The Pink Camel in the Room

In the wake of the Obama administration shutting down multiple American embassies, the reasons behind the closures remain obscured. Vague references and unconfirmed reports of impending threats float on the airwaves and on the Internet. People with a tenuous grasp on international affairs in the past few decades find such actions inexplicable and confusing. Those who view such events through the prism of political correctness will not allow themselves to admit what is occurring and why. Those who have been paying close attention as well as delving into the heart of the problem do understand.

How ignorant or delusional must someone be in order to be unable to see the obvious cause of the embassy closures? One only need glance at most types of calendars or at any source of news. Ramabomb, the annual bloodbath used by Mohamadans as justification for violence against infidels, ended this week. As per Islamic tradition, the first several days and the closing days of this period include numerous incidents of jihad. Such acts of mayhem include attacking churches, synagogues and other locations not frequented by Mohamadans. Additionally, non-Mohamadans experience an upsurge in threats from and assaults by jihadis against them. Does anyone truly believe that the closures occurred in countries throughout the Islamic bloc and in a few others close to jihadist hotspots by mere coincidence?

No one should expect Barack Obama or anyone else in his service to hint at any correlation between the fear of imminent attacks and the end of Ramabomb. Every one of Obama’s secretaries and other appointed officials, both former and current, has refused to utter accurate terms such as “jihadi” “Islamist”, “Moslem” or any others acknowledging the direct connection between numerous recent acts of terrorism and Islam.  Janet Napolitano, the Secretary of Homeland Security, has refused to say the word “terrorism”. (Instead, she spouts a long-winded and deliberately obfuscatory euphemism reeking of politically correctness: “made-made disasters”.)  Nidal Malik Hasan’s waging of jihad received the label of “work-place violence” by the federal government.  (Hasan’s mass murder is classified as though his rampage consisted of a mere scuffle between employees bickering over petty office politics or someone’s lunch missing from the refrigerator.) Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton dismissed questions regarding the motivation and identities of the jihadis who stormed the American consulate in Benghazi with the flippant response, “What difference does it make?” Obama and his underlings refuse to follow a mandatory step when engaged in a war: identify the enemy.

President Obama and his Islamic-coddling crew’s have determined to claim credit for a lack of any jihadist attack on American soil during his tenure. That blew up in their faces (figuratively) and in the faces of multiples Americans (literally) at the Boston Marathon Massacre earlier this year. Failed attempts at jihad also happened on a flight into Detroit on Christmas of 2009 and at a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Oregon in the following November. Are Americans expected to believe that the death of Osama bin Laden ended all jihadist attacks on the United States? Does Obama’s cult of personality think that his perceived messianic aura has shielded the United States from another incident of jihadis murdering thousands of Americans on par with that of the eleventh of September 2001?

So where are the love and peace from Mohamadans toward Americans expected by Obamaniacs following the election of a man raised as a Mohamadan? Islamists protesting across the world demonstrate as much animosity toward Barrack Obama as they express toward any other American. Will anyone in the media point out one glaring reason for Islamists’ contempt for Obama: his admitted apostasy from Islam? More importantly, will anyone in the Obama administration ever admit that Islam serves as the motivation of those determined to kill Americans and destroy the Free World?

COPYRIGHT BY CHARLES KASTRIOT AUGUST 2013

Barbarians Inside the Gates

Useful idiots for Islam and other clueless types are scratching their heads in bewilderment at Chechen jihadis detonating bombs to kill American civilians. They ignorantly or willfully focus on their nationality and their youth instead of their ideology. Chechens have no more reason for hostility toward the United States than they do against Switzerland. Americans played no role in the Chechen war against Russia. In truth, the Tsarnaev Brothers plotted and carried out their murderous plot due to Islam.

In the past, apologists for Islam deflected the focus on the Islamic basis of terrorist acts such as the bombing of the World Trade Center during the 1990s and the destruction of it in 2001. Those unwilling to admit the Islamic motivation for such acts of war portrayed them as actions of foreigners against the United States. However, during the years since 2001, Mohamadans, those who naturalized as American citizen, those born in the United States and those who merely entered the country, have launched deadly attacks. No longer are jihadis a problem from outside of the borders. Instead, jihadis spring up from the hostile horde, which has already infiltrated the country.

The following are some examples of Mohamadans who had been allowed to reside in the United States or been granted American citizenship before engaging in acts of jihad within the United States:

-25 January 1993, Mir Aimal Kasi, a Pakistani who entered the country with forged documents and bought a fake green card during his mid-twenties, fatally shot two employees of the CIA and injured three others.

-26 February, 1993, Ramzi Yousef who had claimed political asylum in order to be admitted into the United States, detonated a bomb inside the World Trade Center in New York, killing six people and injuring more than one thousand others. 

-23 February, 1997, Ali Abu Kamal, a Philistine immigrant, ascended the Empire State Building then shot one visitor and wounded six others.

-4 July 2002, Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, a green-card-holder from Egypt, shot to death two employees at Los Angeles International Airport.

- 6 March, 2006, Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, who emigrated from Iran at the age of two, deliberately plowed his vehicle into a crowd at the University of North Carolina. He injured nine students.

- 12 February, 2007, Sulejman Talović, a Bosnian who arrived in the United States in 1998 and received permanent resident status seven years later, fatally shot five shoppers in a mall and injured four others.

- 1 May, 2010, Faisal Shahzad, who gained citizenship by marrying an American woman, attempted to use a car bomb to murder civilians in Times Square.

In all of these crimes, the jihadis justified their violence based on Islam. Some of them mentioned their sympathy for Philistines in mimicking Hezbollah’s, Hamas’ and other terrorist attacks on civilians. Many of these jihadis spouted Koranic exhortations toward hatred for Jews and Christians as their motivation. More recent jihadist attacks blamed American responses to previous terrorist attacks as the reason for further killing of American civilians.

These references do not include the jihadis spawned by Mohamdan infiltrators who later committed acts of jihad such as Nidal Malik Hasan or attempted to do so such as Naser Abdo. Neither do these include American born converts to Islam such as Michael Julius Ford, Hasan Karim Akbar and John Allen Muhammad who murdered fellow Americans to avenge perceived hostility to Islam. Nor do these include the numerous citizens of the United States, by birth or by naturalization, who have provided financing and other support for jihadist operations. Those include the Holy Land Foundation, the Global Relief Fund and the Benevolence International Foundation. Also not included are jihadis who entered into the United States on temporary visas in order to wage jihad such as the nineteen hijackers on 11 September 2001.

The solution to the influx of savages spouting an ideology hostile to the freedom and safety of all Americans is simple: ban any entry by Mohamadans into the United States. The basis for this move already exists in the Immigration and Naturalization Act. Those advocating any totalitarian ideology are ineligible for American citizenship as stated under Title III, Chapter 1, Act 313. Act 316 requires a favorable disposition by aliens toward the United States; obviously, those sympathizing with jihadis following the violent examples of the creator of Islam do not qualify. The act also bars those ineligible for citizenship from receiving resident status. Finally, since Islamists claim that the United States is at war with Islam, it is suicidally foolish to allow those adhering to Islam to enter into the country. Did the American authorities allow Nazis to immigrate or just visit the country while at war with their country?

This overdue defensive measure would end the invasion of savages who are too arrogant to work for “infidels” and too lazy to find any legal employment to support themselves. It is no coincidence that Tamerlan Tsarnaev was leeching off working Americans by means of welfare checks. Large numbers of other Mohamadans expect the people whom they despise to support them financially. Such expectation differs little from the jizya, protection money, which Jews and Christians had to pay their Mohamadan conquers for centuries to avoid being murdered or enslaved. Islamic scriptures give its adherents a sense of entitlement to the earnings of those not members of their totalitarian cult. The longer the gates remain open to infiltration by Islamic barbarians, the more will enter, resulting in more murder and mayhem directed against Americans.

COPYRIGHT BY CHARLES KASTRIOT APRIL 2013

Benghazi Does Make a Difference, Hillary

During Hillary Clinton’s much delayed appearance before a Congressional committee to answer questions about the jihadist attacks on the eleventh of September last year, she snapped, "Four Americans are dead. What difference does it make?"

Such a callous disregard for the search for the truth reveals Hillary Clinton’s desire to hide any incriminating evidence, which might sink her presidential aspirations in the coming years. Despite the fact that a suspect had no role in killing anyone, it is still a crime for him/her to hide evidence or otherwise obstruct the pursuit of justice. People involved with covering up homicides can and should face punishment for their complicity in concealing those crimes. Did Hillary Clinton not learn this at Yale Law School? Perhaps she believes that she holds an exception to laws concerning obstruction of justice just as her husband claimed the privilege to commit perjury.

Hillary, how about the need to root out nincompoops in the Department of State who deny the Islamic basis for terrorist attacks Americans? The appointment of a “Special Representative to Muslim Communities” indicates the pre-occupation with “outreach” to those who loathe American freedoms.  The coddling of Mohamadans with the “2012 hours Against Hate” campaign blinds them to the blatantly hateful and violent basis of Islam. Evidently, they cannot bother to read or listen to the invective, all of which is rooted in the Koran and other Islamic scriptures, spewed by Islamists at American society. Slavish adherence to multiculturalism will never overcome the reality of Islamic malignancy.

When the usefully idiotic bureaucrats rarely do acknowledge any connection between violence by Mohamadans committed against Americans, the blame falls on the Americans. An example of this “blame the victim” mentality occurred when the Egyptian-born Christian man who created a video critical of Mohamad, the inventor of Islam, faced condemnation for the coordinated assaults on American diplomatic personnel and installations on the anniversary of the jihadist attacks of the eleventh of September. After those acts of jihad, the dhimmis in the State Department spent 70,000 dollars on television commercials apologizing to Mohamadans whose turbans or burkas were in a bunch over someone criticizing the criminal who fabricated their totalitarian ideology. The State Department did disavow such linkage a month later yet the slander had already smeared this man for simply expressing his opinions. The incident also painted Americans as sniveling cowards who kowtow to savages’ demands to never have their beliefs questioned.

For Hillary to question the need for an inquiry demonstrates her incompetence. The impotent response to the attacks on an American consulate and an American embassy serves as glaring examples of Obama’s administration. Those murders of an ambassador and three others in the consulate and ransacking of diplomatic facilities qualify as acts of war by jihadis, both under international law and in common sense. In response, not one of those jihadis has been killed or captured by American forces. No one should expect anything else from members of an administration spouting Orwellian euphemisms such as “man-made disasters” instead of calling acts of jihad what they are: terrorism.

Underscoring the appalling ineptitude is the sale of F-16s to a regime run by Islamists. The Mooslum Brotherhood seized power in Egypt last year. Its members have dedicated their lives to imposing their totalitarian ideology on the entire world. Their leader, Mohamad Morsi, has already issued emergency decrees, which have granted him extraordinary levels of control, a favorite tactic of dictators in the past and in the present. Supplying those barbarians with such weaponry reeks of foolishness on par with the owner of a firearms store handing a loaded high-powered rifle to a known criminal with a long history of armed robberies.

Fortunately for American interests, Hillary Clinton will resign from her post this week. Sadly for cause of justice, she will not face any punishment for her negligence. That duty will fall to the voters in the United States should she dare to seek the presidency again. She clearly lacks the competence and courage for that solemn responsibility.

COPYRIGHT BY CHARLES KASTRIOT JANUARY 2013

Call for Vengeance

The most recent acts of jihad against the United States should obliterate any lingering reluctance to admit the Islamic war against the United States of America. Double-talking Mohamadans and traitorous apologists for Islam inside American borders have spent the past eleven years since the jihadist attacks on the eleventh of September of 2001 obfuscating and lying about the inherent malignancy of Islam and its enmity toward the Free World, especially its most powerful member. Outrageously, far too many Americans have fallen for the barrage of Islamic propaganda. Sadly, more have forgotten about the day when jihadis murdered thousands of their countrymen and women plus all the jihadist atrocities committed since that day. 

The useful idiots in the American media have been attempting to blame the outburst of jihad due to a film critical of Islam. The Mohamadan-coddling talking heads have elevated this totalitarian ideology and the criminal who created above any criticism or skepticism. Even if the savages who attacked the American diplomatic outposts did so due to their hypersensitivity to any exposure of the ugly truth of Islam and its fabricator, that holds zero relevancy. If feeling insulted by a work of art, no matter the medium or level of artistry, gives license to murder, rape and destroy, then Americans have more than sufficient cause for storming embassies of Islamic countries, killing their staffs, ripping down their flags and replacing them with banners displaying slogans of freedom.

The American people must demand immediate reactions by their government. All aid to Islamic regimes must end now. Money sent to the countries that harbor and support jihadis only provides succor to those who seek our capitulation and destruction. All embassies and consulates must be rendered as secure as fortresses. Sizeable detachments of Marines or others armed and trained in security have to be assigned to every facility. These detachments must be armed to the teeth with standing orders to kill any barbarians attempting to enter the compounds. Failing those security measures, then the outposts must be closed. For the American government to maintain diplomatic installations in hostile countries without the utmost of security reeks of suicidal naïveté at a minimum. Actually, refusal to harden embassies and consulates hints at complicity with Islamists’ wishes for easy targets representing the United States at which they can vent their never-ending rage.

For the long term, the United States must gird itself for a new Cold War. Islamists repeatedly reveal their malevolent intentions toward us, both in hostile speeches and criminal actions. The American people must recognize both those inside the Islamic bloc and those who have infiltrated our country from that entity as our enemies. All American businesses must be withdrawn from these cesspools. A ban on American-based airlines flying into those hostile states and any flights arriving from the same must be implemented. Any imports from the Islamic bloc must be forbidden, as should be any American exports to that group of oppressive regimes. In short, any economic interaction with Mohamadans will benefit the enemies of the United States to the detriment of Americans and their allies.

Individuals in the United States and the rest of the Free World can also take proactive economic measures against those who wish to destroy their societies. As the criminal conviction of the Holy Land Foundation demonstrated, Mohamadans within our borders send funds to support terrorists through mosks and other fronts for Islamic domination. Considering the common practice of Mohamadans in the Free World to donate their money in support of jihadis, a boycott of all Mohamadan-owned businesses must begin. The purchase of goods or services from Mohamadans underwrites future acts of violence directed at civilized people. Additionally, employers must not hire Mohamadans, thus providing them with income, which they can funnel to jihadis. Only a total cessation of financial transactions with Mohamadans can stanch the lifeblood, which nourishes the cancer known as Islam and its malignant tumors known as jihadis.

The term “Sharia-creep” describes the various means by which Islamists stealthily infect unwitting minds in the Free World. Therefore, we must confront the useful idiots who try to legitimize Islamization. These include agricultural companies placating Mohamadans by conforming to halal standards of brutally torturing animals. Additionally, civilized people must withdraw all funds and investments in financial institutions that offer interest-free loans to Mohamadans. Also, any businesses that cave into demands of Mohamadan employees should also be boycotted.  Some examples of such cowardice include the wearing of Islamic misogynistic items such as head-rags or shrouds as well as time away from work for bowing down to the rock in Mecca. Any enterprises that kowtow to Mohamadans must face retaliation for their abetting of the scourge of our society.

Civilized people can help wage the war of ideas against Islam. Parents must stand up to schools’ white-washing of Islam’s legacy of oppression and violence in classes and in textbooks. All Americans must challenge the Mohamadan-coddlers in the media when their reports obfuscate or deny the Islamic basis for acts of terrorism and criminality. Any attempt to construct or convert an existing building into a mosk, madrassa or any other structure for the propagation of Islam must be prevented. Such buildings act as indoctrination centers of impressionable youth and gullible converts to groom future Islamists and raise support for the imposition of Islam.

Finally, we in the Free World must change our collective mindset. Far too many have hesitated to acknowledge openly that Islamists have declared war on us. Refusal to identify with complete honesty the ideology of the enemy has hampered our effort. The knee-jerk additions of the term “radical” to Islamists who are clearly adhering to Islamic scriptures give credence to Islamic disinformation that Islam is peaceful, righteous and misunderstood. Those who follow the dictates and examples of Mohamad (May he burn in Hell forever), the inventor of Islam, are not “radical”, at least not in their practice of Islam. Those savages emulate the words and deeds of the criminal who started their cult. Did anyone refer to those killing Americans during the Second World War as “radical Nazis” as though some “moderate Nazis” existed and meant no harm to Americans? Devotees to totalitarian ideologies such as Nazism and Islam pattern themselves on the evil examples set forth by the malevolent originators.  Regardless of naïve outsiders unwilling to believe that anyone would imitate the crimes and psychoses of either Hitler or Mohamad (MHBHF), the reality is that an alarming number of sheeple have done so and continue to do so. The sooner that residents in the Free World admit those facts, the quicker effective counter-offensives can begin in earnest.

Equally, civilized people are generally too impatient to commit to vanquishing the latest manifestation of totalitarianism to threaten our society. This struggle will endure far longer than did the Second World War and likely longer than the Cold War. Islamists have infiltrated our borders by the millions in addition to co-opting the minds of hundreds of millions of brainwashed members of their cult, if not more. Victory of civilization over this barbarism requires more than simply killing jihadis or destroying their infrastructure. The ultimate defeat of Islam will occur when its poisonous ideals have been rejected around the world then this totalitarian plague ends up on the trash heap of history.

COPYRIGHT BY CHARLES KASTRIOT SEPTEMBER 2012

Arab Spring Will Trigger Ramabomb Explosions

-->

With the start of Ramabomb, the Free World should increase its security measures in light of Mohamadans’ habit of escalating their usual level of violence to higher frequencies with more deadly consequences. The jihadist bombing of a bus of Israeli tourists in Bulgaria last week foreshadows the renewed tradition of savagery during the month considered sacred on the Islamic calendar. While bracing themselves for the inevitable jihadist attacks, civilized people should also take stock of events since Ramabomb ended last year.

Outbreaks of jihadist insurgencies have led to the fall of a handful of oppressive though not explicitly theocratic regimes within the Islamic bloc. In Tunisia, Yemen, Egypt & Libya, autocratic governments have collapsed in the face of an Islamic tsunami. Future waves of this storm threaten to devastate Syria, Irak, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia and Algeria. 

The authoritarian yet not overtly Islamic regimes have given way to power grabs by Islamists. The most populous nation in the Middle East, Egypt, has succumbed to the Moslem Brotherhood. The appearance of a fully enshrouded wife of the newly elected president serves as a harbinger of further oppression of the perennial targets of Islamists: women and non-Mohamadans. Jihadis have ramped up attacks on churches and the Christians inside them since the collapse of Mubarak’s government.

The Free World has no reason to favor blindly the widespread discontent leading to toppling of governments throughout the Middle East. The unrest in Iran appeared on its face as opposition to the Islamic oligarchy. However, the demonstrators were not demanding freedom from the foreign ideology imposed on their ancestors by Arab armies centuries ago. The crowds did not storm and destroy mosks, madrassas or other edifices of Islam as Islamists did to symbols of Persian civilization and modernity in general erected during the Shah’s reign. They merely demanded the ouster of the current occupants in the seats of power.  Calls for a less brutal dictator in Iran do not equate to desire for liberty. 

If someone needs a concrete example of how a country can devolve to a full- fledged totalitarian state with Islam as its sole basis for power, a look at Iran over the course of the past 35 yrs is required. Iran, like Egypt, is a highly populated and predominantly Islamic nation. However, a significant presence of other ideologies has existed in these two places. Both were headed by an autocratic who was outwardly friendly toward the Free World. Sadly, in the cases of these two significant members of the Islamic bloc, the United States’ governmental policy turned against its erstwhile allies against Islamists in favor of rebels who soon displayed their Islamist loyalties. 

Some glimmers of hope have occurred despite rising tide of Islamization. The secession of South Sudan struck a blow for freedom against the cesspool of merciless jihadis ruling the northern portion of Sudan.  The National Forces Alliance, a political party seemingly non-Islamist, won a plurality of parliamentary seats. The NFA grabbed more than twice as many seats in elections this month than did the Moslem Brotherhood’s party and another Islamist group in the forefront of toppling Kadaffy’s regime. Moncef Marzouki, the newly elected president of Tunisia, has openly pushed for a secular republic without a constitution not based on Sharia. In Algeria, the National Liberation Front, a mostly non-Islamist party comprised of supporters of the military-run regime, secured nearly a majority of seats in parliamentary elections in May. 

Unfortunately, even apparent victories against the further encroachment of Islam seem tenuous or fleeting. The fragile South Sudanese government will not be able to hold off continued attacks by jihadis without significant aid, military and humanitarian, from the Free World. Also, the National Forces Alliance in Libya, despite the reputation as an alternative to Islamic parties, has stated its desire for Sharia to serve as the basis of the country’s laws. Marzouki’s hopes for a secular republic depend on the sizeable group of Tunisian Islamists’ refraining from seizing power then imposing a theocracy when future elections go against their wishes. Algerian elections have had weak turnouts so the results provide little legitimacy for the non-theocratic government among the populace. Throughout history, Islamists have not graciously accepted others’ refusal to submit to their totalitarian ideology and cede power to those rejecting Islamic supremacy. No one should remain under any delusions that any country within the Islamic bloc will transition smoothly or rapidly into a republic dedicated to economic and social freedoms. 

COPYRIGHT BY CHARLES KASTRIOT JULY 2012

More Than Words Needed

This week, two media reports grabbed my attention. On Monday, Dennis Prager’s mentioning on his radio show of the bombing of a church in Khartoum reminded me of the ongoing jihad by the Sudanese Islamists against non-Mohamadans within their borders. This Islamic aggression also continues against those in the newly created refuge called South Sudan. As I searched for more details, I recalled other such efforts to eradicate any Christians in Irak, Pakistan, Egypt and other places within the Islamic bloc during the most recent years.


The previous day, 60 Minutes whitewashed the on-going jihad against Christians in the territories of Samaria and Judea. This farcical piece of video insinuated that Israeli security measures are causing the diminution of the Christian population in Nazareth, in Bethlehem and in other noteworthy towns. However, the reporter, Bob Simon, mentioned the increase in the Mohamadan population in those same locations. Either by cerebral failure or willful negligence, this report omitted any reference to the frequent vandalism and assaults committed by Mohamadans against Christian targets under the jurisdiction of the Philistine Authority, not areas controlled by the Israelis. Therefore, the possibility that Arab Christians are fleeing persecution by Islamists was never considered or investigated.

Christians have suffered as jihadis have swarmed to Irak and Afghanistan to fight against the armed forces of civilized countries. The toppling of autocratic but not strictly Islamic regimes in Tunisia, Irak and Egypt have created opportunities for Islamic factions to implement persecution of Christians along with other elements of Sharia. Instead of American and other coalition members stopping jihadis from attacking Christians and others resisting Sharia-creep, these forces stand by while supposedly friendly new governments oppress those minorities or least turn a blind eye toward the burning of churches, binges of rape of Christian girls and other atrocities committed by mobs of Mohamadans.
As little as the deployment of armed forces of the Free World have done to protect Christian minorities, their presence may be forestalling more ghastly fates. Once those military operations end, the jihadis will be able to steer all of their efforts toward the extermination of Christians. It seems that nothing will stop their mission to eradicate non-Mohamadans just as previous totalitarians did to the Jews within the Islamic bloc starting in the 1940s.

Far too often the responses of Christians consists of hand wringing and calls for prayer. Of what value are those to people being robbed, raped or murdered with survivors fleeing for their lives? Frankly, those are excuses for non-involvement to assuage the sense of guilt of those living comfortably in the Civilized World. They involve no risk nor demand any exertion. Islamic persecution requires a potent antidote for it eradication.
Granted, a small number of Christians such as Voice of the Martyrs, Barnaba’s Fund and Samaritan’s Purse have ventured into enemy territory to provide food, shelter and other sustenance to refugees. However, they reacted to victimization that should never have been allowed to occur. If Christians were not defenseless and passive in the face of armed and ruthless jihadis, the need for restorative aid would be diminished. Generosity to help rebuild churches and schools destroyed by jihadis is wasted if no measures to prevent future attacks are taken.

Those within the Free World may be tempted to rely on their governments to halt the oppression of Christians and others with the Islamic bloc. An example of this hope lies in the Truman Doctrine, which provided American aid to people resisting Marxist subjugation. Later, the Reagan Doctrine mandated assistance to those already under Marxist oppression seeking to topple their subjugators. The same level of commitment should be applied to combat another manifestation of totalitarianism. Unfortunately, very few politicians in the various governments of the Civilized World dare to criticize any aspect of Islam. For anyone in a high ranking position of power to call openly for the defeat of Islam then initiate significant measures to accomplish that goal seems improbable at best.

Therefore, I will risk the inevitable condemnation from Islamists, apologists for Islam and bystanders indifferent to the menace of Islamization. Sympathetic words and modest efforts to assist the victims of jihad must also include willingness to protect the victims from more attacks. This aid must include means for freedom-loving people to counteract the violence of jihadis. Stated bluntly, the Civilized World must fund those resisting Islamic encroachment and those wishing to liberate themselves from Islamic regimes, including military assistance. Islamists, just as adherents to other totalitarian ideologies, believe that they are entitled to impose their will on the rest of the world, by force if opponents resist. If those in opposition lack equipment, training and other essentials to strike back at jihadis, then totalitarians will obliterate liberty and those who value it as happened in Europe in the 1940s.

Will Christians across different nations join forces regardless of the foreign and domestic policies of their homelands? Can various denominations set aside theological disagreements in face of a common enemy? Are Christians willing to spend their money and risk their lives to counter the violent oppression committed by jihadis? Have the dervishes of political correctness browbeaten civilized people into accepting any resistance to Islamic persecution equates to racism? As those in the Free World dither and debate, the jihad slithers onward, crushing those favoring representative democracy, equality of all peoples and freedom in general while drawing a pall over the lands, which it has subjugated. Free World must unite and overcome Islam before Islamists drag all of humanity into the abyss of a new and more sinister Dark Age.


COPYRIGHT BY CHARLES KASTRIOT APRIL 2012

Unfriendly Reminder about Islam

Islamists are engaging in their latest round of exposure of the true nature of their ideology. Despite the efforts of Islamic infiltrators and their useful idiots in the media and academia, jihadis have ratcheted up a new round of violence in accordance with the Koran and other Islamic texts. This outbreak of jihad spans the entire Islamic bloc.

In Iran, the theocrats in charge of that totalitarian cesspool are on the verge of executing Youcef Nadarkhani for renouncing Islam and converting to Christianity. Where are the criminal coddlers who protest outside American prisons whenever an inmate is about to face ultimate justice? Apparently, they only oppose the death penalty for murder. Hanging for apostasy from Islam does not seem to bother those hypocrites.

President Obama expressed sorrow over the burning of a Koran used as a conduit for communication among jihadis in detention. Why no equal level of outrage over the murders of four Americans by savages in Afghanistan in response to this trifling incident? Do Obama and his cult of personality feel that those deaths were warranted for simply burning a book? Why did the President not apologize for the incineration of Bibles by American personnel in Afghanistan in 2009? Does he think that torching Christian holy books is acceptable but not permissible treatment of Islamic scriptures? Perhaps Obama will bow down to Afghan leader Karzai in an act of contrition before their next meeting in the same manner in which he did in front of the Saudi king.

In Egypt, Islamists continue their campaign of church burnings, rapes, assaults and other violent crimes directed at the Coptic Christian minority. In response, President Obama sought an increase of foreign aid to Egypt to fund a government being infiltrated by Islamists. An ex-Mohamadan turned Christian, Maher el-Gohary, and his daughter Dina personally appealed to the President of the United States to protect their lives from threats by Islamists demanding their execution for apostasy. They received an indifferent response from Obama. Are their lives worth less than a Koran? Is Obama willing to ignore the extermination of Egyptian Christians in order to appease the Moslem Brotherhood and other Islamists?

What is necessary for the entire Free World to unite and confront the Islamic menace? Are daily images of victims brutalized by jihadis capable of piercing the blinders of indifference surrounding a sizeable portion of the population of the United States, Europe and elsewhere? One has to wonder how much more carnage must jihadis inflict and how much more insanity must Islamists spew before all free people mobilize against the Islamic onslaught.

COPYRIGHT BY CHARLES KASTRIOT FEBRUARY 2012

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.

COPYRIGHT BY CHARLES KASTRIOT OCTOBER 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.

COPYRIGHT BY CHARLES KASTRIOT JULY 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?

COPYRIGHT BY CHARLES KASTRIOT JULY 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.

COPYRIGHT BY CHARLES KASTRIOT MAY 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.

COPYRIGHT BY CHARLES KASTRIOT MARCH 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.

COPYRIGHT BY CHARLES KASTRIOT MARCH 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.

COPYRIGHT BY CHARLES KASTRIOT JANUARY 2011

My Conflict with the Thought Police

Last week, the Thought Police at Facebook disabled my account. Today, I opened the reply to my appeal to Facebook. It follows:

“Hi Charles,

After reviewing your situation, we have determined that you violated our Statement of Rights and Responsibilities. Please note that content which contains hate speech or promotes violence is not allowed on the site.

As such, we will not be able to reactivate your account for any reason. Unfortunately, we cannot provide additional information as to why your account was disabled. This decision is final and cannot be appealed.

Thanks for your understanding,

Daphne
User Operations
Facebook”

I replied in this message:

“Daphne:

In response to your charges, I will reply to the first one. I admit that I despise Islam. That is due to my opposition to the sexual molestation of pre-pubescent girls, to a man having multiple wives and beating them and exploiting them as mere sexual outlets and to misogyny in general. All of the Mohamadan perpetrators of these hateful acts find support for their crimes in the Koran and other Islamic texts. Does Facebook consider these above criticism? Do you, Daphne, as a woman, not want to condemn such cruelties instead of silencing someone who exposes these outrages?

As for your second accusation, I have never promoted violence in any post on Facebook. I advocated the execution of those who murder. In accordance with the criminal justice system of my country, the United States of America, such a statement does not violate any law against promoting violence. If you or your website consider the administration of capital punishment as ‘violence’, then you must ban all Islamic groups and Mohamadan accounts in order to remain consistent to your principles. Islamic scriptures and those who adhere to them demand executions of people without even a trial by jury in front of an impartial judge, an attorney to represent the interest of the accused or the possibility of appeal. The calls for killing people include supposed crimes such as a woman who was raped facing execution for adultery or for a Mohamadan who renounces Islam.

This banishment from Facebook obviously stems from the concerted effort by Islamists to deny me the right to express my views. The group behind revolutionmuslim.com has targeted me along with other detractors of Islam and its creator. In June of this year, this website encouraged its readers to file complaints on Facebook against us in order to squelch any criticism to Islam. Does Facebook support the freedom of thought and expression or does it want to implement the totalitarian demands of Islamists?

Wishing you imminent enlightenment,

Charles Kastriot”

This is the reply I received:

“Hi Charles,

Unfortunately, your account has been permanently disabled for violating Facebook's Statement of Rights and Responsibilities. We will not be able to reactivate it for any reason, nor will we provide further information about your violation or the systems we have in place. This decision is final and cannot be appealed.

Thanks,

Daphne
User Operations
Facebook”

The most disappointing aspect of this decision is the loss of contact with my friends. I have gained valuable insight and reassuring encouragement from many associates. I have connected with more than one thousand, six hundred civilized people who realize the imminent threat of Islam to freedom, human rights and representative government.

drivel from Mohamadan sheep named Ahle Tauheed

Ahle Tauheed sent this message to me through Facebook on the fourth of October 2010 at 10:04 am:
"burn all u want u son of still u cnt erase the glorys quran u kafiir may allah curse u die a dogs death ameen"

My reply on the fifth of October at 12:48am follows:
"I have no intention of erasing the absurd collection of moronic rantings called the Koran. I enjoy using pages from Korans as toilet paper far too much. Enjoy spending eternity being sodomized by a pig and being roasted in Hell. The child-molesting and murderous thief who fabricated your laughable totalitarian ideology is already receiving such punishment for his lifetime of evil.

"Your ignorance of grammar, punctuation and spelling reveal your general cerebral atrophy. Years of Islamic brainwashing have token a tragic toll on your mind. I know as much, if not more, about Islam than you do. The difference lies in the fact that I criticize the sexual perversion, misogyny, violence and totalitarianism inherent to Islam while you embrace those evils."

On the ninth of October at 12:19pm, the savage sent this message:
"ist learn islam moron u dnt even know anthing abt islam what u will defeat it , dum blind and deaf, the world will hear ur moranic calls oh man u will regret th day will come u can sit like a enuch and make websitse and facebook accounts tht all u can u enuch u dnt even who whos ur father ur linage is like tht like pigs ur people beget and unlawful piglets like u are born no wonder u end up doing this enuck like thinks ,u willsuffer 100%"

On October 15 at 12:26am, I replied:
"Your ignorance of grammar, punctuation and spelling reveal your general cerebral atrophy. Years of Islamic brainwashing have token a tragic toll on your mind. I know as much, if not more, about Islam than you do. The difference lies in the fact that I criticize the sexual perversion, misogyny, violence and totalitarianism inherent to Islam while you embrace those evils."

Who Is Obfuscating Sharia?

The residents of the Free World have arrived at a pivotal crossroads in the continuum of human history. However, not all members of this collective realize critical importance of their current location or even that history was ever plodding along with them included. Sadly, far too many do not realize that they find themselves at a juncture eerily similar to that of their parents and grandparents in the twentieth century.

I suspect that a majority of people living in North America and in Europe sense the menace festering within their respective countries. Certainly, only a tiny minority, just some Mohamadans and other dimwits in fact, deny the acts of war perpetrated by Mohamad Atta and his fellow hijackers in September of 2001, Nidal Malik Hassan at Fort Hood in 2009, or the jihadis’ bombings in Madrid in March of 2004 or in London in July of 2005. The recurring threats of Osama bin Laden, Anwar al-Awlaki, Anjem Choudary and other Islamist blowhards frequently remind anyone willing to pay attention of Islam’s malevolence. Even non-violent acts such as Feisal Abdul Rauf’s effort to build a monument to terrorism at Ground Zero grab the attention of conscientious people. However, efforts to propagate and impose Islam and its legal code, Sharia, occur in deceivingly forms hidden under condescension and dishonesty.

A recent example of the insidious efforts to camouflage the malignancy of Islam appeared on the Huffington Post website. On the third of September, 2010, Sumbul Ali-Karamali concocted a piece of Islamist disinformation entitled “Who’s Afraid of Sharia?” This authoress demonstrated takkiya, the Islamic practice of lying to infidels in order to benefit Mohamadans and their ideology, in undiluted toxicity. Besides denying the desire to spread their brand of totalitarianism which its inventor, Mohamad ibn Abdullah (May he burn in Hell forever), ordered his legions to do, she also attempted to obscure its malignancy. As Mohamad (MHBHF) declared in Koran 3:28, those following his ideology are permitted to pretend to befriend non-Mohamadans in order to avoid awakening Americans to their true intentions of eventual subjugation. The authoress certainly has adopted this advice.

This authoress claimed, “No one is advocating Sharia in the USA”. Omar M. Ahmad, founder of the Council on American Islamic Relations, said, "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant." He also declared, "The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America”. Is that not a sufficiently blunt statement of intent to impose Sharia from the creator of one of the foremost Islamist organization in the United States?

The takkiya continued with the statement “(T)hese six principles (of Sharia) sound a lot like those espoused in my very own Constitution of the United States. Except that these were developed over a thousand years ago.” I am compelled to shine the light of truth on these principles to expose their antithesis to the United States’ Constitution and another other document based on human rights, on the rule of law and on government based on consent of the governed.
6 principals allegedly espoused by Sharia follow below:

1.The right to the protection of life: Is she referring to the killing endorsed and practiced by Islam’s inventor? In March 624, Mo (MHBHF) recruited one of his goons to assassinate Asma bint Marwan, a poetess critical of Mohamad (MHBHF). The Mohamadan crept into her house, removed the child sleeping at her breast, drew his sword, and plunged it into her, killing her in her sleep. In April 624, Abu Afak, an elder of Medina had written a derogatory poem about Muhammad. Mo (MHBHF) asked his gang, "Who will deal with this rascal for me?" That night, one member, Salim bin Umayr, went and killed him. In September 624, Kab bin al-Ashraf, a member of the Jewish al-Nadr tribe in Medina wrote a widely circulated poem hostile to the Mohamadans. His writing recounted Mo’s (MHBHF) thugs slaughtering inhabitants of Mecca. Mohamad (MHBHF) asked, "Who would rid me of Kab?" Five Mohamadans volunteered. They informed him, "O apostle of God [Mohamad], we shall have to tell lies." He answered, "Say what you like, for you are free in the matter." Takkiya was thus born out of the lips of Islam fabricator. These examples are but a few of those who perished at the hands of Mohamad’s henchmen acting under his orders.

2.The right to the protection of family: Does she mean wife-beating and honor killing any female members who are raped? Koran Chapter 4:34 authorizes wife-beating. Mohamadan women are regularly brutalized for refusing to follow Mohamad's (May he burn in Hell forever) commandment (Koran 24:31) to cover themselves completely. Sharia relies on testimony of only male witnesses without permitting other evidence such DNA samples taken from the victim.

3.The right to the protection of education: Exceptions to this alleged right include questioning Islam and renouncing it after discovering the numerous absurdities and cruelties enshrined within the Koran and Hadiths. Examples are Mo’s (MHBHF) laughable tale about the sun setting in a muddy spring as stated in Koran 18:86 and its place of rising in 18:90. Also, Mo (MHBHF) stated that the Earth is flat in Koran verses 79:30, 21:31 20:53 and 27:61. Koran 9:11-12 states that apostates will be treated ruthlessly for leaving Islam.

4. The right to the protection of religion: Sharia imposes draconian limitations on Jews & Christians. The Islamic legal code forbids them from building new churches or synagogues or repairing such existing structures. Sharia bars those groups from openly expressing, either verbally or physically, any manifestation of their faith such as praying in public, wearing a cross or a Star of David or reading from the Bible. As Koran 9:29 mandated, Mohamadans forcibly collect protection money from conquered Jews and Christians for more than millennium. After Mohamadans had bled those groups white, the Islamic authorities seized Jewish and Christian children as slaves. Under Sharia, Mohamadans grant Jews and Christians only as much freedom of religion as parasites allow their hosts the freedom to live.

5. The right to the protection of property: Women are considered property, on par with real estate. Mohamad (MHBHF) clearly stated in Koran 2:223 that women are to be exploited for the sexual gratification of their husbands just as fields exist for the use of their owners.

As far as property belonging to non-Mohamadans, those owners have no rights under Sharia. After Islamic hordes subjugated various lands, soon after the jihadis finished with raping and robbing the inhabitants, they desecrated or destroyed churches, synagogues, temples and other similar edifices. The Islamic conquerors converted these structures into mosks or other Islamic buildings or built Islamic structures on those sites. The Hagia Sophia in Constantinople plus the Church of Saint Nicholas and the Cathedral of Saint Helen in Damascus stand out as a few examples of Mohamadans’ co-opting of non-Islamic landmarks.

6. The right to the protection of human dignity: verses belittling Jews, Christians and others. Go to Defeat the Third Jihad to read the 527 verses (http://dttj.blogspot.com/2010/08/intolerance-toward-non-muslims-in-quran.html) critical of and hostile toward non-Mohamadans.

This Islamist continued with these declarations, “(T)he whole body of Islamic texts, which includes the (Koran), the sayings of the Prophet, and the books of interpretive literature written by medieval Muslim scholars. The first two are considered divine.” So rantings of Mo (MHBHF) are considered divine? Mo (MHBHF) received supposed revelations that always conveniently permitted him to do whatever he wanted, whether taking his daughter-in-law for his own wife after seeing her undressing, giving him permission to have an unlimited number of wives while other men were limited to four, and increasing his share of booty stolen from people who rejected his claim to prophethood and dictatorship. Where are the accounts of eyewitnesses who claimed to have seen or heard Allah's alleged “revelations” to Mo (MHBHF)? No one else heard Mo's (MHBHF) so-called “revelations”. He claimed to be alone whenever he claimed that Allah gave him a message. That is a suspiciously convenient cover for such a huckster like Mo (MHBHF).

“No religion gets to be 1400 years old and the second largest in the world unless it's flexible and adaptable,” Ali-Karamali lied. Koran 2:2 clearly states that whatever Mo (MHBHF) said is recorded in the Koran is absolutely true and not to be doubted. Therefore, anyone remaining true to the rantings of Mo (MHBHF) must maintain that the Koran is inerrant and immutable. This authoress dishonestly declares that Islam has allows for change of its doctrines and has morphed over time. Any deviance from the littoral words of the Koran has rarely occurred and was quickly and brutally crushed by Islamists.

“(A)dultery was made such a fantastically difficult crime to prove that the punishment was impossible to apply. Historically, stoning was very rarely implemented in the Islamic world,” she denied history. As decreed by Mo (MHBHF), four witnesses needed (Koran 24:4 and 24:13 plus Hadith Bukhari 5:59:462), otherwise a raped woman accusing her victimizer incriminates herself as to having committed adultery. Koran 2:282 establishes that a woman's testimony is worth only half that of a man's in court so any “he said, she said” disputes always give a man more credibility despite any evidence to the contrary.

The dishonesty continues with her unsubstantiated claim that “(t)he vast majority of Muslims today do not believe in stoning people for adultery.” Says who? Has this authoress conducted a comprehensive survey of Mohamadans’ views of Koran-based executions of those accused of adultery? If so, then she must publish them. Otherwise, she is merely spouting baseless propaganda of Islam’s apologists.

“As for other scary stories attributed to (Sharia), like honor killings, veiling of women, and female genital cutting, these are cultural practices and not Islamic,” denies this authoress. Mohamadan women are regularly brutalized for refusing to follow Mohamad's (May he burn in Hell forever) commandment in Koran 24:31 to cover themselves completely. According to the Hadith of Umm Atiyyah, Mohamad (MHBHF) stated that the cutting of female genitals is acceptable. In Koran 24:2, Mo (MHBHF) mandated flogging for those accused of fornication. The Hadith of Sahi Muslim No. 4206 outlines Mohamad (MHBHF) ordering the execution by stoning of a woman who admitted to adultery. Under Sharia, women receive only half a share of inheritance (Koran 4:11) and their testimony is worth only half of that from a man (Koran 2:282). Hadith of Sahih Bukhari,Volume 3, Book 48, Number 826 derides women’s intelligence, thus supporting the misogynistic elements of Islamic laws.

Ali-Karamali denies reality in her statement, “(Sharia) is a set of religious principles and is not the law of the land anywhere in the world.” Saudi Arabia, Iran and Sudan govern with Sharia as the sole legal code within their borders. The unfortunate citizens of those countries must adhere to the dictates of Mo (MHBHF) or else face the punishments ordered by the inventor of Islam.

She blatantly lied, “the Prophet himself never tried to implement an ‘Islamic state,’ " Mo (MHBHF) was the dictator of Medina and later the rest of the Arabian Peninsula. His pronouncements were the law which he fabricated and abrogated whenever the whim struck him. His unquestionable orders were codified into what we now call Sharia.

The authoress ignored historical evidence in claiming “(t)raditionally, in the Islamic world, the institutions that governed were always separate from the institutions that developed religion.” Mo’s succeeding caliphates were all absolute overlords in all matters, religious and political. Whatever fiat that they decreed, was an order which no one could challenge without risking his or her life.

She persisted with the takkiya such as “every Islamic empire was a multi-religious, multicultural empire, in which religious minorities were governed by their own laws.” Jews & Christians had odious restrictions and mandates hoisted on them for refusing to convert to Islam. I refer her to my response to the fourth tenet of Sharia. Jews and Christians could not proselytize to Mohamadans. Mohamadans were forbidden to renounce Islam without facing execution.

“In fact, Islam contains plenty of concepts consistent with modern democracy,” Ali-Karamali laughably wrote without providing a shred of evidence to support this absurd claim. Representative democracy is the complete antithesis of Islam. No one was allowed to vote to overturn any of Mo’s (MHBHF) dictates or remove him from his self-appointed position of “prophet”. The same autocratic standards applied under the absolute dictators who followed Mo (MHBHF) as “caliphs”. Under a modern democracy, a government derives its power from the consent of the citizens through elections. Under Islam, governance is based on the whimsical rantings of one megalomaniac which are not open to alteration or abolition.

“The (Koran) contains many verses advocating religious tolerance,” spewed this Islamist in hopes of deceiving those ignorant of the entire Koran. Those few verses of apparent tolerance occurred when Mo (MHBHF) and his cult were a weak minority in Mecca. After seizing power in Medina and amassing a massive army, he abrogated those verses and replaced them anti-Jewish, Christophobic and otherwise violently hostile rantings. Among the last orders from Mo (MHBHF) include this verse, "Fight against such as those to whom the Scriptures were given (Jews and Christians).until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." (Koran 9:29)

Despite clear contradictions located in the Koran, the authoress spewed “(i)t is established in Islam that you don't need to be Muslim to go to heaven.” I quote the Koran: "The only true faith in God's sight is Islam." (3:19) "It is He who has sent forth His apostle with guidance and the true Faith [(Islam) to make it triumphant over all religions, however much the idolaters (non-Mohamadans) may dislike it." (9:31). Koran 4:47 commands Jews and Christians to believe Mo’s (MHBHF) ideology or they will be destroyed.

She deceptively offered, “The only verses about fighting in the (Koran) refer specifically to the polytheistic Arab tribes who were trying to kill the Prophet in the (seven)th century.” I refer her to my response to the first tenet of Sharia. In those three examples, Mo (MHBHF) ordered murders of poets simply for composing verses critical of Mohamad (MHBHF), not for threatening his life. Mo (MHBHF) urged murder of his enemies in Koranic verses 2:244, 2:191, 2:216, 4:76, 4:89, 5:33, 9:5, 9:73, 9:111 and 9:123

This Islamist spewed more lies, “the (Koran) repeatedly commands particular respect of Jews and Christians. It is established in Islam that you don't need to be Muslim to go to heaven.” A blatant lie since 9:29 specifically calls for fighting and subjugating Jews and Christians. The next verse erroneously accuses Jews of claiming that Ezra is the son of God. Due to this supposed sin of Jews and Christians declaring that God has a son, Mo (MHBHF) pronounced in 3:151 that Allah will terrorize them. Koran (5:59-60) says the “People of the Bible” are descended from apes and pigs. The Hadith of Ishaq:250 supports this claim. Koran 59:14 reads "The Jews are devoid of sense. There is a grievous punishment awaiting them. Satan tells them not to believe so they will end up in Hell." Hadith Bukhari (59:727) indicates "Allah's curse be on the Jews and the Christians" was among Mo’s (MHBHF) final words before his death. Ishaq 240 quotes Mo (MHBHF) "The Jews are a nation of liars” and “The Jews are a treacherous, lying, and evil people" Koran 3:118, 5:51, 80 and 3:28 plus Hadiths Ishaq:364, and Hadith of Ishaq:262 forbids befriending Jews and Christians and threaten damnation for Mohamadans who do so. Hadith of Tabari VIII:130 details "The Messenger said during his final illness, 'Two religions cannot coexist in the Arabian Peninsula.' Umar investigated the matter, then sent to the Jews, saying: 'Allah has given permission for you to be expelled; for I have received word that the Prophet said that two religions cannot coexist in Arabia." Koran 98:1 "Surely the unbelievers and idolaters from the People of the Book will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures." She must expect that no Jew or Christian would ever try to verify her patently false utterances.

“Repeating a lie over and over again doesn't make it true; but it certainly results in people believing the lie,” the authoress concluded. Finally, something uttered by this authoress which contains any truth. She is following example of her fellow Islamists who engage of repeated spewing of disinformation to shroud the truly violent, misogynistic and oppressive cornerstones of Islam. Like their fellow advocate of a species of totalitarianism, Joseph Goebbels stated, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

COPYRIGHT SEPTEMBER 2010 BY CHARLES KASTRIOT