AAP’s acquiescence to Islamic barbarity must never be tolerated. Georganne Chapin, executive director of an advocacy group called Intact America, rightfully illuminated the situation. She stated, “There are countries in the world that allow wife beating, slavery and child abuse, but we don’t allow people to practice those customs in this country. We don’t let people have slavery a little bit because they’re going to do it anyway, or beat their wives a little bit because they’re going to do it anyway.” It behooves us to take heed of her words to spare any more girls this cruel indignity and severely punish those who inflict such torture.
COPYRIGHT BY CHARLES KASTRIOT MAY 2010
The American Academy of Pediatrics decided to change its previous opposition to any medically unnecessary procedure performed on the genitals of a girl. Its members indicated that the federal law barring such procedures should be modified to allow some form of restricted cutting of female genitals. Their argument supposes that families will take their girls outside of the United States in order to lacerate them if not allowed to undergo genital mutilation in the USA. Does the AAP consider the words of Mohamad (May he burn in Hell forever) in the Hadith of Umm ‘Atiyyah condoning cutting female genitalia as superseding proven gynecological evidence of the harm of female genital mutilation? Such compromise at the expense of girls’ physical and mental health reeks of acquiescence to Sharia-creep.
The line of reasoning of the proposed change in policy stands out as tragically laughable. A counter analogy that I would offer is the advice to leave the doors and windows open in one’s house for the benefit of burglars. Following the rationale of the AAP, burglars are just going to break into houses anyway. Why not make it easier for them? With this type of submission to their demands, the results would end less destructively. Sure, the appliances, jewelry and other valuables will be stolen but at least the burglars will not be prosecuted and homeowner will not incur the cost of replacing damaged doors or windows.
Any form of female genital mutilation is a totally unnecessary procedure. It not only robs the victims of sexual pleasure it also interfere with proper functioning of female excretory system. This criminal act involves intentionally damaging or amputating a healthy organ and surrounding vital tissue. One has to wonder if Islamists would endorse castration for a lustful man who refuses to control his sexual impulses. Given that Islam’s inventor felt no need to rein in his libido, why would those following his ideology have such concerns?
This inhumane butchery follows in the vein of misogyny rampant throughout Islam. The Mohamadan mentality rooted in Sharia holds a woman responsible for all perceived problems related to sexuality. If she is raped, she must prove herself innocent with the testimony of four male witnesses. The burden falls on women to wear suffocating and dehumanizing outfits in order to hide themselves from the gazes of men. Instead of teaching boys to respect women as equal members of humanity, Islamists consider women as inherently inferior. Boys are indoctrinated into viewing females as either subordinate family members or as inferior objects created for their sexual gratification. Of course, all of this negativity directed toward the feminine half of humanity originated in the mind of and out of the libido of Islam’s fabricator (May he burn in Hell forever).
This tradition of savagery occurs solely for the benefit of Mohamadans who believe that its victims will not commit fornication or adultery. Apparently these Neanderthals never considered other, non-sadistic alternatives. A few come to my mind. First of all, the marriage of pre-pubescent or teenage girls to men twice their age or older would certainly motivate a girl to rebel by seeking affection of someone else. If women are allowed to choose their own husbands, they are much less likely to try to seek extramarital relationships with men. Women’s fidelity is easier to secure if their husband respond in kind. Why should a woman feel compelled to remain monogamously loyal to her husband while he is allowed to engage in de facto debauchery under the guise of polygyny and unrestricted sexual activity with his female slaves or servants called "concubines"?
As long as men view the Koran and Islamic texts as the guide to proper treatment of women, atrocities like FGM will continue. If Mohamadan men want to dabble in some radical measures to maintain the loyalty of their wives, perhaps they might consider thinking of a wife as equal partner in a relationship, not merely as an inherently inferior outlet for their sexual urges. If Mohamadan men want to engage in some further extremism, they could include some flowers and breaks from domestic drudgery from time to time. I am sure that women would appreciate that "outside of the Koran" type of thinking.
Islamists and their useful idiots relish attempts of conflation of female genital mutilation and circumcision. No scientist would make an analogy between circumcision and FGM unless he is hopelessly blinded by devotion to every word in Islamic texts. Circumcision involves the cutting of a section of superficial skin. This procedure does not obstruct normal functioning of the incised area. For the women and uncircumcised men in my readership, I relate circumcision to the removal of an earlobe. Obviously, the ear’s appearance would be altered. Nevertheless, the functioning of the ear would not be damaged or destroyed. Normal hearing would continue despite such a superfluous procedure. The hygienic benefits resulting from circumcision have been discussed for decades and will probably be up for debate in the foreseeable future. However, clitorectomies or any cutting of female genitals provides no benefit to the victim, only pain and degradation.
A clear-thinking person must certainly wonder about the silence of feminists on this issue. The mere discussion of anything short of totally unrestricted abortion at any point of a pregnancy fully funded by taxpayers elicits shrieks of ”misogyny” from the National Organization for Women and its cohorts. Where are demonstrations in the streets demanding harsher penalties for those mutilating the genitals of girls? Why are no feminists protesting outside the offices of the Council on American-Islamic Relations and those of other Islamists clamoring for those groups to condemn publicly all forms of female genital mutilation? Does the feminists’ fear of jihadist reprisal override their often bellowed concern for women’s health and choice? Apparently, feminist allegiance to political correctness precludes any criticism that Mohamadans would label as "Islamophobic".
The AAP’s acquiescence to Islamic barbarity must never be tolerated. Georganne Chapin, executive director of an advocacy group called Intact America, rightfully illuminated the situation. She stated, “There are countries in the world that allow wife beating, slavery and child abuse, but we don’t allow people to practice those customs in this country. We don’t let people have slavery a little bit because they’re going to do it anyway, or beat their wives a little bit because they’re going to do it anyway.” It behooves us to take heed of her words to spare any more girls this cruel indignity and severely punish those who inflict such torture.
COPYRIGHT BY CHARLES KASTRIOT MAY 2010
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Lesson Learned Yet?
A series of questions weighs heavily on my mind so I would like to pose them to anyone reading this article. How many more Mohamadans have to plot to kill Americans? Do they need to string together a chain of successful mass murders? Have the recent failed bombing attempts by jihadis lulled the American people into a false sense of security? How much more infrastructure must they destroy? What is necessary for both the majority of Americans and their elected leaders to remove their muzzles and admit who is the enemy and what is their objective?
The attention of the country is focused on the most recent act of jihad. We must take advantage of this spotlight to further illuminate the rancidly totalitarian core of Islam. Politicians in Washington would have a greater inclination to counteract the jihad when their constituents are clamoring for steps to halt and roll back Islamization. The notoriously ephemeral attention span of the general American public must be channeled toward anti-Islamic counteroffensive before the media steers their minds away from the imminent Islamic threat.
We must support those in political positions who are willing to enact measures curtailing Islamists' power and influence. Senator Joseph Lieberman has proposed stripping citizenship from turncoat American citizens who join terrorist organizations (http://congress.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/05/05/lieberman-seeks-to-strip-citizenship-of-americans-overseas-with-ties-to-terror-orgs). Representative Sue Myrick has composed a list of countermeasures against Islamists called the "Wake Up America Agenda" (http://www.house.gov/list/press/nc09_myrick/wakeupamerica41808.html). Such initiatives need the support of everyone opposed to Islamization of the United States. The responsibility falls on the American electorate to demand that its representatives take action.
Islamists reveal their inherently totalitarian ideology, both blatantly and subtly. Anyone willing to read Islamic texts cannot escape the unmistakeably clear nature of Islam. Consequently, Mohamadans express notions and support measures which enforce Islamic supremacy. Islam rejects the concept of a government based on the consent of the governed. Islamic rule depends on the whimsical pronouncements of a seventh century Arabian dictator. Equality of citizens under an objective legal code does not exist under Sharia. In a truly Islamic regime, women are inherently relegated to an inferior caste with non-Mohamadans relegated even lower. An absolute monarchy such as Saudi Arabia or a single party dictatorship like the one in Iran are the only options for a country adhering to Islamic governance.
Additionally, we must demand a cessation of the entry of Mohamadans into the United States for the purpose of immigration and naturalization. Their totalitarian ideology dictates that its adherents must subdue non-believers and subjugate the whole world. Section 313 in Chapter 2 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act expressly forbids citizenship for anyone espousing any totalitarian ideology. As previously detailed, Islam clearly falls within the definition of totalitarianism. Therefore, those Americans cherishing their representative democracy must demand the exclusion and expulsion of those who will undermine and destroy the republic.
COPYRIGHT MAY 2010 BY CHARLES KASTRIOT
The attention of the country is focused on the most recent act of jihad. We must take advantage of this spotlight to further illuminate the rancidly totalitarian core of Islam. Politicians in Washington would have a greater inclination to counteract the jihad when their constituents are clamoring for steps to halt and roll back Islamization. The notoriously ephemeral attention span of the general American public must be channeled toward anti-Islamic counteroffensive before the media steers their minds away from the imminent Islamic threat.
We must support those in political positions who are willing to enact measures curtailing Islamists' power and influence. Senator Joseph Lieberman has proposed stripping citizenship from turncoat American citizens who join terrorist organizations (http://congress.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/05/05/lieberman-seeks-to-strip-citizenship-of-americans-overseas-with-ties-to-terror-orgs). Representative Sue Myrick has composed a list of countermeasures against Islamists called the "Wake Up America Agenda" (http://www.house.gov/list/press/nc09_myrick/wakeupamerica41808.html). Such initiatives need the support of everyone opposed to Islamization of the United States. The responsibility falls on the American electorate to demand that its representatives take action.
Islamists reveal their inherently totalitarian ideology, both blatantly and subtly. Anyone willing to read Islamic texts cannot escape the unmistakeably clear nature of Islam. Consequently, Mohamadans express notions and support measures which enforce Islamic supremacy. Islam rejects the concept of a government based on the consent of the governed. Islamic rule depends on the whimsical pronouncements of a seventh century Arabian dictator. Equality of citizens under an objective legal code does not exist under Sharia. In a truly Islamic regime, women are inherently relegated to an inferior caste with non-Mohamadans relegated even lower. An absolute monarchy such as Saudi Arabia or a single party dictatorship like the one in Iran are the only options for a country adhering to Islamic governance.
Additionally, we must demand a cessation of the entry of Mohamadans into the United States for the purpose of immigration and naturalization. Their totalitarian ideology dictates that its adherents must subdue non-believers and subjugate the whole world. Section 313 in Chapter 2 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act expressly forbids citizenship for anyone espousing any totalitarian ideology. As previously detailed, Islam clearly falls within the definition of totalitarianism. Therefore, those Americans cherishing their representative democracy must demand the exclusion and expulsion of those who will undermine and destroy the republic.
COPYRIGHT MAY 2010 BY CHARLES KASTRIOT
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Comedy Central’s Capitulation
Last week, a prominent media organization in the United States succumbed to the inundation of Sharia-creep. Comedy Central joined the growing list of dhimmified American companies by caving into threats from jihadis who objected to any negative references to Islam or its fabricator. Not out of respect for all religions did this cable television outlet stifle images of Islam's creator. The hypocritical wimps in the upper echelon of network management censored Trey Parker and Matt Stone’s opus due to politically correct gutlessness.
Trey Parker and Matt Stone had featured Mohamad (May he burn in Hell forever) in an episode which originally was broadcast in July of 2001. Since Islamists had not yet launched the official start of the jihad in the United States, this depiction passed through Comedy Central’s self-imposed censorship. The license to impose Sharia granted to Mohamadans following the terrorist attacks of the eleventh of September 2001 trumped Parker and Stone’s inclusion of an image of Mohamad (MHBHF) in an April 2006 episode. In their recent attempt, they flirted with including an image of Mohamad (MHBHF) in the first half of the two part episode. However, Comedy Central obscured the image of the fabricator of Islam in both broadcasts, including bleeping his name in the latter.
The creators of South Park have not shied away from disparaging other religions. An episode that originally aired on the nineteenth of November in 2003 detailed the origin of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. It featured a musical recounting of Joseph Smith’s acquisition of the Book of Mormon laced with a choral voice-over of "Dumb, dumb, dumb" ; anyone who questioned Smith’s pronouncement was serenaded with a voice-over of "Smart, smart, smart". On the sixteenth of November in 2005, Comedy Central ran of an episode mocking Scientologists’ beliefs regarding the story of the origin of life on Earth in addition to labeling the Church of Scientology’s leadership as solely interesting in financially exploiting its members. A Christmas-related show broadcast in 2002 portrayed Christ as an automatic rifle-wielding avenger who shot and stabbed Iraqis who had kidnapped and tortured Santa Claus. Multiple episodes have blatantly attacked the Catholic Church including showing the College of Cardinals openly admitting to sexual activity with children. Consequently, any claims by Comedy Central about the desire to avoid insulting others’ religious beliefs stand out as disingenuously false.
Americans must question whether or not their media outlets will continue to silence any negative remarks toward or squelch any unflattering depictions of any Islamic-related issues. A dozen jihadis boasting of a supposed Mohamadan revolution cowed a popular and successful cable outlet. The thinly veiled threat of one traitorous American named Zachary Adam Chesser made an entire network cower in fear then acquiesce to the demands of these savages. No longer does public opinion need to be measured in the millions or even in tens of thousands to induce a change in subject matter. The totalitarian ultimatums of a mere handful of Mohamadans suffices to crush the freedom of speech of all Americans. Considering Comedy Central’s continuous kowtowing to jihadis’ threats and burning desire to placate Mohamadans, one should expect the executives of the network to act proactively to forestall any further alleged blasphemy. Therefore, it is a matter of time until the executives behead Parker and Stone in accordance with Sharia, just to be on the safe side.
COPYRIGHT APRIL 2010 BY CHARLES KASTRIOT
Trey Parker and Matt Stone had featured Mohamad (May he burn in Hell forever) in an episode which originally was broadcast in July of 2001. Since Islamists had not yet launched the official start of the jihad in the United States, this depiction passed through Comedy Central’s self-imposed censorship. The license to impose Sharia granted to Mohamadans following the terrorist attacks of the eleventh of September 2001 trumped Parker and Stone’s inclusion of an image of Mohamad (MHBHF) in an April 2006 episode. In their recent attempt, they flirted with including an image of Mohamad (MHBHF) in the first half of the two part episode. However, Comedy Central obscured the image of the fabricator of Islam in both broadcasts, including bleeping his name in the latter.
The creators of South Park have not shied away from disparaging other religions. An episode that originally aired on the nineteenth of November in 2003 detailed the origin of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. It featured a musical recounting of Joseph Smith’s acquisition of the Book of Mormon laced with a choral voice-over of "Dumb, dumb, dumb" ; anyone who questioned Smith’s pronouncement was serenaded with a voice-over of "Smart, smart, smart". On the sixteenth of November in 2005, Comedy Central ran of an episode mocking Scientologists’ beliefs regarding the story of the origin of life on Earth in addition to labeling the Church of Scientology’s leadership as solely interesting in financially exploiting its members. A Christmas-related show broadcast in 2002 portrayed Christ as an automatic rifle-wielding avenger who shot and stabbed Iraqis who had kidnapped and tortured Santa Claus. Multiple episodes have blatantly attacked the Catholic Church including showing the College of Cardinals openly admitting to sexual activity with children. Consequently, any claims by Comedy Central about the desire to avoid insulting others’ religious beliefs stand out as disingenuously false.
Americans must question whether or not their media outlets will continue to silence any negative remarks toward or squelch any unflattering depictions of any Islamic-related issues. A dozen jihadis boasting of a supposed Mohamadan revolution cowed a popular and successful cable outlet. The thinly veiled threat of one traitorous American named Zachary Adam Chesser made an entire network cower in fear then acquiesce to the demands of these savages. No longer does public opinion need to be measured in the millions or even in tens of thousands to induce a change in subject matter. The totalitarian ultimatums of a mere handful of Mohamadans suffices to crush the freedom of speech of all Americans. Considering Comedy Central’s continuous kowtowing to jihadis’ threats and burning desire to placate Mohamadans, one should expect the executives of the network to act proactively to forestall any further alleged blasphemy. Therefore, it is a matter of time until the executives behead Parker and Stone in accordance with Sharia, just to be on the safe side.
COPYRIGHT APRIL 2010 BY CHARLES KASTRIOT
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Did the Earth Move for You?
Hojjat ol-eslam Kazem Sediki, an Islamic prayer leader in Iran, has blamed women’s lack of hiding themselves under oppressively suffocating outfits for an increased number of earthquakes. Conveniently, he overlooked the fact that numerous bare-breasted women on many beaches throughout France have not resulted in calamitous earthquakes in the French Riviera. The resorts along Mexico’s eastern shores and in the Caribbean Sea have not been swallowed by gaping fissures in the ground due to the presence of bikini-clad women. Along the coasts of the Atlantic Ocean and of the Gulf of Mexico of the United States, scantily-clad women have never induced such seismic retribution for decades now. So why exactly are Iranian women the cause of terrestrial rumblings?
This cleric’s remarks are typical of Islamists’ knee-jerk misogyny. The exposure of women’s hair, ankles, arms or faces supposedly causes calamities. Such absurdity makes perfect sense only to buffoons who have been mind-numbed through years of Islamic indoctrination. Who has time to study geology to understand the true causes of earthquakes? These savages certainly do not since they have been pre-occupied with robotically reciting the Koran. Why study an objective science when they can parrot verses which very few of them even understand due to ignorance of the seventh century dialect of the Arabian Peninsula in which Mohamad (May he burn in Hell forever) fabricated the Koranic verses? Anyone with at least a minimal level of scientific education guffawed uproariously upon hearing Sediki’s statements.
Apparently, this numbskull never considered the possibility that his country has experienced earthquakes as punishment for its Islamic regime’s three decades of repression. Certainly a just deity would avenge the frequent stonings of women who report being raped but cannot clear the ridiculous hurdle of proof required by Sharia that four male witnesses observed the crime. Additionally, a wrathful god
would surely punish those who flog women because a few strands of hair peeked through the tents mandated as “appropriate garments” by Islamists like Sediki. Divine retribution is due to the ruling clerics for their continued repression of democracy and secularism advocates.
Such admonishments seem even more hypocritical considering the practice of “temporary marriages” sanctioned by the Islamic regime. Iranian men pay women to sign contracts of marriage which stipulate when their marriage will end and how much the women will receive as compensation. These matrimonial farces often last for just a few days, frequently for a mere hour or two. This institution is de facto prostitution promoted for unmarried young males, especially among those studying to become Islamic clerics in the city of Kom. These arrangements including written documents between the johns and the whores only give a phony veneer of legitimacy in the eyes of the Islamists but not to any clear-thinking person.
Sediki’s ranting has further illuminated the dangerous insanity of the Islamic regime. With such ignorant leaders in charge of this totalitarian regime, how can anyone in the Free World not shudder at the thought of these barbarians safely handling radioactive materials for use in a nuclear power program? Of course, anyone subscribing to the Iranian disinformation about wanting a nuclear power program for peaceful civilian use certainly lacks the wisdom to see through the Iranians’ lies anyway.
COPYRIGHT APRIL 2010 BY CHARLES KASTRIOT
This cleric’s remarks are typical of Islamists’ knee-jerk misogyny. The exposure of women’s hair, ankles, arms or faces supposedly causes calamities. Such absurdity makes perfect sense only to buffoons who have been mind-numbed through years of Islamic indoctrination. Who has time to study geology to understand the true causes of earthquakes? These savages certainly do not since they have been pre-occupied with robotically reciting the Koran. Why study an objective science when they can parrot verses which very few of them even understand due to ignorance of the seventh century dialect of the Arabian Peninsula in which Mohamad (May he burn in Hell forever) fabricated the Koranic verses? Anyone with at least a minimal level of scientific education guffawed uproariously upon hearing Sediki’s statements.
Apparently, this numbskull never considered the possibility that his country has experienced earthquakes as punishment for its Islamic regime’s three decades of repression. Certainly a just deity would avenge the frequent stonings of women who report being raped but cannot clear the ridiculous hurdle of proof required by Sharia that four male witnesses observed the crime. Additionally, a wrathful god
would surely punish those who flog women because a few strands of hair peeked through the tents mandated as “appropriate garments” by Islamists like Sediki. Divine retribution is due to the ruling clerics for their continued repression of democracy and secularism advocates.
Such admonishments seem even more hypocritical considering the practice of “temporary marriages” sanctioned by the Islamic regime. Iranian men pay women to sign contracts of marriage which stipulate when their marriage will end and how much the women will receive as compensation. These matrimonial farces often last for just a few days, frequently for a mere hour or two. This institution is de facto prostitution promoted for unmarried young males, especially among those studying to become Islamic clerics in the city of Kom. These arrangements including written documents between the johns and the whores only give a phony veneer of legitimacy in the eyes of the Islamists but not to any clear-thinking person.
Sediki’s ranting has further illuminated the dangerous insanity of the Islamic regime. With such ignorant leaders in charge of this totalitarian regime, how can anyone in the Free World not shudder at the thought of these barbarians safely handling radioactive materials for use in a nuclear power program? Of course, anyone subscribing to the Iranian disinformation about wanting a nuclear power program for peaceful civilian use certainly lacks the wisdom to see through the Iranians’ lies anyway.
COPYRIGHT APRIL 2010 BY CHARLES KASTRIOT
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Jihad Jane and the Victims of the Danish Cartoon
Once again, the nefarious schemes of the barbarians within the gates of the Free World have been exposed. The latest revelation of Colleen LaRose, a Western-born and raised Caucasian American woman participating in jihad against the United States should finally shatter the endlessly spouted deception from Islamists and their useful idiots. One must wonder if the wall of political correctness protecting the public perception of Islam will crumble due to this latest blow of truth.
Any measures taken against Mohamadans and any responses to the Islamic threat automatically receive the label "racist". Arab jihadis such as Nidal Malik Hassan is and the nineteen hijackers of the eleventh of September were also Caucasian. The majority of Americans are Caucasian just as the Arab jihadis are.
What is the basis for Islamists' screeches of "racism" every time a Mohamadan is frisked at an airport boarding area or Islamic organization is investigated by the media or law enforcement? Actually, the only basis is knowledge of the obsession of the vast majority of Americans with avoiding the mere accusation of racism against themselves. The Islamists' ubiquitous hurling of the "r-word" against the obstacles in their path to Islamization has served as a permanent "get out of trouble free" card. Their cynical ignoring of facts which undercut the potency of their favorite tactic demonstrates one of their principles: the ends (Islamization) justifies the means (takkiya).
Jihad Jane continues a growing line of American jihadis such as John Allen Mohammed, John Walker Lindh, Adam Gadahn, and Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad. This blond, blue-eyed woman could have served as a model for Nazi propaganda. Instead she chose to adhere to Islam, another form of totalitarianism but no less brutally hostile to representative democracy and the freedoms which it entails and she exploits. Unfortunately, the altruism of a Pennsylvania police officer prevented this most recent traitor from committing suicide in 2005.
Jihad Jane expressed her desperation to do something to ease the suffering of Mohamadans. What exactly is this supposed suffering and what was her plan to help end it? Colleen LaRose and her fellow Mohamadans object to a cartoon drawn by Lars Vilks. Their solution to art which they dislike is to kill of the artist. Mohamadans are practicing the solution to opposition instituted by their namesake whenever he learned of any poetry mocking his supposed prophetic status. Whenever Islamists and their useful idiots spout Islamic propaganda about the alleged compatibility of Islam within a representative democracy, clear-thinking people must keep this plot in mind. This conspiracy to murder belies how freedoms of speech and of expression are obliterated when Islamic principles are imposed. Just as any aspersion on Adolf Hitler in Nazi-dominated territory or objections to Karl Marx in communist regimes inevitably led to death sentences, the adherents of Islam will violently extinguish any source of criticism of the creator of their ideology.
Lost among the details of this manifestation of Islam in action has been the public defamation of an entire group of beings. Lars Vilks' drawing in question portrayed the head of the inventor of Islam on the body of a dog. The canine community did nothing to deserve this slander of guilt by association. Mohamad (May he burn in Hell forever) frequently revealed his cynophobia in various Islamic texts. Mohamadans express hostility toward dogs; one could logically assume that the antipathy is mutual. Considering that no dog has admitted to having sexual relations with a nine year old girl nor robbed anyone opposed to their absolute dictatorship nor ordered the assassination of political opponents, this writer maintains that dogs, not Mohamadans, deserve the apology from Lars Vilks for his cartoon.
COPYRIGHT BY CHARLES KASTRIOT MARCH 2010
Any measures taken against Mohamadans and any responses to the Islamic threat automatically receive the label "racist". Arab jihadis such as Nidal Malik Hassan is and the nineteen hijackers of the eleventh of September were also Caucasian. The majority of Americans are Caucasian just as the Arab jihadis are.
What is the basis for Islamists' screeches of "racism" every time a Mohamadan is frisked at an airport boarding area or Islamic organization is investigated by the media or law enforcement? Actually, the only basis is knowledge of the obsession of the vast majority of Americans with avoiding the mere accusation of racism against themselves. The Islamists' ubiquitous hurling of the "r-word" against the obstacles in their path to Islamization has served as a permanent "get out of trouble free" card. Their cynical ignoring of facts which undercut the potency of their favorite tactic demonstrates one of their principles: the ends (Islamization) justifies the means (takkiya).
Jihad Jane continues a growing line of American jihadis such as John Allen Mohammed, John Walker Lindh, Adam Gadahn, and Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad. This blond, blue-eyed woman could have served as a model for Nazi propaganda. Instead she chose to adhere to Islam, another form of totalitarianism but no less brutally hostile to representative democracy and the freedoms which it entails and she exploits. Unfortunately, the altruism of a Pennsylvania police officer prevented this most recent traitor from committing suicide in 2005.
Jihad Jane expressed her desperation to do something to ease the suffering of Mohamadans. What exactly is this supposed suffering and what was her plan to help end it? Colleen LaRose and her fellow Mohamadans object to a cartoon drawn by Lars Vilks. Their solution to art which they dislike is to kill of the artist. Mohamadans are practicing the solution to opposition instituted by their namesake whenever he learned of any poetry mocking his supposed prophetic status. Whenever Islamists and their useful idiots spout Islamic propaganda about the alleged compatibility of Islam within a representative democracy, clear-thinking people must keep this plot in mind. This conspiracy to murder belies how freedoms of speech and of expression are obliterated when Islamic principles are imposed. Just as any aspersion on Adolf Hitler in Nazi-dominated territory or objections to Karl Marx in communist regimes inevitably led to death sentences, the adherents of Islam will violently extinguish any source of criticism of the creator of their ideology.
Lost among the details of this manifestation of Islam in action has been the public defamation of an entire group of beings. Lars Vilks' drawing in question portrayed the head of the inventor of Islam on the body of a dog. The canine community did nothing to deserve this slander of guilt by association. Mohamad (May he burn in Hell forever) frequently revealed his cynophobia in various Islamic texts. Mohamadans express hostility toward dogs; one could logically assume that the antipathy is mutual. Considering that no dog has admitted to having sexual relations with a nine year old girl nor robbed anyone opposed to their absolute dictatorship nor ordered the assassination of political opponents, this writer maintains that dogs, not Mohamadans, deserve the apology from Lars Vilks for his cartoon.
COPYRIGHT BY CHARLES KASTRIOT MARCH 2010
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
More Bleeting from a Mohamadan Sheep
One of the Mohamadan sheeple who has contacted me to spew Islamic disinformation resented my postings of her inanity. The following is her most recent messages with my responses. I have not altered anything that she or I initially wrote.
Fatima Shirazi March 1 at 10:17pm
"I was looking for a article I wrote on the internet, and I found your website..and you posted our entire conversation. Seriously? Its not okay to call muslims Mohamadan Sheeps. wow.....I did not want even to finish our conversation the first time around because I realized you have no thorough understanding of what Islam really represents, you just pick random schools of thought and lump Islam into one category. Open your eyes, there are more then one school of thought for Islam and there are more deep rooted meanings and reasons then you could ever understand. Enjoy your Islam hating."
Charles Kastriot March 1 at 11:08pm
"Only two 'schools' of Islam exist: yours, which obfuscates the plethora of evils (totalitarianism, misogyny, pedophilia, thievery and so forth) and the other school which openly admits and embraces these evils. There is nothing deeper to Islam than the libido and whims of its fabricator, Mohamad (May he burn Hell forever). Enjoy being beaten for not hiding yourself under a drape in your posted photograph. Hopefully, your batterer will beat some wisdom and enlightenment into your brain."
Fatima Shirazi March 1 at 11:50pm
"Be careful every time you turn your ignition key.
May Allah bless you and forgive you."
Charles Kastriot March 2 at 1:07am
"What a typical Mohamadan response. Of course, savages such as yourself would never dare to try to harm me face-to-face. Your ilk prefer cowardly attacks like car bombings which you referenced in addition to hijacking planes then crashing them into buildings. May you burn in Hell forever alongside the criminal who created your totalitarian ideology."
Unfortunately for the Free World, this barbarian resides within the realm of civilization. We should be concerned about what type of terrorism with which this Fifth Columnist is involved. Hopefully, civilized people will keep a watchful eye on this enemy and remove her from their soil.
Fatima Shirazi March 1 at 10:17pm
"I was looking for a article I wrote on the internet, and I found your website..and you posted our entire conversation. Seriously? Its not okay to call muslims Mohamadan Sheeps. wow.....I did not want even to finish our conversation the first time around because I realized you have no thorough understanding of what Islam really represents, you just pick random schools of thought and lump Islam into one category. Open your eyes, there are more then one school of thought for Islam and there are more deep rooted meanings and reasons then you could ever understand. Enjoy your Islam hating."
Charles Kastriot March 1 at 11:08pm
"Only two 'schools' of Islam exist: yours, which obfuscates the plethora of evils (totalitarianism, misogyny, pedophilia, thievery and so forth) and the other school which openly admits and embraces these evils. There is nothing deeper to Islam than the libido and whims of its fabricator, Mohamad (May he burn Hell forever). Enjoy being beaten for not hiding yourself under a drape in your posted photograph. Hopefully, your batterer will beat some wisdom and enlightenment into your brain."
Fatima Shirazi March 1 at 11:50pm
"Be careful every time you turn your ignition key.
May Allah bless you and forgive you."
Charles Kastriot March 2 at 1:07am
"What a typical Mohamadan response. Of course, savages such as yourself would never dare to try to harm me face-to-face. Your ilk prefer cowardly attacks like car bombings which you referenced in addition to hijacking planes then crashing them into buildings. May you burn in Hell forever alongside the criminal who created your totalitarian ideology."
Unfortunately for the Free World, this barbarian resides within the realm of civilization. We should be concerned about what type of terrorism with which this Fifth Columnist is involved. Hopefully, civilized people will keep a watchful eye on this enemy and remove her from their soil.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)