America’s Age of Delusion

flames-horz(I wrote this on the eve of 2016… holding my breath that we could make it through another year and still be America, land of the free. It is now 2017, I believe we have dodged a bullet, but may yet face baptism by fire.)

In “Age of Delirium: The Decline and Fall of the Soviet Union” David Satter describes the shattered grip of a Communist government on every aspect of the masses. The people stood in shock and apprehension at the loss of the protective state and at their new and uncertain liberation to think and act for themselves.

We in America will have such a moment, when the Demagogue-in-Chief is gone, when collectivism (communism, socialism, progressivism, the left’s “liberalism”) is finally discredited and ceases to be vogue. The left’s leadership class will lose their allure as paragons of equality and fairness, and be seen as leading “taker class,” confiscating the fruits of others’ labor and amassing power both seen and unseen. Soon politically correct will be recognized as self-censorship and resoundingly rejected; and moral and cultural equivalence are recognized as demonstrably absurd. A time will come when our federal government abides its limitations, when state governments exercise their rightful roles, when citizens are respected; when propaganda is rejected and knowledge is craved, when those dead white men are read and appreciated; when personal responsibility is less burden and more liberation and American exceptionalism expresses itself in a myriad of ways. Americans will value their nation, their culture and citizenship and their children.

However, as we recognize our delusion and struggle to free ourselves from the left’s clutches, we will simultaneously identify and formally recognize a second existential threat to life, liberty and the pursuit: Islamic Doctrine.

There is much yet to be done, but that vision is there, just out of reach. Will we claim it?


Islam commands the attainment of political objectives as religious duty. Islam’s prime directive is Islam over all by conversion, subjugation or jihad.

Implicit in this unquenchable imperialism is Islamic supremacism and its hostility to all things not Islam. Islam’s calling card is the conquest of “filthy kafirs”–unbelievers–who earn wrath in this life and the next. If we dare to look at Islamic doctrine, we find denigration of kafir values, antagonism to kafir culture, recurring theft of property and wealth–the fruits of kafir labor, obliteration of kafir art and history, and the taking of kafir girls as tilth for the plowing and the making of the coming generations of Islam.

Implicit is the loss of kafir liberty–a thing to be relegated to our past, a past we will forget as the decades pass and the demands of Islamic sharia law deconstruct the soul and conscience of once free men, women and children.

Unrealistic? Fraudulent? Too uncomfortable to ponder?

Consider atrocities done in the name of Islam: Torture and slaughter of Jews, Christians, Yazidis, Animists, and “insufficiently Islamic” Muslims, particularly Apostates. The systematic rape, gang rape and sexual slavery of captured women. The destruction of history caused by repeated obliteration of art, religious structures and libraries. Add to that the seemingly endless offense-mongering and intimidation by Islamic minorities, organizations and international bodies.

Why do they hate us? Because Islam. Why all the violence? Because Islam. Why all the fear? Because Islam.

“Just Say No” is not enough. “Hashtags” are not enough. “I” am not enough. We will need broad cultural fortitude and deep political will to stop the ongoing assault on our civilization.

Please help to END CULTURAL JIHAD… And recognize that this cultural Betrayal Starts at the Top, with many in the so called leadership class who remain paralyzed by fear, abjectly clueless, or traitorously complicit.

EndCulturalJihad 2016cd
Message by Civilus Defendus. Art by Thumbprint. 2016

I Wish… (or sweet lies and whispered truths)

The Black Flag of Islam
The Black Flag of Islam

I wish Islam were a religion of peace, but it is not.

I wish our view of Islam were tied to evidence-based reality, but it frequently is not.

I wish our weakness did not aid Islam’s resurgence, but it does.

I wish the cautionary pleadings from Jefferson and Adams, Churchill, and Pirenne had been heeded, and not lost in the fog of revisionist history.

I wish our ignorance did not empower those bent on our destruction, but it does.

I wish we scrutinized details, rather than look away, hope for the best, or accommodate the unknown.

I wish Islam had not destroyed the world’s art, architecture and libraries-the repositories of human knowledge, but evidence indicates that it has and it continues still.

I wish no one were denied enjoyment of art, music, laughter and of love, but sadly Islam provides evidence they are denied indeed.

I wish we could compare values across peoples but, alas, the charade of multiculturalism instructs us we cannot, for comparison implies judgment.

I wish women were safe from Islamic violence and sexual slavery, but they are not.

I wish children were cherished and nurtured in Islam, but often we can see they are not.

I wish the world were focused on protecting life and freedom from the clutches of Islamic sharia law, but it is not.

I wish our tolerance beget tolerance, but instead it breeds rage and desire for domination.

I wish Islam had not killed nearly 300,000,000 people in the last 1,400 years, but the legacy of jihad tells us it has.

I wish the jihad had not been born, or had died in the past, but it is ongoing.

I wish Islam would reform or wither; expunge the hate or recede, stamp out jihad or fade away, jettison the sharia or perish.

I wish pleasant fictions could protect us and deny flesh to the sword of jihad, but we remain exposed and vulnerable.

For if we spoke not in the wishes but in objective facts, asked reasoned questions and demanded honest answers, how much better might we understand the current threats and have already fortified our nations to repulse the enemy, thus securing our culture and human liberty from death by a thousand cuts?


– – – – – –

The image above is the black flag of islam mocking the raising of the American Flag at Iwo Jima during WWII and was found at “Islam Future” with the caption: …The Future Universal Flag… This should make your bile rise.

Liberty vs Sharia, One is Better

(Video courtesy of LibertyLSA at vimeo.)

The theo-political doctrine of Islam is defined by the koran (Allah) and sunnah (all things Mohammed) and implemented under “sacred” Islamic sharia law (see the ROTT*). Islam is as much a political ideology as a theological creed, concerning itself largely with the treatment of non-believers, rather than with good deeds and the salvation of believers. And its ‘good deeds’ often involve the maltreatment of non-believers. Islam, as a political manifesto, should be labeled a threat doctrine, its true believers a threat.

Islam makes the attainment of political objectives a religious duty. What is Islam striving to attain? Its ultimate imperial and supremacist aim is to replace or subjugate anything non-Islamic. First, a gentle invitation to Islam; accept and join the “ummah,” the global Islamic community. Second, a not so gentle offer to live in subjugation under sharia as a third-class non-Muslim, paying the jizya (non-Muslim tax) and feeling subdued, humiliated and weak. Or third, all manner of jihad upon you until you do the first, the second or die.

Nearly 1400 years of history are witness to Islam’s expansion and progress toward ‘sharia uber alles.’ Wherever Islam establishes itself, a state within a state develops and the existing form of government and unbelieving (kafir, infidel) culture is rejected. The ummah grows, first weakening the host culture by social pressure, political means or violence, then imposing sharia through intimidation or actual codification in law.

Sharia denies freedom of speech, religion, expression and action and rejects equality between men and women, thereby violating human rights. Sharia has no “Golden Rule” to treat individuals equally. Instead Sharia segregates people into classes: Muslims and non-Muslims. Muslims are supreme and non-Muslims are inferior, holding no equal rights under Islam. Muslim-Muslim relations are completely separate from Muslim-kafir relations, where deceit is sanctioned and mistreatment largely unpunished.

No matter the temperament of individual Muslims, the Islamic community as a whole, the ummah, drives the process of Islamization—situating Islam as a superior “special class”—in every country where Islam thrives. Islam and the sharia. Mosques teach it, Muslims demand it and all else falls before it. Across the globe intimidation, violence and political upheaval are associated with increasing Muslim populations.

The US is a representative democracy thoughtfully crafted by our founders, with the Declaration of Independence proclaiming that humans are created equal and have unalienable rights, and the US Constitution protecting these rights through law. Sharia is irreconcilably in conflict with our founding principles and law—its objectives are indeed to overturn our law and replace it with their sharia. We cannot extend our welcome to Islam’s supremacism and intolerance for to do so is cultural suicide.

President Thomas Jefferson rejected the payment of tribute to Islamic Ottoman provinces and their pirates in 1801. We should similarly reject any monetary homage today or tolerate the growth of a threat doctrine or its body of believers within our borders. The Islamic ummah and its law, the sharia, are grave dangers to the United States of America and should be acknowledged as such and treated as such.

Liberty vs Sharia pdf

*Reliance of the Traveller: The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law at Amazon


In any threat situation fear exists. Fear of death and manner of death, of pain, of confrontation, of shouting bearded men from an alien culture. Fear exists and is useful. Fear of islam/sharia/jihad is not a phobia. The reaction is the key… cowardice, appeasement and submission are common responses, however courage, action, insight, leadership are also possible responses to fear.

The other part of response is our lack of belief in ourselves, perhaps even an understanding of why we are not Afghanistan or Somalia or Zimbabwe or North Korea. PC – not speaking in facts, truths, data, history, nor asking difficult questions – is disarming us mentally and physically.

Is PC about not offending someone else, or not believing in yourself? Are we as a society so hollow, so empty? As Evan Sayet put it, for liberals “A moral thought is an act of bigotry.” Is a moral assessment of evil… bigotry? Can I not say that rape, murder and paedophilia are bad and wrong? That totalitarian government and intrusive, oppressive, discriminatory overlords are bad for humanity? That islam is not just different, but WRONG. Wrong on liberty, wrong on equality before the law, wrong on nuturing childhood development, wrong in its restriction of art, music, human expression? Are my thoughts a crime against humanity? Or an assessment of a theo-political doctrine that is the antithesis of Western Culture and the American Constitution that I cherish?

Abode of Subjugation?

Death and terror from islam may seem like far off possibilities. Easy to dismiss, perhaps, with no personal responsibility and no moral qualms accruing to the citizen. However, islam’s goal is not to kill us all, but to convert a few and subjugate the rest.

Islam’s doctrinal goal is not war or terror, for those are tactics, the goal is to replace man-made law with “sacred” islamic law–the sharia, the path–so that islam reigns over Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Aside from a few hot wars, there is little to deter them; few in positions of political leadership know about sharia, fewer yet speak forthrightly about it. And since islam makes political objectives a religious duty, the global march is on.

The rule of Muslims over non-Muslims is part of sharia and is defined in the authoritative book The Reliance of theSharia, Dhimma Traveller–A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law.* A detailed description of life as an inferior being under sharia is found at “o11.0 Non-Muslim Subjects of the Islamic State (Ahl-Dhimma)” on page 607. It is described as a formal agreement of protection and if you as an infidel follow it you won’t be harmed.

What does life under the dhimmi agreement mean? Foremost you are obliged to follow the sharia whether you like to or not, understand it or not, agree with it or not (o11.3). You are a second class subject-think Copts. It means oppression-think Christians in Pakistan. It is subjugation. And what does that subjugation look like?

The subjugated person, the dhimmi under the condition of dhimmitude, will be penalized for committing adultery or theft (though generously not for drunkenness); must dress differently by command; are not greeted with “as-Salamu ‘alaykum”; must keep to the side of the street; may not build higher than or as high as the Muslims’ buildings (though if they acquire a tall house, it is not razed – such kindness!); are forbidden to openly display wine or pork, forbidden to ring church bells, forbidden to display crosses, forbidden to recite the Torah or evangelize; and of course forbidden to build new churches (o11.4). And the dhimmi must never harm a Muslim or disparage islam and certainly not draw offensive cartoons.

Imagine what this subjugation might feel like. Well, we might not need to imagine at all, for in many ways it has already arrived. Thinking twice before you speak your mind. Wondering if your online posts will bring account termination. As a business owner, being coerced to accommodate Muslims whether as employees or customers. Finding school texts and college courses filled with historical fantasies about islamic contributions. Needing to go to a special store to buy certain products because your local grocer was cowed into not carrying them. Watching the media contort itself to adhere to internal speech codes. Seeing the ‘lone wolf’ and ‘mental illness’ narratives play out when your thinking brain is screaming It’s Jihad, Stupid! Hearing your local mosque blaring the call to prayer. Being ignored by your elected representatives. And there will be the paying of the jizya – the islamic poll tax (o11.3), as you will be reduced to a tax slave. And if you elect to violate the dhimmi contract – war be upon you, kinetic or civilizational jihad.

Is this sinking in? Is the foundation for hope and tolerance and mutual respect cracking?. Whether in formal agreement or simply by intimidation, islam and sharia advance and non-Muslim cultures retreat, as they have for centuries. Your culture is now retreating. Your law is violated, your liberty cast aside, your voice silenced. Even your military and security apparatus has all but criminalized any accurate description of the current kinetic and cultural threats. Those with such knowledge have been fired, eschewed and their words purged. And is our foreign aid (derived from OUR tax dollars) being cheerfully received as jizya or tribute by Muslim-majority nations? Is our “leadership” kneeling before islam on your behalf?

This is subjugation. Dhimmitude by agreement or dhimmitude by intimidation and cultural retreat ends up being very much the same thing.

We as a nation, we as a world interested in freedom of conscience and equality before the law must speak and act to prevent the retrogression, the suppression of human liberty and annihilation of culture.

CD, July 8, 2012 (updated May 2017)

*The Reliance of the Traveler-A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law ‘Umdat al-Salik by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri and certified by al-Azhar University of Egypt (2011 printing).

Why have you forsaken me?

Shorn JFK Flag

Why have you forsaken me?

I am the Declaration of Independence.

I affirm liberty as the right and proper state of mankind.

Why have you forsaken me?

I am the United States Constitution.

I declare the people as sovereign and ensure representative governance.

Why have you forsaken me?

I am a Citizen.

I have been endowed by my Creator, by my very humanity with inalienable rights that no man nor government may confiscate nor hold hostage, that I may cultivate the greatest of human ingenuity, live with passion and have no boundaries save just law.

Why have you forsaken me?

I am the Idea that men are created equal and should be thus before the law.

I am the unrivaled ideal that individuals matter, that governments are formed among men to protect those individuals and defend to the greatest degree freedom of conscience and action for the few and the many.

Forsake me not…

O accumulated powers and sightless masses think not that there is no consequence to forsaking the good, the uplifting, the virtuous. For an unearned position held through artifice and devoid of honor can never for long be what you seek – a privileged life of iron rule apart from those betrayed and removed from justice. For most assuredly a bold new world will spring forth.

Any man is liable to err; only a fool persists in error.

~ Marcus Tullius Cicero

Friend or Foe?

Perhaps you can’t really know islam until it has breathed down your neck.

The Tiger is majestic and beautiful from a distance. If you could, the Tiger’s coat would be soft to the touch, its fang and talon hard and sharp. Its muscles ripple with strength as it ambles casually to and fro. Its voice is startling, yet proud and awe inspiring. And the Tiger lives in an exotic place of wonderment. The Tiger is truly magnificent.

Yet were you to perceive it from a different angle, to feel the Tiger’s hot breath upon you, to have nothing separating you from its raw power and natural instinct, would send you into a panic and instant survival mode. The Tiger’s presence would sharpen your thinking and govern your every move. Nothing would you take for granted, not your next heart beat, your next move, your surroundings, nor the mindset of the Tiger.

Is the Tiger friend or foe? Does it enrich your world or threaten it? From a distance it is a wonder, up close and personal it is life-threatening.

Be careful how you perceive things.

Islam’s 20 Year Plan

Over the coming weeks, I will comment on each point made in a piece by Anis Shorrosh “Author sees Islam’s 20-year plan for US” as published at World Net Daily in 2003. The author provides a list of tactics and commentary as his analysis of what he calls an “Islamic invasion” of America and asks ”Will Americans continue to sleep through this invasion as they did when we were attacked on 9/11?”

Here is the author’s list, shortened slightly for space, although I have added nothing:

“1. Terminate America’s freedom of speech by replacing it with statewide and nationwide hate-crime bills.

2. Wage a war of words using black leaders like Louis Farrakhan, Rev. Jesse Jackson and other visible religious personalities who promote Islam as the religion of African-Americans while insisting Christianity is for whites only.

3. Engage the American public in dialogues, discussions, debates in colleges, universities, public libraries, radio, TV, churches and mosques on the virtues of Islam. Proclaim how it is historically another religion like Judaism and Christianity with the same monotheistic faith.

4. Nominate Muslim sympathizers to political office to bring about favorable legislation toward Islam and support potential sympathizers by block voting.

5. Take control of as much of Hollywood, the press, TV, radio and the Internet as possible by buying the related corporations or a controlling stock.

6. Yield to the fear of the imminent shut-off of the lifeblood of America – black gold. America’s economy depends on oil and 41 percent of it comes from the Middle East.

7. Yell ”foul, out-of-context, personal interpretation, hate crime, Zionist, un- American, inaccurate interpretation of the Quran” anytime Islam is criticized or the Quran is analyzed in the public arena.

8. Encourage Muslims to penetrate the White House, specifically with Islamists who can articulate a marvelous and peaceful picture of Islam. Acquire government positions and get membership in local school boards. Train Muslims as medical doctors to dominate the medical field, research and pharmaceutical companies. Take over the computer industry. Establish Middle Eastern restaurants throughout the U.S. to connect planners of Islamization in a discreet way.

9. Accelerate Islamic demographic growth via:
• Massive immigration (100,000 annually since 1961).
• Use no birth control whatsoever.
• Muslim men must marry American women and Islamize them. Then divorce them and remarry every five years – since one can’t legally marry four at one time. This is a legal solution in America.
• Convert angry, alienated black inmates and turn them into militants.

10. Reading, writing, arithmetic and research through the American educational system, mosques and student centers (now 1,500) should be sprinkled with dislike of Jews, evangelical Christians and democracy. There are currently 300 exclusively Muslim schools in the U.S. which teach loyalty to the Quran, not the U.S. Constitution.

11. Provide very sizeable monetary Muslim grants to colleges and universities in America to establish ”Centers for Islamic studies” with Muslim directors to promote Islam in higher-education institutions.

12. Let the entire world know through propaganda, speeches, seminars, local and national media that terrorists have hijacked Islam, when in truth, Islam hijacked the terrorists.

13. Appeal to the historically compassionate and sensitive Americans for sympathy and tolerance towards Muslims in America who are portrayed as mainly immigrants from oppressed countries.

14. Nullify America’s sense of security by manipulating the intelligence community with misinformation. Periodically terrorize Americans with reports of impending attacks on bridges, tunnels, water supplies, airports, apartment buildings and malls.

15. Form riots and demonstrations in the prison system demanding Islamic Sharia as the way of life, not America’s justice system.

16. Open numerous charities throughout the U.S., but use the funds to support Islamic terrorism with American dollars.

17. Raise interest in Islam on America’s campuses by insisting freshman take at least one course on Islam.

18. Unify the numerous Muslim lobbies in Washington, mosques, Islamic student centers, educational organizations, magazines and papers by Internet and an annual convention to coordinate plans, propagate the faith and engender news in the media.

19. Send intimidating messages and messengers to the outspoken individuals who are critical of Islam and seek to eliminate them by hook or crook.

20. Applaud Muslims as loyal citizens of the U.S. by spotlighting their voting record as the highest percentage of all minority and ethic groups in America.”

So, does Mr. Shorrosh make valid observations? Is what he stated or predicted come to pass? I will take the next few weeks to try to determine just what is the scorecard for this “Islamic invasion”?

The Obama List

Article II, Section 4: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. In Federalist No. 65, Alexander Hamilton described impeachable conduct as “those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.

Has there ever been a president so inadequately prepared – or vetted – for office, whose contempt for American history and Constitution is visceral, vocal and apparent; who promotes collectivist ideology so readily; who demonizes his political rivals and who glorifies the historically hostile doctrine of Islam? This “President” dismisses American Exceptionalism as readily as he does her Constitution.

“The Obama List” is a series of questions that could be (were they answered) used to review his fitness for office, to see if he has trod upon the public trust. These questions are based on some scrap (or mound) of available information and should be asked of Mr. Obama and pondered by Americans. Taken individually, the potential ramifications are disturbing, taken collectively one should ask if this man should be in a position of power in America.

  1. Was an original birth certificate issued to you and if so, where is it, and what does it say?
  2. Was Executive Order 13489 intended to conceal personal information relevant to your eligibility or citizenship, and/or our national security?
  3. How did you obtain your current Social Security number?
  4. Why are multiple Social Security numbers associated with your name?
  5. Did you receive any illegal foreign campaign funding or commit fraud in resolving same?
  6. What can citizens draw from your views that conflict with the US Constitution (spreading the wealth, collective salvation)?
  7. Did you orchestrate theft and violate contract law by taking a private company from shareholders and giving it to union(s)?
  8. Is it your intention to promote theft and/or coercion by forcing citizens to pay for their neighbor’s health care?
  9. Why did you have the Inspector General Walpin fired without just cause (Kevin Johnson case)?
  10. Have you signed any treaties without Congressional advice and consent, and if so, why?
  11. What was your intention in meddling in Supreme Court affairs re Saudi Arabia/9-11 case?
  12. Have you directly or indirectly intimidated the media and to what end?
  13. Are you informed by foreign law rather than adhering to the US Constitution in decision making?
  14. What was the purpose for your factually inaccurate and ill-advised apology tour in Egypt, Turkey?
  15. Why have you appointed Islamic apologists to positions of power (Koh)?
  16. Why have you appointed Muslims and Islamists to positions of influence in government, including DHS?
  17. Why have you appointed incompetent power mongers (Clinton, Napolitano) to positions of responsibility?
  18. Does tax evasion not register to you as a negative when deciding appointees (Geitner)?
  19. Are you attempting to by-pass Congressional oversight by appointing more than 30 Czars and Czarinas (Commissars?) without Congressional advice and consent?
  20. Are you bypassing the Congress or exceeding presidential powers by issuing scores of Executive Orders?
  21. Is appointing a race-emphasizing justice (Sotomayor) indicative of your supposed post-racial nature?
  22. Is appointing an unethical and potentially anti-American justice (Kagan) reflective of your values?
  23. Was government “transparency” enhanced by repeatedly truncating or eliminating time lines to review federal legislation?
  24. Do you consider 1,000; 2,000; or 3,000 page bills to be about moral governance or simply control?
  25. Was the content of the health care bill a result of collusion with select non-profits and/or unions?
  26. Was the manner of the health care bill passage a source of pride to you or shame?
  27. Do you think stating that you knew nothing about an incident, but that “the police acted stupidly” to be a stupid statement on your behalf?
  28. Was handing money to “Palestinians” essentially aiding terrorists or in violation EO 12947 regarding HAMAS?
  29. Has handing money to Pakistan resulting in funding terrorists?
  30. By playing soft on Iran are you allowing or accelerating the process whereby nuclear weapons will be in the hands of despots and/or Islamic terrorists?
  31. Do you think your kowtowing and bow-bow-bowing to foreign dictators and other heads of state has enhanced or detracted from our prestige and national security?
  32. Why did you dither so on actions relating to our efforts in Afghanistan?
  33. Can you define success for the soldier operating under your contemptible rules of engagement?
  34. Do you believe your fantasies about Islam (Justice? Good will? Contribution? Largest Islamic nation? Shared values?), or are you just pandering… are you complicit in social jihad?
  35. What is your aim in surrounding yourself with communists and leftists of every sort (Van Jones, Anita Dunn, John Holdren, Cass Sunstein, others)?
  36. Have your connections to ACORN ever violated statutes related to bribery, conspiracy or kick-backs?
  37. What role have you played in the wholly inadequate response to Hasan jihad murders at Ft. Hood?
  38. Have you directly or indirectly interfered with the Congressional investigation of Ft. Hood Hasan terrorist murders, and if so, to what end?
  39. Can you possibly believe that trying terrorists in civil courts is superior to military courts?
  40. Do you think justice would be served to America if terrorists were judged by a “jury of their peers”?
  41. Do you think civilian trials for terrorists would provide a macabre platform for domestic and international terrorist propaganda?
  42. Are you attempting to extend Constitutional protections to enemy combatants (Miranda), and, if so, for what purpose?
  43. Were you involved in suppression of freedom of the press (Brenda Lee case)?
  44. Why are you thinking of creating (or even suggesting) a brown shirt-esque “civilian corps.”
  45. By your lack of interest in investigating CAIR and other HLF trail unindicted co-conspirators, are you indicating support for them?
  46. Are you willfully ignorant or are you practicing deception in your support of zakat (only goes to Muslims, supports jihad, is tax deductable?).
  47. Did you bear false witness or swear a false oath to the American people regarding your citizenship status, name or anything else?
  48. What is the objective in your constant criticism of and demanding concessions from Israel?
  49. By partnering with Egypt to support the OIC resolution on blasphemy are you indicating support for UN limits on free speech?
  50. Regarding Honduras, why did you side with the anti-Constitutionalist, Zaleya?
  51. Did you consider that using the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) for propaganda purposes to be acceptable or an illicit and nefarious act?
  52. Have you intentions, through Executive Orders, to yield American sovereignty (to Interpol)?
  53. By labeling US citizens “extremists” (for support of US Constitution, owning firearms, being Christian, having served in the US Military), did you mean to vilify them and prepare to take action against them?
  54. By what right did you presume to side with the UN in an investigation against the sovereign State of Arizona for human rights abuses?
  55. In whose interest is it to pressure the European Union to accept Turkey?
  56. Can you explain your lies (specifically the ones with video and/or audio documentation)?
  57. Can you justify the WHITEWASHING of national security documents and case files of any factual connections to Islam and jihad (i.e. deliberate deception)?
  58. Was your dismissal of the “Black Panther” voter intimidation case (AFTER it was won!) a sign of your brand of “justice” to come?
  59. Since you apparently campaigned for your pro-Islam relative Odinga in Kenya, can we expect you to support Islam eventually governing in America through sharia or other mechanism?
  60. Does your bumbling and utter failure to secure the nation’s borders have as its objective a non-secure America?
  61. Were your dealings with Tony Rezko lawful or dubious in nature?
  62. What is your objective in abandoning US allies (Israel in general; removing defense shield program from Poland)?
  63. By what right are you using the US Treasury as a selective purse-de jour (Pigford, banks, nations)?
  64. Did you exert political pressure with respect to seating or not seating persons elected or appointed?
  65. Did you mean to insult the Queen or the UK by returning the bust of Winston Churchill?
  66. Were the forced closings of auto dealerships partisan, and if so, how did you justify that?
  67. Do you find it disconcerting that your lack of economic acumen is obvious and your actions in this arena devastating to Americas of all income levels?
  68. Are your collective actions intended to weaken us militarily? economically? morally?
  69. Have you intentionally and knowingly acting against America’s interests?
  70. Are you seeking a post-American world?

The list could easily go on. No candidate or elected representative can be all things to all people. However, one should certainly expect a president that is by and large free of corruption, fraud and deception and that does not harbor disdain for the supreme law of the land or the nation itself.

Additional resources:
The Obama File
The Post American Presidency, Pamela Geller with Robert Spencer
Discover the Networks – President Obama
Obama Administration’s Scandals List

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff in Copenhagen

Ladies and Gentlemen,
I stand here before you in the city of Copenhagen in the year 2010. This is widely considered to be an enlightened country in the heart of an enlightened continent.

Our basic freedoms have long been guaranteed — first by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as passed by the United Nations in 1948, and then buttressed by the Council of Europe in 1950 through the European Convention of Human Rights, which was later affirmed by the European Union. Our individual countries have additionally codified the same basic rights in their own constitutions.

These rights include the freedom of individual conscience, the right to assemble peaceably, and the right to practice our religion freely, or to have no religion at all. And, perhaps most importantly of all, they include the right to voice our opinions freely and to publish them without hindrance.

Yet freedom of speech is under attack today here in Denmark, as it is in my own country Austria, and indeed all across Europe. Today, in 21st century Western Europe, our right to free speech is being shut down quietly and systematically with an effectiveness that the commissars in the old Soviet Union could only dream of.

A milestone in this ominous totalitarian trend will be reached tomorrow, 28 November 2010, when the member states of the European Union are required to implement an innocuous-sounding legal provision known as the “Framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia”, or, more fully, the “Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law.” According to the final article of the Framework Decision, “Member States shall take the necessary measures to comply with the provisions of this Framework Decision by 28 November 2010.”
Why does this matter to the cause of free speech in Europe?

If you read the full text of the Framework Decision (which may be found in the legislative section of the EU’s website), you will learn that “Each Member State shall take the measures necessary… to ensure that the following intentional conduct is punishable.” Such “intentional conduct” includes “conduct which is a pretext for directing acts against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin.”

Based on what has recently happened to Geert Wilders and me — and earlier to Gregorius Nekschot, Jussi Halla-aho, and numerous others — we can all guess who will be punished under this provision of the Framework Decision: those who criticize Islam.

Even worse, a complaint made by a member state does not have to be “dependent on a report or an accusation made by a victim of the conduct”, nor does the alleged offender have to be “physically present in its territory”.

In other words, if the dhimmi Austrian government objects to a cartoon published by Kurt Westergaard here in Denmark, Mr. Westergaard may be extradited by the Austrian Ministry of Justice to answer to hate speech charges in Austria. The European Arrest Warrant guarantees that the Danish government cannot legally interfere with such an extradition, and the 800-strong “European Gendarmerie Force” would be available to fetch Mr. Westergaard out of his bed and bring him to Vienna — with impunity.

As of tomorrow, the above scenario becomes a real possibility. It is not a paranoid fantasy. These legal provisions are detailed in the EU’s public documents, and they will enjoy the full force of law in all EU member states as of midnight tonight.

The death throes of free speech in Europe begin tomorrow morning.

As most of you already know, nearly a year ago I was made aware that “hate speech” charges might be filed against me — I had “denigrated religious teachings” by giving one of my public lectures on Islam.

The possibility of my prosecution was not communicated to me directly, but through articles in the press.

It was not until last month that a court date was set for my case. Once again, I had to discover this fact in the press — in NEWS, the same left-wing newspaper that brought the original complaint against me. I was not officially notified of my hearing date until several days later.

The evidence used against me this past week was a transcript of a tape of my lecture, provided to the court by the same socialist newspaper. It included words that were not spoken by me, and words that were not spoken in public, which therefore were not a violation of the law. But my case is not really about the law. It is a political trial, and like the trials of Geert Wilders and Jussi Halla-aho, it is intended to silence someone who speaks out against the barbaric nature of sharia law.

Above all else, it is intended to discourage anyone who might consider following in my footsteps. The oligarchs who rule Europe are determined to prevent any frank discussion among their citizens of Islam and its legal doctrines.

These are the methods of a totalitarian state.

They are more successful than those of the Nazis and the Fascists and the Communists because they are accomplished quietly and peacefully, with no need for concentration camps or gulags or mass graves or the shot in the back of the neck in the middle of the night.

They are surgical strikes executed via our legal systems, and they are quite effective. Between the summary punishment carried out against Theo Van Gogh and the Framework Decision applied though our courts, there is no room left for us to maneuver.

We are systematically being silenced.

I admire the provisions of the First Amendment that all Americans enjoy as their birthright. Its free speech provisions will make the imposition of sharia that much more difficult in the United States.

But here in Europe we are not so well-protected. Our constitutions and the rules imposed upon us by the EU allow certain exceptions to the right to speak freely, and those little rips in the fabric of our rights are enough to tear the entire structure to pieces.

We desperately need our own version of the First Amendment. We need leaders who are wise and courageous enough to compose and implement legal instruments that affirm the same fundamental rights that are guaranteed to all citizens by the United States Constitution.

We do not yet have any leaders of this caliber. But they are beginning to appear on the scene, and one day they will be the real leaders of our individual European nations, replacing the internationalist totalitarian usurpers who oppress us today.

Our nations will be governed by their own people, by those who truly represent them. Their leaders will be true patriots, people like Jimmie Åkesson and Kent Ekeroth in Sweden, or Oskar Freysinger in Switzerland, or Geert Wilders and Martin Bosma in the Netherlands, or Filip Dewinter and Frank Vanhecke in Flanders.

We are going to reclaim our continent and our nations. We will take our countries back from those thieves who sneaked them away from us while were lulled into somnolence by our wealth and our pleasant diversions.
This will not be an easy task. Our path will be strewn with obstacles and great dangers. But we must travel it nonetheless, because if we do not, European civilization — the heart of Western Civilization — will be destroyed.

What were formerly our nations will become regions with indistinct boundaries, populated mainly by people of foreign cultures and administered by corrupt totalitarian bureaucrats. The natives — the original inhabitants, our children, the descendants of those who created the greatest civilization the world has ever known — will be reduced to curators and costumed actors in a quaint theme park.

Call it “Euro World”. Authentic cuisine, ethnic dancers, and fireworks at ten o’clock.

This is what we will face if we give up our cherished freedoms. If lose our freedom of speech, then we are lost forever.

I am not a victim. I intend to stand up for what is right. I will defend what needs to be defended. Above everything else, I will exercise my God-given right to speak freely about what is happening. Freedom of speech is the single most important freedom we possess.

I am doing this for my daughter, and for her children, for those who will have to live in the world we are now preparing for them. I am doing what our grandparents should perhaps have done during the 1930s, when their own freedoms were under threat.

This is our time. This cup will not pass from us.

I am reminded of a passage in J.R.R. Tolkien’s famous trilogy, The Lord of the Rings. It is an exchange between Frodo the hobbit and Gandalf the wizard, and it concerns the perilous quest on which Frodo and his friends have been sent.

Frodo says:“I wish it need not have happened in my time.”
Gandalf responds: “So do I, and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.”

It is time for us to decide what to do with the time that is given us.

If I were to speak these same words tomorrow morning, I might be subject to arrest. I could be charged under the provisions of the Framework Decision, and extradited to the country that charged me using a European Arrest Warrant, escorted by the European Gendarmerie.

This is not an imaginary scenario; it is a very real possibility.

It is true that only a few people are likely to undergo such an ordeal. But it only takes a few people.

How many people have to endure what Mr. Wilders and I are enduring before everyone else gets the message?

How many examples have to be set before the rest of the European population understands the new rules, and is cowed into submission?

And we must remember to whom they will be submitting in the end. They will be submitting to our successors in Europe. They will be submitting to our replacements.

We must remember that the word for submission in Arabic is Islam.

When there are enough Muslims living in Europe — and it doesn’t have to be a majority of the population, just somewhere around fifteen or twenty percent — we will be living under Islamic law, and not the laws that presently govern us.

We will no longer enjoy what constitutional rights remain to us now. Our rights will be completely prescribed and delimited by sharia. Women will become the virtual chattel of men. Christians and Jews will be driven out or forced to convert to Islam. Atheists and homosexuals will be killed.

The European Union would consider these words to be “hate speech”. Under the Framework Decision, they would be classified as “racism and xenophobia”, and I could be prosecuted for saying them.

But they are in fact the simple truth.

Anyone can verify them by studying history. Anyone who chooses can read the Koran and the hadith and the Sunna of the Prophet.

Widely available official treatises on Islamic law confirm that my description is not “hate speech”, but a plain and accurate reading of the tenets of Islamic law.

It has become obvious that to tell the truth about Islam is now considered “incitement to religious hatred”.

It is now clear that non-Muslims who reveal the tenets of sharia law to the public are “denigrating religious teachings”.

If we meekly accept these rules, then we are acquiescing in the imposition of sharia law in our own nations. And I, for one, will not sit silently while this happens.

I don’t want my daughter to live under sharia.

Our time is short. If you and I do not envision an Islamic future for ourselves, then we must speak out now.

If we wish to preserve the right to speak and publish freely, then we must exercise it now.

I wish this need not have happened in my time. But it has.

We must make full use of the time that remains to us.

Thank you.

Original Post at:
Sabaditsch-Wolff in Copenhagen
Seneste opdatering: 28/11-10 kl. 1615

ELISABETH SABADITSCH-WOLFF´s tale from the Free Press Society conference at Christiansborg Saturday when Jimmie Åkesson also spoke. Among the many guests showed the German Freedom Party founder René Stadtkewitz and Rabbi Jon Haussmann, Toronto, Sam Solomon, Paul Weston, Arthur Legger, Danish and Swedish parliamentarians and several Norwegians.

By Their Law Shall We Know Them

The doctrine of Islam fully implemented under Sharia Law, consistent with the koran, sira and hadith, condemns freedom (speech, conscience, religion association, press, petition of government), forbids equality (between men and women, muslims and non-muslims) and denies traditional sovereignty (national boundaries, secular law, native culture). Any form of sharia, implicit (in mosques and ‘at home’) or explicit (as practiced in UK civil courts, as promoted by the Organization of the Islamic Conference to the United Nations), denies human rights to women, children and non-muslims. Therefore, allowing sharia in this Constitutional Republic or any non-islamic nation violates our basic laws of freedom, including freedom of choice. The tenets of islam as codified in sharia* are supremacist, discriminatory and misogynist; they invite or encourage deception toward non-muslims and mandate perpetual hostility to that which is not islamic. Sharia must be banned as being unConstitutional and its promotion labeled seditious, as it calls for the replacement of man-made law with “divine” sharia.

Whatever in islam that may be spiritual and promote the salvation of the soul is of little interest to me, unless and until it affects non-muslims, at which point it becomes political doctrine. And if this political doctrine calls for harm, subjugation, taxation, terrorizing and death, it is a free-people’s right and obligation to resist.

Speak about islam and sharia in this way. Challenge your listeners not to believe anything about islam that is not consistent with the foundational texts of islam and its body of law, for to do so is to be deceived and ignorant.

*Reliance of the Traveller: The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law here


Newt Gets It – Ban Sharia

Here is Former Speaker of the US House of Representatives Newt Gingrich in a recent speech to the American Enterprise Institute entitled “America at Risk: Camus, National Security, and Afghanistan” addressing the threat of Islamic Sharia Law. The audacity of this consummate historian, this experienced politician, this leader-in-waiting, to speak aloud the truth of our enemy, the theo-political doctrine of islam and its playbook, sharia. Imagine if he were the next President of the United States. Imagine.

Update: Is a legislative reaffirmation of fidelity to the US Constitution and to State Constitutions and a rejection of the use of foreign law, including sharia law the realm of lunacy? Delusion? Wasted effort? Totally unnecessary? I have decided for myself, so should you.

We have the State Department legal advisor, Harold Koh, stating in correspondence that he “didn’t see any reason why sharia law would not be applied to govern a case in the United States.” We have a sitting Supreme Court Justice, Elena Kagan, who while at Harvard sponsored training in sharia-compliance finance, essentially supporting the entry of sharia into our capital markets, through the Harvard Law School’s Islamic Finance project. We have a New Jersey judge who found no crime in a muslim man raping his muslim soon to be ex-wife, since it was part of his cultural practice and found no criminal desire in the act. Fortunately, this opinion was reversed. We have mosques blaring their call to prayer over external loud speakers, actually or potentially violating local noise ordinances and irritating communities.

We have seen, or not seen depending upon your view, intimidation in the media and business and/or self-censorship in Mohammed cartoons, books about islam and letters to the editor, as well as modifications to working conditions. We have people under constant security or changing their identity and hiding from the world because US law and law enforcement are unable to protect the person from a muslim’s exercise of sharia law (threat of harm or death to “blasphemers” or apostates).

So, if you see there is not a problem, then by all means move along, nothing of importance here. However, if you see history as Newt Gingrich does, as I do, as the documentation in “The Legacy of Jihad – Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims” (Andrew Bostom, ed.) does, as Egyptian Coptic Christian, now American, Joseph Nassralla does, then it is time to inform your elected representatives that there is a very real danger in not addressing sharia now. Sharia condemns freedom, forbids equality and rejects national boundaries. Sharia promotion is seditious as it is essentially a call to insurrection, the replacement of our man-made Constitution with “divine” sharia. We should formally take a stand against sharia. Ignorance is not bliss.

Take the Pledge – Read the Koran

Take the Pledge
There is a brilliant new effort afoot to encourage people to simply READ the koran (quran). Please sign up to “Take the Pledge.”

And I further encourage and challenge you as citizens of the United States or any nation and any faith or no faith to read the koran by September 11, 2011.

The advance of Islam is global. The advance of Islam is a Political Action. The acts of war committed on September 11, 2001 did not just happen to the United States, they were a message to all people to bow to Islam or else. That day was one of many days during nearly 1400 years of intimidation, violence and terror perpetrated by the practitioners of Islam against others – in the name of Islam and in accordance with Islamic doctrine.

How will you know what that Islamic doctrine is? How will you know what to make of the news? You can read the koran. You can read an analysis of the “Islamic Trilogy” – the koran, sira and hadith (the biography and traditions of Mohammed, also known as the sunnah, “the way”). The “Take the Pledge” site has links to several on-line versions of the koran and places to purchase them. I suggest the Center for the Study of Political Islam here; look for primary doctrine books.

Islam’s prime goal is to impose itself and codify Islamic supremacy by implementing sharia law on all people. Sharia condemns freedom, forbids equality and rejects national boundaries. A nation cannot have sharia and LIBERTY. Citizens and their elected representatives must know enough to make intelligent decisions and KNOW it NOW.

Become Empowered – Before the 10th Anniversay

Read the Koran by September 11, 2011!

Islamic Apologetics at the Tennessean, Again

Mr. Lewis (at,
From the one-sided treatment the Tennessean gave this story (“Islam is…”), I am concerned either you or the paper is falling into a trap of accepting the sweet deception of islam and failing to provide coverage of alternative views of islamic doctrine – fact-based evidence that contradicts the sanctioned lies and half-truths islam allows muslims to offer infidels to advance islam.

If so, you are a pawn in islam’s grand scheme to islamize the world, as laid out in islam’s foundational documents (quran, sira, hadiith) and islamic sharia law. Islamism is the strategy to spread islam globally, to institute islamic supremacy by implementing sharia over all people, muslim and non-muslim. The Muslim Brotherhood is the modern driving force behind the machine of islamic conquest. It supports numerous other organizations and people that do its bidding. The theo-political doctrine of islam:

1. Commands the attainment of political goals as religious duty (ref: quran, sira, hadith).

2. Is codified in sharia law – which demands the replacement of all man-made law (including our Constitution) with “divine” sharia.

3. Invites conversion, enforces subjugation or engages in war to achieve its objectives.

4. Allows for all manner of deception to advance its objectives.

So, islam is not solely a religion (1); its tenets invariably lead to sedition and insurrection (2, ref: Indonesia, Sudan, France, etc); it violates nearly every aspect of our Constitution, culture and traditions (3); and makes it impossible to distinguish “good” (orthodox, sharia-based) and “bad” (moderate or “mino”) practitioners (4). And islamism, like nazism or communism, seeks to overthrow what is for what it wants. And what it wants is wholly in conflict with the US Constitution and our culture. The freedom of religion argument is specious. This is about defending our form of governance and the freedoms it protects; it is about the future of America and her progeny.

The theo-political doctrine of islam must be expunged from every Western nation and held at bay with hot and cold war until it ceases to be a threat to our forms of governance, our cultures, our institutions and futures. You would do well to not aid the Muslim Brotherhood in its seditious activities by allowing yourself to be used as its mouthpiece.

In liberty,

The Death of Liberty Begins with Submission TM

Sharia for Non-Muslims by Bill Warner
Reliance of the Traveller: The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law by Ahmad Ibn Lulu Ibn Al-Naqib, et al.
Translations of the Quran, Sira, Hadith (life and traditions of Mohammed)
The Legacy of Jihad by Andrew Bostom
Why I am Not a Muslim by Ibn Warraq
The Sword of the Prophet by Serge Trifkovic
They Must Be Stopped by Brigitte Gabriel
Future Jihad by Walid Phares
Stealth Jihad by Robert Spencer
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Note: When Nashville resident Mr. Vijay Kumar attempted to respond to the “Islam is…” article with his own contribution, the Tennessean did not publish it. Mr. Kumar then posted the articles below on his own blog. The media and readers alike must be vigilant in identifying and dissecting propaganda, deceptions and partial truths as islam attempts to portray itself as something other than what is in its foundational documents. Mr. Kumar is to be commended for diligently pursuing truth.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Lena Khan is a source for the Muslim Brotherhood
by Vijay Kumar (August 2010)
When the Tennessean published Lena Khan’s warm and fuzzy “hug-a-Muslim” article on Monday called “Islam is a source of inspiration, learning,” they simply said about the author: “Lena Khan of Nashville is a writer and director for Ecmo Films.”

They didn’t mention that Ms. Khan had received funding from and worked for the Muslim American Society (MAS), the U.S. arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose goal is the “introduction of the Islamic Shari’ah as the basis controlling the affairs of state and society.” If you don’t know what that means, it means that they exist to overthrow the Constitution and the government of the United States and to replace it with a totalitarian Islamic theocracy.

In the infamous Holy Land Foundation case, one internal document spelled out the true strategy behind Ms. Khan’s benefactors using people like her to spread a benign and friendly message: “The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion [Islam] is made victorious over all other religions.”

As the Islamic authority Syed Abul A’ala Maududi put it: “Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a State on the basis of its own ideology and program.”

Richard Clark, who was the National Security Council’s chief counter-terrorism advisor under both Clinton and Bush, has said that “the common link” between the most violent and active terrorist organizations, such as Hamas, al Queda, and Islamic Jihad, is Ms. Khan’s source of funding. “All of these organizations are descendants of the membership and ideology of the Muslim Brothers,” he said.

That’s quite a “source of inspiration”—and source of funding—for Ms. Khan to wax so gushingly over, while telling us how sweet and innocent she and other Muslims really, really are.

Of course, in the time-honored Islamic tradition of taqiyya (lying to infidels), MAS does everything it can to conceal its true origins and purposes, and to put on a happy face—like Ms. Khan’s. MAS was created when members of the Brotherhood, many of them supporters of Hamas, met at a Days Inn near the Alabama-Tennessee border during the early 1990s and agreed to call themselves the Muslim American Society. They further agreed “not to refer to themselves as the Brotherhood,” according to the Chicago Tribune, while keeping the same goals of overthrowing the American government.

One of the requirements of becoming an “active member” of Ms. Khan’s benefactor, MAS, is to study the works of one of the Brotherhood’s most revered authoritarians and martyrs, Syed Qutb. Some of Qutb’s quotes of note:

“All Westerners are the same: a rotten conscience, a false civilization. How I hate these Westerners, how I despise all of them without exception.”
“A Muslim has no nationality except his belief.”
“There is only one law which ought to be followed, and that is the Shari’ah.”

Ah: now there is some of Ms. Khan’s inspirational “learning.” Qutb’s books are sold in the Muslim mosques that Ms. Khan assures us are “against extremism.” It warms the heart, doesn’t it?

Vijay Kumar

Lena Khan Comes Back (Sort Of) For More
by Vijay Kumar (August 2010)
Lena Khan has posted a reply of sorts to my earlier blog article “Lena Khan is a source for the Muslim Brotherhood”—but she didn’t post it here on my blog. She posted to another blog that had reposted my article.

I’m not sure why she didn’t want to confront me directly, and only wanted to talk about me to someone else, but to be entirely fair to her, I’m going to post her response here, and reply to it, point-by-point. Her post is indented and in italics:

Everyone has the freedom for their views, but it is unfortunate that people just go off of information without checking it. Thus far, I have found dozens of supposed statements from Islam that Vijay Kumar has cited, which are not from Muslim sources and Muslims deem to be fabricated.

I’ve been hearing this same kind of dodge for decades. It elicits a yawn. Note that she admits that I have cited my statements, and though she claims to have found “dozens” that are somehow flawed, she doesn’t cite a single one. I don’t wonder why. [Continued here.]

In Defense of Liberty

I comment here on the world as I understand it. This may be a “well, duh” statement, but I will elaborate on several concepts as I have come to know them in order to provide context to my comments. And for others who may view the world differently, perhaps this will clarify my opinions or facilitate discussion.

Why am I even here online? And under the moniker Civilus Defendus (ci VIL us de FEND us)? Why do I feel strongly that civil defense in America is important and that our constitutional form of governance is significant and worthy of protection? I keep coming back to human liberty, that I value it – cherish and honor it as our heritage, a deliberate gift from our ancestors – and wish to see its continued expression through the coming centuries.

Though I will be dust, my cultural DNA will live on in my progeny, my community and my nation and in people like me across the globe. I yearn to see human liberty advance, unabated, but a dark and foreboding mass, an ancient blood-stained ideology, desires that liberty be extinguished. I cannot yield my life without standing for human liberty, the freedom of conscience, expression and association that is so enjoyed around me and celebrated to its maximum extent, while not damaging the same for others. So, I offer these definitions which frame my views.

Islam is the theo-political doctrine as defined in the koran, sira and hadith as implemented under Islamic Sharia law. Islam commands the attainment of political goals as religious duty, offering an invitation to Islam, enforced subjugation under Sharia or war. A key tenet is to bring the entire world, Muslim and non-Muslim under Sharia law. The sira (life, or biography of Mohammed) and hadith (stories or traditions of Mohammed) are also referred to as the sunnah, the example of the “perfect” man, Mohammed. (Though his “perfection” I cannot see.)

Sharia is the “divine” law of Islam based on the koran, sira, hadith and deliberation of selected Islamic “scholars” or practitioners. (Though its “divinity” I cannot fathom.)

Islamization is the codification of Islamic supremacy by means of Sharia law.

Islamism is the strategy to Islamize the world; to impose Sharia and enforce Islamic supremacism. This strategy may include intellectual persuasion, intimidation, financial enticement, violence, terror, war, demographics, sweet lies or any combination thereof.

Implicit in this strategy and its endgame of Islamic supremacism is the oppression of all things non-Islamic; meaning the subjugation infidels, the denigration of infidel values, the insensitivity to infidel culture, the recurring theft of property and wealth – the fruits of infidel labor, the obliteration of infidel art and history, the suppression of science, technology and discovery, the taking of infidel girls as “tilth” for “plowing” and the loss of liberty, a thing relegated to our glorious past. A past of which we will all become ignorant as the decades pass and the demands of Sharia deconstruct the soul and conscience of men, of women, of children.

I come to this understanding from reading the texts involved, reviewing the history of times and places, and observing real-time events. If this resonates with you, feel free to share. If you rely on alternate definitions or understandings feel free to comment here. I seek ways to counter the billowing dark cloud in order to perpetuate that which is good in us.

The Theo-Political Doctrine of Islam

1. The theo-political doctrine of islam commands the attainment of political goals as religious duty (ref: quran, sira, hadith).

2. The theo-political doctrine of islam is codified in sharia law – which demands the replacement of all man-made law (including our Constitution) with “divine” sharia.

3. The theo-political doctrine of islam invites conversion, enforces subjugation or engages in war to achieve its objectives.

4. The theo-political doctrine of islam allows for all manner of deception to advance its objectives.

So, islam is not solely a religion (1); its tenets invariably lead to sedition and insurrection (2); it violates nearly every aspect of our Constitution, culture and traditions (3); and makes it impossible to distinguish “good” and “bad” practitioners (4).

Ergo, the theo-political doctrine of islam must be expunged from every Western nation and held at bay with hot and cold war until it ceases to be a threat to our forms of governance, our cultures, our institutions and futures. The risk and reward, the challenge and splendor of human liberty must trump submission.

Sharia: The Path to Ruin

It is through an understanding of Islamic Sharia Law that we must approach the current conflict and take every step to remove it from our lands. And to that end I will direct you to the always thought provoking and impeccably reasoned site of Bill Warner: and his latest offering on Islamic Sharia Law for a run down of what non-Muslims need to know about Sharia and its affect on Western nations.

If we non-Muslims cannot grasp the meaning of sharia we are defenseless before it. If we are ignorant, we may tolerate, or even embrace, that which will bring about the destruction of our Constitutionally based society and with it our human rights, our choice in governance – essentially all our liberty. Let us explore the essence of “the Sharia.” Here Osama bin Laden lectures the Saudis on the  proper interpretation of Islam (and its law, Sharia):

“There are only three choices in Islam: either willing submission; or payment of the jizya, thereby physical, though not spiritual, submission to the authority of Islam; or the sword – for it is not right to let him [an infidel] live. The matter is summed up for every person alive: either submit, or live under the suzerainty of Islam, or die.” (The Al Qaeda Reader (page 19), Raymond Ibrahim, Ed/Translator, 2007.)

And more from “The Sword of the Prophet” by Serge Trifkovic  (2002). This I found a show-stopper. One page out of  thousands I have read made me put the book down until I further digested this one page. It offered a great insight into what we are facing and simultaneously revealed the greatest threat our civilization has ever faced.

Mr. Trifkovic quotes a translation of the Arab word “shirk” as “freedom” and then goes on to say that “…shirk, the ultimate, unpardonable sin of blasphemy and the exact opposite of Islam, stands for freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.” And that “Allah’s divine sovereignty is irreconcilable with popular sovereignty, which is the essence of democracy.” And finally, that “Islamic law, the Shari’a is therefore not a supplement to the “secular” legal code, it is the only such code and the only basis of obligation, because a Muslim’s only true allegiance is to Allah, and to Muhammad…”

Warner, Ibrahim, Trifkovic, Robert Spencer, Walid Phares, Wafa Sultan…many fine  authors of exceptional works can help lead us, in addition to our own individual investigations, to a sane evaluation of Islam/Sharia, one that inevitably concludes that Sharia is totally incompatible with our Republic and Constitution, and more broadly all non-Islamic societies. We cannot destroy Sharia, that is for Muslims to do, but we can impose a separation – to remove, disallow and prevent it; to criminalize its promotion (which I consider sedition) and cease immigration of people who promote Sharia. It is now for us to guide our elected representatives to act to protect the nation, to speak the words that will simultaneously invite cheers and condemnation – that Sharia cannot be tolerated and must be rooted out, expunged from our lands. Once informed, once contemplated…to not act would be (and is) an unconscionable failure and breach of trust and responsibility.