The New York Times tries a new way to tackle the Bill of Rights

In response to another attempt by the depraved and subversive New York Times to usurp our Constitution:

The problems with (il)liberal efforts to curtail or eliminate the ability of American citizens to defend themselves are several:

First, the right to self-defense is a God-given and unalienable right, period. Only tyrants and criminals want the innocent defenseless.  If you're a criminal seeking to harm someone, and you have a choice between two homes -- one in which the residents are armed and one which is defenseless -- which would you choose?

Second, we already have multiple laws forbidding homicide; if mass murderers and other criminals refuse to follow a law as basic as that, what makes you think that they'll obey gun laws? They won't; only the naive and the nescient think otherwise.

Third, you'll never eliminate firearms; if you make them illegal, only the law-abiding will be weaponless; government and criminals will still be fully-armed.

Germany tried that. Communist and Islamic states, too. How does that work out?

Fourth, the president and other elected tyrants who want to take away our ability to defend ourselves would never, ever, under any circumstances give up their armed security (for which we pay). What makes their lives and the lives of their families more valuable than ours?

If Barack Obama wants the nation disarmed, then him first.

Finally, why would you voluntarily give up your right to defend yourself, those whom you love, and your neighbors? And even if you would, why would you use the coercive power of the state to steal away from the rest of us our ability to do so?

How perverse.

Sarah Palin protests burning the inspiration for 9/11, calling for tolerance of "sacralized" genocide, pedophilia, rape, slavery, and treason

Though I doubt she understands the implication of her advice.  Demonstrating the same well-intentioned but suicidal ignorance of Islam infecting so many in the West, Sarah Palin calls burning the text singularly responsible for 9/11 an "insensitive and . . . unnecessary provocation."  Funny, I thought putting a monument to the slaughter of innocents over their graves was "insensitive and unnecessary," not to mention the attack itself.

Would anyone complain about a public burning of Mein Kampf?  Why, then, are so many distressed about a public condemnation of the single most hateful document in human history?  Both Hitler and Muhammad were genocidally anti-Semitic, both wanted to rule the world, both sold their nations on the supremacy of their own tribes.  Muhammad's genius (if you can call a genocidal pedophile "smart") -- and Hitler's failure of imagination -- was that the murderous prophet couched his totalitarian and totally-depraved ideology of rape and murder in the garb of "religion," which has given Islam a staying power that no secular system can equal.

And Fox 11 News unintentionally aided the cultural jihad today by hosting two guests -- a progressive rabbi and a conservative legal expert -- who also defended Qur'an.  The "rabbi" equated the Florida pastor with Hitler, dredged up the Inquisition and Crusades, and referenced Maimonides as an example of a Jew persecuted by Christians but befriended by Muslims.  This is the height of self-destructive moral inversion, historical illiteracy, and tragic irony since Maimonides lamented the severe persecution of Jews carried out by Muslims, the first Crusade was called in response to a desperate plea for help from eastern Christians under siege for centuries by jihad, and the pastor is protesting the ne plus ultra of murderous hatred and intolerance, the source and sustenance of a "religion" commended by Hitler.

Time to cross off another completely nescient politician.  What can you expect when even our "experts" on Islam like Daniel Pipes, smart people on the Right like Newt Gingrich, and talk radios' stars like (the guests hosts for) Sean Hannity and Mike Gallagher continue to perpetuate the nonsensical and nonexistent distinction between Islam and "Islamism"?  There may be moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate.

Sarah Palin protests against defying tyrants and destroying copies of the inspiration for 9/11:

"Book burning is antithetical to American ideals. People have a constitutional right to burn a Koran if they want to, but doing so is insensitive and an unnecessary provocation – much like building a mosque at Ground Zero"

So, building a monument to the slaughter of three thousand innocents is the moral equivalent of destroying copies of the book which inspired, informed, and mandated their murder?

If that's the best we've got, we're doomed.

"It will feed the fire of caustic rhetoric and appear as nothing more than mean-spirited religious intolerance," she continued. "Don’t feed that fire."

The fire is fed by Qur'an, which contains open-ended, universal commands to use any means necessary -- including violence -- to make the world Islam, mandates death for apostates, and along with Sunnah encourages the murder of anyone who criticizes Islam.

You know, "mean-spirited religious intolerance."

Ms. Palin and the others cowering in the corner pleading, "Don't call Islam violent, or Muslims might kill someone!" are behaving in a very un-American way -- Why is anyone encouraging a free man to self-censor in deference to murderous tyrants, again?  What are we, French?  (At least they're banning something Islamic.)

"If your ultimate point is to prove that the Christian teachings of mercy, justice, freedom, and equality provide the foundation on which our country stands, then your tactic to prove this point is totally counter-productive."

That's a logical fallacy in the first place: Proving someone else intolerant doesn't prove yourself tolerant.  In the second, there was a time when Americans considered it a sacred duty to oppose tyranny.  And now our media, politicians, and even our military are telling us to compromise our freedom to burn stuff because our enemies might get mad.  What's next?  Shari'a courts in the U.S.?  Polygymy?  Jizya?  In that case, we're already following the mandates of shari'a, and the jihadists have won.

And as for General Petraeus's argument that burning Qur'ans will endanger our troops?  Don't they have guns?  Remove your suicidal Rules of Engagement and let the greatest military the world has ever known do its job.  Have our warriors bled and died so that Muslims can threaten us into silence?

The fall of the Great City, Constantinople, 1453: Past is prelude

The "smartest president ever" grew up Muslim, yet he lies about Islam to those who elected him.  He warns us to avoid "jumping to conclusions" about his (former?) fellow coreligionists-of-peace slaughtering Americans to shouts of "Allahu akbar!" The mayor betrayer of New York, Michael Bloomberg, green-lights the Green Plague's latest jihad factory in what would have been the shadow of the Twin Towers, except that Muslims obliterated them, slaughtering thousands of innocents in the process. And here is the governor of Massachusetts Deval Patrick and Boston mayor Thomas Menino facilitating jihad in the land of the Adamses and Revere:

Certainly not what the Sons of Liberty had in mind.

Where's Paul Revere when you need him?

What does any of this have to do with the fall of Constantinople so many centuries ago?  Only that, just as petty rivalries, incompetence, and betrayal weakened the Great City so that it could no longer resist the jihad waged against it, so today we face the same uncompromising, relentless evil.

At least the Romans knew enough to fight back. Our leaders usher the Ottomans into the city. This is what awaits the West:

The Turks had sought to enter the city with a fanatic spirit because the Prophet, in the Qur’an, offered them a special place in paradise. Sultan Mehmet only mimicked the Prophet Muhammad when he said, “…even if some of us should die, as is natural in war, and meet our destined end, you know well from the Qur’an what the Prophet says, ‘that he who dies in battle shall dine whole in body with Mahomet, and drink with him in paradise and he shall take his rest in a green spot and fragrant with flowers, enjoying the company of women and lovely boys and virgins and he will bathe in gorgeous baths. All these things he will enjoy in that place by God’s favor.’” Despite facing such great odds, the Byzantines would defend their ancient Christian capital with great tenacity against the armies of Mehmet.

[. . .]

When they were finished, with their preparations, the Ottomans began blowing trumpets throughout their camp, along with sounding the castanets and tambourines, to announce that the Sultan would make a proclamation to his soldiers. Mehmet said to his men, “Children of Mahomet, be of good cheer. Tomorrow we shall have so much wealth that we shall be all of gold, and from the beards of Greeks we shall make leashes to tie up our dogs, and their wives and their sons shall be our slaves; so be of good cheer children of Mahomet, and be ready to die with a stout heart for the love of our Mahomet.” That night so many fires were lit in the Turkish camp that it appeared to the defenders as if the very walls were on fire, thus causing more panic in the city.

Multiculturalism and craven self-censorship as the path to the Islamization of the West

For centuries, Islam has been impotent, unable to use its preferred method of "persuasion" against the West (slaughter) -- its last best chance having been obliterated on the first September 11th at the gates of Vienna in 1683 (thank you, Jan III Sobieski) -- so it's found another way: Aided both by trillions in blood for oil for the funding of indoctrination and propaganda centers within our own borders and the West's suicidal self-loathing in the guise of Multiculturalism, Europe -- and soon America, bankrupted and disarmed by the allegedly-former-Muslim in the White House -- is at the precipice of a new Dark Ages.  A new Inquisition has begun, this time in defense of Islam rather than in defense against it.

Pat Condell condemns the cowardice of establishment Europe in persecuting (prosecuting) Geert Wilders for telling the truth about Islam (thanks to Dan for posting this; be sure to visit his excellent site).

Western Civilization hangs by a thread:

Energy spent propagandizing FBI better spent elsewhere

The element of political-correctness that gives its practitioners power is that which shames, intimidates, and threatens into silence those who know better.

For example, there is an effort (by groups like CAIR) to cause any critical examination of Islam to be perceived as Islamophobia. Like all lies, this can only result in harm, whether that harm is spiritual (faith in a false god) or physical (allowing murderous thugs to maim and kill "disbelievers" -- Christians and Jews).

This flavor of political-correctness is apparently infecting one of those bodies given the grave duty of protecting American lives -- the FBI. Consider the following quote from an article at WND.com:

"Even as the FBI takes new heat over the 9-11 report's revelation that it overlooked ties between a Muslim cleric and two of the al-Qaida hijackers, it is putting agents and new recruits through a Muslim sensitivity program that includes inviting Muslim clerics and leaders to preach about the allegedly peaceful attributes of Islam."

While all Americans deserve respect, and most Muslims are not terrorists, our FBI should spend their energy and intellect uncovering and restraining those who would harm us.

And instead of preaching to the FBI about the "peaceful attributes of Islam," perhaps it would be better working to reform Islam from within.