Walid Shoebat

The Cause Of allah

Shining a light in the dark places of history

Shining a light in the dark places of history

Pope Benedict's visit to Byzantium highlights four things: Islam's historic barbarism against non-Muslims; the hatred and contempt its adherents feel toward the Infidel, even in today's tolerant, secular, modern, EU-courting Turkey; the unjustifiable millennium-old division within Christendom, the absence of which five centuries ago may have prevented the unspeakable evil carried out inside the walls of the great city Constantinople and its jewel, Hagia Sofia; and the utter ignorance and malfeasance of the West's intellectual, political, and media elite.

Benedict visits Turkey:

ANKARA, Turkey - Pope Benedict XVI urged leaders of all religions Tuesday to "utterly refuse" to support any form of violence in the name of faith, while Turkey's top Muslim cleric complained to the pontiff of growing "Islamophobia" in the world.

Here we see the Pope's discretion and Islam's utter inability to avoid the ironic. If the world is Islamophobic ("phobic" implies the irrational fear of something), then it is because too many of the Ummah are carrying out violence against and seeking to intimidate into compliance non-Muslims in the name of their god.

By one count, Muslims have carried out nearly 7000 terrorist attacks since 9/11.

As he began his first visit to a Muslim country - a trip that drew extraordinary security but few onlookers - Benedict sought a careful balance as he extended friendship and brotherhood to Muslims, hoping to end the outcry from many Muslims over his remarks linking Islam to violence.

The outcry was not because of a false claim, it was because a non-Muslim had the audacity to speak of the Religion of Hate in a less-than-approving tone.

...the German pope also hammered away at key points of his 18-month papacy, telling diplomats that leaders of all religions must "utterly refuse to sanction recourse to violence as a legitimate expression of faith."

Obviously, Benedict was referring in a very diplomatic way to the Religion Which Cannot Be Named, since it is Mahomet's god requiring the fighting against, subduing and humiliating, and killing of non-Muslims to make the world Islam.

I haven't seen lately any Methodists beheading girls on their way to school as an "act of charity."

He avoided mention of any specific religion, even as he decried terrorism and the "disturbing conflicts across the Middle East."

This begs the question: If Media can read between the lines when Benedict gently admonishes Islam, why can't it comprehend the giant, fifty-foot billboards from Allah painted in Infidel and Apostate blood? Why must it always be "alienated youths" or "insurgents" reacting to perceived (and fabricated) offenses?

Benedict also said guarantees of religious freedom are essential for a just society, and the Vatican said he raised specific issues such as property rights of Turkey's tiny 32,000-member Catholic community during talks with Turkish officials.

And how did the people of what was once a Christian kingdom come to have its religious liberties denied? A quick read of "On the Fall of Constantinople" (top right here) will help answer that question.

His comments could be reinforced later during the four-day visit when the pope meets in Istanbul with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, the spiritual leader of the world's Orthodox Christians.

The pope is expected to call for greater rights and protections for Christian minorities in the Muslim world, including the small Greek Orthodox community in Turkey.

That there is any Christian presence left in Muslim lands is testament to the grace of God and the spirit of the people.

...Benedict's journey is extraordinarily sensitive, a closely watched pilgrimage full of symbolism that could offer hope of religious reconciliation or deepen what many say is a growing divide between the Christian and Islamic worlds.

What is the reason for that divide? Could the commands to "...kill the unbelievers wherever you find them," "Fight against...the People of the Book until they feel themselves subdued and pay the jizya," and "When you meet the unbelievers...invite them to three courses of action...[convert, submit, or war]" have something to do with it?

With religious adherence to such commands, what hope is there of reconciliation?

Seeking to ease anger over his perceived criticism of Islam, Benedict met with Ali Bardakoglu, who heads religious affairs in Turkey, warmly grasping hands. Benedict sat nearby as the Muslim cleric defended his religion.

"The so-called conviction that the sword is used to expand Islam in the world and growing Islamophobia hurts all Muslims," Bardakoglu said.

Rather than condemn fear and criticism of an ideology that commands the Sword to subdue the world under Allah, perhaps Mr. Bardakoglu should work to dissuade his coreligionists from pursuing that ideology.

The comment appeared to be a reference to Benedict's remarks in a speech in September when he quoted a 14th-century Christian emperor who characterized the Prophet Muhammad's teachings as "evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by thy sword the faith he preached."

Why did Manuel II Palaeologus "characterize" the false prophet Mohammed's teachings in this way? It is because he had personally experienced the faithful carrying out those commands against his kingdom and its people. In fact, Constantine XI, Manuel's son, died defending the Great City against the hordes of Allah in 1453. Its fall meant the slaughter (and worse) of many of its inhabitants.

The Vatican described the cleric's speech as "positive, respectful and non-polemical," applauding what the church sees as efforts for a true dialogue between faiths.

Its hard to talk with a blade at your throat.

On Sunday, more than 25,000 Turks showed up to an anti-Vatican protest in Istanbul, asking the pope to stay at home, but on the streets of Ankara most people went about their usual business and only a tiny protest was held outside the religious affairs office hours before the pope arrived.

So much for that "tiny minority of extremists."

"All feel the same responsibility in this difficult moment in history, let's work together," Benedict said during his flight from Rome to Ankara, where more than 3,000 police and sharpshooters joined a security effort that surpassed even the visit of President Bush two years ago.

Islam is the Religion of Tolerance.

"We know that the scope of this trip is dialogue and brotherhood and the commitment for understanding between cultures ... and for reconciliation," he said.

There can be no brotherhood between good and evil.

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan - in a last-minute change of plans - welcomed the pope at the foot of the plane and described the visit as "very meaningful." Erdogan's political party has Islamic roots, though the government is secular.

In his first official act, Benedict visited the mausoleum of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey, and wrote a message in a guest book calling Turkey "a meeting point of different religions and cultures and a bridge between Asia and Europe."

Turkey will soon be formerly secular, since despite the efforts of Ataturk to suppress the expression of Islam and separate it from its Allah-ordained legal and political supremacy, its people are moving ever closer to establishing the rule of Allah.

Turkey should fit right in with France in the Eurabian Union.

...It was his first visit to a Muslim country as pontiff. The original goal of the pope's trip to Turkey was to meet Bartholomew I, leader of the world's 300 million Orthodox Christians. The two major branches of Christianity represented by Bartholomew and Benedict split in 1054 over differences in opinion on the power of the papacy, and the two spiritual heads will meet in an attempt to breach the divide and reunite the churches.

Benedict leaves Ankara on Wednesday for Ephesus, where the Virgin Mary is thought to have spent her last years, and will then travel to Istanbul.

A closely watched moment of the trip will come Thursday during Benedict's visit to Haghia Sophia, a 1,500-year-old site that was originally a Byzantine church and then turned into a mosque after the Muslim conquest of Istanbul - then known as Constantinople - in 1453. It is now a museum, and Turks would take offense at any religious gestures by the pontiff, who also plans to visit the nearby Blue Mosque.

In 1967, Pope Paul VI fell to his knees in prayer, touching off protests by Turks claiming he violated the secular nature of the domed complex. In 1979, Pope John Paul II made no overt religious signs during his visit.

Islam cannot tolerate Christians worshiping in lands Muslims have rightfully conquered. And the tragedy of Christian lands being enslaved, raped, and slaughtered by Islam is about to be performed in places whose peoples are not only unaware of the horror to come, they are inviting into their lands the actors who will carry it out.

Flier Rage, courtesy of the Religion of Perpetual Inflammation and Logical Fallacies

Flier Rage, courtesy of the Religion of Perpetual Inflammation and Logical Fallacies

Served up with healthy portions of moral equivalence, ad hominem attacks, tu quoque arguments, and half-truths, we have Muslim anger at what appears to be a succinct, decent criticism of those elements of Islamic theology that inspire violence against non-Muslims and apostates in the name of Allah.

From this article (and a KABC television news report), there is no evidence Pastor Yancey made any factually-inaccurate statements; nor does it appear that he wrote anything hateful or inciting violence against innocents (unless telling the truth is false, hateful, or rage-inducing, which it often is for that "tiny minority of extremists").

What we have here is a Muslim propagandist (read a "CAIR-quality liar") trying to diffuse criticism and deflect attention from Islam (and its god and prophet's hateful commands) by intimidating into silence someone telling the truth.

Mr. Omeira offers no substantive (or honest) response to Yancey's statements of fact, just ad hominem attacks and tu quoque arguments. Omeira actually brings up...you guessed it--the Crusades!).

(Notice in the article's introduction the subtle bias: "interfaith hostilities" actually should read, "Muslims are mad," and "...Muslims say attacks their religion," really should say, "Muslims' religion attacks." Perhaps Mr. Shoaf likes wordplay.)

From "Baptist flier inflames Muslims" (what doesn't inflame Muslims? Perhaps Islam ought to be renamed the "Religion of Perpetual Inflammation"):

Interfaith hostilities flared in the Antelope Valley in recent days over the distribution, by a Christian church, of a flier that Muslims say attacks their religion, a message that ties all Muslims to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

The color tract, which bears the logo of First Baptist Church of Quartz Hill, features the red, white and blue Stars and Stripes along with the words: "Remember 9/11: In the name of Allah they brought destruction and death to thousands … in the name of Jesus you can have life eternal, heaven, and salvation through faith in him."

The flier goes on to state, "Allah says, 'Sacrifice your life to me, and you can get to heaven.' The God of the Christians and Jews sacrificed His only begotten Son to get you to heaven."

The advertising piece concludes by urging the reader to "Repent, Believe, and Receive."

Now the matter is on the agenda for discussion by the Antelope Valley Human Relations Task Force at its Monday, Nov. 20, meeting.

And whom do you think will be taken to task? Those who follow the god and prophet who command the fighting against, subduing and humiliating, and killing of non-Muslims to make the world Islam, or a lone (gasp!) white, male Christian telling the truth?

Muslims offended...

There's a surprise!

How can a person like this be a "chaplain" (nice appropriation of a formerly perfectly-good English word) involved in any way with prisoners, people already at odds against society?

Abdul-Wahab Omeira, chaplain of California State Prison Los Angeles County in Lancaster and a leader of the local Muslim community, told the Valley Press he met on Nov. 8 with Audie Yancey, pastor of First Baptist Church of Quartz Hill, to discuss the offense the printed material caused Muslims.

...For his part, Yancey denied that he meant any offense to Muslims and said he distributed the fliers, of which he reported "only 200 went out," "out of love for Muslims."

From what the print and broadcast reports I've seen show, Yancey has said and done nothing for which he should apologize.

Next this article's author disgracefully spreads Muslim heresy (even if it is unintentional, being tolerant of evil and spreading its lies makes him culpable for its consequences):

Muslims consider Mohammed, who founded Islam, to be the last of the Five Prophets through whom Allah addressed humanity.

The other four were Abraham, Moses, David and Jesus.

Don't you see? They believe in the same god we do. Nevermind the fact that Mohammed commanded (among other atrocities) offensive warfare to make the world Islam.

Instead of grilling (and by implication, calling into question the intellectual integrity and intentions of) a well-meaning and rightfully-alarmed citizen, why aren't Norman Shoaf and KABC's Leo Stallworth asking the offended why they follow a god and prophet who declare:

...the Messenger of Allah...would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war, do not embezzle the spoils; do not break your pledge; and do not mutilate (the dead) bodies; do not kill the children. When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them...If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them...'" (Muslim, Book 019, Number 4294).

Out of context? What context makes this any more palatable to non-Muslims, any less totalitarian, brutal, and contrary to human Liberty?

Islamophobic? Racist? How is citing someone's authoritative texts anything other than...citing someone's authoritative texts?

Considering that additional revelations from Allah only make Pastor Yancey look more perceptive, prescient, and patriotic, Mr. Shoaf and Mr. Stallworth more intellectually irresponsible, and Mr. Omeira more deceitful, let us consider these texts:

"...fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)..." (Qur’an 9:5).

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29).

"Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do" (Qur'an 8:38, 39).

"O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him" (Qur'an 9:123).

"Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not" (Qur'an 2:216).

"Allah's Apostle said: 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle...'" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

“Muhammad said, ‘A single endeavor of fighting in Allah’s Cause is better than the world and whatever is in it’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 50).

“A man came to Allah’s Apostle and said, ‘Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad in reward.’ He replied, ‘I do not find such a deed’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 44).

Which one of those exactly expresses tolerance? Which deserves our acceptance? Which earns its adherents admission into non-Muslim lands?

Here is more of why Omeira and other Muslims are so desperate to silence Yancey and others like him. Allah and his (false) prophet (considered the "ideal" man in Islam) on terrorism:

"Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): 'I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them'" (Qur'an 8:12).

“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror. The treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

Following is another reason why non-Muslims (and Muslims who love their daughters) ought to be unapologetically outraged at--and intolerant of--Islam. Mohammed and Aisha on his raping her, his nine-year-old "wife," and justifying it by saying Allah ordained it (remember, as Islam's "perfect model of conduct," the faithful are to emulate every aspect of Mohammed's life):

“My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse took over and wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was brought in while Muhammad was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. The other men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old” (Tabari 9:131).

"Allah’s Apostle told Aisha [his six-year-old bride and nine-year-old sexual "partner"], ‘You were shown to me twice in my dreams. I beheld a man or angel carrying you in a silken cloth. He said to me, “She is yours, so uncover her.” And behold, it was you. I would then say to myself, “If this is from Allah, then it must happen”’” (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 87, Number 139-140).

And for those hoping for Moderate Muslims to create a new, tolerant Islam, here is Mohammed on the immutability of his faith (apart from what he himself decides to change, no doubt with only the best of motives):

"I heard the Prophet saying...'Far removed (from mercy), far removed (from mercy), those who changed (the religion) after me!'" (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 88, Number 174).

“The Prophet said, ‘If I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath'" (Bukhari Volume 7, Book 67, Number 427).

Here's Mohammed on freedom of religion:

"Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him" (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57).

And on truthfulness:

"War is deceit" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 268).

Finally, here is why what the false prophet says matters so much to Muslims, straight from Allah (by way of Mohammed, of course--how convenient!):

"Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah" (Qur'an 33:21).

Now back to the further undermining of Western Civilization by Islam's apologists and our own Useful Idiots:

...Yancey, who served as a drill sergeant and saw battle in Vietnam during a 20-year Marine career, said he sends out such tracts each month as an outreach to the community. He confirmed that the tract in question was distributed for the month of September.

Yancey told the Valley Press he had been in the process of writing a letter of clarification and apology that he hoped would be published in the Valley Press for the community to read. He said he had been reading the Quran so that he could "get it straight from the Quran what Mohammed said."

"But Mr. Omeira forced the issue," Yancey said, by publicizing Muslim offense at the September tract, and Yancey subsequently spoke with a Valley Press reporter to clarify his church's position.

"I'm not here to mock you or put you down," Omeira said he told Yancey during their meeting. "My intent is not to debate."

"I am here to tell you what you did was wrong."

"You are morally responsible for any hate crime against my community, and for making our kids hate each other," Omeira said....

In other words: "Don't make yourself aware of what motivates the enemy, but if you do, you'd better keep it to yourself!"

What a liar! Yancey tells the truth about Omeira's co-religionists murdering for Allah, and he's morally responsible?

It is Allah who teaches to hate the Infidel. If those targeted by the Religion of Moral Equivalence, Subtle Propaganda, and Logical Fallacies react with a natural (and healthy) aversion to such tyranny, whose fault is that, the truth-teller's, or the god and prophet who command such evil?

Telling the truth is not a hate crime. Neither is self-defense against a ruthless and deceptive foe.

"When the terrorists come, they won't care what religion we are. They want to kill us all."

Or convert us. Or subdue us. Or enslave us.

Here comes one of Islam's favorite subtle deceptions (how Clintonian of him!):

...Of the flier's assertion that "In the name of Allah they brought destruction and death to thousands," Omeira said he asked Yancey, "Did the terrorists actually say this?"

Of course, the terrorists did not actually say, "In the name of...they...," but their actions are consistent with Allah's commands (which is what "in the name of" means!) for offensive warfare as found in Islam's "sacred" texts. And the article's author let's this little trick go unchallenged!

Here comes the implication of dishonesty on the part of the pastor (perhaps the author is practicing for when he gets that call from the New York Times or some other pro-American, pro-Western beacon of truth.)

He said he gave Yancey a copy of the Quran - the one the Baptist pastor said he afterward took up reading - and challenged him, "If you can find that statement in the Quran, I will go and admit it to the whole community."

What Omeira won't admit to ignorant, intellectually-lazy, politically correct Americans is the truth--until it is too late.

The Quran never instructs believers to fight and kill, Omeira said, except in self-defense.

Of course, it doesn't say, "fight and kill." It does say, "fight," and it does say, "kill" (and "execute," "crucifixion," "put out the eyes," and "...kill the unbelievers wherever you find them").

Qur'an does allow (and then later, require) fighting in self-defense. Unfortunately for Mr. Omeira (and the victims of Mohammed's malevolence throughout history around the world), the Prophet from Hell also requires offensive warfare to establish the rule of Allah over all Mankind.

Yancey said he had read through the Quran's first three suras (chapters) and scanned the rest of Islam's holy book.

"The Quran forbids Mr. Omeira from associating with non-Muslims," Yancey said. "According to the Quran, he is not practicing Islam.

"The Quran also tells Muslims to 'fight in the way of Allah,' and that if you die while fighting, you are guaranteed to go to heaven.

"I'm not sure what the Quran promises to those who don't fight - whether they go to heaven or not."

Yancey said the tract's statement, "In the name of Allah they brought destruction and death to thousands," referred to the 9-11 terrorists.

He admitted that an extensive search of the Internet did not produce corroboration for the statement, but asserted that he and an assistant had seen the statement.

Of course they were fulfilling their duty to Allah, as his revelations (above) require. Omeira's challenge is merely a distraction, a straw man.

...According to Omeira, Yancey told him, "I want Muslims to see that Jesus Christ died for their sins, and that they can have eternal life."

Omeira said he told Yancey that if the pastor wanted to debate, they should do so in public.

Which would only give someone skilled in deception for Allah to apparently refute the claims of someone beginning to educate himself on Islam (a job our political, academic, and media elites should have been doing since at least 9/11).

Here comes some false moral equivalence from the practitioner of the Religion of Truth:

He reported that Yancey declined an invitation to speak to the Muslim community at the local mosque by saying, "I'm not allowed to do that. My book (the Bible) doesn't allow me to."

"That's what bin Laden says," Omeira replied, "that 'we can't dialogue.' "

Of course, Yancey has planned and carried out flying planes into buildings in the name of Christ.

Actually, bin Laden cites the command of Allah and the example of his messenger, as I am sure Omeira knows.

Neither does Omeira want dialogue, if by "dialogue" we mean a truthful examination of the facts. All he wants is larger forum in which to twist, misrepresent, and obfuscate in order to deceive the Islam-illiterate members of the community and media.

Next are two lies: First, that Islamic terrorism is a "perversion" of Islam (as noted above from Mohammed's own words, he and his god see terrorism as an effective means to our end); and second, the tu quoque argument that says that a millennium-old action in defense of other Christians--after centuries of Muslim murder, mayhem, and misanthropy against them--is in some way equivalent to Jihad. And both Shoaf and Stallworth appear to swallow that whole:

"I am not responsible for how someone misused Islam," Omeira said, "any more than I can blame Christians as a whole for the violence that took place during the Crusades, or the Spanish Inquisition, or the rapes of Muslim women and killings of Muslims during the conflict in Bosnia. These crimes were committed by individuals."

(How dare Omeira bring up Bosnia. Islam has been slaughtering, raping, and enslaving Christians there for centuries, most recently with the aid of the First Muslim President, Bill Clinton.)

In the case of Islamic terrorism (which is the point!), these "committed individuals" are merely obeying their god and role model.

God can bring himself to individual humans in whatever way God chooses, Omeira said.

And if that happens to be through a murderous, thieving, lying, heretical pedophile, all the better!

"I have used the metaphor of a dart board," Omeira said. "God is the bullseye - but any stripe can get you there."

Not according to Allah. Not according to Christ. But, since so many Americans believe in nothing (or don't know what they believe) this sort of appeal to ambiguity probably seems quite tolerant of him.

And of course, the implication is, "We are the same. Don't criticize us. What are you, racist?"

Two faiths vary

That's an understatement! For those who claim the god of Islam is the God of the Bible, Allah doesn't think so:

"In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary. Say: "Who then hath the least power against Allah, if His will were to destroy Christ the son of Mary, his mother, and all every - one that is on the earth? For to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and
all that is between. He createth what He pleaseth. For Allah hath power over all things" (Qur'an 5:17).

"They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them" (Qur'an 5:73).

"The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth" (Qur'an 9:30)!

Continuing with the article:

"I have Muslim friends who I love very much," Yancey told the Valley Press. "The tract explains the difference between two religions. Of course I was trying to put my religion in the best light.

It deserves to be in the best light. Expose Islam to the light and what you get is this sort of personal attack and deception in response.

"The flier was attacking the people it speaks about - the terrorists," he said, pointing to the flier.

Addressing the facts is what Omeira wants to avoid at all costs.

Omeira said Yancey asked him why "you people," referring to Muslims, aren't doing something about terror.

"I asked him if he had attended the meeting I put together after the London terror bombings," Omeira said.

Why would anyone want to associate with the adherents of a faith that had just killed and maimed innocents?

Omeira said he also has helped sponsor the Antelope Valley's annual 9-11 memorial service as well as an interfaith service for the National Day of Prayer.

Ecumenism sports no temporal danger--unless one of those faiths wants to eat the others.

Here come four (!) ad hominem attacks attempting to shame the pastor into silence, again repeated dutifully by Mr. Shoaf:

"What you are doing is un-American," Omeira said he told Yancey.

"You are dividing us. This country means a lot to us, and we must protect it. What you are doing is hurtful to our community.

"Our strength is in our diversity and plurality," the chaplain said of the United States.

"(Yancey) thinks he has the monopoly on righteousness," Omeira said.

The nerve of that Infidel, Yancey! Doesn't he know he's supposed to uncritically and enthusiastically accept and endorse the dominion of Allah over America?

(And by "community," is Mr. Omeira referring to all, including non-Muslims, or does he mean only the Ummah?)

...Omeira said he took the issue up with the Human Relations Task Force only after an apology was not immediately forthcoming from Yancey.

"I was coming to him in love," Omeira said.

Love of what? Not the truth. More Taqiyyaspeak for the naive and gullible among his audience.

"He said he had been terrorized by a phone call he had received and that I should talk to his attorney general."

This article doesn't note it, but another report said that Yancey and his wife felt forced to give up protection of their grandchildren out of fear for their safety. And that is just a hint of a shadow of a wisp of a suggestion of a taste of what non-Muslims have experienced at the hands of Allah over the centuries.

Omeira said the phone call to which Yancey referred had come from Bob Forshay, a member of the Human Relations Task Force.

Omeira said members of the local Muslim community received hate mail after the flier appeared....

No decent person wants innocent Muslims to suffer.

Those Muslims who truly reject forever the effort (including, but not limited to, Jihad) to make the world Islam and implement Shari'ah, who support permanently equal rights for non-Muslims and women under the United States Constitution, and who actually do abhor the command of Allah and the perversion of Mohammed--they should encourage and support Pastor Yancey and others like him seeking to bring to light the temporal and eternal danger posed by Islam, and they should be challenging and exposing and deporting those advocate, support, or carry out actions against the well-being of the United States.

Our Constitution is a safeguard against the infringement of American Liberty, not a shackle to prevent our self-defense.

Kaos, I have lost all of my Email addresses
Until at least next year .
I only have two working computers they are n the thrid and that machine is down untill 2007 .
If you want to here from me before thn wite to me at kaosktrl@gmail.com.
Fight the good fight .

Why is Tampa's Fox 13 Marching for CAIR?



The above is just one example of local Tampa Bay Area Channel 13, now the local Fox affiliate, showing extreme bias against anyone willing to attack Islamic beliefs, in this case Congresswoman Ginny Brown-Waite. This is the piece of MSM trash that will be analyzed bit by bit tonight. This outrageous bit of local journalism also shows the limitless extremes that the station will go to, particularly reporter Craig Patrick, to smear people like Ms. Brown-Waite, even using the absurd tactic of inserting clips of a KKK rally and a historical Nazi clip into the piece.

Patrick also seems to, along with his colleagues, Anchors John Wilson and Kathy Fountain, need little prompting to praise and feature CAIR-Florida's Ahmed Bedier. These individuals and the news team at Fox 13 are obviously either suffering from an overdose of political correctness, or are getting something out of their obvious brown-nosing to the local Muslim community. There is simply no reason for a news station anywhere to give airtime to some of the absurd claims that Mr. Bedier has tried to champion, and which he has conveniently uploaded to YouTube for the world to see.

Most would ignore some of these issues, and certainly wouldn't feature Mr. Bedier in so many interviews. Yet other local affiliates also feature Bedier, such as Channels 8 and 9, Channel 9 even featuring Bedier for their segment "On the Soapbox". However, of Bedier's 78 uploaded videos on YouTube, (no joke) 13 are from appearances on Fox 13, most with the same on-air "talent" appearing, usually not to do any hardball type of interview, but rather to offer segways for his manipulative statements.

I offer this not as a conclusive statement, but simply as an opportunity for Channel 13 to prove me wrong, and for CAIR to publicly state that they have made no contributions to media outlets in this country. This information can be obtained with an investigation, which I hope this all comes to, but for now I think the evidence as shown in the video above proves either bias based on the views of the staff of Fox 13, which is appalling as the report clearly smears a member of Congress in a rather dangerous way, or that there must be something going on under the table. I do not think that CAIR is above such a move, though I have no evidence in this case. Who knows, perhaps the news team and Bedier are just great golfing friends. There is something amiss here though, and if you cannot see it then you are either blind, deaf and dumb, or a subscriber to CAIR's newsletter.

First, this clip, point by point.....

Read it all at WWCMD?

I felt like captioning this one finally; CAIR's Parvez Ahmed, Omar Ahmad and Dougie "Ibrahim" Hooper in stunning new roles. OK, the pic is old, but I used one of my only Photoshop talents today and added some type to it, and it was about time.

TIME Magazine's Fun New Coveer Story (excerpts from a dissection and rant)
OK, I really got on a roll dissecting this TIME Magazine article, and certainly hope that I don't get anymore copies for free. Great cannon fodder, not good for the nerves particularly. But this "history" timeline was too good not to share and rant for a while on:


"The topic is extraordinarily fraught. There are, after all, a billion or so nonviolent Muslims on the globe, the Roman Catholic Church's own record in the religious-mayhem department is hardly pristine, and even the most naive of observers understands that the Vicar of Christ might harbor an institutional prejudice against one of Christianity's main global competitors."

That's right, it is all about that "nonviolent" percentage. Yeah, I keep picturing two bomb laden guys in Luke Skywalker's Landspeeder with only Obi-Wan's Jedi mind trick able to trick anyone into thinking "These are not the terrorists you are looking for, these are PEACEFUL MUSLIMS. We can go about our business". Just think, the media don't even have Jedi powers and they've been able to get people to parrot that garbage for five years while security officers search the underwear of old white ladies from rural Tennessee at airports. Please. And never forget to throw in the history of the Roman Catholic Church, which when discussing events as early as the Crusades, was actually the ancestral Church of all of our forbears if we are of Christian European heritage, whatever our beliefs now. Yes, unless one is adressing certain Orthodox Churches and sects, such as some that the Pope is in fact going to Turkey to visit, then discussing the Roman Catholic Church as just one piece of the larger picture is not accurate. And I seriously doubt that the Vatican or any other Christian lay or professional emissaries regard Islam as merely "one of Christianity's main global competitors".

(....)

The timeline in question is simply pathetic. It is biased, it is poorly worded (to show perhaps the bias?), it skips several centuries, and is careful in its treatment of the beginning of Islam. This bothers me, all of it. The other thing that bothers me is that if you are going to write a "History of Interaction", you should add more than a handful of questionable views of historical fact. Maybe this is why I could not find this in the online version, only the print copy. Therefore, let me reproduce it for you here:

CHRISTIANITY AND ISLAM: A HISTORY OF INTERACTION

589-632 Koran revealed to Muhammad; it shares stories with Judeo-Christian texts

711-718 Arabs conquer Spain, which becomes center of commerce and culture

1096-1291 Christian Europe launches the Crusades against Islam

1453 Ottoman Turks take Constantinople, capital of Orthodox Christianity

1492 King Ferdinand drives the Moors from Spain and next expels the Jews

1683 The Ottoman siege of Vienna fails, marking the end of its Islamic expansion

1965 The Vatican issues Nostra Aetate, which calls for interfaith discussion

2001 Pope John Paul II is first Pontiff to visit a mosque, in Damascus, Syria

Sept. 2006 Pope Benedict XVI links Islam to violence, igniting debate and protest

And that's it. That's the history of interaction. Never mind that it is merely belief that the Koran was "revealed" to Muhammad, a distinction usually not afforded to Christians or Jews, but instead given the common journalistic disclaimer "What Jews/Christians believe to be an event in their Faith in which.....". Note the conquest of Spain, simply put, but pleasantly wrapped up by the odd mention of the myth that it became a "center of commerce and culture" that somehow implies peace for the conquered. Then, oh heavens to Betsy, Christian Europe launches those darned Crusades! Why not mention the "interaction" that led to the call for the Crusades in the first place? Wouldn't want to anger guest writer Tariq Ramadan I suppose....
After some time of "European Christians" doing their Crusading against apparently placid Muslims, they somehow take Constantinople. No mention of how Turks come into Islam, nor of any Muslim activities that may have "ignited debate and protest" on the part of any non-Muslims. Skip to La Reqonquista, which was not glorious but involved "driving out", as of so much cattle. And note that the rotten Christian King also "next expels the Jews". Can't let that one slip, unlike the wholesale slaughter of the Jews of Granada in 1066. Am I being nit-picky? Pardon me, TIME. Skip quite a bit again to 1683, never mention the details of the Siege of Vienna, leave readers wondering just how anyone in Europe could have been hostile to the Ottomans while they've had a major city under siege and their failure brings "Islamic expansion to an end".

Please read the rest.