What can you expect from someone who thinks that Muslims have a Constitutional right to his own daughters?

Hello, Tony, and welcome to 2003.
This is the earliest e-mail addressed to a public figure containing the revised signature.

Following is a response to the inveterate liar Anthony Sokolow, who advocates Socialism and Shari'a. In other words, an Obamaphile:

Tony,

How sad. You can't defend your nescient agitating for the bankruptcy of the American Republic, so you resort (again) to absurdity.

You are a liar and a masochist.

I did not select my nom de guerre out of pretention. (How stupid! If I were to do something like that, I'd have to be twelve-years-old and harboring intense feelings of insecurity . . . which goes a long way toward explaining why you thought of that first.) I chose the name to make a point regarding the one and one-half millennia-old existential threat posed by Islam. Unsurprisingly, you don't get it.

And where have I called myself a "scholar"? (Thanks for the compliment, by the way.) All one needs to understand Islam's texts, tenets, and timeline is the ability to read, some free time, and a little intellectual honesty. You have the time to participate in these e-mail exchanges (I'd use "debates," but that implies at least two sides contending more-or-less equally), so you do have some free time on your hands, and . . . .

. . . Well, I guess one out of three isn't too bad. (If this were Major League Baseball, you'd be an All-Star.)

With regard to the Henry quote, shall I remind you of how I disgrace you publicly every time you bring it up? You will recall that I demonstrated conclusively that you were several years late in pointing out its origin and that the only reason it showed up in its older form is because of a quirk in Hotmail.

Is anyone really surprised that you can't be honest? After all, you defend on Constitutional grounds the right of Muslims to exercise the freedom in their religion to behead you and rape and enslave your wife and two daughters.

You really ought to spend less time on the computer. After all, you've got bigger things to worry about. Like how to explain to your daughters your giving them up as sex slaves to the Ikhwan.

A.

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here." -attributed commonly to, but inspired by, Patrick Henry

"I know no Savior apart from the One born by the Virgin, died on the cross, and given out at the altar." -Martin Luther

Infrastructure does not create Prosperity, Liberty does

Offered in response to Anthony Sokolow's defense of Obama's deception on "infrastructure":

Infrastructure -- Government spending -- does not create Prosperity, Liberty does.

You write as if Government is a god, creating ex nihilo. But it doesn't. All that Government "gives" – including infrastructure – is paid for by its citizens through either taxes, debt, or inflation.

Every dollar spent by a politician – which politician knows better than you what to do with your own wealth, Tony? – is a dollar that the one who earned it no longer has to use for his own purposes.

Having a political "elite" decide how everyone else should live is fine as long as you're part of that elite, but it's not Liberty.

Charles Krauthammer on Obama's fundamental dishonesty regarding "infrastructure" (h/t Tom):

Spoken by a man who never created or ran so much as a candy store.

And it's completely a straw man argument — as if conservatives and Republicans are arguing to disband the fire department and the police department so we can all do it individually on our own. The idea that infrastructure is necessary and good is as old as the republic. It's older than that. The Romans had the Via Appia and that wasn't exactly a new idea. And they had the sewers as well.

The question is: What do you do with the money once you build the infrastructure? You heard Obama talking about the moon shot. … in that speech. He went through a list of the great achievements that the government has done. The moon shot. Well, Obama's the guy who shut down the moon program — manned space program so that today we have to outsource our access into space. For any American astronaut who wants to go to the space station we have to pay the Russians $50 million a shot.

He spoke about the invention of the Internet, which he neglected to say was the work of Al Gore. In fact, it wasn't the government that invented it, in general, it was the Defense Department, a part of the government. And what has Obama done as he sprinkled billions of dollars on all the other departments in government? He shrunk the Defense Department and it's now looking at draconian cuts.

This is a man that spent $1 trillion [stimulus] and left not a residue. He could have, for example, done something about the electric grid. He did nothing on that. Instead he sprinkled the money on cronies, pie in the sky ideological fetishes, like solar panels and electric cars…. Money wasted, it's water on the sand. He did not leave behind residue on all that, and yet he speaks of infrastructure.

All of us want infrastructure — but real infrastructure. And leave the rest of life to the private individual and the entrepreneur.

To liberals, "freedom" and "justice" are merely buzzwords useful only for buying votes from the greedy and stealing them from the gullible

You know, if stimuli are so good for terrorist states, corporations, public employee unions, and other campaign contributors, why don't leftists just give every American citizen – and illegals, too, why discriminate? – a billion dollars?

No leftist will answer that, since then they'd have to address why politicians, corporations, thieves, the lazy, and terrorists are more deserving of American dollars than those who actually earn them.

Liberals don't believe in freedom or justice. To them, those are merely buzzwords useful only for buying votes from the greedy and stealing them from the gullible.

If Muslims are merely the victims of "good white Christian folk," then why centuries of jihad in India?

Here's Islam exercising its Constitutionally-protected religious liberties on Hindus.

Strangely enough, the Muslims below said and did what Muslims waging jihad over the last fourteen hundred years throughout the West -- including today's schoolgirl-beheading, underwear-detonating, miniskirt-raping Muslims -- say and do.

I wonder, what's the connection?  Why all the violence against non-Muslims in India?  Could it be India's colonies in the Middle East?  (They didn't have any colonies there?)  Prejudice against non-whites?  (You mean, most Indians aren't "white"?)  George W. Bush?  (He wasn't born until the twentieth-century, and the jihad in India began in the eighth?)

No, the reason that Muslims rape, maim, enslave, and slaughter all around the world is because they all draw from Islam's "sacred" texts their inspiration and justification for jihad.

Notice the extraction of jizya -- and vile humiliation -- imposed on the conquered, "zimmi" (dhimmi) Hindus, and the binary option offered normally to polytheists: Convert or Die (emphasis mine):

The Sultán then asked, “How are Hindus designated in the law, as payers of tribute (kharáj-guzár) or givers of tribute (kharáj-dih)?” The Kází replied, “They are called payers of tribute, and when the revenue officer demands silver from them, they should, without question and with all humility and respect, tender gold. If the officer throws dirt into their mouths, they must without reluctance open their mouths wide to receive it. By doing so they show their respect for the officer. The due subordination of the zimmí (tribute-payer) is exhibited in this humble payment and by this throwing of dirt into their mouths. The glorification of Islám is a duty, and contempt of the Religion is vain. God holds them in contempt, for he says, ‘Keep them under in subjection.' To keep the Hindus in abasement is especially a religious duty, because they are the most inveterate enemies of the Prophet, and because the Prophet has commanded us to slay them, plunder them, and make them captive, saying, ‘Convert them to Islám or kill them, enslave them and spoil their wealth and property.’ No doctor but the great doctor (Hanífa), to whose school we belong, has assented to the imposition of the jizya (poll tax) on Hindus. Doctors of other schools allow no other alternative but ‘Death or Islám.'”

As I have stated in this blog repeatedly, of the 4 schools of Islamic law, only one (Hanafi) even allows Hindus the right to live. The 3 others simply say that Hindus must be killed if they refuse to convert. That is what this Kazi is telling Ala-ud-din. Note also that he says that Hindus are the worst in the eyes of Allah. This is because in the Kuran, the mushriqs (idolators) are considered the worst of the worst, fit to be killed immediately. Kuran 9:5 is very explicit about this "slay the idolators where ever ye find them..." We Hindus must never forget this - that our fate as per orthodox Islam is beheading.

Now you tell me that it is all in accordance with law that the Hindus should be reduced to the most abject obedience.” Then the Sul-tán said, “Oh, doctor, thou art a learned man, but thou hast had no experience; I am an unlettered man, but I have seen a great deal; be assured then that the Hindus will never become submissive and obedient till they are reduced to poverty. I have, therefore, given orders that just sufficient shall be left to them from year to year, of corn, milk, and curds, but that they shall not be allowed to accumulate hoards and property.”

So Ala-ud-din says that he has put into place measures (heavy taxation etc.) in order to reduce Hindus to abject poverty and keep them in a state of permanent debasement.

This was the status of Hindus under Islamic rule. Of course, our school textbooks, written by Marxist liars, will portray this period as a "great flowering of a syncretic culture." I leave it to the reader to judge for themselves what kind of "syncretic culture" our textbooks are talking about.

That last part's pretty funny.  Marxism in service to Islam.

I mean, it's not like a Muslim could ever become a Marxist, rise to power, and tax/spend/borrow a non-Muslim people into "abject poverty and . . . a state of permanent debasement," even giving a trillion dollars to a known jihadist government like Hamas, right?  Right?

You'd have to be a racist Islamophobe frightened of the bogeyman-under-the-bed to even entertain such an idea.  In fact, I'm probably a fascist imperialist who eats puppies just for posting this.

(But wait, Marxists love Islam.)

Some wound with friendly-fire those standing in our defense

Here's an exchange (containing minor formatting changes and names redacted) with someone who, while not necessarily intending to advance Allah's War Against Humanity, does wound with friendly-fire those standing in the way of Islamic supremacism and tyranny.  Since the sniping is intentional, it seems necessary to give one with decent aim but poor judgment a rap on the beezer:

"Thanks a lot for forwarding Kyle-Anne Shiver’s piece. What an old fashioned laff riot. I visited her blog but was unable to find out much about her other than how she acquired her name; that fact that she converted to Catholicism; and that she has big hair."

You can't refute the author's statements of fact nor the conclusions drawn from them, so you attack her (and [an American Patriot]).

Argumentum ad hominem. The last refuge of cowards and tyrants.

By the way, my pointing out your lack of intellectual integrity does not constitute an endorsement of the author's solution to the Lesser Jihad (Islam's war against Israel). I'm responding only to what was shared here [in this e-mail exchange].

To which this gentleman responded:

Dear Mr. Matamoros,

If you wish to throw the gauntlet; if you, personally, have anything worth reading to write, I will respond. Kyle-Anne Shiver’s comment was intellectual garbage. It is your right to hate the President if you so desire. But do not for one nanosecond think that any of the crap to which you people subscribe is worth the time to parse and dissect.

[an American Patriot] sends post after post of untruths and empty calories from the blogosphere. You lap them up and accuse me of ad hominem, or in this instance, ad feminem attacks.

What we all need is fewer blogs and more content. Kyle-Anne Shiver’s description of herself is so lacking in content that if you fail to appreciate that, it says volumes about you, just as it said nothing about her.

Look at your last comment. If I were you, I would have the intellectual honesty to be embarrassed. But that’s your problem and [an American Patriot]’s problem. It doesn’t matter what you think; what you say; or what you do. You lack utterly the self awareness to be embarrassed.

So, bring it on if you wish . . . .

And my last step in this dance:

I'd prefer a civil discussion/debate.

Gauntlet-throwing is so Medieval, which I appreciate. But that's not what you want.  Rather than offer something substantive, you want to call names, demonize, and stifle dissent.  I'll play along . . .

I wrote: "You can't refute the author's statements of fact nor the conclusions drawn from them, so you attack her (and [an American Patriot])."  And you respond with . . . more argumentum ad hominem.  Thanks for proving my point.  (Speaking of "an utter lack of self-awareness" . . . .)

if you, personally, have anything worth reading to write

You wouldn't know, since you don't actually read what I write.

I'll respond

With more ad hominems and name-calling, no doubt.

It is your right to hate the President if you so desire.

. . . I'd vote for Obama in 2012 if he would tell the truth and act in defense of America and against totalitarianism, rather than bankrupting and disarming the nation, betraying our friends, and aiding Communist and Muslim tyrants.

But do not for one nanosecond think that any of the crap to which you people subscribe is worth the time to parse and dissect.

"You people"? What are you, racist?* [. . .]

[an American Patriot] sends post after post of untruths and empty calories from the blogosphere. You lap them up and accuse me of ad hominem, or in this instance, ad feminem attacks.

"hominem." [an American Patriot] is a man.  Besides that, he's an honest and passionate defender of American Liberty.  Both facts go a long way toward explaining why you hate him.

What we all need is fewer blogs and more content.

'blogs are a free man's modern Gutenberg press.  But that's your problem, isn't it?  You don't want individuals exercising their God-given, unalienable right to speak their minds. You'd rather silence them.

You're a tyrant.

Kyle-Anne Shiver’s description of herself is so lacking in content

Which goes to show (again) that you don't actually read, for if you did, you'd have seen that unlike you, I did not go scrounging around her site looking for fodder for personal attacks, I responded to the actual content in the earlier e-mail.

Regarding that, you have yet to point out any error. The only (possibly-) valid criticism of that article is her citation of the "siding with Muslims" quote -- "valid" only if you believe the claim that Obama was speaking of defending innocent people against unwarranted persecution, not of protecting the ummah against non-Muslims defending themselves against jihad.

that if you fail to appreciate that, it says volumes about you, just as it said nothing about her.

More of the Accidental Irony of the Dishonest.

Look at your last comment.

Why are you offended? Are you a leftist, a Muslim, or a cannibal?

If I were you, I would have the intellectual honesty to be embarrassed.

That's a certain text!  If you were me, at least you'd have some intellectual integrity, even if it were only enough to be embarrassed.

But that’s your problem and [an American Patriot]’s problem.

More ad hominem . . . .

It doesn’t matter what you think

Yes, you wouldn't want to let facts get in your way.

So, bring it on if you wish.

How very "W" of you . . . .

(Now you're googling frantically "Amillennialist" and "Santiago Matamoros" in order to find something over which you can call me names.)

* I know that was a low blow. I'm almost ashamed. But when someone is intentionally and repeatedly rude to a good man working in defense of Liberty, a good shot to the central nervous system seems apropos.