Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Huckabee for President!

In response to Bob Novak's diatribe against Huck, Dick Morris has good information --actual facts-- to support the Huckabee campaign. read it here

He raised the sales tax one cent in 11 years and did that only after the courts ordered him to do so. (He also got voter approval for a one-eighth-of-one-cent hike for parks and recreation.)

He wants to repeal the income tax, abolish the IRS and institute a “fair tax” based on consumption, and opposes any tax increase for Social Security.

Sounds like exactly my kind of guy...

Morris makes the point that Huckabee is a genuine conservative while Romney positions himself to get votes. Like I said in an earlier post, I don't have a good feeling about Romney's honesty or wisdom.

Huckabee campaign is not full of cash like Romney or Guliani so stop by and contribute at

Mr. President, what the hell has happened to you?

article from The Spectator :

We’ve all been here before. Annapolis is a re-run of the Madrid conference which ushered in the Oslo ‘peace’ process. The principal outcome of that was to reconfigure in the gullible western mind a genocidal project as a liberation movement, mightily arm the Palestinians with American and European money and enable them to slaughter more than a thousand Israeli innocents while reconfiguring Israel as the villain of the piece. But that whole process was due to the fact that, before 9/11, a lot of very silly people, including your predecessors, lived in cloud cuckoo-land.

One question, Mr President: what the hell has happened to you?

And concering the real prospect of negotiated peace...the issue is the existence or non-existence of Israel, at least for the Palis. They have made some public statements to the West about how they would live together happily with Jews, but in Arabic at home and in the mosques the chant is still "Kill the them to the sea." So hew do you expect Israel to negotiate with people who's ultimate desire is to annihilate them?

All Palistinians seem to want is constant concessions. And Bush-Rice is willing to give them. I am so dissapointed in my President. Indeed, what the hell happened?

Friday, November 16, 2007

Great News from Iraq...

See Michael Yon's article about Christians coming back to Iraq.

Truly a tremendous change.

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

Music Video - Islam's Not For Me !

Caution: this is NOT for Muslims :o) link


And thanks to LGF, a brutally forthright explanation to British Islamofascists

Here are the lyrics to Islam's Not For Me:

They tried to tell me
my religion was wrong.
They tried to tell me
to follow Islam.

They said their “Prophet”
was a righteous dude,
But I found out
none of their words were true.

I read the Qur’an
and I read the Hadith,
And the sickness of Mohammed
was apparent to me.

He justified perversion
in the name of Allah,
When he married a girl
too young for a bra.

She was playing with dolls
when the “Prophet” came.
Her childhood was stolen
in Allah’s name.

Aisha was nine
when he took her to bed.
Don’t tell me that fool’s
not sick in the head.

I ain’’t gonna follow no child molester, sex offender, Prophet pretender.
I ain’’t gonna follow no child molester! Islam’s not for me! Islam’s not for me!

The sickness of
the Islamic mind,
Has caused some mullas
to be blind.

To justify their “Prophet”
they will justify sin,
So the sins of the “Prophet”
are repeated again.

All over the world
in Islamic states,
Nine year old girls
suffer cruel fate,

Sold into marriage
to twisted men,
And Aisha’s sad story
is repeated again.

I ain’’t gonna follow no child molester, sex offender, Prophet pretender.
I ain’’t gonna follow no child molester! Islam’s not for me! Islam’s not for me!

Do you care about women
all over the world?
Do you care about those
little girls?

Better stand up and fight
for human rights,
Speak out against
the laws of Islam!

I ain’’t gonna follow no child molester, sex offender, Prophet pretender.
I ain’’t gonna follow no child molester! Islam’s not for me! Islam’s not for me!
Islam’s not for me!

Peaceful Muslims and Islamic terrorists

There is a typical response to any concern over 'terrorists' being labeled Muslim, because everyone knows Islam is a "religion of peace." While that is something a mentally challenged five year old might buy, I don't. While 100% of Muslims are not terrorists, 100% of current terrorists (or damn close) are Muslim... with a violence count currently at more than 9,000 acts of terror since 9/11.

I do see however, that there is a difference between fundamental Islam and the Islam practiced by some modern, westernized Muslims. My uneducated guess is that there are a lot of Muslims, born into the religion, who don't really understand their religion. Their "moderate" leaders or imams peddle a watered down version of the Quran.

This conclusion comes from looking at the Quran itself. The document is so illogical and violent in the main, with a few "peaceful" verses that I think of it as sprinkling a little sugar in a lake of mud. Read Craig Winn's book online -- The Prophet of Doom

So we have hundreds of millions of backsliding or ignorant Muslims (ignorant of their religion) who the ostriches like to call peaceful, and who Islamists like to call dead-meat, because they are worse than infidels.

A 'small percentage' of Muslims, maybe 15%, are Islamists or jihadists we are told. Well, that doesn't make me feel too safe...that means 300,000 of the 2 million American Muslims are sympathetic to the destruction of my country. That is more people in the enemy 'army' in OUR country that are in the military in Britain--our closest ally, according to an article at

This war is not a new one. The entity who once was called 'the Morning Star' before he declared war on God, has been working hard to deceive and destroy for thousands of years. He found a great foothold in the world of Islam which he developed 1400 years ago. I think these recent photos demonstrate the fruits of an evil spirit. A bit different than "Love your neighbor as yourself" or " But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,"

Yahweh has a plan and a purpose for each of us. He also is in control of the universe and our ultimate fate. While Yahweh has allowed satan to have hegemony in the world for some reason, I have no doubt He can and will protect his people. Look at how many times He has saved His chosen people over thousands of years--through famine, slavery, captivity, oppression and holocaust. Yes, my Lord is powerful enough to conquer this current foe. Little moon-gods who need humans to protect them and their name are not a match for the God of Wonders.

Be wise, be watchful, beware, be in prayer and most of all - be of good cheer.

Saturday, November 10, 2007

Oil's Future, and Our Future

Oil. Energy. Enormous subjects for a little old snowman to consider. But consider it we must. We have to make good decisions regarding energy policy because not only our personal economy is involved but the economy and security of our nation.

I don't have a dog in the fight, I just want to know what is the best solution for us. What are the basics?

1. Oil is a finite resource that is being used at an escalating rate, so you don't have to be an expert to realize it IS going to run out some day. That day may be after I'm dead, it may be sooner....but it WILL come.

It is prudent to consider what energy source will be used post-petroleum. This seems like a great place for environmentalists and security hawks to join forces.

2. There appears to be argument about how much oil is undeveloped in various countries...but the clear fact is that the overwhelming current supply and known reserves are located in the Middle East. Billions of dollars (and other currencies) flow to the self-stated enemies of our country every day.

It is prudent to consider what energy sources can be exploited now to reduce/eliminate the aggrandizement of our enemies.

3. The overwhelming percentage of oil consumption in the US is transportation related. Turning down your thermostat is good stewardship and wise personal economics, but doesn't have much effect on our oil imports.

It is prudent to focus what is going to make a big difference for the economy and security--not fritter our time away with sexy, irrelevant gimmics. Diversifying our sources probably isn't workable, increasing efficiency won't solve only delay.

4. Non-petroleum energy sources are available or under consideration. What are the limitations? Why don't we have them in production right now?

Are 'big oil' companies holding back research into alternative fuels to maximize their petro investment?
Are alternative fuels just less efficient that gasoline?
Are they grossly more expensive?
Do we need a whole change in infrastructure?

Sidebar: I read Undaunted Courage by Steven Ambrose a couple of years ago. A tremendous book, and even more interesting to me when the story brought them to Idaho and Washington where I grew up. I have been to and lived near the places they traveled and was struck by the contrast of a primitive, wild frontier in 1803 with the high-tech dam-strewn irrigated flyover country it now is. In only 200 short years we have come from paddling a canoe down the Columbia River at 6 mph to driving a thirty thousand dollar SUV with cell phone and TV down I-90 at 80 mph. Two Hundred years! Do you think we had a bit of infrastructure to build before we could drive that SUV? Of course. Can we do it again? You bet!

How do we best go about this? The engine of rapid development and innovation is entrepreneurship driven by the promise of profit. We need to allow innovators to make money finding answers.


Here is some information I copied from IAGS . This site warrants a close read. I can't verify the numbers but I see no reason to deny the general point.

Projection of reserves worldwide
Based on projection of 2002 production levels, BP Statistical Review of World Energy

Projecting 2001 production levels, by 2020 83% of global oil reserves will be controlled by Middle Eastern regimes.

The energy security and national security concerns that stem from reliance on a single energy resource that is unevenly distributed throughout the world will be intensified as demand for oil grows. The result will probably be:
  • A handful of Middle East suppliers will regain the influence they had in the 1970s and once again be able to dictate the terms on world oil markets and manipulate oil prices and world politics.
  • Middle Eastern producers will continue to use their oil revenues to increase their military expenditures, fuel an arms race and undermine regional stability.
  • Corrupt, oppressive regimes will continue to use oil revenues as a means to maintain their power.
  • Wealth generated by oil rich Middle Eastern countries will continue to flow into terrorist organizations and organizations promoting radical Islam.
  • The U.S. will need to keep increasing American military presence in the region to ensure our access to the remaining oil. This will mean further U.S. embroilment in Middle East conflicts, more anti-American sentiment, and a deepening rift between the West and the Islamic world.
  • Tension between the U.S. and China due to growing Chinese intervention in the Middle East to ensure its own access to oil and Chinese arming of Middle Eastern countries hostile to the U.S. and its allies.
  • Further drain on economic resources caused by imports of expensive oil.
Such an international system is not sustainable.

It is in our best interest to preemptively embark on a revolutionary change that will lead us away from oil dependency rather than drag our feet and suffer the ramifications of becoming growingly dependent on a diminishing resource. another point in the website they discuss Fuel Cells burning methanol:

Fuel cell vehicles are not a pipe dream: Auto companies have already stepped up to the plate, designed, and road tested a variety of models. Mass produced, a fuel cell power system would cost about the same as today's internal combustion engine.
Fueling with methanol
The methanol powered Jeep Commander 2 by Daimler Chrysler. It's a fuel cell vehicle.
Fuel cells can be powered by hydrogen, either in its pure form or else packaged as ethanol or methanol. A vehicle using methanol as a hydrogen carrier fuel, can be built with either a hydrogen fuel cell coupled with a reformer (either at the fueling station or on-board the vehicle,) which converts methanol to hydrogen during usage, or with a direct methanol fuel cell (DMFC.)

The biggest advantage of using methanol as the hydrogen carrying fuel of choice for the automotive industry is that logistically, methanol, a liquid with physical characteristics very similar to gasoline, can be transported and distributed using the existing distribution infrastructure, existing gasoline stations and pumps, and on top of this can be stored on board a vehicle in a fuel tank similar to existing gas tanks. This means that from the fueling logistics standpoint, transition could be almost immediate. While building a pure hydrogen fueling station costs about $1 million, fitting an existing gas station to supply hydrogen in a methanol formulation costs about $60,000.

I see that Honda has come out with a fuel-cell vehicle, and they're making 1000 of them. While the efficiency of FEVs are yet low, keep your fingers crossed.

Friday, November 9, 2007

Islamist Tries to Snow The Snowman

These guys are just too funny. I posted my thoughts on why the Muslim oft-repeated statement about allah being the same entity as Yahweh was wrong. I listed 4 major reasons..having limited space.

I got a comment on the thread that is quintessentially 'muslim' in its lack of logic and honesty.

First of all these are the points I made:

1. Allah does not enter time and space to communicate with his creation. Yahweh has numerous contacts with his creation, beginning with Adam in the garden continuing through the incarnation in Jesus and culminating in the presence of the Holy Spirit in believers today. This is undeniably a deal breaker in the attempt to argue for identity of Allah and Yahweh.

2. Allah is not constrained by concepts such as logic and reason, he can produce evil, he delights in punishing those who do not believe, yet it is oddly said that he is merciful.

Yahweh is unchanging, always forgiving, always good and always faithful. Yahweh demonstrates love and compassion those who deny him, giving them many opportunities to return to His love.

It was this consistent faithfulness that Abraham relied upon when God told him to sacrifice Isaac...But God had promised to bless Abraham with multitudes of descendants through Isaac. Abraham knew he could rely on God's promise and that somehow God would make this work -- A much different and infinitely more profound story than that of the Abraham written of in the Quran, who submitted to an apparently monstrous command by Allah without any reason to believe Allah would or could make good on his promise. This difference between obedience and submission is food for a lot of conversation.

3. Names: Allah is not a name, but a title, where Yahweh is the personal name of God. If Allah gave the scriptures to the Jews, why isn't Allah mentioned once? Yahweh is mentioned thousands of times in the Bible.

4. Muslims account for the differences between the three faiths by insisting the Bible has been corrupted. On its face, this is a preposterous argument, since the Bible is not just believed to be scrupulously accurate, but historically and verifiably so. Allah's document came through one man, has no documentation even remotely close to the Bible verification.

Interestingly, the Quran says the Bible was not corrupted at the time of when exactly did this 'corruption' occur? And given the fact that we have early manuscripts of the Bible available from 100 AD, we also have the astounding comparison of Dead Sea scrolls showing the Bible hasn't been 'corrupted' from Jesus time forward.

muhairi8 said...

POINT 3 -- notice that he skipped over POINT 1 and POINT 2. Rather important issues, really. He jumps down to what the word allah means. No mention that allah doesn't enter our world, and that allah is fickle, uncaring, and frankly evil.

First let me start with something, the Arab Christians use the word Allah, actually you can find the word Allah in the Arabic Bible.

"Allah is not a name"

Actually it is a name. Logic failing...just tell a whopper--maybe they'll believe it.

"If Allah gave the scriptures to the Jews, why isn't Allah mentioned once? "

It is in the Arabic Bible because Allah is an Arabic word for God or "the God".

So he first says that the title allah is a name (a personal name) then he says it is the word for "the god"( a title). This poor fellow is very confused. Sure when Arab Christians read their TRANSLATION of the Bible, God is rendered Allah because it is the correct usage of the title. That isn't God's personal name. God's personal name is Yahweh....used several thousand times in the Bible--not one time in Quran. You don't find the word allah in Hebrew Bible.


"Interestingly, the Quran says the Bible was not corrupted at the time of Mohammed"

Really can you show me the verse? You are kidding, right? Why then are you admonished to read it?

Let me explain to you something, I know that Muslims always say that the Bible was corrupted but when you ask them how they don't know. That's because it is not true. Simple.

I will give you an example:
If you asked me do I believe in the Arabic Quran, I will say Yes because it is the same language that God "Allah" and the same way that it was revealed ... Oh, right, the magic-holy-language-of-Arabic argument. There isn't much of a 'revelation' if nobody can understand it, is there?

but if you asked me do I believe in the Translation of the Quran I will say No, because it is a translation made by Humans who do mistakes or get programed. And all this time, I thought your allah was so powerful he protected his revelation... Do you even know what translation means?

For example the KJV has many errors in it and it is not the first translation, it is a translation of many other translations: The big " I know you are, but what am I?" argument. Scary! And btw, Hebrew to English equals one translation..not "many". Poor guy is a little challenged in the mathematics area as well


About the Quran would you like me to explain any misunderstanding to you?It will be my honor to do so. So let's dispense with facts and thinking and just let you help me swallow this big bolus of sh**. Not gonna happen ;o)

Thursday, November 8, 2007

Update on Parentless Teen Abortions

Good news. Rep. Bob Lynn reports on his weblog the legislature will be introducing the following constitutional amendment at start of regular session in January:


Section 1. Article 1. The Constitution of the State of Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:

Section XX Abortions for minors. “Notwithstanding any other provision of the Constitution, a parent or guardian is entitled to direct and control the medical care of their minor child. Subject only to emergency situations as defined by the legislature, and a judicial bypass procedure as created by the legislature consistent with the criteria set forth in Bellotti v. Baird 443 U.S. 622 (1979).

Section 2. The amendment proposed by this resolution shall be placed before the voters of the State at the next general election in conformity with Art. XIII, Sec 1, Constitution of the State of Alaska, and the election laws of the state."

Monday, November 5, 2007

Teens To Make Their Own Abortion Decisions

Did the Ninth Circuit Court just open a branch in Alaska? This is outrageous.

excerpts from The Anchorage Daily News, Nov 4:

The Alaska Supreme Court threw out an embattled state law Friday that required parental or judicial consent before a teenager can have an abortion.

In a 3-2 decision, the court said the consent requirement robs a pregnant teen of her constitutional right to make such an important decision herself and transfers that right to her parents or a judge.

Holy crap, we wouldn't want parents to be making a decision about a surgical procedure for a pre-17 year old kid. Well, we do have requirements about parental approval for really serious procedures like tatooing and piercing. That's a relief.

Clover Simon, head of Planned Parenthood of Alaska, hailed the decision but said it was important for people to understand that in real life, few people will be affected by it.

"There is a very small number of teens who choose to have an abortion without telling their parents," Simon said.

Anchorage attorney Jeff Feldman, part of the Planned Parenthood legal team, agreed. Evidence at trial was that "very few minors find themselves in this situation," Feldman said Friday. Those that do often come "from difficult or troubled families, where maybe the father or stepfather is the father. Not from intact families."

Oh, that's comforting. Teens don't have to get parents consent to kill their baby for convenience. But don't worry, it won't affect very many people, says Planned Unparenthood. Hmm, I seem to remember the same argument before Roe v. Wade

Of the 1,923 abortions performed in Alaska in 2006, 126 were obtained by girls 17 or younger.

Think about that. One thousand, nine hundred twenty three human lives were extinguished in 2006 in our state.

1923 babies killed, mostly for convenience. And we have political action groups and activists clamoring to save the harp seals, save the whales, save the twitterpated sapsucker or whatever.

And now we have activist judges in Alaska acting like the 9th Circuit court--legislating from the bench. They're supposed to enforce the law not throw it out. There is a legislature for law-making and law-repealing.

Mark my words. If this idiocy stands, we will have an escalation of abortions in
Alaska...just watch.

Saturday, November 3, 2007

Islamo-fascism Awareness Year

Snowman declares the following 12 months Islamo-fascism Awarness Year. This is an issue that requires consistent, persistent and insistent declaration of the cancerous danger of Islamo-fascism.

What is fascism?

A totalitarian philosophy of government that glorifies the state and nation and assigns to the state control over every aspect of national life. The name was first used by the party started by Benito Mussolini , who ruled Italy from 1922 until the Italian defeat in World War II. However, it has also been applied to similar ideologies in other countries, e.g., to National Socialism in Germany and to the regime of Francisco Franco in Spain.

Islamo-fascism then is very clearly describing the movement which assigns to itself control over every aspect of life.... Islam, and particularly fundamentalist Muslims in the Wahabbi camp and others seeking to subjugate all of civilization under sharia law.

It is unfortunate that so many in our country are ignorant of what is happening.

Therefore, I will post at least weekly on this menace and the atrocity of the doctrine they believe in.

Thursday, November 1, 2007

No, we're not fooled, but the lie continues

One of the many Islamic apologetic sites has a listing of the Top Ten Misconceptions about Islam.

Now that the truth is available to anyone willing to just check, this dirvel is laughable. The people who write this are evidently repeating what they are told by other ignorant muslims without the slightest interest in truth. Indeed, the concept of absolute truth seems to be foreign to some muslim minds.

Here is one of the "top 10" ... and clearly the issue of God is the fundamental question.

MISCONCEPTION #3: Muslims worship a different God.

Allah is simply the Arabic word for God. Allah for Muslims is the greatest and most inclusive of the Names of God, it is an Arabic word of rich meaning, denoting the one and only God and ascribing no partners to Him. It is exactly the same word which the Jews, in Hebrew, use for God (eloh), the word which Jesus Christ used in Aramaic when he prayed to God. God has an identical name in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam; Allah is the same God worshiped by Muslims, Christians and Jews.

Muslims believe that Allah's sovereignty is to be acknowledged in worship and in the pledge to obey His teaching and commandments, conveyed through His messengers and prophets who were sent at various times and in many places throughout history. However, it should be noted that God in Islam is One and Only. He, the Exalted, does not get tired, does not have a son (i.e. Jesus) or have ###ociates, nor does He have human-like attributions as found in other faiths.

Yes, allah is the Arab word for 'the god'.

It is NOT "exactly the same word which Jews" use for God.
This shows the muslim lack of understanding of language. Just because words may be homonyms, does not mean they are synonyms. Further, Elohim is a title...not God's name, which happens to be YHWH. A name used thousands of times in the Old Testament. The self-described, personal name of God.

So the only evidence this person can claim for the identity of allah and YHWH is that a title for a god used in Hebrew kinda sounds like allah? That is just too silly to even take seriously.

The crux of the matter is what kind of being is God? What are His attributes? What are His directions to His creation?

For the full story, look at answering-islam I personally don't have a problem if someone wants to worship a feather-duster or a caterpillar, just don't give me a line of bs about how this is the same entity as mine.

Do you ever wonder why Muslims make such a big deal about worshiping the same God as Jews and Christians? If they think we 'people of the book' are so corrupted and misguided, how can they believe we are worshiping correctly? hmm?

This is where you are inspired to find out for yourself. Good luck!

Islamophobia -- We're not fooled anymore.

This is an excellent post by Hugh Fitzgerald at Jihad Watch: I quote it almost in it's entire form because it is worth the read.

The word “Islamophobia” must be held up for inspection, its users constantly asked precisely how they would define that word, and they should be put on the defensive for waving about what is clearly meant to be a scare-word that will silence criticism.

So let us ask them which of the following criticisms of Islam is to be considered “Islamophobic”:

1) Muhammad is a role-model for all time. Muhammad married Aisha when she was 6 and had sexual intercourse with her when she was 9. I find appalling that Muslims consider this act of Muhammad to be that of the man who is in every way a role model, and hence to be emulated. In particular, I am appalled that virtually the first act of the Ayatollah Khomeini, a very orthodox and learned Shi’a theologian, was to lower the marriageable age of girls in Iran to 9 -- because, of course, it was Aisha’s age when Muhammad had sexual relations with her.

2) I find appalling that Islam provides a kind of Total Regulation of the Universe, so that its adherents are constantly asking for advise as to whether or not, for example, they can have wear their hair in a certain way, grow their beards in a certain way, wish an Infidel a Merry Christmas (absolutely not!).

3) I find appalling the religiously-sanctioned doctrine of taqiyya -- would you like some quotes, sir, about what it is, or would you like to google “taqiyya” and find its sources in the Qur’an?

4) I find appalling many of the acts which Muhammad committed, including his massacre of the Banu Qurayza, his ordering the assassination of many of those he deemed his opponents, even an old man, a woman, or anyone whom, he thought, merely mocked him.

5) I find appalling the hatred expressed throughout the Qur’an, the hadith, and the sira for Infidels -- all Infidels.

6) I find nauseating the imposition of the jizya on Infidels, the requirement that they wear identifying marks on their clothes and dwellings, that they not be able to build or repair houses of worship without the permission of Muslim authorities, that they must ride donkeys sidesaddle and dismount in the presence of Muslims, that they have no legal recourse against Muslims for they are not equal at law -- and a hundred other things, designed to insure their permanent, as the canonical texts say, “humiliation.”

7) I find the mass murder of 60-70 million Hindus, over 250 years of Mughal rule, and the destruction of tens of thousands of artifacts and Hindu (and Buddhist) temples, some of the Hindu ones listed in works by Sita Ram Goel, appalling.

8) I find the 1300-year history of the persecution of the Zoroastrians, some of it continuing to this day, according the great scholar of Zoroastrianism, Mary Boyce, which has led to their reduction to a mere 150,000, something to deplore. There are piquant details in her works, including the deliberate torture and killing of dogs (which are revered by Zoroastrians), even by small Muslim children who are taught to so behave.

9) I find the record of Muslim intellectual achievement lacking, and I attribute this lack to the failure to encourage free and skeptical inquiry, which is necessary for, among other things, the development of modern science.

10) I deplore the prohibition on sculpture or on paintings of living things. I deplore the horrific vandalism and destruction of Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian, Hindu, and Buddhist sites.

11) I deplore the Muslim jurisprudence which renders all treaties between Infidels and Muslims worthless from the viewpoint of the Infidels, though worth a great deal from the viewpoint of the Muslims, for they are only signing a “hudna,” a truce-treaty rather than a true peace-treaty -- and because they must go to war against the Infidel, or press their Jihad against the Infidel in other ways, on the model of the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya, no Infidel state or people can ever trust a treaty with Muslims.

12) I deplore the speech of Mahathir Mohammad, so roundly applauded last year, in which he called for the “development” not of human potential, not of art and science, but essentially of weapons technology and the use of harnessing and encouraging Muslim “brain power” for the sole purpose of defeating the Infidels, as a reading of that entire speech makes absolutely clear. Here -- would you like me to read it now for the audience?

13) I deplore the fact that Muslims are taught, and they seem to have taken those teachings to heart, to offer their loyalty only to fellow Muslims, the umma al-islamiyya, and never to Infidels, or to the Infidel nation-state to which they have uttered an oath of allegiance but apparently such an oath must be an act of perjury, because such loyalty is impossible. Am I wrong? Show me exactly what I have misunderstood about Islam.

14) I deplore the ululations of pleasure over acts of terrorism, the delight shown by delighted and celebrating crowds in Cairo, Ramallah, Khartoum, Beirut, Damascus, Baghdad, and of course all over Saudi Arabia, when news of the World Trade Center attacks was known -- and I can, if you wish, supply the reports from those capitals which show this to have taken place. I attribute statements of exultation about the “Infidels” deserving it to the fact that Islamic tenets view the world as a war between the Believers and the Infidels.

15) On that score, I deplore that mad division of the world between Dar al-Islam and dar al-Harb, and the requirement that there be uncompromising hostility between the two, until the final triumph of the former, and the permanent subjugation, and incorporation into it, of the latter.

16) I deplore the sexual inequality and mistreatment of women which I believe I can show has a clear basis in the canonical Islamic texts, and is not simply, pace Ebadi and other quasi-”reformers,” a “cultural” matter.

17) I deplore the fact that Infidels feel, with justice, unsafe in almost every Muslim country, but that Muslims treat the Infidel countries, and their inhabitants, with disdain, arrogance, and endless demands for them to bend, to change, to what Muslims want -- whether it be to remove crucifixes, or change the laws of laicity in France, or to demand that “hate speech” laws be extended in England so as to prevent any serious and sober criticism of Islam.

18) I deplore the emphasis on the collective, and the hatred for the autonomy of the individual. In particular, I believe that someone born into Islam has a perfect right to leave Islam if he or she chooses -- and that there should be no punishment, much less the murderous punishment so often inflicted.

19) I find the record of Muslim political despotism to be almost complete -- with the exception of those Muslim countries and regimes that have, as Ataturk did, carried out a series of measures to limit and constrain Islam.

20) I deplore the fact that while Muslims claim it is a “universalist” religion, it has been a vehicle for Arab imperialism, causing those conquered and Islamized in some cases to forget, or become indifferent or even hostile to, their own pre-Islamic histories. The requirement that the Qur’an be read in Arabic (one of the first things Ataturk did was commission a Turkish Qur’an and tafsir, or commentary), and the belief by many Muslims that the ideal form of society can be derived from the Sunna of 7th century Arabia, and that their own societies are worth little, is an imperialism that goes to culture and to history, and is the worst and most complete kind.

21) I deplore the attacks on ex-Muslims who often must live in fear. I deplore the attacks on Theo van Gogh and others, and the absence of serious debate about the nature of Islam and of its reform -- except as a means to further beguile and distract Infidels who are becoming more wary.

22) I deplore the emptiness of the “Tu Quoque” arguments directed at Christians and Jews, based on a disingenuous quotation of passages -- for example, from Leviticus -- that are completely ignored and have not been invoked for two thousand years, and I deplore the rewriting of history so that a Muslim professor can tell an American university audience that “the Ku Klux Klan used to crucify (!) African-Americans, everyone standing around during the crucifixion singing Christian hymns (!).”

23) I deplore the phony appeals of the “we all share one Abrahamic faith” and “we are the three monotheisms” when, to my mind, a Christian or a Jew has far less to fear from, and in the end far more in common with, any practicing polytheistic Hindu.

24) I do not think Islam, which is based on the idea of world-conquest, not of accommodation, and whose adherents do not believe in Western pluralism except insofar as this can be used as an instrument, temporarily most useful, to protect the position of Islam until its adherents have firmly established themselves.

25) I deplore the view, in Islam, that it is not a saving of an individual soul that is involved when one conducts Da’wa or the Call to Islam, but rather, something that appears to be much more like signing someone up for the Army of Islam. He need not have read all the fine print; he need not know Islamic tenets; he need not even have read or know what is in sira and hadith or much of the Qur’an; he need only recite a single sentence. That does not show a deep concern for the nature of the conversion (sorry, “reversion”).

26) I deplore the sentiment that “Islam is to dominate and not to be dominated." I deplore the sentiment “War is deception” as uttered by Muhammad. I deplore what has happened over 1350 years, in vast swaths of territory, formerly filled with Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists, much of which is now today almost monotonously Islamic. I do not think Islam welcomes any diversity if it means the possibility of full equality for non-Muslims.

27) I deplore the fact that slavery is permitted in Islam, that it is discussed in the Qur’an, that it was suppressed in 19th century Arabia only through the influence of British naval power in the Gulf; that it was formally done away with in Saudi Arabia only in 1962; that it still exists in Mali, and the Sudan, and even Mauritania; that it may exist in the Arabian interior, but certainly the treatment of the Thai, Filipino, Indian and other female house workers in Arab households amounts to slavery, and it is no accident that there has never been a Muslim William Wilberforce.

I could go on, and am prepared to adduce history, and quotations from the canonical texts. And so are hundreds of thousands of Infidels who have looked into Islam, or in their own countries, had a close look at the Muslim populations which have made their own Infidel existences far more unpleasant, expensive, and dangerous than they would otherwise be.

If this is “Islamophobia” -- show me exactly why it is irrational (i.e. not based on facts or observable behavior, or a study of history), an “irrational” dislike or even hatred of Islam. If you cannot show that, then perhaps the word should not be invoked. But if you do invoke it, be prepared to have copious quotations from Qur’an and hadith and sira constantly presented to audiences so that they may judge for themselves, without the “guidance” of apologists for Islam, both Muslim and non-Muslim.

Well said, Hugh. I didn't know much about Islam either--until certain Muslims declared war on my culture, then I learned.

I'm not fooled.

I'm not afraid.

I'm not remaining silent.