Archive for October, 2009

Dave Gaubetz on “Muslim Mafia” and CAIR

October 26, 2009

I’m pissed off I missed Pamela Geller‘s discussion with Wafa Sultan, but I did manage to catch her interview with Dave Gaubetz, one of the authors of Muslim Mafia. Except for an article about four congress members demanding an investigation, the mainstream media isn’t touching this book with a ten-foot pole.

Dave Gaubetz has amazing credentials and experience in counter-terrorism. He describes the goal of jihadists: to attack the heart of the American people: their children. According to Gaubetz, the most damning information in his new book is CAIR’s infiltration of our Senate, Congress, congressional offices, and law enforcement departments. CAIR targets senior leaders of counter-terrorist groups and directors/supervisors of law enforcement departments which makes it very hard for investigators to open cases on Muslims because they are afraid to get sued by CAIR. Despite a low membership, CAIR’s big public relations “machine” is financed by Saudi “interfaced media.”

CAIR asked Gaubetz’s son Chris, who was working undercover, to shred documents regarding national security, money received from Saudi Arabia, and other criminal issues. Of course, he didn’t and instead has published them in this new book. According to Gaubetz, whether law enforcement directors and supervisors want to or not, now they have to investigate thanks to the information uncovered. In fact, Gaubetz is meeting with law enforcement this week.

Gaubetz described CAIR’s motive/objective to be the Islamization of the West. CAIR distributes Maududi’s writings and other terrorist/jihadist writings. Gaubetz stated that when it comes to shari’a law: It is all or nothing.

Apparently a lot of Muslims and mosques in the West do not want to be associated with CAIR and since the public announcement about the book, Gaubetz has been receiving calls and sworn affadavits from Muslims about the group. CAIR only picks cases that get them PR attention and many times demand up to 50% from lawsuit winnings! So, no surprise there that CAIR is currently representing Rifqa Bary’s parents!

One caller asked Gaubetz what he thought the legal fall-out would be for congressmen involved with CAIR. He was specifically referring to Andre Carson, Larry Shaw, and Keith Ellison. What was news to me was that Ellison’s hajj was paid for (over $13,000) by the Muslim American Society of Minnesota! The MAS was founded by the MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD! According to Gaubetz, nothing goes on at CAIR that Carson, Shaw, and Ellison don’t know about.

CAIR distributes a lot of violent Islamic materials to prisoners…apparently violent criminals make great recruits for the mujahideen! Why are prisons allowing this stuff to be distributed within their walls?! Do they really want to have their violent criminals radicalized?! Also, CAIR provides safe havens, many times within mosques, for illegal immigrants because they’ve got law enforcement cowaring in fear — afraid to upset Muslims’ sentiments by investigating mosques!

Another listener called with concerns about Pennsylvania which has apparently been heavily targeted by CAIR and related groups. The caller reported that they frequently hold seminars like “Understanding Islam” and “Islam 101,” and they invite churches and schools to attend. In Villanova, apparently schools have been visiting mosques!

Gaubetz advises PA residents to take the documents included in his book to their elected officials and ask them “What are you going to do about this?”

Oh, and check out the propoganda discovered in history textbooks in the American public school system! Also, read Islam in the Classroom: What the Textbooks Tell Us by Gilbert T. Sewall of the American Textbook Council!


Eat your dogs, tree-huggers!

October 25, 2009

So, I got a kick out of this article “Save the planet: eat a dog?”

(And don’t get me wrong, I love dogs–I own two of them. But I also drive a Jeep Commander!)

It looks like large, meat-eating canines are pretty harmful to the environment. Says Brenda Vale, architect, author of Time to Eat the Dog: The real guide to sustainable living, and a Victoria University professor:

“If you have a German shepherd or similar-sized dog, for example, its impact every year is exactly the same as driving a large car around.”

Puts things into perspective, doesn’t it? Shame on me for wanting to protect my kids in a tank, but it’s alright for environmentalists and climate-change fanatics to keep several large dogs that eat loads of meat and grains…

Latest blunder?

October 25, 2009

Stephen Stromberg of the Washington Post writes about Sarah Palin’s endorsment of Doug Hoffman:

If Hoffman — somehow — wins with her help, she will have alienated a GOP establishment desperate to reconstruct past majority coalitions that included moderates, both because she will have hurt their cause and because they will fear her influence among true believers. In return, she might continue to appeal to some far-right primary voters in 2012, but that only gets you so far (a possible victory in Iowa, owing to the heavy social conservative vote in the caucuses there, and perhaps respectable showings in the South).

What does it say that people are more concerned with numbers of votes and less about values and SUBSTANCE? At least Palin knows what she stands for and refuses to compromise simply to attract votes!

WikiIslam articles

October 23, 2009

I frequently edit at the WikiIslam website and have provided a list of some of the articles to which I’ve heavily contributed:

* Dar al-Harb

* Dalia Mogahed

* Free Speech: There’s no such thing in Islam

* Amputation

* Adultery and Adultery is permitted in Islam

* The Black Stone

* Islamic Hell: Allah’s Eternal Torture Chamber

* Justice

* Forced Marriage

Blurrying the roles of gender

October 23, 2009

The UN is a joke. (Although I have argued as such since they gave legitimacy to Ahmadinajad and Qadafi at the last UN meeting held here in the United States.)

Not only are they condemning Israel for “war crimes” against the terrorist organization Hamas that fights a dirty war by hiding behind civilians, but now they are telling nations that counter-terrorism policy must promote ‘gender equality.’

What is this nonsense?

Males are not the same as females. They are equal in value, yes. They are to be afforded the same rights under the law, yes. But there are OBVIOUS differences that a three-year-old can’t help but notice. Are we all in la-la land pretending that there are no differences amongst humans such as race, gender, and IQ? What is with this irrational belief that we are some how obligated to blur the lines between such differences and bring everyone up to the same social and economic level?

Joseph Abrams of Fox News writes:

In case you weren’t sure, human gender is “changeable over time and contexts,” sex slaves must not be “stigmatized” for their work, and it’s important to recognize the role of “transgender and intersex individuals as stakeholders” in counterterrorism policy.

Those are some of the conclusions of a United Nations report on counterterrorism that is intended to promote human rights — but that critics say is designed to redefine gender and hamstring actual counterterror efforts.

Just read this nonsense:

The report criticized enhanced security checks “that focus attention on male bombers who may be dressing as females to avoid scrutiny [and] make transgender persons” — who might also be crossdressing — “susceptible to increased harassment and suspicion.”

God forbid we hurt the sensibilities of a crossdresser. That’s the worst crime imaginable.

If a man doesn’t want to get questioned for why he’s wearing a damned burkha, then he shouldn’t wear one through a security checkpoint. Are we throwing common sense and reality to the wind in favor of political correctness and the preservation of people’s sensitivities?

This report is just a distraction from the real issues that leaders from China and Saudi Arabia cannot address without having to confront the nasty reality of their own governmental systems.

A round of applause goes to London for making this statement:

London, of the Hudson Institute, said that it was hopeless to look for moral guidance from a body composed of some of the world’s most brutal and repressive regimes, including Saudi Arabia and China.

“The Human Rights Council and the nations that are represented on it, they’re clearly involved in human rights violations,” London told “They’re going to be the arbiters of human rights?”

Wake up, America.

Stupid hoax…what was he thinking?

October 23, 2009

Apparently the Obama thesis going around is a hoax…

The story was repeated on several blogs such as Atlas Shrugs, Jumping in Pools, Pajamas Media, and American Thinker.

An article posted on The Washington Independent website reports that the original source was meant to be a satire.

If you didn’t listen to Rush Limbaugh’s radio show today, you missed the news that an obscure blogger had gotten his hands on ten pages of Barack Obama’s college thesis, thanks to Joe Klein of Time magazine. Michael Ledeen had jumped on the news, publishing an excerpt that revealed how the president had “doubts” about the “so-called founders.” And Limbaugh ran with it.

The problem: It was a hoax, actually marked as a satire, as Klein blogged earlier today. Ledeen apologized.

Ah well, it did make for a good conspiracy.

Where do atheists get morality?

October 21, 2009

I read an interesting article today about the sources of atheist morality. The foundation of the author’s argument was that

the principle of morality is empathy.

I’m no philosopher, but even I could see that lame statement for what it was. Empathy (or the human conscience) is what helps us to know morality. It is not the source of it. That would be like saying the principle of suffering is the nervous system.

Empathy is an inherently subjective emotion.

Therefore, a morality based on empathy is relative to the subjective emotions of the individual.

And then he mentions “enlightened self-interest.” In other words, selfishness that has the secondary effect of benefiting others.

He also brings up the “Golden Rule.” Never mind that this is originally found in RELIGIONS. He calls this rule “essentially satisfying.” I suppose it is, unless one has a fondness for abuse…..Sadomasochism comes to mind.

Now, I did find the Categorical Imperative to be an interesting idea. This is especially useful if you want to prove that abortion or homosexual relationships are wrong: Imagine if everyone practiced homosexuality or if everyone aborted their babies?

And then there’s humanism–Humanity is God, in other words. It’s all about humans trying to figure out what is best for humans. If humanists are smart, they’d be traditional conservatives.

Seriously, what the heck is the point of humanism except ensuring the survival of the human race as a species? We humans randomly evolved from a purposeless puddle of muck, and now all of a sudden we have to have a purpose?

Humanism is a religion with humans as its God. It is made-up, flawed, and inherently shallow. Humanism involves humans trying to fight man’s inherently selfish, wicked nature with…man’s inherently selfish, wicked nature. Yeah, we’ll see how long humanity survives on that one.

The author concludes with the following “profound” statement:

No matter what your reasons for choosing a particular moral stand, you should always remember that no morals are absolute, and that you always have a choice.

Well, what if I choose shari’a law?

All this article has done is to further the argument that atheism promotes moral relativism.

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live: A Little Knowledge in the Hands of Fools

October 19, 2009

As evidenced by reports of tortured and murdered children in Nigeria, it looks like a medieval witch-hunt is taking place in the name of Christianity.

Taking a passage (likely from the KJV) of the Torah, evangelical pastors are condeming vulnerable children of witchcraft and demon possession, and then they encourage (or participate in) horrific methods of exorcision and/or execution, many times charging exhorbitant fees for the “service.”

The sheer stupidity and evil perpetuating this practice is enough to make one weep in horror and frustration. For one thing, Biblical accounts of exorcisms never involved pouring acid down a child’s throat or drilling holes in someone’s skull. Secondly, pastors do not have the legal authority to condemn someone of witchcraft or demon possession and then attempt an exorcism or execution. Thirdly, violating God’s law is NEVER permitted even if a Christian sincerely believes someone is a witch.

Love your neighbor as yourself…

Do unto others as you would have done to you.

Ring a bell?

Sorcery and necromancy are condemned in several places in the Bible. Foolishness and lawlessness (sin), however, are condemned all over the place and often times far more vehemently. Such pastors who “find and exorcise” faux demons are wolves in sheep’s clothing, senseless shepherds, and the blind leading the blind.

Boobs and Burkhas

October 19, 2009

I read an interesting article this morning.  Our pious, modest Muslim friends in Somalia are feeling morally obligated to police the busts of female Somalis.  This hypocrisy would be funny if it weren’t so terribly oppressive and downright stupid.

After forcing women to fully veil themselves for modesty’s sake, these gun-toting morons are patrolling the streets in search of busts that appear too firm.  Forcing the women to remove their bras and then shake their breasts, the Islamists then whip the women whose boobs talked the talk but failed to walk the walk.

Dear environmental atheists,

October 19, 2009

Seeing as how we humans are simply randomly, and therefore purposelessly, evolved parasites from an equally random and purposeless puddle of primordial goo, I can’t help but be baffled at those humans who suffer from the irrational, illogical nonsense known as guilt for subsequent destruction and havoc wreaked upon the earth by our parasitic tendencies.

Where does this arrogant moral sense of obligation come from anyway?

I suppose we could argue that it is yet another randomly evolved trait stemming from our innate, primitive drive for survival which urges us to take up the task of saving the earth from ourselves. But why drag in the intangible such as guilt and ethics and morals, and above all, obligation? And who ever heard of a parasite “saving” its host? Sure, it probably doesn’t seek to suck all the life out of its environment, but a parasite never has its host’s best interest at heart.

Although far from agreeing with them, I find it a refreshing change sometimes  to hear the intellectually honest views of nihilists and anarchists. At least they do not try to make me feel guilty for being a tapeworm.

Anurag A. Agrawal, in an article for Earth Day, writes:

Humans are parasites, and parasitism is an integral part of nature. There is nothing dirty, evil, or intrinsically negative about parasites. Remember, though, that the best parasites keep their hosts alive: a parasite without a host is a predator with no more food. Curiously, humans seem bent on destroying the Earth, our host. Do we simply exploit our host out of need?

I’m blaming it on the earth for “giving birth” to us in the first place. But then again, that was random, so let’s blame all this stupidity on randomness.

We are but one of the millions of evolutionarily fine-tuned works of random biotic art, and I will argue that what distinguishes us from other species is not that we are unnatural in our destructive tendencies, but that as a species we are falling prey to unguided freedom.

Oh, wait. We are on this earth thanks to the unguided freedom of nature (random, purposeless evolution, after all), and yet now we are “falling prey” to unguided freedom.  Makes perfect sense.

And the grand finale:

Human extinction in the next 1,000 years will not be due to fate. Plainly, we will have overexploited to our own demise. At this point nature can no longer fine-tune us (read, evolve us) to be any better, more responsible nectar-robbers — that is up to the inventors, engineers, and educators.

And now we have to fight the evolutionary processes that made us the way we are in order to continue our purposeless existence. Because….why?  From this point of view, it appears that the only driving motive for taking care of the environment is to further the survival of the parasite itself.  Woo-hoo.  Real motivating.

Oh well.  Maybe something will randomly evolve to challenge our existence and “put us in our place” (whatever that may be).