British schools are going to avoid teaching about the Holocaust or the Crusades. Why? Because some mosques teach that the Holocaust didn't happen, and a different version of the events of the Crusades… and the once-proud British empire now wets its panties at the thought of offending some Muslims.

"Why bother to rewrite history when you can just avoid teaching it altogether?" Get pissed off at The Other Side of Kim du Toit.

By Ted Sampley
U.S. Veteran Dispatch
January 2007

Democrat Keith Ellison is now officially the first Muslim United States congressman. True to his pledge, he placed his hand on the Quran, the Muslim book of jihad and pledged his allegiance to the United States during his ceremonial swearing-in.

Capitol Hill staff said Ellison's swearing-in photo opportunity drew more media than they had ever seen in the history of the U.S. House. Ellison represents the 5th Congressional District of Minnesota.

The Quran Ellison used was no ordinary book. It once belonged to Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States and one of America 's founding fathers. Ellison borrowed it from the Rare Book Section of the Library of Congress. It was one of the 6,500 Jefferson books archived in the library.

Ellison, who was born in Detroit and converted to Islam while in college, said he chose to use Jefferson's Quran because it showed that "a visionary like Jefferson " believed that wisdom could be gleaned from many sources.

There is no doubt Ellison was right about Jefferson believing wisdom could be "gleaned" from the Muslim Quran. At the time Jefferson owned the book, he needed to know everything possible about Muslims because he was about to advocate war against the Islamic "Barbary" states of Morocco , Algeria , Tunisia and Tripoli .

Ellison's use of Jefferson's Quran as a prop illuminates a subject once well-known in the history of the United States, but, which today, is mostly forgotten - the Muslim pirate slavers who over many centuries enslaved millions of Africans and tens of thousands of Christian Europeans and Americans in the Islamic "Barbary" states.

Over the course of 10 centuries, Muslim pirates cruised the African and Mediterranean coastline, pillaging villages and seizing slaves.

The taking of slaves in pre-dawn raids on unsuspecting coastal villages had a high casualty rate. It was typical of Muslim raiders to kill off as many of the "non-Muslim" older men and women as possible so the preferred "booty" of only young women and children could be collected.

Young non-Muslim women were targeted because of their value as concubines in Islamic markets. Islamic law provides for the sexual interests of Muslim men by allowing them to take as many as four wives at one time and to have as many concubines as their fortunes allow.

Boys, as young as 9 or 10 years old, were often mutilated to create eunuchs who would bring higher prices in the slave markets of the Middle East .

Muslim slave traders created "eunuch stations" along major African slave routes so the necessary surgery could be performed. It was estimated that only a small number of the boys subjected to the mutilation survived after the surgery.

When American colonists rebelled against British rule in 1776, American merchant ships lost Royal Navy protection. With no American Navy for protection, American ships were attacked and their Christian crews enslaved by Muslim pirates operating under the control of the "Dey of Algiers " — an Islamist warlord ruling Algeria .

Because American commerce in the Mediterranean was being destroyed by the pirates, the Continental Congress agreed in 1784 to negotiate treaties with the four Barbary States . Congress appointed a special commission consisting of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, to oversee the negotiations.

Lacking the ability to protect its merchant ships in the Mediterranean, the new America government tried to appease the Muslim slavers by agreeing to pay tribute and ransoms in order to retrieve seized American ships and buy the freedom of enslaved sailors.

Adams argued in favor of paying tribute as the cheapest way to get American commerce in the Mediterranean moving again. Jefferson was opposed. He believed there would be no end to the demands for tribute and wanted matters settled "through the medium of war." He proposed a league of trading nations to force an end to Muslim piracy.

In 1786, Jefferson, then the American ambassador to France, and Adams, then the American ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the "Dey of Algiers" ambassador to Britain.

The Americans wanted to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress' vote to appease.

During the meeting Jefferson and Adams asked the Dey's ambassador why Muslims held so much hostility towards America , a nation with which they had no previous contacts.

In a later meeting with the American Congress, the two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja had answered that Islam "was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise."

For the following 15 years, the American government paid the Muslims millions of dollars for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. The payments in ransom and tribute amounted to 20 percent of United States government annual revenues in 1800.

Not long after Jefferson's inauguration as president in 1801, he dispatched a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean , and informed Congress.

Declaring that America was going to spend "millions for defense but not one cent for tribute," Jefferson pressed the issue by deploying American Marines and many of America 's best warships to the Muslim Barbary Coast .

The USS Constitution, USS Constellation, USS Philadelphia, USS Chesapeake, USS Argus, USS Syren and USS Intrepid all saw action.

In 1805, American Marines marched across the dessert from Egypt into Tripolitania, forcing the surrender of Tripoli and the freeing of all American slaves.

During the Jefferson administration, the Muslim Barbary States , crumbling as a result of intense American naval bombardment and on shore raids by Marines, finally officially agreed to abandon slavery and piracy.

Jefferson's victory over the Muslims lives on today in the Marine Hymn, with the line, "From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli , we will fight our country's battles on the land as on the sea."

It wasn't until 1815 that the problem was fully settled by the total defeat of all the Muslim slave trading pirates.

Jefferson had been right. The "medium of war" was the only way to put and end to the Muslim problem. Mr. Ellison was right about Jefferson . He was a "visionary" wise enough to read and learn about the enemy from their own Muslim book of jihad.

Beheaded Girls were Ramadan 'Trophies'

Three Christian high school girls were beheaded as a Ramadan "trophy" by Indonesian militants who conceived the idea after a visit to Philippines jihadists, a court heard yesterday.

But the violence comes from a small group of Muslims; most of them are peaceful!

However… [it was] decided that beheading Christians could qualify as an act of Muslim charity.

That's the problem — it's not the "peaceful majority" that we have to contend with.  

Liberals "fear" Bush because they can't face the reality that bin Laden and other terrorists are truly evil.

It's called "reaction formation," and Answer Girl has a definition: 

Behavior or emotion that is the polar opposite of the way someone is or should be feeling, because the authentic emotion is too frightening to deal with. 

Despite ample evidence to the contrary, liberals still believe that poverty and ignorance are the root causes of terrorism, and that if we could just educate the poor savages and lift them from poverty, they would turn away from jihad and sip lattes and discuss Chomsky. 

Bin Laden is educated and born to wealth, and the idea that, rather than misguided, he is actually evil, is too scary to consider. So to prove to themselves that they are brave after all, they oppose Bush at every turn, "speak truth to power," and pretend to be persecuted while their subconscious hides under the bed.

They cling desperately to their "reality," which explains their vitriol against any who disagree with them, especially those who are supposed to agree, like Senator Lieberman.

This psychosis also explains why it's pretty much impossible for conservatives to find middle ground, and it's the reason liberals must be defeated in the upcoming election and as long as the Islamo-Fascists exist.

Michelle Malkin has the full definitions here; my summary follows:

• Jihadis — our enemies. I can hear the whines — "but SteveO, Jihad really means the lifelong conflict between one's soul and one's flesh. Islam is a religion of peace."
  Bull dooky.
  "…the late Ayatollah Khomeini rebuked Religion of Peace propagandists back in 1942: 'Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those (who say this) are witless.'"
• Infidels/Kafirs — non-Muslims. I'm one, by the grace of God.
• Sharia — the system of law that the Islamo-Fascists want to impose upon us. This is the means by which they justify killing their daughters and sisters for immodesty, among other things. Although you don't hear of feminist groups protesting against Sharia killings, for some reason.
• Caliphate — a nation ruled by Sharia law.
• Taqiyya — WWMD (What Would Mohammed Do)? Lie like a rug, apparently, so it's okay if Muslims lie. That's why we have fabricated stories of Korans being flushed at Gitmo. Idiot tribesmen thought it made a good lie; idiot liberals and main-stream media types (but I repeat myself) apparently think the military has super-toilets that will flush a whole book.
• Dhimmitude — inferiority of infidels. Not based upon fact or observation, obviously.

Frank J. has some ideas to help fight terrorism at IMAO.

I'd add my favorite - pack your hollowpoints with bacon grease, so that when you shoot them, they don't become martyrs. Plus, you get that yummy bacon smell with each shot!

Decide for yourself. 

***Warning — disturbing images***

From NewsMax.com:

Bush recently demonstrated that the choice of words can set the tone and mood of the nation.

It was the first time that, in describing the nation’s fight against terrorism, the president modified his prior rhetoric and clearly stated that what we are engaged in is a "war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those who love freedom [and] to hurt our nation."

Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum has been ahead of the curve when it comes to the vocabulary of war. In a July 2006 speech at the National Press Club, Santorum examined President Bush’s penchant for use of the phrase "war on terror."

"Some say we're fighting a war on terror," Santorum said. "That's like saying World War II was a war on blitzkrieg. Terror, like blitzkrieg, is a tactic of war used by our enemy; it is not the enemy. In World War II, we fought Nazism and Japanese imperialism. Today we are fighting against Islamic fascism."

Bush’s use of the more specific terminology brought an immediate denunciation from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), who nevertheless couldn't explain why we should care what they think.

Actually, I added that last little bit.

Can you tell the difference between the image on the left and the image on the right?

Maybe it's not clear enough. Try this one:

Still having problems? Check and see if you

• are a liberal, and/or
• have your head up your butt.

Hate-spewing Muslim cleric leaves England just ahead of deportation, swears never to go back.

Problem - he went to Lebanon, where they're doing what he's been wanting for years, and it's dangerous! Now he wants to come back to England… read it all at Captain's Quarters.

This was a comment on this post, signed by "religion of pieces." I have no idea who the author actually is. 

Twenty facts about Islam every liberal should know. (Then maybe they'd see sense)

Islam …

1. Is a mind-control and information-control cult founded by a murderer, torturer, brigand, rapist and pedophile called Mohammed. The mind-control and information-control aspects require that all criticism be silenced.
2. Is Mohammed's personality cult. Has no foundations other than Mo's murderous rantings (Koran and Hadith). The Koran consists of two conflicting parts - Meccan and Medinan (peaceful and violent resepectively). The Medinan stuff supersedes ('abrogates') the Meccan stuff. Muslims act Medinan, but quote Meccan verses to the gullible infidels.
3. Claims to worship the same God as Christians and Jews, but in fact worships Allah - a demonic manifestation of Mohammed's pyschopathic ego. The Death Cult mixes garbled versions of Christian and Jewish scriptures with pagan practices such as moon and meteorite-worship, and cut-throat blood sacrifice of animals and non-believers.
4. Has no rational, philosophical nor theological basis, and the whole belief-system is contradicted by science, philosophy, commonsense, human decency and internal inconsistency.
5. Cannot withstand rational criticism. Can only spread and maintain itself by ignorance, illiteracy, war, terrorism, and intimidation. Islam has bloody borders and cannot co-exist peacefully with other belief systems. Winston Churchill said that Islam in a man is as dangerous as hydrophobia (rabies) in a dog.
6. Has a superstitious dread of images of pigs, crosses, Buddhas, Saint George (and his flag) and of course Motoons.
7. Regards Islamic women as semihuman. Wife-beating, incest and child abuse (including mufa’khathat or 'thighing' - the ritual abuse of infants) are encouraged.
8. Regards all unbelievers (Kaffirs, Kuffar, Kufrs, Kafirs) as ritually unclean subhumans to be killed, subjugated, enslaved, exploited or parasitised. Kafirs are described by the Arabic word 'najis' - literally 'filth'. That's why Muslim hatred of Kafirs is intrinsic to their 'religion'. A Kafir doesn't need to do anything to offend a Muslim, his very existence is enough of an affront.
9. The ethical system applies only to Muslims. Allah encourages rape, pillage, extortion and enslavement of non-Muslims. Morality does not extend beyond the global gang (ummah). Muslim ethics are the ethics of the Mafia.
10. Allah's followers are motivated by hatred, greed and lust. There is no love, mercy or compassion. Allah is vindictive, unpredictable, capricious and devious - "Allah leads astray whom he pleases".
11. The only religion NOT founded on The Golden Rule. Morality is based on Mohammed's example. If Mohammed did it then it's OK for all Muslims. Hence the encouragement of rape, pillage, subjugation and murder of non-believers and the institutionalised pedophilia prevalent thoughout Muslim society (justified by Mohammed's activities with Ayesha, his child sex-slave).
12. All human relations are defined by Dominance/Subjugation. Muslims have schizoid inferiority/superiority complexes. (A well-balanced Muslim is one with a chip on each shoulder). They respect strength but despise compromise as weakness. Appeasement invites more aggression. The only political system which has been strong enough to subjugate Islam is Stalinism.
13. Polygamy ensures alpha-males get extra women, leading to a shortage of women for the betas. Beta-males must either [masturbate] (a sin leading to hell), or form dog-packs and rape or capture kafir women as booty in a razzia, or else self-destruct then they can screw 72 mythical virgins in Allah's bordello in the sky.
14. Lying and deception of infidels (taqiyya) is encouraged. This may take many forms, including outright lies, feigned moderation, and condemnation of terrorist attacks to the Kaffir while rejoicing with fellow Muslims. All Muslims are victims of some group of Kafirs and harbor grudges against them and against Kafirs in general. Individuals may appear law-abiding and reasonable, but they are part of a totalitarian movement, and must be considered potential killers who can flip in an instant (SJS -"Sudden Jihad Syndrome").
15. Muslims are forbidden to befriend Kaffirs except for purposes of deceit or where conversion may be possible.
16. The Koran is Allah's final word and cannot be changed or challenged. To do so is punishable by death. Consequently, the Death Cult can never change or be reformed. The instructions to murder and rape infidels are just as valid now as the day they were written. Since Islam cannot be modernised, the Muslims are attempting to Islamise modernity. This requires spreading Islam in the West and simultaneously preventing any criticism of the cult by intimidation and PC legislation to curtail freedom of expression.
17. Treaties and agreements with Kaffirs are made to be broken (Hudna). The word of a Muslim to a Kafir counts for nothing in the eyes of Allah.
18. The world is divided between Dar-al-Islam and Dar-al-Harb (the domain of war, the Kufr lands). Muslims living in Dar-al-Harb must work to disrupt their host nations until these can be brought into Dar-al-Islam.
19. Muslims have no obligation to their host nations and in fact are encouraged to parasitise them. Welfare fraud, identity theft, forgery etc are endemic in Western Muslim populations, and serious crime against Kaffirs is regarded as normal and justified. Extortion rackets against Kafirs are mandated by the Koran ('jizya' is the Arabic term for 'protection money' payable by Jews and Christians to Muslims).
20. The attack on the host nation isn't just against its religion and economy, but is aimed at its very cultural identity. Islam is a complete system, including a culture, which Muslims regard as superior (despite all evidence to the contrary) to other cultures. Muslims are therefore required to destroy the symbols of 'Jahiliya' (sometimes sp. Jahiliyya) - non-Muslim culture. In the East this has included destruction of Hindu temples and Christian churches and replacement with mosques, and destruction of Buddhist artwork and universities and replacement with heaps of rubble. This process of cultural replacement is now beginning in the West. The lamps are going out all over Europe. We shall not see them lit again in our time.

I'm copying this entire post from Truth & Consequences, just to make sure it gets seen. I'm also adding a new category, "Jihadistan." I first saw this term at the Patriot Post, where it is defined as "a borderless nation of Islamic extremists that constitutes al-Qa'ida and other Muslim terrorist groups around the world." The category will include items that address the culture of terrorism, as opposed to the war on terror.

Liberals are stupid. Nay, they are tongue chewing, mindless, babbling, dung-for-brains, idiots. Case in point, their favorite mantra: "Iraq had no WMD and there was no relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam."

We now know what we always figured, that Iraq's WMD went to Syria before the war. So the liberals studiously avoid that argument. But when confronted with the most up-to-date evidence about Saddam's relationship with al Qaeda, gleaned from seized Iraqi Intelligence documents, not to mention the mountain of evidence that existed before, the latest liberal mantra goes like this: "How could Osama Bin Laden, a 'devout Muslim,' ally his organization with the likes of Saddam Hussein, a Godless, secular Ba'athist?"

Where have they been? We answered that question years ago.

First, let's examine the logic of the liberals' assertion. It requires us to make the enormous intellectual leap that Osama is the "devout Muslim" they claim and that the goal of Islamic militants is to purge the world of sinners, heretics and non-believers.

If you accept that argument, then you are of necessity discounting the "devoutness" of the millions of Muslims who have lived more or less peacefully with the rest of the world for hundreds of years. You are associating "devoutness" with mass murder, not a logical inference one should encourage.

Furthermore, if the goal is to purge the world of non-believers, why then attack the U.S., one of the largest God-fearing nations in the world? Islam allows for the worship of God by "People of the Book", i.e. Christians and Jews, though admittedly in a subordinate societal position.

If Osama really wanted to purge the world of Godless infidels, why not look in his own back yard? The city of Kandahar, Afghanistan - the very heart of al Qaeda country - is a modern day Sodom and Gomorrah. According to the Times of London it is the "homosexual capital of south Asia (Kandahar Comes out of the Closet, The Times of London, January 12, 2002)". Homosexuality is so prevalent that "birds fly over the city using only one wing, the other covering their posterior" as the joke goes. Some analysts have claimed as many as fifty percent of Kandahar men have engaged in homosexual relations, and in many cases, this is between grown men and young boys, kept as "halekon."

Why hasn't Osama burned the city to the ground in a fit of moral outrage? In the interest of full disclosure, it must be admitted that the Taliban did enforce anti-sodomy laws in Kandahar when they controlled it. Three violators, for example, were forced to stand against a wall, and were crushed when it was pushed over by a tank. Not what one would call "progressive" exactly, but at least there's a shred of consistency. However, it has been claimed that during this period, Taliban leaders hypocritically kept their own male lovers behind closed doors in the madrases.

For that matter, Yasser Arafat, the paramount Muslim symbol of defiance against the West, and the man whose mission supposedly animates all these radical Islamic groups, was widely reputed to be a homosexual, and many believe he died of AIDS. To add to the confusion, Arafat and his PLO were (are) not Muslim at all. They were (are) communists.

So these grandiose claims to the moral higher ground ring distinctly false.

And there's a lot more evidence that has been staring liberals in the face for the past quarter century. Since the 1970s, Hezbollah, Hamas and all the other "Muslim" terrorist groups operating in the Middle East have relied almost exclusively on secular Ba'athist Syria, and to a lesser extent, Iraq, for aid, training, weapons and safe haven. If they can work with the Ba'athists, why can't Osama?

But if logic and evidence don't convince you, how about Osama's own words? In a statement broadcast by Al Jazeera on February 11, 2003, bin Laden said: "He who fights to raise the word of God will fight for God's sake. Under these circumstances, there will be no harm if the interests of Muslims converge with the interests of the socialists in the fight against the crusaders, despite our belief in the infidelity of socialists." So in other words, allying with Saddam's Ba'ath Socialists to fight the U.S. is no problem. Somehow the liberals must have missed this speech.

Finally, there is all the confusion about what school of Islam Osama actually believes in. Most assume he is a Wahhabist. Wahhabism is a strict version of Sunni Islam practiced largely in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, named after its 18th century founder, Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab.

But in fact, Osama is a Qutbist. Sayyed Qutb (pronounced "khatab") was a member of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood founded by Hassan al Banna. While it started as a peaceful movement, Qutb preached violence and the Muslim Brotherhood under his leadership was heavily suppressed by the Egyptian government of Abdul Nasser. Qutb himself was executed.

Osama's mentor was Abdullah Yusuf Azzam, who along with Ayman al Zawahiri (today al Qaeda's #2), and Omar Abdel-Rahman (the blind sheik imprisoned for the first WTC attack), was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and a follower of Sayyed Qutb. Qutb's Muslim Brotherhood in fact is the ideological font from which has sprung most of the Muslim terrorist organizations in existence today.

Not surprisingly, Osama was implicated in Azzam's 1989 assassination in Pakistan. There apparently was a falling out between Azzam and bin Laden's budding organization over the objectives of Jihad, with bin Laden favoring an all out war with the West (Abdullah Yusuf Azzam, Wikipedia) in which he saw himself as the paramount leader.

And there's the rub. Osama sees himself as the supreme leader of a worldwide movement, willing to murder his own allies, other Muslims or anyone else who stands in the way. And as he said, allying with "socialists" against the U.S. is no problem.

This explains how Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who came from the ranks of secular Baluchi terrorists, came to be al Qaeda's number three and the mastermind of 9-11. It explains how, according to the liberals' own Clinton administration, in 1998, Osama's al Qaeda and Saddam's Iraq agreed to cooperate "specifically, including weapons development."

And this calls into question his entire justification for being. The secular communist and ba'athist regimes he refers to as "socialists" rule regimes infinitely more degenerate than any Western country, and have completely purged belief in God from public discourse. If Osama were sticking to principle, he would line up next to the largest Christian nation in the world, the U.S. of A., to fight off the true infidels: communism and socialism. But Osama is merely another megalomaniacal racketeer on the order of a Mao, Hitler or Stalin, who has sadly found a vibrant currency in the gullible ranks of Islamic fanatics.

But the liberals still haven't figured this out.