Monday, June 30, 2008

Judaism, Nazis and Gun Control

By Nicki Fellenzer

Armed Females of America

I’ve been meaning to write on this topic for a while now, but something else always seems to fall into my lap. But because I got yet another email from yet another ignorant, sub-fascist slime bag asserting that Jews fall into two categories: “Zionists or Marxists” and that the cuddly Nazis were woefully misunderstood and didn’t really support gun control, I figured it was time to address the subject of the Jewish faith and firearms.

First, let me say this: ANYONE WHO WANTS TO DISARM YOU IS NOT YOUR FRIEND. IT DOES NOT MATTER WHETHER THEY USE DOCTORED STATISTICS, COMMUNIST RHETORIC OR RELIGIOUS DOGMA TO MAKE YOU VULNERABLE TO ARMED THUGS OR GOVERNMENT TYRANTS. THE TOOL DOESN’T MATTER. THE CRIME DOES. The crime is civilian disarmament, and the nature of said crime does not change with the tools used to perpetuate it, whether they be perversion of Judaic law or the socialist “common good” mantra.
Is that clear enough for you Jew-phobes out there?


Now, let me get the following out in the open. I was born Jewish. It is my heritage, and I have the utmost respect for it. I do not follow the Jewish faith. My spiritual path has taken me in another direction. However…

…when I read ignorant rants about how Nazis didn’t support gun control – that it’s some kind of Jew-perpetuated propaganda to make Nazis seem like bad guys – I literally want to take a large piece of wood and use the head that spewed such nonsense for batting practice.

According to Jews For the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) research:

"Until 1943-44, the German government published its laws and regulations in the 'Reichsgesetzblatt,' roughly the equivalent of the U.S. Federal Register. Carefully shelved by law librarians, the 1938 issues of this German government publication had gathered a lot of dust. In the 'Reichsgesetzblatt' issue for the week of March 21, 1938, was the official text of the Weapons Law (March 18, 1938). It gave Hitler's Nazi party a stranglehold on the Germans, many of whom did not support the Nazis. We found that the Nazis did not invent "gun control" in Germany. The Nazis inherited gun control and then perfected it: they invented handgun control."

The Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 among other things:

1. Classified guns for “sporting purposes”;

2. Required that all citizens who wished to purchase firearms had to register with Nazi officials and have a background check performed;

3. Exempted Nazis from gun control;

4. Gave them unrestricted power to decide what kind of firearms private citizens could or could not possess;

5. Gave the Nazis the power to decide what kinds of ammunition would be subject to bureaucratic control;

6. And set a minimum age for firearms purchase.

But heck, the Nazi love for gun control is well documented, and anyone who attempts to paint them as anything other than a band of tyrannical, sadistic monsters needs a good wire brush cleaning between the ears. I’m not here to talk about the Nazis.

I’m here to talk about Jews.

The communications I receive from neo-fascist dregs is nothing short of absurd in their attempts to paint Jews as the root of all evil in this nation. So let’s get a few things straight:

Do many Jews support gun control? Yes, many do. For a reason why they do, when their disarmed brethren perished in Nazi death camps, I turned to a friend of mine – Jack Feldman, professor of psychology at Georgia Institute of Technology, supporter of freedom, libertarian, firearms enthusiast and Jew. “Jews are called on to care for others who are troubled, suffering, etc. and to stand up for the oppressed,” Jack told me. “It’s a mitzvah. Democrats and socialists (traditional proponents of gun control) have taken that role, in appearance if not reality. …A lot of us have yet to get the message about the Left, and [continue to] cling to these fallacies.”

Do some Jewish organizations and rabbis equate Judaism with gun control? Yes, they do, and they’re wrong. For instance, Rabbi Chaim Steinmetz claims:

In the Talmud there are specific regulations that resemble gun control. There is a law against owning a dangerous dog (Bava Kamma 79a). One who owns a dangerous dog must keep it tied in metal chains at all times (CM 409:3). Even if the dog is defanged or trained not to harm people, it must be chained because it may frighten strangers, and as a result may cause stress related injuries such as miscarriage and heart attacks (Shabbat 63b). …These sources demonstrate that halacha would require any gun to be carefully locked at all times, with allowances made in cases where the gun is actively being used for security. Those who are more stringent would avoid guns completely. …

The comparison is patently disingenuous, as well as foolish. A dog is a live creature, capable of acting on its own volition. A gun is an inanimate object that cannot frighten strangers, bark at them or take any action at all unless handled by a live being. A firearm is incapable of independent action. And therefore, keeping your firearms locked up will do nothing but restrict access to your tool of self defense.

And locking up your tools of self-defense, while rendering yourself vulnerable to armed thugs is quite contrary to Judaic law. As a matter of fact, another article JPFO article entitled, “Jews and Gun Control: Fear of Freedom or Freedom from Fear” confirms my assertion:

The Talmud repeatedly mandates self-defense against an attacker. For example, in Talmud Tractate Sanhedrin -- which deals with Legal Judgments – the Rabbis explain Exodus 22:1, which states, "If a burglar is caught in the act of breaking in, and is struck and killed, it is not considered an act of murder." …

On this text, the Rabbis base a general proposition: "If someone comes to kill you, arise quickly and kill him." …

Individual cases differ, and specific regulations are set, explaining when killing another is justified, but the basic message remains the same: you have a duty to defend your life against those who seek to endanger it.

I recently spoke with Rabbi Isaac Leizerowski [*], who, upon having conferred with his colleagues, agreed that the right to self defense is MANDATED (his emphasis, not mine) by Jewish law. The directive to defend your life is written in the Talmud, the 70-volume Code of Jewish Law, in at least three places. And while individual cases of firearms use are subject to law, and Jews are absolutely prohibited from committing murder (willfully taking an innocent life), Rabbi Leizerowski agrees that the gun is the most effective tool of self defense on the market today, and that the right to keep and bear (own and carry) firearms should not be controlled by governments.

Judaic law, much like Christian writings acknowledges and asserts that life is sacred. Ergo that sacred life must be protected. The most effective way that can be done in today’s society is by use of firearms in self-defense. Jews acknowledge this and understand this, as do many others.

The desire to disarm you isn’t endemic to Judaism. It isn’t endemic to Democrats. There are Christians, Republicans, Buddhists and socialists who cling to gun control and disarmament as a means to either subjugate you or vainly try to protect you from yourself. It is prevalent in those who seek power over you, those who want to guarantee your physical weakness, because they’re too inadequate to convince you of their righteousness and those misguided enough to believe that laws and governments are more capable of protecting you than you are.

Nicki is a US Army veteran, who spent nearly four years in Frankfurt, Germany on active duty at the American Forces Network. She is a former radio DJ and news anchor and a Featured Writer and Newslinks Director for She is also a former contributing editor to the National Rifle Association's newest monthly magazine, Women's Outlook and writes occasionally for the Libertarian Party. She resides in Virginia with her family. We are also proud to have Nicki as regular contributor to Armed Females of America.

Copyright © 2004 by Armed Females of America. All rights reserved. Permission to redistribute this article for noncommercial purposes is hereby granted, provided that it is reproduced unedited, in its entirety and appropriate credit given.

[*Rabbi, B'NAI JACOB-DERSHU TOV, Philadelphia, PA, USA
and Rabbi and teacher at the Abrams Hebrew academy. lw]

Sunday, June 29, 2008


He tries to appear as a multi-faceted "gem"

He'll tell you what HE THINKS you want to hear.

He's a Christian, he's never been a Moslem (lie), he understands the plight of what he calls "the Palestinians," he's always supported Israel, etc. He keeps away from mosques, Moslems, head-scarved Muslimahs, because he knows that Moslems know that he was born to a Moslem father, went to koran-teaching schools, to mosques with his mother's Indonesian Moslem husband, and via the Rev. Jeremiah Wright sidled up to Louis Farakhan, Nation of Islam Jew-hater. But he still addresses cheering Jewish groups--liberal and wanting to show that they can support a Presidential Candidate who denies that he has consorted with Jew-haters and Israel-haters (see the photo where he dines out with the late Edward Said*, their wives and all)--because he is African-American.

He may be many-faced, many-faceted, if you will, but he ain't no gem!

Jews best wait for another Moshiach--Obama ain't it.

What one sees is not what one will get.

* The Obamas and the Edward Saids [Scroll down the page to see photograph]
Edward Said was a Christian Arab, anti-Israel, and pro-"Palestian," who found Yasser Arafat "too moderate."

He was:

Professor at Columbia University
Former member of the Palestinian National Council
Authored the 1978 book Orientalism
"Israel is now waging a war against civilians, pure and simple"
Claimed that the U.S. "decided to unleash an unjust war against the entire Muslim world."
Died in 2003

Despite Said’s prestigious academic position, he was an extremist. He became a member of the PLO’s Palestinian National Council in 1970 but broke off with the PLO in 1991 because it had become too moderate; he was photographed flinging rocks at Israelis from the Lebanese border in 2000; he demanded a one-state solution, the “Right of Return” and reparations for all Palestinian Arabs. He furiously opposed the Oslo Accords as a Palestinian capitulation. In his view, Israel was an illegitimate, colonialist, racist, expansionist state. . . .

The Palestine Monitor Website's official biography of Edward Said declares that he "was born in 1935 in Jerusalem, Palestine. In the 1947 partition of Palestine, he and his family became refugees and moved to Cairo where they lived with relatives." In truth, however, Said was born and raised in Cairo, Egypt. He received a master's degree from Princeton University, and a doctoral degree from Harvard. He thereafter took a position as a professor of comparative literature at Columbia University.
Also see

Friday, June 27, 2008


Kill the Jew!

A call that is heard --not from time to time--but too often in all parts of the world; yes, even in Israel, especially in Israel where it's shouted in Arabic, "Itbach al-Yahud!"

“When one wants to kill a Jew, when one wants to massacre a Jew--there is no justification to such an act.”--Gilles Bernheim, chief rabbi of France

"When one wants to kill a Jew, when one wants to massacre a Jew . . ." is there nothing to be said, except that there is no justification for such an act?

There is no justification to kill any human being--except in the defense of one's life and body.

But when it comes to a Jew, no justification is needed. Jews are the perfect victims, ready-made for any bully-boys who get off on smashing bones and muscle.

The French authorities' story is as follows: Paris prosecutor Jean-Claude Marin said Tuesday that he had launched a probe aimed at finding the perpetrators of an "aggravated murder attempt" on Rudy Haddad, a Jewish teenager. "One cannot say there was the will to attack in particular a person of Jewish origin, but a member of this gang of Jewish youths," Marin said.

" . . . gang of Jewish youths . . ."

But this was not a "gang-fight"--a fight between rival gangs: supposedly Jews in a youth group and--what do they call them?--ah yes, a "North African and sub-Saharan youth group."

The beating almost to the death did not occur during a supposed "gang fight," but while the Jewish youth was alone and on the ground.

The young man was lying on the ground when he was beaten,” [Rabbi Bernheim] said.

That's when these Jew-haters are best at: get a lone Jew and beat him with iron bars.

The French prosecutor also told reporters that the teenager had been beaten by a gang after having taken part in street brawls between Jewish teenagers and youths of north African and sub-Saharan descent.

Sources quoted in the press reported that several brawls broke out in the area Saturday afternoon between Jewish and North Africans and black youth groups and that Haddad [the Jewish youth] was attacked later on the day when he was walking alone in Rue Petit, near the Haya Mouchka Lubavitch synagogue.

The prosecutor has confirmed the anti-Semitic character of the aggression and said anti-Semitic insults – like "dirty Jew" - were shouted during the aggression.

" . . . was attacked later on the day when he was walking alone in Rue Petit, . . ."

These "North-African" and "sub-Saharan" youths wouldn't all be Moslems, would they?

But don't mention that, because the Moslems might--or better yet will--riot, burn cars, break shop windows, scare the living shit out of the French police.

As for the Jews? Who's afraid of them? The authorities needn't worry much about them. So, it looks bad when a gang of Moslems beat a Jew almost to death--he was in a coma--but besides complaining, the Jews aren't gonna do a thing. And they shouldn't, they can't. There aren't enough of them in La Belle France for anybody to worry about them, and if they fight back, well then it's nothing racial or religious you see, it's just two youth groups of different ethnicities fighting for turf.

"One cannot say there was the will to attack in particular a person of Jewish origin, but a member of this gang of Jewish youths," [Paris prosecutor] Marin said.

What utter nonsense: "One cannot say there was the will to attack in particular a person of Jewish origin . . . "

Yeah, sure, and the Moslems aren't taking over in France. And the Pope isn't a Catholic . . .

Five youths detained after a Jewish teenager was beaten into a coma by a gang in Paris have been released without charge, AFP reported Wednesday quoting judicial officials.

All material in purple is from
European Jewish Press
Read more there
Wishful Thinking

Let’s Be Constructive and Cheerful

Paul Eidelberg

Aren’t you tired of all the depressing news reported by the media? Aren’t you fed up with the failings of the United States—the bastion of freedom and democracy? Aren’t you dismayed by the hundreds of mosques in the United States preaching jihad? Aren’t sick of paying more than four dollars per gallon of gasoline?

Are you worried about Iran becoming a nuclear power? Would you like to see President Bush wake up from his torpor and order the US Air Force to bomb Iran? Not a chance. U.S. military forces are tied down in Iraq. American public opinion would call for his impeachment. Besides, bombing Iran will insure Obama’s victory over McCain.

So, let’s ignore dismal reportage and lighten up.

Enter Don Quixote and the power of positive thinking.

Benjamin Netanyahu will be Israel’s next prime minister and Caroline Glick will be his minister of foreign affairs.

Netanyahu will order an attack on Iran before President Bush’s term expires. At the same time, Israeli commandoes will take over the major Saudi oil fields, after which the price of oil will drop to $20 a barrel. All the Saudi brothels on the Riviera will shut down.

The Israel Defense Forces will pulverize Syria, destroy Hezbollah, and eliminate Hamas as well as the entire terrorist network of the Palestinian Authority.

Netanyahu will abrogate Oslo and declare Jewish sovereignty over Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. Ha’aretz will close down.

The United Nations will condemn Israel. Israel will then resign from the UN. So will Micronesia.

The UN will declare economic sanctions against Israel, but no European country will comply.

TIME Magazine will name Netanyahu “Man of the Year,” who will be made an honorary citizen of Texas.

John McCain will win the 2008 presidential election and will have the US embassy in Tel Aviv move to Jerusalem.

Muslims throughout the world will renounce Jihad and adopt the Sermon on the Mount as their credo.

You got a better idea?

[Have a banana ]

(then click on the Link to that post and have another one or two or three or more)

Thursday, June 26, 2008

Israel - the politics of compromise and defeat

Compromising the land away in fear of the nations

After conquering the Temple Mount, the valiant Moshe Dayan turned it back to the Jew-hating Mohammedans, the Arab Wafq*.

Judea, Samaria, and Gaza (Yehuda, Shomrom, Aza) after being conquered from the Arabs were left populated by Arabs who continued to murder Jews day after day. We all know how Sharon betrayed the Jews of Gaza, a betrayal completed by his loyal sycophant**, the despicable Ehud Olmert, that had Jewish soldiers expel Jews from land that was rightfully Jewish.

The fear of expelling Arabs from land conquered by the Jews has resulted in today's Gaza, an Arab enclave that launches rockets into Israel .

Instead of soundly thrashing the Hezbollah Arabs who attacked Israel, a confused, bumbling Olmert fought a listless war that resulted in the loss of Jewish lives and nothing else.

Allowing the "Quartet," led by George W. Bush and his Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice with the rest of the nations nodding in agreement to inflict a "Roadmap" on the sovereign nation of Israel, a program that would result in Two states on Israeli (Jewish) land, with Israel bisected by an Arab "corridor," was the last step in the destruction of the Israel that was once able to defeat Arab armies (albeit at great cost of Jewish lives) but now appears no longer able to do so.

" . . . our [Israel's] government and army [must] eliminate those who threaten the Jewish people."

Compromising, Caving in to the wishes of the Enemy in fear of the nations

In Recent History

In Chevron (Hebron), a Jew does what should have been done a long time ago--over and over again--to strike the fear of HaShem into the hearts of those who worship a murderous invisible idol, who killed and kill Jews--men, women, children, and infants--amidst the glee of their fellow ideologues, and that Jew's blessed memory is derided as that of a pariah. Not befitting a Jew who should always appear as "nice" and somewhat humble*** in the eyes of the nations. Why Jews are far above that! We rather have our women and children murdered by home-grown Arabs or by foreign Arabs' missiles than harm one hair on the head of the enemy.

A girl draws a picture of the swine, and she is arrested and harangued and harassed: mentally defective she is branded as, how could anyone dare draw a picture of the holy Fuehrer of the enemy! It goes asgainst our "always-be-fair" Jewish grain.

The Jews are afraid, as always. Afraid of what? The ire of the nations? The disapproval of the rotten-to-the-core UN? The "Great White Father" in Washington? Is that "Our Father?"

The Fear of the Jew

The Jew is afraid of being a Zionist. It's "post-Zionism" time! All one happy bi-cultural people in Israel, all citizens of this "land of its people," where Jew and Arab live together in peaceful harmony (if you believe that, you believe that Mahomet rode a woman-faced-and-breasted horse up into Heaven to discuss matters with his super-ego, that is, the unseen idol that demands blood sacrifice of all who do not worship it/him.)

"The curse of fear has kept the Jew humiliated for centuries. Fear of losing and fear of death have prevented him from rising to face his challenges. Instead the Jew meekly sought to appease his persecutors and avoid confrontation in hopes his suffering would eventually end."
--To die or conquer the mountain. (There is no surrender, only death or victory in the struggle . . . .")

But "Truth and justice should compel him to action and fear should never play a role in his decision making"


"Israel's leadership remains conceptually primitive, still begging gentile nations to charitably let them keep the small strip of land."

paraphrased from: "The official Zionist leadership, however, remained conceptually primitive, still begging gentile nations to charitably grant them a small strip of land.".
--pre-Israel statehood

In History

Self-restraint Ruled Then--Rules in Israel Now

"The Irgun Zvai Leumi underground militia, which had broken away from the Haganah in opposition to its policy of havlagah (self-restraint) in the face of Arab violence, became the military arm of the NZO and accepted Jabotinsky as their supreme commander (although he did not always approve of their methods). Unlike the Haganah, which merely protected settlements and warded off Arab gangs when attacked, the Irgun sought to deter terror attacks by making the Arabs suffer a high price for their actions. Under the command of David Raziel, the Irgun brought terror into the heart of Arab neighborhoods, thus giving them a taste of their own medicine"

"Revisionist Zionism came into being as a direct challenge to the policies of Chaim Weitzman. Two diametrically opposed ideologies were now battling for command over the Zionist Movement. Jabotinsky advocated a forthright approach of presenting fundamental Zionist aims explicitly. He was against the propounding of half truths, whether to the Hebrew masses or to the gentile nations. Like Herzl (1) before him, Jabotinsky rejected 'muted Zionism' and refused to 'turn the Zionist Movement into a fraternity of whispering, conspiratorial smugglers'. Opposing him, Weitzman advocated a cautious struggle and the application of “one step at a time” tactics. But Jabotinsky demanded a return to Herzlian Political Zionism with stated goals set forth in a charter. (1) "

Antisemitism and the Exile

". . . Jabotinsky discerned two types of anti-Semitism – the anti-Semitism of man and the anti-Semitism of circumstances. He considered the anti-Semitism of man to be an expression of racial prejudice, similar to other forms of racial prejudice that must be fought against in the sane manner. The anti-Semitism of circumstances, in contrast, was not the product of hate but the result of an objective situation – the Israeli nation was in exile without a country. Jabotinsky viewed this second type of Jew hatred as a structural phenomenon due to the absence of territory in which the Hebrews are a majority. During his university years in Rome, he had seen how a healthy nation lives in its homeland. He was convinced that the absence of a country made the Jewish nation foreign and strange to other peoples. After all, even other minorities in other countries had a homeland that they could call their own."

. . . throughout his activities, Jabotinsky felt like a stepchild among his own people. 'I am a stranger within Israel' without a home on the Jewish street. Chaim Weitzman tended to attribute Jabotinsky’s traits to his 'goyishness', as if 'Jabotinsky, the enthusiastic Zionist, was very un-Jewish in his bearing, approach and manners'. All his qualities “were imbued with something of a theatrical knight, an odd sort of gallantry, not at all Jewish”. But Jabotinsky was in many ways more authentically 'Jewish' than the Zionist leaders themselves. He resurrected Hebrew traits and concepts buried since the destruction of Bar Kochba’s army at Betar. He educated the youth to be dignified, chivalrous, principled and courageous. He taught his people to be proud, generous and fierce after a long and bitter exile of humiliating persecution.

". . . the leadership’s apprehension to clearly state that the goal of the Zionist Movement is a sovereign Hebrew state. [Jabotinsky] argued that Zionism no longer demanded but instead adopted the exile attitude of 'shtadlanut' – trying to curry favor in gentile eyes."
--from Ze’ev (Vladimir) Jabotinsky
*Wafq (Muslim authority) in charge of the Dome of the Rock and the al-Aqsa Mosque
"Temple Mount: A no prayer zone
Christian, Jewish restrictions abound
as Muslims police visitors to holy site"

**syc·o·phant, noun, a self-seeking, servile flatterer; fawning parasite.

***humble? Why humble? There are those who say "Remember who killed Our Lord." Smeared as "Christ-killers," the Jews must remain humble until the end of time. Humble in the eyes of the followers of Mahomet, whose scriptures deride the Jews and offer them abject humiliation or conversion to the worship of the invisble idol--the alter-ego of twisted mind and soul of its self-styled "prophet."

****Supplicant, pl. supplicants: From Latin supplicans, supplicant-, present participle of supplicre, to kneel down; see supplicate.
present participle of supplicare, to kneel down; see supplicate.
beseeching, imploring, pleading - begging
supplicant Noun Formal a person who makes a humble request [Latin supplicans beseeching]

Alas Hamas
Measuring Mohammed and Dhimmitude

[thanks to Jihad Watch]

Measuring Mohammed and Dhimmitude
by Bill Warner
Wednesday, June 25, 2008

If you are willing to do some math that is no harder than counting how many apples you have in your shopping cart, you can measure the core of Islamic political doctrine found in Mohammed's biography, the Sira, a sacred text. What is surprising is that once you have a measure (metric) for Mohammed, you also have a measurement of our dhimmitude. It is an ugly and disgusting result.

THE SIRA: The totality of Islam is belief in the perfect truth of the Koran and following the Sunna of Mohammed. The Sunna is the actions and words of the perfect pattern of life, Mohammed. The Sunna is contained in the Sira and the Hadith (the Traditions of Mohammed). The Sira is half of the defining, foundational texts that determine the Sunna. The other half of the Sunna is the Hadith. The Islamic "Bible" is the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith.

The Sira is the life of Mohammed. There are three versions of the Sira given by three authors--Ibn Ishaq, al-Tabari, and Ibn Sa'd. They tell the same story, except for small details. Ishaq's Sira is the oldest and the most authoritative.

Ishaq's Sira is a large book that starts with a history of Arabia before Mohammed. The overwhelmingly important part of the book is the story of Mohammed as the prophet of Allah. He becomes a prophet on page 106, so that is where the story really begins. There are a 110 pages of notes at the end. The remaining 621 pages of text are about Mohammed as a prophet.
When you read the Sira, you find that violence fills its pages. The first form of violence is verbal. After Mohammed's first revelation, it only takes 12 pages until there is a fight and a Muslim bloodies a kafir. From that point on, Mohammed argues, threatens, curses, preaches, and condemns. So 98% of the text of Mohammed's prophecy contains verbal violence against the kafirs (unbelievers).

Jihad starts 281 pages into his prophet-hood and it never stops for the next 409 pages. So 72% of the Sira's report of his prophecy involves some form of jihad. Of course, the verbal abuse runs right along with the killing, torture, rape, theft, deceit and assassinations.

The Sira is not only a biography, but also a sacred text that contains the model for the perfect Islamic life. Again and again the Koran directs every Muslim to imitate Mohammed's every word and deed. The Sira contains Islam's grand political strategy.

There was peace for 2% of the Sira. That means that 98% of the Sira is devoted to ill will or with some form of argument, insults and curses against the kafirs. Put another way, 98% of the Sira is devoted to the suffering of the kafirs.

MOHAMMED, THE FILM: If the Sira were a 2-hour movie of Mohammed as a prophet, it would go like this:

Mohammed has his first revelation in the first scene. The first fight starts 2 minutes into the movie. After that it is plotting, shouting, arguing, threatening and preaching. Even when the scene is in Mohammed's camp, the backdrop is always the struggle with the kafirs. Then 34 minutes into the film, the first killing happens and killing continues for the next 1 ½ hours. Armed raids, assassinations, plots, spies, executions, torture, rape, battles, and on and on. Kafirs (non-Muslims) die and lose. Mohammed dies. Islam triumphs. End of film.
DO THE MATH: The Sira defines Mohammed. The Sira IS Mohammed. Mohammed is Islam. Sira = kafir hatred = Mohammed = Islam. Therefore, Islam = kafir hatred.

DHIMMITUDE AND JEW HATRED: Let's analyze a best-selling biography of Mohammed by Karen Armstrong. The Sira is the gold standard for Mohammed's life and we have measured what its focus is. Let's use the Sira to measure Armstrong's biography. Whereas, the Sira devotes 72% of its length to the jihad phase of Mohammed, Armstrong only allots 27% of her text to Mohammed's jihad. Her total material devoted to Mohammed as a prophet is 183 pages, out of which 49 are jihad. There should be 132 pages of jihad to match the Sira. She eliminated 83 pages of jihad in order to make Mohammed look less violent.

She does the same thing with the Jew hatred/jihad. In the Sira, 5.3% of the text relates to the destruction of the Jews-assassinations, executions, rapes, torture and exile. This 5.3% only includes the physical harm, there are many other pages of Jew hatred that do not involve violence. In Armstrong's biography, the destruction of the Jews is 2.7% of the text. She omits half of the Jew hatred material.

Basically, Armstrong censors half of the Jewish destruction and two-thirds of the jihad in her biography of Mohammed.

The Sira contains two kinds of negative material about the Jews. I have mentioned the 5.3% devoted to physical violence, but there is much material that is a verbal violence against the Jews. If you add the verbal violence to the physical violence, the Sira is 8.6% Jew hatred.
Hitler's Mein Kampf devotes 6.8% of its material to Jew hatred, but no actual violence. If you remove that 6.8% of Jewish rants you are left with a political treatise that is no worse than any of the current political propaganda. With the right editing, Hitler was no more than a German politician. If you published a Mein Kamph without the 6.8%, you would be criticized. But Armstrong's book was critically acclaimed. Why is censoring the kafir/Jew hatred from Mohammed cheered, whereas the removal of the Jew hatred from Hitler would be condemned? It is simple, we think that European Jew hatred is evil, but that Islamic Jew hatred needs to be understood and ignored. What is astounding is that this argument is put forward by most Jews.
Of course, her bias does not stop with just censoring the material. Oh no, Armstrong cheers when the Meccan kafirs die. Every death of a kafir is wonderful, since it advances the glory of Mohammed. She justifies the destruction of the Jews and says that Christians have done worse.

Ms. Armstrong is a dhimmi. She is a loud and sympathetic cheerleader for Mohammed and insults the kafir Arabs. She represents the perfect dhimmi-centric writer.

TOTAL DHIMMITUDE: Now let's measure the dhimmitude of the Republicans, Democrats, professors and the rest. Armstrong deletes most of Mohammed's cruelty, but at least she is willing to show Mohammed to be a little evil. That is more than Department of Homeland Security, FBI, public education, Pentagon, ACLU or the local police do. You will search a long time to find a rabbi or pastor who knows nearly as much as Ms. Armstrong will admit. Almost all of our leaders are 100% dhimmi, since they deny all evil found in the doctrine of Islam.

Everyone hates Mein Kampf, without having actually read it, and will condemn Hitler and the Nazis, but try finding a kafir who hates the Sira and who will condemn Mohammed. Yet, the Sira contains 8.6% Jew hatred, Mein Kamph is 6.8% Jew hatred.

Do the math of dhimmitude. If those percentages were mortgage rates, everyone would understand the math because it involves money. But when it involves the survival of our civilization, we read the statement as--no problem with the Sira or Islam, but we need to talk about those Nazis.

As bad as Armstrong is-and she is dreadful-she is not as bad as the dhimmis in Washington, DC, the churches, synagogues, universities and the media. And the dhimmitude is the same in Europe, India, Canada and the rest of the world.

NOTE--POINT-OF-VIEW: There are always three points-of-view about Islam. The first is the believer-centric, Muslim, view. The second view is kafir-centric. A kafir has only one qualification-a kafir is anyone who does not believe that Mohammed is the prophet of Allah. There is a third view, the dhimmi-centric view. It is the believer-centric view except it is written by an apologist kafir.

This analysis is kafir-centric. Kafir-centric sees Islam from the standpoint of what happened to the kafir, how the kafir is treated. Today the history of the victim is popular fare for the colleges-African slave and native American history, for example. Kafir history is the history of the victim of Islam. When will this history be taught in our schools?

Bill Warner
Signup for our weekly newletter.
copyright 2008, CBSX, Inc. dba
Use this as you will, just do not edit and give us credit.

Posted in HomePage , Newsletter / Make a Comment (1)
Our newsletter is unique. You will learn how the doctrine of Islam drives current events and why we react as we do.

View Shopping Cart
Mail Order Form
About Us
Contact Us
Become an Affiliate
Privacy Policy
Return Policy
© 2008 All rights reserved.

Political Islam - News and Comments
Tears of Jihad
Contact Us
About Us

Friday, June 20, 2008



Perhaps Bloomberg wants to be considered for Vice-President by Obama and should that fail, he can always revert back to his "Republican" persona and try for the VP spot with McCain.

NEW YORK (AFP) - New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg urged Jewish voters on Friday to reject false rumors disseminated on the Internet that White House hopeful Barack Obama is a secret Muslim.

"Let's call those rumors what they are: lies," he said during a breakfast meeting with the Jewish community in south Florida. "They are cloaked in concern for Israel, but the real concern is about partisan politics."

The billionaire media mogul, who is Jewish, is a former Democrat who ran for mayor as a Republican and became an independent last year.
"Israel is just being used as a pawn, which is not that surprising, since some people are willing to stoop to any level to win an election," Bloomberg told the Jewish Federation of South Palm Beach County.

[NOTE: Once a Schmuck, always a Schmuck]

"These demagogues are hoping to exploit the political differences between the Jewish and Muslim people to spread fear and mistrust," he [Bloomberg] said.

[NOTE: Ignorant Schmuck!]

"This is wedge politics at its worst, and we've got to reject it loudly, clearly, and unequivocally."

[NOTE: Schmuck!]

[REPEAT: Once a Schmuck, always a Schmuck]

[Why? Listen: "These demagogues are hoping to exploit the political differences between the Jewish and Muslim people to spread fear and mistrust," [Bloomberg] said.]

[. . . the political differences between the Jewish and Muslim people . . . Read
OBAMA AND THE JEWS (appended to this post)

Read the whole thing--about Bloomberg--at . . .

The Obama automaton moves on, with its hollow preachy phrasings delivered in the rich voice of an empty-headed orator.

The Soviet-style heroic Obama, the use of a single word "Hope," do make the SEPTA bus shelter posters a bit reminiscent of George Orwell's "1984."

Substitute "OBEY" for "HOPE" and you got what we're all facing

Oh, and look at the "half'truths" here:

"That's why I passed laws moving people from welfare to work ..."--Barack Obama, in his first post-primary TV ad.

Obama: ". . . I passed laws moving people from welfare to work, . . . "
from "Obama for America" Ad: "Country I Love"

About which Mickey Kaus of "kausfiles: A mostly political Weblog" has this to say:

Obama . . . tout[s] his legislative accomplishments, and those claims don't stand up as well under scrutiny. In order to establish his bona fides as a politician who cares about working families, Obama cites his success with three relevant bills. But he doesn't mention that two of the three pieces of legislation were actually passed by the Illinois Senate, not the U.S. Senate. Obama's campaign tells us that when he says, "I passed laws moving people from welfare to work," he is referring to the bill that created Illinois’ Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program in 1997. Obama was one of five original sponsors of the bill, which set limits on public assistance and required welfare recipients to outline plans for moving into the workforce. The law that "cut taxes for working families" is a 2000 bill, on which Obama and 35 others were later added as cosponsors, instituting an earned income-tax credit for the state. Both bills affected only Illinois residents.
from Obama's "Mission Accomplished"

As to the "Mission Accomplished,"

kausfiles has this to say:

Is Obama's new faux-presidential, alternative-reality seal his "Mission Accomplished"? If you wanted to emphasize to voters that the Democrats' nominee is a bit stuck up, it would be hard to do better. I suppose he could start requiring reporters to stand when he enters the room. ... The seal probably started out as a bit of fun. But unless David Axelrod is insane, the thing will never be seen again. .. 2:15 A.M. link

Should reporters be required to stand when he* enters the room?

*"The self-annointed Messiah, his "self-styled holiness," Obama, the "Magnificent" (according to himself and his "Michelle" [but she's another story--now "learning to love 'Whitey'"])

Obama's famed "African Cousin" Raila Odinga:

in August 2007, a memorandum of understanding [MOU] was signed by Raila Odinga and Sheikh Abdullah Abdi, chairman of the National Muslim Leaders Forum of Kenya which stated Odinga recognized that Islam is the only true religion.

The MOU states Odinga agreed to rewrite the constitution to establish Sharia Law for the Muslims regions. The MOU also stated Muslims would be free from foreign governments laws and processes particularly regarding terrorism. It goes on and on, all in favor of the Muslims. It also imposed an immediate ban on women's public dressing styles that are considered immoral and offensive to the Muslim faith whether the woman is a Muslim or not. But is this document authentic?

At first, the Muslim council denied it existed and called the MOU that was circulating as a fake but finally did acknowledge a MOU existed in November.

Last November, the Evangelical Alliance of Kenya found out about the memo. They have it posted on their website. Not surprisingly, these Christian leaders have grave concerns about what Odinga did. Read their press statement here.

On June 6th, reported that the MOU is raising its ugly little head . . .
more at . . .

Obama has never been a Muslim?
Obama asserted in December, "I've always been a Christian," and he has adamantly denied ever having been a Muslim. "The only connection I've had to Islam is that my grandfather on my father's side came from that country [Kenya]. But I've never practiced Islam." In February, he claimed: "I have never been a Muslim. … other than my name and the fact that I lived in a populous Muslim country for 4 years when I was a child [Indonesia, 1967-71] I have very little connection to the Islamic religion."

"Always" and "never" leave little room for equivocation. But many biographical facts, culled mainly from the American press, suggest that, when growing up, the Democratic candidate for president both saw himself and was seen as a Muslim.

Obama's Kenyan birth father: In Islam, religion passes from the father to the child. Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. (1936–1982) was a Muslim who named his boy Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. Only Muslim children are named "Hussein".
"Barack Obama's Muslim Childhood"

And . . .
Could this be from Lies My Father Told Me?

"Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised as a Muslim, and is a committed Christian."

Obama was an irregularly practicing Muslim who rarely or occasionally prayed with his step-father in a mosque. This precisely substantiates my statement that he "for some years had a reasonably Muslim upbringing under the auspices of his Indonesian step-father."

Therefore, what MMfA calls the "Obama-Muslim falsehood" is in fact confirmed by both articles as truthful and accurate.

Calling this a falsehood is in itself a falsehood.

"Confirmed: Barack Obama Practiced Islam"

Barack Obama tried to trick the American people and to finesse his own moral shortcomings through his undeniable charm and eloquence. But America does not need charming, eloquent liars in the White House. America does not need morally flawed leaders who are quite unwilling to admit their moral flaws, almost adamant even when confronted with those flaws that the flaws themselves do not exist.




Be Careful What You Wish for

You may get More than You Bargained for

Barack Hussein Obama

The newly acclaimed Messiah

the Savior of the Masses

--of the liberal, Leftist Masses

If he becomes President, Will we, the people, have the President we deserve?

the man who promises Change that will save the United States?

The man whom so many Jews so Foolishly Support

The man who associated with Farrakhan and Hezbollah,

wildly supported worldwide by the greatest Jew-haters before and after the Nazis

the Mohammedans

. . . Barack Obama's candidacy is all the rage in the Arab Gulf states.

A friend from the Gulf tells me her young relative was so excited about the Democratic candidate that he tried to donate money over the Internet, as he'd heard so many young Americans were doing. Then he found out he had to be a U.S. citizen to do so. Another young woman, visiting from next-door Saudi Arabia, said that all her friends in Riyadh are "for Obama." The symbolism of a major American presidential candidate with the middle name of Hussein, who went to elementary school in Indonesia, certainly speaks to Muslims abroad.That's an interesting way to make a point lost on most American commentators: Barack Obama's father was Muslim and therefore, according to Islamic law, so is the candidate. In spite of the Quranic verses explaining that there is no compulsion in religion, a Muslim child takes the religion of his or her father.

An article has appeared on the ISM [International Solidarity Movement] affiliated website Electronic Intifada (EI) by one of its co-founders, Ali Abunimah, in which Abumimah recounts his close past working relationship with Obama prior to the presidential campaign and how Abunimah believes Obama is merely giving lip service to the Jewish community to get elected, and that once in office he will work for the Palestinian cause. Abunimah lists himself and is mentioned in subsequent Obama articles in the mainstream press merely as a "Palestinian activist." Abunimah insists that Obama will "come around" once elected.But Ali Abunimah is more than just some "Palestinian activist" based in Chicago, the same location as Reverend Wright and the Trinity United Church of Christ. He is, in fact, one of the founders of the fiercely anti-Semitic ISM Arab group Al Awda, the Palestine Right of Return Coalition. Abunimah is a high level international leader of the ISM for the Arabs who travels extensively between Chicago, Europe and Ramallah.

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA: CORNERED LIKE A RAT!. . . how much did it take to get Obama to reject the endorsement of a vicious racist, Catholic-hating bigot, and anti-Semite? The answer is that Obama had to be cornered like a rat in front of millions of people, and someone who does the right thing only when he is cornered is totally unfit to hold any position of public trust or responsibility.

We don't need to be saved by a lifelong con artist with a manufactured biography who repackages himself to appeal to everyone while concealing his real sympathies behind a facade of multilevel marketing outreach.

. . . he’s not, as some hopefully dismiss him, a charismatic lightweight with a gift for sparkling the same old vapid cant. Judging from the company he chooses to keep, Obama’s change would radically alter this country. He eschews detail because most Americans don’t believe we’re a racist, heartless, imperialist cesspool of exploitation. The details would be disqualifying.
So, instead, we get glimpses. The most profound influence in his life, his wife Michelle, is notoriously less circumspect than her careful husband about where she’s coming from. Her college thesis, which Princeton tried to keep under lock and key, testifies to a race-obsessed worldview.

Is Barack Obama – junior U.S. senator from Illinois, best-selling author, Harvard Law Review editor, Men's Vogue cover model, and "exploratory" presidential candidate – the second coming of our Savior and our Redeemer, Prince of Peace and King of Kings, Jesus Christ?" . . . "His press coverage suggests we can't dismiss this possibility out of hand."

" . . . Wright explained: "When [Obama’s] enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli" to visit Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, "a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell."According to Wright, Obama then told him, "’You can get kind of rough in the sermons, so what we’ve decided is that it’s best for you not to be out there in public.’" Still, Obama and his family prayed privately with Wright just before the [Obama] presidential announcement.[Click Here to see the Wright ("God damn America") video]

Like Wright, Farrakhan has repeatedly made hate-filled statements targeting Jews (calling Judaism a "gutter religion"), whites, and America. He has called whites "blue-eyed devils" and the "anti-Christ." He has described Jews as "bloodsuckers" who control the government, the media, and some black organizations."I decry racism and anti-Semitism in every form and strongly condemn the anti-Semitic statements made by Minister Farrakhan," Obama said.Again, Obama was careful not to condemn Farrakhan himself or Wright who had spoken adoringly of Farrakhan and put their church behind the award to the controversial Nation of Islam leader."When Minister Farrakhan speaks, black America listens," Trumpet quoted Wright as saying. "His depth on analysis [sic] when it comes to the racial ills of this nation is astounding and eye-opening. He brings a perspective that is helpful and honest."

In a Paris Match interview . . . [Obama] indicated that one of the first things that he would do if elected would be to convene a summit with the leaders of the world's Muslim nations and enlist their aid in the war on terrorism. (For article on Paris Match interview, see

From left to right, Michelle Obama, then Illinois state senator Barack Obama, Columbia University Professor Edward Said and Mariam Said at a May 1998 Arab community event in Chicago at which Edward Said gave the keynote speech. (Image from archives of Ali Abunimah)

Ali Abunimah, a Chicago-based Palestinian-American activist and co-founder of Electronic Intifada, a pro-Palestinian online publication, recalls introducing Obama at one such event, a 1999 fundraiser for the Deheisha Palestinian camp in the West Bank.

Abunimah is also a harsh critic of Israel and has protested outside pro-Israel events in the Chicago area.

"I knew Barack Obama for many years as my state senator – when he used to attend events in the Palestinian community in Chicago all the time," stated Abuminah during an interview last month with Democracy Now!, a nationally syndicated radio and television political program.

"I remember personally introducing [Obama] onstage in 1999, when we had a major community fundraiser for the community center in Deheisha refugee camp in the occupied West Bank. And that's just one example of how Barack Obama used to be very comfortable speaking up for and being associated with Palestinian rights and opposing the Israeli occupation," Abunimah said.

Abunimah also was recently quoted saying that until a few years ago, Obama was "quite frank that the U.S. needed to be more evenhanded, that it leaned too much toward Israel."Abunimah noted Obama's unusual stance toward Israel, commenting "these were the kind of statements I'd never heard from a U.S. politician who seemed like he was going somewhere, rather than at the end of his career."

Tuesday, June 17, 2008

Are Moslems Being Victimized the Same as Jews?

Free speech cannot be an excuse for hate
Jun 15, 2008 04:30 AM
Haroon Siddiqui

One staple of anti-Semitism has been that Jews have taken over the world, or are about to. Now Muslims are being accused of the same.

That Muslims pose a dire demographic and ideological threat to the West was the hypothesis of a 4,800-word article, The Future Belongs to Islam, in Maclean's magazine in October 2006. Its reverberations are still being felt.

Last month, the Ontario Human Rights Commission called it "Islamophobic." This month, the British Columbia commission held a week-long hearing. And the federal commission is weighing a report from its investigators.

The commissions are responding to petitions filed by a Muslim group that argued the article constituted hate and that Maclean's refused an adequate counter-response.
More . . .

Kathy Shaidle retorts:

Dear Mr. Siddiqui
The difference between what the Nazis said about the Jews and what people today are saying about radical Muslims is...

What we're saying about radical Muslims is true.

To pretend otherwise is to perform the intellectual equivalent of hiding Nazis in your attic during World War II.

Whereas The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a proven hoax (something millions of your fellow Muslims seem too stupid to figure out or too stubborn to admit), the many declarations of radical Muslims of their intent to take over the world are all too true -- they uttered those words themselves; have been doing so before your favourite punching bag, George Bush, was even born; and have been captured doing so on video.

And from Jihad Watch:

"The difference between what the Nazis said about the Jews and what people today are saying about radical Muslims is..."

where Kathy Shaidle comments:

Kathy Shaidle here:

Thanks to all of you for your comments and encouragement.

I tossed off that post in a rage yesterday and it is now traveling all over the web! Guess I've struck a nerve -- in a good way.

Let's hope Haroon Siddiqui decides to file a "crime complaint" against me with Canada's "Human Rights" Commissions.

I'm already being sued -- along with Ezra Levant and other Canadian conservative bloggers -- for daring to criticize the Human Rights Commissions fascist tactics, which include entrapment and telecommunications fraud.

Another legal problem couldn't make much difference at this point :-)
Anyhow: thanks again for your support. The struggle up here gets depressing -- not to mention dangerous and expensive -- at times, but your encouragement keeps us all going for another day.
God bless,
Kathy Shaidle
Posted by: Kathy Shaidle

at June 16, 2008 8:42 AM

Kathy Shaidle comment at Jihad Watch

Also see . . . Moslems are not Jews!

Friday, June 13, 2008

A Matter of Courage

Paul Eidelberg

1) Some people ask, “How did Israel ever get into Oslo?”—which journalist Charles Krauthammer called “the biggest diplomatic blunder in history”? One may also ask, “What prevents Israel from getting out of this suicidal blunder?” Why doesn’t Israel’s government simply abrogate Oslo, i.e., the Israel-PLO Agreement of September 1993? After all, the PLO has violated this agreement countless times. Indeed, Oslo has resulted in some 10,000 Jewish casualties.

2) To get out of Oslo we first need to know how Israel got into this death trap in the first place. The simplest answer goes like this: During the 1992 Knesset election campaign, Labor Party leader Yitzhak Rabin said there would be no recognition of, or negotiation with, the PLO. Yet that is precisely what the Rabin government proceeded to do once it was entrenched in office. One may therefore conclude that Oslo is the result of the Labor Party’s betrayal of the nation. All this is true, but too simple.

3) Oslo as not a place so much as a state of mind. Israel’s ruling elites succumbed to the Oslo mentality as soon as Israel won her greatest military victory in the Six Day War of June 1967. A Government of National Unity offered to “return” the land Israel repossessed for a peace treaty. Imagine: returning this strategic and cherished land to the aggressors for a piece of paper!

And these were not ordinary aggressors: they were Arabs and Muslims. Theirs is a “culture of hate” with 1,400-year history of aggression. These aggressors exulted in bloodshed, in slaughtering “infidels.”

4) Accordingly, Israel got into Oslo because Israel’s government refuses to take Islam seriously. Dominated by a see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, and speak-no-evil mentality, Israel’s ruling elites would have us believe that genuine and abiding peace is possible between Israel and Arab-Islamic despotisms. Israeli prime ministers, however, are not merely blind-deaf-mutes.

5) Why did Prime Minister Menachem Begin surrender the Sinai, including not only the settlement of Yamit, but also Israel’s most sophisticated strategic air bases and Israeli-developed Alma oil fields—all this for what Egyptian dictator Anwar Sadat subsequently called “ a piece of paper”?

6) Why did Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir attend the October 1991 Madrid Conference that tacitly recognized the PLO whose charter calls for Israel’s destruction? Indeed, why was Mr. Shamir silent about Teheran Conference, when 60 Arab-Islamic states, including Egypt, passed various resolutions calling for Israel’s annihilation a mere two weeks before the Madrid Conference?

7) Why did Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu surrender more than 40 percent of Judea and Samaria, including 80 percent of Hebron, for a piece of paper?

8) Why did Prime Minister Ehud Barak offer PLO chief Yasser Arafat 95 percent of Judea and Samaria, including eastern Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, for a piece of paper?

9) Is it any wonder that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon withdrew from Gaza for less than a piece of paper?

10) How ironic or idiotic that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, having witnessed the brave policies of his predecessors, should confess, “we are tired of being courageous”?

Can it be that Israel got into Oslo because Israeli prime ministers lack the courage to face the truth about Israel’s implacable enemies? The key word here is courage. For it may well be argued that it is precisely lack of courage that prevented Israeli prime ministers from facing the ugly truth about Israel’s relentless enemies.

But this suggests that most Israeli politicians are not only feckless but habitually mendacious. Indeed, it may well be that these politicians have come to believe in their own lies!

The question arises: how do these politicians get away with such monumental lying? Are the people of Israel so gullible? No! At least 90 percent regard Israeli politicians as corrupt. But then why do they keep electing the same scoundrels to office? Can it be that the Israel, “the only democracy in the Middle East,” is not really a democracy? Can it be that the people of Israel have long been enslaved by a political system that entrenches cowards and liars in office?

Thursday, June 12, 2008


Every American—nay, all thinking people—should read Thomas Sowell's A Man of Letters. Sowell would have my vote if he were any party's presidential candidate. Sowell is not an “African American.” He is an American who represents all that is great about the American heritage, today endangered by Barack Obama.

Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Every American—nay, all thinking people—should read Thomas Sowell's A Man of Letters. Sowell would have my vote if he were any party's presidential candidate. Sowell is not an “African American.” He is an American who represents all that is great about the American heritage, today endangered by Barack Obama.
Prof. Paul Eidelberg

-----Original Message-----From: wolfdog2 Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 4:06 Thomas Sowell on Obama for President

Thomas Sowell

An Old Newness
By Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Many years ago, a great hitter named Paul Waner was nearing the end of
his long career. He entered a ballgame with 2,999 hits -- one hit away
from the landmark total of 3,000, which so many hitters want to reach,
but which relatively few actually do reach.

Waner hit a ball that the fielder did not handle cleanly but the
official scorer called it a hit, making it Waner's 3,000th. Paul Waner
then sent word to the official scorer that he did not want that
questionable hit to be the one that put him over the top.

The official scorer reversed himself and called it an error. Later Paul
Waner got a clean hit for number 3,000.

What reminded me of this is the great fervor that many seem to feel
over the prospect of the first black President of the United States.

No doubt it is only a matter of time before there is a black president,
just as it was only a matter of time before Paul Waner got his 3,000th
hit. The issue is whether we want to reach that landmark so badly that
we are willing to overlook how questionably that landmark is reached.

Paul Waner had too much pride to accept a scratch hit. Choosing a
President of the United States is a lot more momentous than a baseball
record. We the voters need to have far more concern about who we put in
that office that holds the destiny of a nation and of generations yet

There is no reason why someone as arrogant, foolishly clever and
ultimately dangerous as Barack Obama should become president
-- esp
ecially not at a time when the threat of international terrorists with
nuclear weapons looms over 300 million Americans.

Many people seem to regard elections as occasions for venting emotions,
like cheering for your favorite team or choosing a Homecoming Queen.

The three leading candidates for their party's nomination are being
discussed in terms of their demographics -- race, sex and age -- as if
that is what the job is about.

One of the painful aspects of studying great catastrophes of the past
is discovering how many times people were preoccupied with trivialities
when they were teetering on the edge of doom. The demographics of the
presidency are far less important than the momentous weight of
responsibility that office carries.

Just the power to nominate federal judges to trial courts and appellate
courts across the country, including the Supreme Court, can have an
enormous impact for decades to come. There is no point feeling outraged
by things done b y federal judges, if you vote on the basis of emotion
for those who appoint them.

Barack Obama has already indicated that he wants judges who make social
policy instead of just applying the law. He has already tried to stop
young violent criminals from being tried as adults.

Although Senator Obama has presented himself as the candidate of new
things -- using the mantra of "change" endlessly -- the cold fact is
that virtually everything he says about domestic policy is straight out
of the 1960s and virtually everything he says about foreign policy is
straight out of the 1930s.

Protecting criminals, attacking business, increasing government
spending, promoting a sense of envy and grievance, raising taxes on
people who are productive and subsidizing those who are not -- all this
is a re-run of the 1960s.

We paid a terrible price for such 1960s notions in the years that
followed, in the form of soaring crime rates, double-digit inflation
and double-digit une m ployment. During the 1960s, ghettoes across the
countries were ravaged by riots from which many have not fully
recovered to this day.

The violence and destruction were concentrated not where there was the
greatest poverty or injustice but where there were the most liberal
politicians, promoting grievances and hamstringing the police.

Internationally, the approach that Senator Obama proposes -- including
the media magic of meetings between heads of state -- was tried during
the 1930s. That approach, in the name of peace, is what led to the most
catastrophic war in human history.

Everything seems new to those too young to remember the old and too
ignorant of history to have heard about it.

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of
Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy.

Damning Quotes from Obama
By Ted Belman

Someone asked me if I confirmed the Obama’s quote in The Audacity of Hope,
“I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”
So I began to look for confirmation. I did some googling and came up with the following that predated my disclosure and painted an even worse picture if that’s possible. This post predates mine.

Do not accept these quotes until they can be confirmed.

Why I wont vote for Obama and I am from Illinois
Feb 17, 2008

In Obama’s book THE AUDACITY Of HOPE
* He wrote “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”

In Obama’s book, DREAMS OF MY FATHER..

* “I ceased to advertise my mother’s race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites”

* “That hate hadn’t gone away,” he wrote, blaming “white people — some cruel, some ignorant, sometimes a single face, sometimes just a faceless image of a system claiming power over our lives.”However, while campaigning in Kansas, Obama frequently emphasized that his mother was white, and that he had grown up in a predominantly white world.

* (Obama) vowed that he would “never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn’t speak to my own. It was into my father’s image, the black man, son of Africa, that I’d packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.”

* “I was trying to raise myself to be a black man in America, and beyond the given of my appearance, no one around me seemed to know exactly what that meant.” Honolulu’s paucity of African-Americans meant he had to learn to be black from the media: “TV, movies, the radio; those were places to start. Pop culture was color-coded, after all, an arcade of images from which you could cop a walk, a talk, a step, a style.”

* About student life and race at Occidental College Obama wrote “There were enough of us on campus to constitute a tribe, and when it came to hanging out many of us chose to function like a tribe, staying close together, traveling in packs,” he wrote. “It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.” He added: “To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists.”

* While in college, Obama wrote(he) disapproved of what he called other “half-breeds” who gravitated toward whites instead of blacks.

Again, from Colonel Ray
“And after college, he once fell in love with a white woman, only to push her away when he concluded he would have to assimilate into her world, not the other way around. He later married a black woman.”

* After making his first visit to Kenya, Obama wrote of being disappointed to learn that his paternal grandfather had been a servant to rich whites. The revelation caused “ugly words to flash across my mind. Uncle Tom. Collaborator. House *igger.Some tough words for someone who wants to embrace us all.

It seems to indicate that Obama’s choice of Church and it liberation theology reflect these views or vice versa.

Posted by Ted Belman @ 12:57 pm
Damning Quotes from Obama
April 7, 2008 — budsimmons
Can you guess who it is?

Wednesday, June 11, 2008


By Victor Davis Hanson
at Pajamas Media

Excerpt from Autopsy of the Primaries: The only Democratic Candidate who can lose the General Election; the only Republican one who can win it.

The Chicago Past

Obama either out of misplaced loyalty or because of 20 years of Chicago racial politics, simply cannot deal with the continuing embarrassments of Wright, Pfleiger, Trinity, et al. He either gets defensive and blames the messenger of the latest embarrassment, or makes silly announcements of support. They are followed by qualifiers, followed by eventual “disowning”—but always with a twist of pique. Wright’s madness was mischaracterized by unfair video “loops” and “snippets”—before he refuted Obama’s apologia by sickening America with the entire racist rant at the National Press Club.

But by now all of America fathoms the truth: Obama made a devil’s bargain with a number of racists to establish his own street credentials in the rough and tumble world of Chicago politics. He now finds that what started his career could well end it. Bottom line: the voters will have to decide whether these skeletons are the usual embarrassments that all candidates deal with as they evolve beyond their diehard bases, or instead disturbing proof that Obama himself got a certain psychological high from hearing ministers and congregation members routinely trash whites and the so-called establishment, as attested by his attendance at and subsidies to the Wright ministry.

Rule One for Obama’s campaign: Don’t let Obama rush to the defense of any dubious character in his past, since he inevitably will have to disown him sooner or later. The impression that Obama inevitably changes his storyline (while a Wright or Pfleger remains absolutely predictable and consistent) is beginning to tire the American people.

Gaffes Galore

Anyone who lived his first 18 years out of the continental United States, and then attended politically-correct Ivy League schools before jumping into Chicago politics might not have a broad view of American demography and indeed, U.S. history—much less the sociology of the United States.

But the number of Obama’s slips are staggering. They range from geographical ignorance (Kentucky is not contiguous with Arkansas, but it is with Illinois), to US history (there are 50 states in the Union; the US army did not liberate Auschwitz) to foreign affairs (the election of Hugo Chavez predated George Bush) to simple political ignorance (you don’t trash the lower white middle class to San Francisco elites) and common decency (you don’t put your own grandmother on the same moral plane as the racist Wright, or a U.S senator in the same category as the terrorist Ayers.)

Rule Two: Get Obama back on a script. He may sound catchy and smug in repartee and ex tempore give and take; but he has already made candidate George Bush’s much caricatured inability to identify a Pakistani president seem like a very tiny Dan Quayle proverbial potato.


Michelle, as America learned, cannot give a speech without either (1) claiming that her husband is a saint and a genius, and we are all lucky to have him; (2) whining about the unexpected “raise the bar” pressures on the young urban yuppie careerist couple; (3) trashing the United States; or (4) defining world or national problems in terms of herself or her kids.

Rule Three: Do not confuse her ability to wade boldly out into audience in the manner of Phil Donahue with either savvy, wit, humor, or enlightenment. One or two more performances of the tired Princeton-Harvard-Reverend-Wright take on contemporary America—and the campaign is over. All the talk about whether she is a “legitimate” target will be about as relevant as whether a woman who joins the military will sometimes be in harm’s way in wartime.

The Agenda

Obama’s team must not confuse Republican problems of the economy, war, fuel, and 8 years of an unpopular candidate with voter lust for a liberal agenda. Who wants vast increases in payroll, income, and inheritance taxes—not to pay down the debt but to fund billions in new entitlements that will only create greater dependency and stifle initiative? Or who wishes to throw away all that was won in Iraq by quitting now, when a slow withdrawal won by victory is within our grasp? And who wishes hyper-liberal judges and appointees, more “oppression studies” in our schools, or the same old, same old on’t drill, mine, or use nuclear power, while enriching our enemies and singing sonnets to wind and solar?

Rule Four: Keep talking about Lord Hope and Saint Change and Holy Possibility—and don’t get into specifics. Jimmy Carter didn’t and it worked in 1976 for him. The problem is not that Obama simply talks in platitudes, but rather that he must—given the most leftwing agenda in modern memory.

[And about McCain:]

Rule Three: Each time Obama hits him with the age issue, McCain must remind us that he at least knows how many states there are in the Union or the difference between Memorial and Veterans Day. And McCain should learn from Reagan—smile, relax and take two days a week off.

More . . . [re McCain etc.)

Read the whole thing at


Obama Rules
Ten new regulations for the 2008 election
by Victor Davis Hanson

Monday, June 9, 2008

Rabid Anti-Semitism on Obama’s Official 2008 Campaign Website

Read this latest gem from the Barack Obama 2008 official campaign website (which was scrubbed yesterday once the blog world started looking at this outrage\:

If a politician does not play ball with the Jewish Lobby, he will not get elected, or re-elected, and he will either be smeared or ignored by the Jewish-owned major media.

All Jewish lobbies and organizations are interconnected and there are hundreds upon hundreds of them. The leaders of the numerous Jewish Lobby Groups go to the same synagogues, country clubs, and share the same Jewish investment bankers. And this inter-connectedness extends to the Jews who run the Federal Reserve Bank, US Homeland Security, and the US State Department.
In other words, "Jews stick together." Americans must know how extremely powerful the Jewish Lobby is and how it operates to undermine America's interests both at home and abroad. At home - by corrupting America's political system, and abroad - by dictating American Foreign Policy against America's best interests.

Click on the above Headline to get to the article!