On Christmas Day an attempted bombing of a US airliner was averted when the would be bomber's explosive device failed to go off. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a 23-year-old Nigerian with suspected links to al-Qaeda, tried to blow up Delta-owned Northwest Airlines flight 253 as it descended toward Detroit Metropolitan Airport. Nearly 300 people would've been killed had the bomb detonated as planned. Perhaps because of the withering criticism it received over its guarded response to the Fort Hood attack, the Obama administration wasted no time calling this attempted bombing an act of terrorism. Unfortunately, the new American administration is still committed to a pre-9/11 mentality regarding Islamic terrorism.
Rather than being put into military custody and "enhancedly" interrogated--or, better yet, summarily executed--Abdulmutallab was treated like a common criminal, taken into regular police custody and read the charges against him by a civilian judge who worried if he was pronouncing the Muslim's name right. All this while Abdulmutallab was being treated, presumably at taxpayers' expense, for burns received during his failed detonation attempt. But don't throw up just yet.
Back at the White House, Attorney General Eric "lets-try-KSM-in-New-York" Holder boldly declared that the US government was "vigorously" investigating the case and all those responsible would be "brought to justice". Wow! If that doesn't strike terror into the hearts of our enemies nothing will.
This is insane. How many Americans--how many Westerners of any nationality--have to die before the "progressive", multi-culti, don't-offend-the-Muslims crowd that's now in power will wake up and smell the proverbial coffee? Terrorists don't need to be "brought to justice"; they need to be killed. And if we're going to treat terrorism like a law enforcement problem, why didn't we stop Abdulmutallab before he got anywhere near a plane? I mean, there were warning signs about him just as there were about the Fort Hood terrorist.
Just weeks before he boarded flight 253, Abdulmutallab's own father had warned US officials about his son, saying he might be becoming militant. This led to A (tired of writing out the whole name) being put into a terrorism database but not on a no-fly list. He also wasn't put on a list for additional security checks. Apparently, that's how A was able not only to get near a plane but board with a bomb on his person. Can you say, incompetent? I knew you could!
This pre-9/11, law enforcement approach to terrorism has to go! It was tried all through the '70's, '80's, and '90's and was a colossal failure. The greatest testament to that failure was September 11, 2001. TREATING TERRORISM LIKE CRIME DOESN'T STOP TERRORISM. And the mojo of a left-wing Black president attuned to Third World grievances won't work, either. Barack Obama was supposed to end terrorism by brown nosing Muslims and apologizing for America's existence. Obviously, the Nigerian didn't get that memo.
We must wait and see what will happen to Abdulmutallab. The most likely scenario, given the current administration, is that he'll spend years tying up the civilian court system while using it as a pulpit to spew hateful anti-American, anti-Western jihadist rhetoric. And the American people will have the privilege of paying for it.
Now you can throw up.
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Honor Killing I Can Believe In
This may come as a surprise, but I kind of like the idea of honor killing. No, not the sick kind of "honor" killing done by Muslims, but a truly honorable form of honor killing. Let me explain.
In the Islamic world there's this weird obsession with family "honor", epitomized by the chastity of the family's women. A family is only as honorable as it's women are virginal. Any breach of female purity brings egregious disgrace on the family, disgrace that can be alleviated only by the death of the sullied woman. And it doesn't matter how the female became impure, nor does her age make any difference in applying the "remedy". A victim of rape or incest is just as much a cause of disgrace as a purposely promiscuous woman. A child can be just as much a cause of disgrace as an adult female. In Iran a man living in a podunk village beheaded his 7-year-old daughter because he suspected his brother of molesting her. He killed his daughter, not her alleged attacker. This is barbaric, and isn't the kind of honor killing I believe in.
When I hear the phrase "honor killing", I ask myself this question: what's more dishonorable, to have a rape victim in the family or a rapist in the family? Those of us in the West know the right answer to that question; Muslims don't. We Westerners know that the real disgrace is being the relative of a man who brutalizes women and/or children. The real disgrace is seeing all of your child training effort end in the creation of a predator. Honor killing should be about expunging the shame of the rapist's family. If a rapist's father or brother kills him as the ultimate way to say, "We're sorry", and in order to remove the family's shame, that's honor killing I can believe in.
That father in Iran should've beheaded his brother, not his daughter. A child or woman who's been attacked by a larger and stronger male isn't the cause of anyone's shame. The Iranian father murdered his baby girl because of Islam's perverted vision of morality and justice. And to think some PC whipped Westerners want to facilitate the spread of that perverted vision into the West. Perhaps they should be beheaded. That, too, would be honor killing I can believe in.
In the Islamic world there's this weird obsession with family "honor", epitomized by the chastity of the family's women. A family is only as honorable as it's women are virginal. Any breach of female purity brings egregious disgrace on the family, disgrace that can be alleviated only by the death of the sullied woman. And it doesn't matter how the female became impure, nor does her age make any difference in applying the "remedy". A victim of rape or incest is just as much a cause of disgrace as a purposely promiscuous woman. A child can be just as much a cause of disgrace as an adult female. In Iran a man living in a podunk village beheaded his 7-year-old daughter because he suspected his brother of molesting her. He killed his daughter, not her alleged attacker. This is barbaric, and isn't the kind of honor killing I believe in.
When I hear the phrase "honor killing", I ask myself this question: what's more dishonorable, to have a rape victim in the family or a rapist in the family? Those of us in the West know the right answer to that question; Muslims don't. We Westerners know that the real disgrace is being the relative of a man who brutalizes women and/or children. The real disgrace is seeing all of your child training effort end in the creation of a predator. Honor killing should be about expunging the shame of the rapist's family. If a rapist's father or brother kills him as the ultimate way to say, "We're sorry", and in order to remove the family's shame, that's honor killing I can believe in.
That father in Iran should've beheaded his brother, not his daughter. A child or woman who's been attacked by a larger and stronger male isn't the cause of anyone's shame. The Iranian father murdered his baby girl because of Islam's perverted vision of morality and justice. And to think some PC whipped Westerners want to facilitate the spread of that perverted vision into the West. Perhaps they should be beheaded. That, too, would be honor killing I can believe in.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Hail The Hammer!
In honor of the defeat of the Muslim invaders of France by Frankish king Charles "The Hammer" Martel, I'm reprinting a post from the blog Arthur's Hall of Viking Manliness. The piece was originally posted in February but is most appropriate for today, October 10, the nearly 1300th anniversary of The Hammer's historic victory over the real infidels. Read and be inspired to continue the fight against Mohammed's insatiable horde.
Arthur's Man Of The Month: Charles Martel
[On October 10], 732 [AD] a major event took place that shaped the world we live in. In fact, it may have been one of the [most] important events in the course of Western [Christian] Civilization. Yet...I'm guessing that 99% of you have no clue what I'm talking about, which is why I bring it up. The event I am alluding to is the Battle of Tours [where] the forces of Frankish king Charles "The Hammer" Martel defeated the boy raping Muslim invaders who'd set their sites on Continental Europe after subduing the pussy Spaniards.
It is hard to overstate the importance of this victory. The goat herding hordes had already turned Spain into a Muslim nation and were set on conquering the rest of Europe. Obviously, had they been successful it is possible that I would be praising Mohammed and his patron saint Obama...but because of men like Martel, the truth can still be told.
We all know that the Muslims would've never had a chance against the Germanic folk in the north of Europe, but Martel and his men were the first to halt the advance of the Muslims in Europe. He must be turning over in his grave at this point, seeing the destruction of the continent...culture, [and Faith] that he helped save nearly 1300 years ago. The story of "The Hammer" should be told all over Europe to inspire a sense of pride in being European. Modern Euros are such disgraceful pussies that they are literally welcoming their own extinction and everyone knows it but them. They are an insult to their ancestors, the ancestors who created this world and everything that is good on the planet Earth. My disgust for the modern people of Continental Europe knows little bounds. But back to Martel...
Charles Martel was born in [what is now] Belgium to a local leader and a concubine. He was said to have been a powerfully built man. His early career as a military leader foreshadowed his tactical genius. His first major victory was one with an army [that] was far smaller [than the opposing army], and he used tactics like "feigned retreat" that were new to European warfare. His attacks were always coordinated to happen in places and times that were unexpected to the opposing force. Another unusual trait of Martel was his fairness after scouring victory. Dark Ages Europe was beset with cruelty; vengeance, sacking, pillaging, and widespread rape were the norm for a victorious force. Martel would have none of that. He would generally allow the losing commanders to leave in peace.
After capturing power of much of the Frankish Kingdom in 718, [Martel] set out against the [Germans], who had continually been a nuisance, as the Romans found out 300 years earlier. [Martel] did something that the Romans could never do...he defeated the Germans at Teutoberg Forest, the site of an epic massacre of three Roman legions. Later in his reign, he subdued southern Germany, and the Frankish Kingdom at that point encompassed nearly all of what is now Germany, as well as Holland, Belgium, and most of France. South and east of the Frankish strongholds the Muslims were starting to invade southern Gaul (France) and Martel realized that he needed a full time...professional army to defeat the forces of the Emir of Cordoba. He seized Church lands and treasure in order to pay his troops so that they could train year round. An excellent decision but a difficult one, [for] at the time the Church was all powerful. His actions were possible grounds for excommunication, but because he is the type of man we are to celebrate...he did not care.
The Battle of Tours is seen as a "macrohistorical" event, literally meaning that the history of the world could've been altered had the outcome been different. It is thought that only the Franks were capable of opposing the professional and lethal cavalry of the Muslim invaders. After Martel's victory at Tours, the Caliphate would never again regain a foothold in Europe proper, instead being confined to Iberia. It would take another 700 years to rid [Europe] of the goat herders, but the eventual victory of Europe over Islam was set in motion by the heroism and genius of Charles "The Hammer" Martel. Perhaps no man was more important in the political structure and practices of Dark Ages Europe. Before Martel, Europe was a series of small fiefdoms with small, unprofessional, barbarian type military forces. [Martel] was the first since the fall of Rome to organize an army and lay the groundwork for a nation.
[Charles Martel's] genetic legacy is also outstanding. We all know that leaving behind strong and able sons is a big part of what goes into being a man. Legacies of great men like Alexander [the Great]...were not secured because of the lack of a legitimate heir. Unlike Alexander, Charles Martel's son Pippin the Younger, was recognized by the Church as the unquestioned leader of the Franks. He shared his father's vision of eradicating Islam from Europe and continued to battle the Moors in Gaul and Iberia. Most importantly, Pippin had a son named Charlemagne. If you don't know about the importance of Charlemagne, go read something. He may have been (next to his grandfather) the most important leader in Europe's history. Needless to say, Charles Martel made an impact in his own time and for centuries to come. Very few men can challenge his importance or legacy in Europe. Charles "The Hammer" Martel is unquestionably a legendary man, more than worthy of his selection as the Arthur's Hall Man of the Month. Hail the Hammer!
First published in Arthur's Hall of Viking Manliness on 2/28/09.
This guest column has it spot on! Far too few are brave enough in this politically correct age to hail the victory of Christian Europe over Islam, or to admit Islam's insatiable imperialism. Arthur did it and for that I give him a big slap on the back. You go Arthur! You are truly living in the spirit of Martel!
Arthur's Man Of The Month: Charles Martel
[On October 10], 732 [AD] a major event took place that shaped the world we live in. In fact, it may have been one of the [most] important events in the course of Western [Christian] Civilization. Yet...I'm guessing that 99% of you have no clue what I'm talking about, which is why I bring it up. The event I am alluding to is the Battle of Tours [where] the forces of Frankish king Charles "The Hammer" Martel defeated the boy raping Muslim invaders who'd set their sites on Continental Europe after subduing the pussy Spaniards.
It is hard to overstate the importance of this victory. The goat herding hordes had already turned Spain into a Muslim nation and were set on conquering the rest of Europe. Obviously, had they been successful it is possible that I would be praising Mohammed and his patron saint Obama...but because of men like Martel, the truth can still be told.
We all know that the Muslims would've never had a chance against the Germanic folk in the north of Europe, but Martel and his men were the first to halt the advance of the Muslims in Europe. He must be turning over in his grave at this point, seeing the destruction of the continent...culture, [and Faith] that he helped save nearly 1300 years ago. The story of "The Hammer" should be told all over Europe to inspire a sense of pride in being European. Modern Euros are such disgraceful pussies that they are literally welcoming their own extinction and everyone knows it but them. They are an insult to their ancestors, the ancestors who created this world and everything that is good on the planet Earth. My disgust for the modern people of Continental Europe knows little bounds. But back to Martel...
Charles Martel was born in [what is now] Belgium to a local leader and a concubine. He was said to have been a powerfully built man. His early career as a military leader foreshadowed his tactical genius. His first major victory was one with an army [that] was far smaller [than the opposing army], and he used tactics like "feigned retreat" that were new to European warfare. His attacks were always coordinated to happen in places and times that were unexpected to the opposing force. Another unusual trait of Martel was his fairness after scouring victory. Dark Ages Europe was beset with cruelty; vengeance, sacking, pillaging, and widespread rape were the norm for a victorious force. Martel would have none of that. He would generally allow the losing commanders to leave in peace.
After capturing power of much of the Frankish Kingdom in 718, [Martel] set out against the [Germans], who had continually been a nuisance, as the Romans found out 300 years earlier. [Martel] did something that the Romans could never do...he defeated the Germans at Teutoberg Forest, the site of an epic massacre of three Roman legions. Later in his reign, he subdued southern Germany, and the Frankish Kingdom at that point encompassed nearly all of what is now Germany, as well as Holland, Belgium, and most of France. South and east of the Frankish strongholds the Muslims were starting to invade southern Gaul (France) and Martel realized that he needed a full time...professional army to defeat the forces of the Emir of Cordoba. He seized Church lands and treasure in order to pay his troops so that they could train year round. An excellent decision but a difficult one, [for] at the time the Church was all powerful. His actions were possible grounds for excommunication, but because he is the type of man we are to celebrate...he did not care.
The Battle of Tours is seen as a "macrohistorical" event, literally meaning that the history of the world could've been altered had the outcome been different. It is thought that only the Franks were capable of opposing the professional and lethal cavalry of the Muslim invaders. After Martel's victory at Tours, the Caliphate would never again regain a foothold in Europe proper, instead being confined to Iberia. It would take another 700 years to rid [Europe] of the goat herders, but the eventual victory of Europe over Islam was set in motion by the heroism and genius of Charles "The Hammer" Martel. Perhaps no man was more important in the political structure and practices of Dark Ages Europe. Before Martel, Europe was a series of small fiefdoms with small, unprofessional, barbarian type military forces. [Martel] was the first since the fall of Rome to organize an army and lay the groundwork for a nation.
[Charles Martel's] genetic legacy is also outstanding. We all know that leaving behind strong and able sons is a big part of what goes into being a man. Legacies of great men like Alexander [the Great]...were not secured because of the lack of a legitimate heir. Unlike Alexander, Charles Martel's son Pippin the Younger, was recognized by the Church as the unquestioned leader of the Franks. He shared his father's vision of eradicating Islam from Europe and continued to battle the Moors in Gaul and Iberia. Most importantly, Pippin had a son named Charlemagne. If you don't know about the importance of Charlemagne, go read something. He may have been (next to his grandfather) the most important leader in Europe's history. Needless to say, Charles Martel made an impact in his own time and for centuries to come. Very few men can challenge his importance or legacy in Europe. Charles "The Hammer" Martel is unquestionably a legendary man, more than worthy of his selection as the Arthur's Hall Man of the Month. Hail the Hammer!
First published in Arthur's Hall of Viking Manliness on 2/28/09.
This guest column has it spot on! Far too few are brave enough in this politically correct age to hail the victory of Christian Europe over Islam, or to admit Islam's insatiable imperialism. Arthur did it and for that I give him a big slap on the back. You go Arthur! You are truly living in the spirit of Martel!
Saturday, August 8, 2009
The Sultan Of Surrender, Part 2
The American president is at it again.
Overlooked amid the raucous debate that's erupted over his proposed health care reform, Barack Obama declared that America is no longer at war with jihadis but only with Al Qaeda terrorists who, of course, are jihadis. The incompetence of the American president is astounding, yet not all together surprising.
Barack Obama is a child of the American Left, a political crowd that, at best, has a love-hate relationship with their own country. The American Left, like the international Left, has never been able to bring itself to recognize Islamic terrorism for the threat that it is. To do that would mean leftists would have to jettison their whole paradigm for seeing the world. That paradigm places the West in general and America in particular at the center of all world unrest. In short, Islamic terrorism is the West's, particularly America's, fault. So believes the world Left. And the American president is beholden to them. He is one of them.
Barack Obama is not only the president of America, he is also the commander-in-chief of the American military. As such, he certainly has access to information showing what's really going on in the world. He may really want to fight radical Islam but if so, he wants to do it while remaining true to the paradigm described above. Hence these Orwellian word games.
America is no longer fighting terrorism; she's conducting "overseas contingency operations". And she's no longer at war with jihadis, only with Al Qaeda. Why? Because only Al Qaeda attacked America on September 11, 2001, says the Obama administration. But what about those non-Al Qaeda jihadis? Does Barack Obama think they will just change their beliefs and lay down their arms if America declares she's no longer at war with them? Apparently, yes. They have to, because the Left's paradigm says they're aggressive only in reaction to American/Western provocation. If America will--let's call it what it is--surrender, the other terrorists will drop their guns and go home. War over.
When the American people elected Barack Obama they elected a far-left true believer who's ambivalent, at best, about his country. Obama would never shout, "God damn America!" as did his good friend Jeremiah Wright, but the sentiments behind those words are his guiding principle. How, then, could he possibly want America to prevail even against Al Qaeda? Answer: he doesn't. Oh, Obama will play at defense. He'll talk tough and might even take some token action here and there, but victory won't be the goal. As a good leftist, the only thing Obama believes America deserves is defeat, and he'll work overtime to deliver. It'll be disguised as diplomacy, humility, reaching out to the world community, but it'll still be ignoble, self-inflicted defeat. That's all that Obama has the capacity to give. He's no commander-in-chief; he's the sultan of surrender. And we will all pay for that one day.
Overlooked amid the raucous debate that's erupted over his proposed health care reform, Barack Obama declared that America is no longer at war with jihadis but only with Al Qaeda terrorists who, of course, are jihadis. The incompetence of the American president is astounding, yet not all together surprising.
Barack Obama is a child of the American Left, a political crowd that, at best, has a love-hate relationship with their own country. The American Left, like the international Left, has never been able to bring itself to recognize Islamic terrorism for the threat that it is. To do that would mean leftists would have to jettison their whole paradigm for seeing the world. That paradigm places the West in general and America in particular at the center of all world unrest. In short, Islamic terrorism is the West's, particularly America's, fault. So believes the world Left. And the American president is beholden to them. He is one of them.
Barack Obama is not only the president of America, he is also the commander-in-chief of the American military. As such, he certainly has access to information showing what's really going on in the world. He may really want to fight radical Islam but if so, he wants to do it while remaining true to the paradigm described above. Hence these Orwellian word games.
America is no longer fighting terrorism; she's conducting "overseas contingency operations". And she's no longer at war with jihadis, only with Al Qaeda. Why? Because only Al Qaeda attacked America on September 11, 2001, says the Obama administration. But what about those non-Al Qaeda jihadis? Does Barack Obama think they will just change their beliefs and lay down their arms if America declares she's no longer at war with them? Apparently, yes. They have to, because the Left's paradigm says they're aggressive only in reaction to American/Western provocation. If America will--let's call it what it is--surrender, the other terrorists will drop their guns and go home. War over.
When the American people elected Barack Obama they elected a far-left true believer who's ambivalent, at best, about his country. Obama would never shout, "God damn America!" as did his good friend Jeremiah Wright, but the sentiments behind those words are his guiding principle. How, then, could he possibly want America to prevail even against Al Qaeda? Answer: he doesn't. Oh, Obama will play at defense. He'll talk tough and might even take some token action here and there, but victory won't be the goal. As a good leftist, the only thing Obama believes America deserves is defeat, and he'll work overtime to deliver. It'll be disguised as diplomacy, humility, reaching out to the world community, but it'll still be ignoble, self-inflicted defeat. That's all that Obama has the capacity to give. He's no commander-in-chief; he's the sultan of surrender. And we will all pay for that one day.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Pride And Remembrance
Today is July 7th, the fourth anniversary of the deadly London subway bombings. The bombings were perpetrated, of course, by Muslim terrorists. As we remember the innocents who died that day we Hesperians must also reawaken our courage and pride and resolve to fight for the survival of our civilization in the face of the Islamic threat .
The Muslim terrorists who attacked London want what the Muslim terrorists who attacked America on September 11 want: our destruction. They want the end of our Western Christian civilization. They purpose to achieve that end by either converting, subjugating, or killing us. And they are serious about it.
Muslims have a religion that tells them to conquer the world. Faithful Muslims seek to do that by the methods mentioned above, and by another method of conquest that's only recently opened up for tnem: immigration. Infiltration of our civilization through immigration is the Muslims' "nonviolent" jihad. The strategy is simple.
Muslims come here by the tens of thousands, and then increase their numbers even more through reproduction. As mostly non-White people, they then exploit our aversion to racism by claiming any opposition to them, their faith, or their radicalism is racist. As this specious accusation gathers steam, the Muslims just wait for us to have the expected reaction: a sickening round of brown nosing of Muslims to prove how non-racist we are. In a rush to show our racial enlightenment, we spit on our own heritage and glorify those who would conquer us. Slavishly adhering to the "anti-racist" doctrine of multiculturalism, we enthusiastically become participants in our own demise. I wish I could say the above strategy isn't working but, unfortunately, it is.
On this day we need to remember that we must honor the innocents who were slaughtered by Muslim killers four years ago. We can give them that honor by committing ourselves to the defense of our own culture, faith, heritage, and civilization. We must repudiate the debililitating left-wing belief that self-hatred is a virtue. Pride in who we are is the real virtue. And we in the West have much to be proud of. Don't let ANYONE tell you we don't.
In the spirit of Martel may we live!
The Muslim terrorists who attacked London want what the Muslim terrorists who attacked America on September 11 want: our destruction. They want the end of our Western Christian civilization. They purpose to achieve that end by either converting, subjugating, or killing us. And they are serious about it.
Muslims have a religion that tells them to conquer the world. Faithful Muslims seek to do that by the methods mentioned above, and by another method of conquest that's only recently opened up for tnem: immigration. Infiltration of our civilization through immigration is the Muslims' "nonviolent" jihad. The strategy is simple.
Muslims come here by the tens of thousands, and then increase their numbers even more through reproduction. As mostly non-White people, they then exploit our aversion to racism by claiming any opposition to them, their faith, or their radicalism is racist. As this specious accusation gathers steam, the Muslims just wait for us to have the expected reaction: a sickening round of brown nosing of Muslims to prove how non-racist we are. In a rush to show our racial enlightenment, we spit on our own heritage and glorify those who would conquer us. Slavishly adhering to the "anti-racist" doctrine of multiculturalism, we enthusiastically become participants in our own demise. I wish I could say the above strategy isn't working but, unfortunately, it is.
On this day we need to remember that we must honor the innocents who were slaughtered by Muslim killers four years ago. We can give them that honor by committing ourselves to the defense of our own culture, faith, heritage, and civilization. We must repudiate the debililitating left-wing belief that self-hatred is a virtue. Pride in who we are is the real virtue. And we in the West have much to be proud of. Don't let ANYONE tell you we don't.
In the spirit of Martel may we live!
Monday, April 6, 2009
The Sultan of Surrender
Barack Obama, the new American president, seems to be trying to pass Europeans in the race down the dhimmi brick road. In a speech before the Turkish parliament today, Obama declared that the US is not at war with Islam. He claimed that the great majority of Muslims have nothing in common with terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda. He went on to claim that Muslims have "enriched America" and then touted his own Muslim roots. Obama then stated that he was converting to Islam and would replace the US Constitution with Sharia law. Just kidding. But not by much.
In his speech at the Democratic National Convention last year, Obama shouted with great passion, "Don't tell me Democrats don't want to defend America!". Well, I'm telling you, Democrats, led by Obama, don't want to defend America nor Western Christian civilization. The American president's performance in Turkey proved that. Not only did he grovel to Muslims but he took swipes at his own country. Obama dredged up America's past injustices to Blacks and Native Americans, as if that had anything to do with Muslims. He repudiated Gitmo and stated that, under his administration, America would not torture, all but saying that under the previous administration she had. This is a frightening shame.
Americans and Christian Westerners at large ARE at war with Islam, not because we want to be but because Islam chose to be at war with us. And Islam made that choice centuries ago. In 652 AD Arab Muslims first attacked Christian Sicily. In 717 AD Muslims laid seige for the first time to Constantinople, capital of the Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Christian Empire. In 711 Muslims began their conquest of Christian Spain and tried to conquer the rest of Europe but were stopped in France by Charles Martel in 732 AD. All of this Islamic aggression against the West occurred hundreds of years BEFORE the Crusades, Christendom's belated defensive wars that are always blamed for causing the animosity between the West and Islam. And Muslims kept attacking Europe for hundreds of years AFTER the Crusades, inflicting great oppression and suffering on the native Christian population. Obama mentioned none of this.
When Barack Obama spoke before the Turkish Parliament he spoke like the perfect dhimmi. He apologized for America's "sins" while not demanding or even expecting a reciprocal mea culpa from the Muslim world, even though one was definitely in order. Instead, he purposely left the impression that America, the West in general, is the only civilization to have done wrong in history. Obama did mention the Armenian genocide, but he didn't call it a genocide in deference to the Muslim Turks. He wasn't so concerned with the feelings of his fellow Christians, though, nor with historical truth.
Barack Obama is hailed by the American and international Left as a great new leader, the bringer of much needed change after the "arrogant" and "warmongering" Bush administration. And the Left is right. Barack Obama is leading a wave of change in America and the West, but it won't bring the results the Left is promising us. Obama's conciliatory, self-hating pose before the Islamic world will only breed contempt for us in the hearts of our Muslim enemies. They now see that not only is America, the world's lone super power, weak, but we are celebrating that weakness as a great leap forward. Obama has stepped onto the world stage as the Great Surrenderer and he's being lionized for it. The jihadis are watching, and we will pay...dearly.
In his speech at the Democratic National Convention last year, Obama shouted with great passion, "Don't tell me Democrats don't want to defend America!". Well, I'm telling you, Democrats, led by Obama, don't want to defend America nor Western Christian civilization. The American president's performance in Turkey proved that. Not only did he grovel to Muslims but he took swipes at his own country. Obama dredged up America's past injustices to Blacks and Native Americans, as if that had anything to do with Muslims. He repudiated Gitmo and stated that, under his administration, America would not torture, all but saying that under the previous administration she had. This is a frightening shame.
Americans and Christian Westerners at large ARE at war with Islam, not because we want to be but because Islam chose to be at war with us. And Islam made that choice centuries ago. In 652 AD Arab Muslims first attacked Christian Sicily. In 717 AD Muslims laid seige for the first time to Constantinople, capital of the Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Christian Empire. In 711 Muslims began their conquest of Christian Spain and tried to conquer the rest of Europe but were stopped in France by Charles Martel in 732 AD. All of this Islamic aggression against the West occurred hundreds of years BEFORE the Crusades, Christendom's belated defensive wars that are always blamed for causing the animosity between the West and Islam. And Muslims kept attacking Europe for hundreds of years AFTER the Crusades, inflicting great oppression and suffering on the native Christian population. Obama mentioned none of this.
When Barack Obama spoke before the Turkish Parliament he spoke like the perfect dhimmi. He apologized for America's "sins" while not demanding or even expecting a reciprocal mea culpa from the Muslim world, even though one was definitely in order. Instead, he purposely left the impression that America, the West in general, is the only civilization to have done wrong in history. Obama did mention the Armenian genocide, but he didn't call it a genocide in deference to the Muslim Turks. He wasn't so concerned with the feelings of his fellow Christians, though, nor with historical truth.
Barack Obama is hailed by the American and international Left as a great new leader, the bringer of much needed change after the "arrogant" and "warmongering" Bush administration. And the Left is right. Barack Obama is leading a wave of change in America and the West, but it won't bring the results the Left is promising us. Obama's conciliatory, self-hating pose before the Islamic world will only breed contempt for us in the hearts of our Muslim enemies. They now see that not only is America, the world's lone super power, weak, but we are celebrating that weakness as a great leap forward. Obama has stepped onto the world stage as the Great Surrenderer and he's being lionized for it. The jihadis are watching, and we will pay...dearly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
