THIS is why we are fighting a war on terror. Islamic Fundementalists are not wanting to co-exist, no matter WHAT feel good bilge C.A.I.R. might try to put out.

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 09:19 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 35 words, total size 1 kb.

I found this article on Barbara Stock's Republican and Proud site. It really puts it all in perspective.

a warning to the free world from an ex-Muslim

Important to read and share.

I was born and raised as Muslim. My whole family is still Muslim. I know every genetic code of Muslim. I know Islamic brain. I live and breath with them. I am an insider.

I left Islam when I understood that Islam is a sick and evil religion. Following are the Islamic message to the West.

To the infidels of the West:

Constitution for the new Islamic Republic of EU and USA is under construction.

We will fight the infidel to death.

Meanwhile American laws will protect us.

Democrats and Leftist will support us.

UNO will legitimize us.

CAIR will incubate us.

ACLU will empower us.

Western Universities will educate us.

Mosques will shelter us

OPEC will finance us

Hollywood will love us.

Koffi Annan will pass politically correct sympathetic statement for Jihadists.

Our children will immigrate from Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Indonesia and even from India to the US and to the other Western countries. They will go to the West for education in full scholarship. America is paying and will continue to pay for our childrenÂ’s educations and their upbringing in state funded Islamic schools.

We will use your welfare system. Our children will also send money home while they are preparing for Jihad.

We will use your welfare system. Our children will also send money home while they are preparing for Jihad. We will take the advantage of American kindness, gullibility, and compassion. When time comes, we will stab them in the back. We will say one thing on the camera and teach another thing to our children at home. We will give subliminal messages to our children to uphold Islam at any cost. Our children in America will always care more about Islamic Country’s interest than US interest. We will teach our children Islamic supremacy from the very childhood. We will teach them not to compromise with Infidel. Once we do that from the very early age our children won’t hesitate to be martyr. We will take over the Europe first and then US will be the next. We already have a solid ground in the UK, Holland, Sweden, Spain, Italy, Germany, and now in the US. Our children will marry Caucasian in Europe and in America. We will mixed with intricate fabric of the Western society but still will remember to Jihad when time comes. Who are we?We are the “sleeper cells”. We will raise our children to be loyal to Islam and Mohammad only. Everything else is secondary. At the time of the real fight we will hold our own children as our armor. When American or Israeli troops shoot at us the world will be watching. Imagine,… Imagine the news in the world “Death of Muslim babies by infidels”. We know CNN, ABC, CBS are broadcasting live. Al-Jazeera will pour gasoline on the fire. The news will spread like wildfire. “Americans killed 6 babies, 10 babies”. “Jews killed two women”, Keep your Nukes in your curio cabinets. Keep your aircraft carrier or hightech weaponery in the showcase. You can't use them against us because of your own higher moral standard. We will take the advantage of your higher moral standard and use it against you. We won’t hesitate to use our children as suicide bomber against you. Visualize the news flash all over the world, …Moslem mother is sobbing, ….crying. ….Her babies are killed by Jews and Americans, the whole world is watching live. Hundreds of millions of Muslims all around the world are boiling. They will march through Europe. We will use our women to produce more babies who will in turn be used as armor/shield. Our babies are the gift from Allah for Jihad. West manufactures their tanks in the factory. We will manufacture our military force by natural means, by producing more babies. That is the way it is cheaper. You infidels at this site cannot defeat us. We are 1.2 billion. We will double again. Do you have enough bullets to kill us? On the camera: We will always say, “Islam is the religion of Peace.” We will say, “Jihad is actually inner Jihad.” Moderate Muslim will say there is no link between Islam and Terrorism and the West will believe it because the West is so gullible.Moderate Muslim all over the world will incubate Jihadist by their talk by defending Islam.Using Western Legal system we will assert our Sharia Laws, slowly but surely.We will increase in number. We will double again. You will be impressed when you meet a moderate Muslim personally. As your next-door neighbor, coworker, student, teacher, engineer, professionals you may even like us. You will find us well mannered, polite, humble that will make you say, “wow, Muslims are good and peaceful people”, But, we will stab you in your back when you are sleeping as we did on 911.There will be more 911 in Europe and in America. We will say, “We do not support terrorism but America got what it deserved.” Muslims, CAIR, ISNA, MPAC and other international Islamic Organization will unite. We will partner with Leftist, ACLU, with Koffi Annan, and the UN, and if we have to then even with France. Fasten your seatbelt. The war of civilizations has just begun. We will recite Quran and say Allah-Hu-Akbar before beheading infidels, as we have been doing it. We will video tape those and send it to all infidels to watch. They will surrender - ISLAM means surrender. We will use your own values of kindness against you. You are destined to loose. Must be very depressing for you. Isn’t it? Allah-Hu-Akbar as we say just before beheading.
21st Century Islamic WarfareLet's see the effectiveness of Islamic warfare.
Muslims Vs. the West.

THE RULE HAS CHANGED. There is new game in town.

Bill Clinton ordered 50 Tomahawks Cruise missiles costing $100,000,000 each to destroy $50 mud houses that belonged to Osama's family. What a stupidity? What a poor ROI (Return On Investment)

In return Osama's attack on the US.
Cost: 19 martyrs and less than $500,000.
Cost to the West: over 3,000 dead.At least $1,000,000,000,000 (one trillion) dollars economical loss in one year. This includes the ripple effect.

Osama's ROI with respect to: life = 3,000/19 = 158 fold.
Dollar = $1 tr./500K = 2,000,000 fold

That is modern warfare. The West will loose.

Allah-Hu-Akbar.
Islam will rule the world. There is nothing you can do. Even if the per capita GDP of the world drops to half of its present level as a consequence of Islamic laws in place all over the world but still Islam will rule the word. From your point of view we bring to the world to the dark ages, so be it. But still Islam wins, West looses.Are you sure you want to play this game?

Jihad, ..Jihad...Jeeehaaad...

You are destined to loose.

Allah-hu-Akbar SOTT[Sight of the Truth] Saudi Arabia's $100 billion investment over the last 3 decades on over 60 thousands Madrassas and school all over the Islamic world is finally paying off. While the West was busy inventing medicine, increasing life expectancy, elevating human suffering, decoding human gene to find cure for Cancer, heart disease etc, launching space shuttle, inventing internet, working on new laws/theory for human rights, developing better economical models for a more prosperous world, while ACLU was gaining control over common sense, while American ingenuity was benefiting the rest of the world, we Muslims were busy producing over 200 million out of 1.4 billion, Walking, Talking, Non-Thinking, West-Hating, Pre-Programmed, Suicidal, Parasitic, Terrorist Robots. You can't win. The Genie is out of the bottle. We will use AmericanÂ’s kindness, fairness, compassion, freedom of speech and non-discriminatory policy against them. We will stab them in the back. What are you going to do? You are doomed. SOTT[Sight of the Truth] Tim--ex-Muslim

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 10:13 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 1332 words, total size 8 kb.

As all the regulars know, Mamamontezz and I lost phone service and our DSL connection due to an unfortunate paucity of funds...we managed to get the bill paid and the phone was back on line the next day, and we were informed that it would be approximately a week untill the DSL connection would be back up and running. That week ends tomorrow...We called to see if it would be up and running as promised and were informed that it would be at least another two weeks.

You may have noticed the paucity of posts on both our blogs, and I'm afraid that that situation will continue for at least another two weeks...the dial-up connection only works on the old boat anchor back-up computer without rewiring the good fast E-Machine we usually use, and posting is just too frustrating with a connection speed of only 3200Baud.

I.T. types, just tell me WHY it takes so long to turn on an established account? A new account they get up and running in two days or less, and now it's going to take almost a month to get an account back on line after only a 6 day interuption? The phone line was disconnected a week before the DSL was, and it was up and running the day after the requisite funds were tendered, the two services are payed in one statement, so just WHY does it take so long?

Seems that service is second in todays business world....Billing is #1.

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 12:55 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 255 words, total size 1 kb.

I keep hearing the same old tired meme from the Leftist Moonbat Brigades that there haven't been any WMD's found in Iraq, thus President Bush is a liar and probably Hitler incarnate.

The Moonbats keep throwing around numbers of upwards of 100,000+ Iraqis killed by the vicious American Armed Services, never mind that they can't cite any reliable sources for these numbers.

Some on the Left have gone so far as to equate the "insurgent's" in Iraq with the Minutemen of the Revolutionary War.

The Left claim that President Bush rushed to war without even trying to get the rest of the world on board, disregarding the facts that:

more...

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 05:33 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 979 words, total size 6 kb.

Here's what the Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence thinks of those of us who choose to avail ourselves of our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms: we're "overexcited and underintelligent".

I have owned at least one firearm since the age of 15, at the present time, I have 3 handguns, 1 shotgun, and 5 rifles..in calibers ranging from .22 to .303; and in the 35 years of owning those weapons, not ONCE have I ever felt the urge to fire any of those weapons indiscriminatly into the air in celebration of any event, nor have I known ANY of my fellow gun owners of my aquaintence to so so (I assure you, IF any had, I would no longer be friends with them!)

Has it happened? Yes, I'm sure it has. There are always idiots who will do stupid things, but to use such a wide brush to paint all gun owners as capable of such idiocy is just plain stupid, and in contradiction of facts.

This is just another ploy directed at those that already belong to the GFW* crowd, to attempt to further the agenda of the Brady group to end private ownership of all weapons.

(*Gun Fearing Wienie)

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 05:00 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 210 words, total size 2 kb.

Kim du Toit received an e-mail from a SSgt. who had attended the Rumsfeld town hall meeting with the troops.

The SSgt. was amazed at the difference between what he observed at the meeting and how the MSM reported the meeting. The MSM media would have you believe that soldiers were disgruntled and were wanting a chance to castigate the SecDef. The truth was, in the SSgts. own words:

"There are over 12,000 troops on our base. Only 2,000 or so had the opportunity to attend the gathering and I can tell you, those were hotly contested seats. Not as the media would have you believe, so we could voice our displeasure, but rather to have the opportunity to see and hear the man we admire."

He went on to further say:

"He was applauded, he was given a standing ovation and he was loved. He stood there like a professional, like a man, and he took the heat because that's what leaders do. And yet somehow, the American media turned that wonderful event into a "disgruntled troops meet with Secretary Rumsfeld" headline."

And here's the statment that made me the proudest of our troops:

"The morale is high, the equipment is good and improving daily. Disregard what you read and hear from the media, and trust in the American fighting men and women to do the right thing. We have excellent leadership and are doing what we signed up to do."

Sentiments like these expressed by our troops need to be disseminated far and wide by the blogging community; The MSM will never show this side of the conflict. If WE don't do it, it won't get done. It's far past time that we allow the MSM free hand in passing off their bias as fact without challenge.

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 08:34 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 306 words, total size 2 kb.

Riverdog has an interesting post on gun blogging and the possible ramifications thereof.

I have less than half the experience in Law Enforcement than he has, but I have to say from my own experience that he clearly points out the reality of the dangers that any blogger must face up to if they want to express their opinions vis a vis the Second Amendment and the private ownership of weapons, and he gives some sage advice to follow to prevent unnecessary harrassment from the government and it's enforcement agencies. As Riverdog stated: "It (list of gun contacts/expressions)does exist in field contact reports as they are coded and maintained by local police. I know, because I used to write these reports myself." I did also, so I know he is correct.

It is a fine line that you must walk, or in the doublespeak world of government law enforcement, you ARE guilty of heinious crimes against an oprderly society, just by expressing your opinion.

I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if I was on "the list" in some obscure government agency for my outspoken opinions on the Second Amendment.
And I have to admit that in my more paranoid moments that thought frightens me.

I do not believe in armed insurrection against the government as it stands, but I believe that the Second Amendment was put into place in case of a tyranical turn of that government, and the responsibility of the citizens of this country to be prepared for that eventuality by keeping arms and by using those arms if the situation warranted it.

I do believe we should be "A Nation of Riflemen" as Kim du Toit terms it. A just and honest government has nothing to fear from that concept.

But it seems that anyone of that mindset has to fear that those ideas may put him at odds with a government that has become more authoritarian the farther the ideas espoused by the Left has pemeated it. The more that Groupthink government control comes into vogue, the greater the danger to independant and self-reliant people; who must therefor guard their own public expressions of belief, lest they become victims of that groupthink mentality.

Acidman and McGehee have their own two cents to add too, and worth the read.

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 03:55 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 403 words, total size 3 kb.

It had to happen...many proponents of the Second Amendment pointed out that even if guns were outlawed, criminals would just turn to other weapons.

They effectively outlawed guns in the UK and Scotland, and now they are after knives. Whats next? taken to the idiotic extreme, will they ban trees on private premises so as to take away the availibilty of branches to use as clubs?

The answer has always been to hold the criminals responsible, not their weapons. But that means assigning personal accountability, something the G/KFW "progressives" view as anthema.

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 01:36 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 98 words, total size 1 kb.

We are on the slippery slope to the loss of effective access to avail ourselves of our Second Amendment rights.

The guns used in this case were STOLEN from the gun shop in question, they were NOT illegally sold. And just how is it that a manufacturer is held liable when a distributer of their product is the victom of theft?

The manufacturer followed all the guidelines mandated by law, they should not be held responsible for the CRIMINAL use of their product. The gun shop owner was a victom of theft, so just what precept of law holds that he is responsible for actions of the criminals that used the stolen items illegaly?

The parties in question no doubt settled the case in this manner so as to not have to bankrupt themselves in their own defense, but in so doing opened up a whole new chain of events leading, in the end, to the cessation of the availability of legal firearms, as the costs of doing business will become too high to sustain it at a level afforable to the average citizen.

In my jaundiced view, this is yet another end run by the anti-gun lobby to deprive the average citizen of his right to bear arms by escalating the price of guns to that not sustainable by the average citizen. If guns are legal, but unaffordable, the net effect is the same as if they had been banned outright.

The people of this great country had better make themselves aware of what is happening, or they may soon wake up to find themselves subjects, rather than citizens.

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 01:04 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 280 words, total size 2 kb.

I have some difficuty with this post. Scott Peterson was recommended for the death penalty by the same jury that convicted him.

I do believe that Mr. Peterson was guilty of the crime that he was charged with, but I also believe that the State did not present a case that was sound enough to get a conviction, much less the death penalty.

What is a law and order conservative to think when he believes a defendant is guilty, but the prosecutor fails to make a case beyond a reasonable doubt?

And there ARE many reasonable doubts in the way the circumstantial evidence was presented in this case. Adding the death penalty into the mix only compounds the dilema.

I can only hope in my mind that the jury was presented with facts not presented to the public at large that tipped the scales towards conviction and death sentence, despite the prosecutors inept public presentation.

I'm all for those guilty of heinious crimes getting a fitting end for their transgressions, but the death penalty should be used only when there isn't ANY doubt about the guilt of the defendant. That isn't true in this case.

I also wonder if Mr. Peterson could truly have a fair trial with all the pre-trial media exposure. The defendant's right to a fair trial was overshadowed by the public's "right to know"in this case, IMHO.

So, a man I believe to be guilty is convicted in a trial I believe to have been unfairly (to him) publicised and poorly prosecuted, should I be happy that a guilty man was convicted, or should I be worried that the justice system has been subverted by the court of public opinion, just on the off chance that he is innocent? After all, you or I may be the next one in the defendants chair, and I would hope that we would not be unfairly judged.

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 12:30 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 330 words, total size 2 kb.

The grand Dutch experiment is breaking down.

The Dutch have long been in the forefront of tolerance for cultural and racial diversity, and it had seemed for years that maybe they were pointing the way to have a liberal society that worked. But now the grim facts of life are breaking the great experiment apart.

As much as liberals wish it so, the fact is that unless a society as a whole has a set of common goals and social ethics, it can not survive in the long term. The fact that it is Islamic influances leading the breakdown is demonstrative of the situation of the world as a whole.

The Western world has one ethic, the (radical) Islamic world has a totally different ethic. These two ethics CAN NOT co-exist in a world that is economically interdependant, they are too different at their basic core. One espouses the independance and power of the individual, the other emphasises a tribal/clan/family religious identity as the most important. One encourages innovation and free thinking, the other enforces strict conformity within the religeous guidelines of the Muslim sect one belongs to. The various sects war among themselves unless there is an (perceived) anti-Muslim outside enemy that causes the sects to temporarily forget their differences to fight the common enemy.

Sound familiar? It should. German society was at war with itself and with the neighboring societies in the late 20's and early 30's, war in an economic and social sense...then Hitler gave them a common enemy to band together against, the Jews..the rest is history.

It has been said that Osama bin Laden has used Hitler as the model for his rise to power. A big difference is that this time there was a leader that was unwilling to allow that rise to continue without taking assertive action against it.

I weep for the land of my birth. The Dutch tried to lead the way into a new paradigm, without taking into consideration that human beings must change before that paradigm will work. They will suffer the pain for that mistake, and I fear that it will be a great pain indeed.

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 12:32 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 362 words, total size 3 kb.

From the AP news:Annan Opens First-Ever Seminar on Islamophobia With Plea Not to Judge Muslims by Acts of Extremists

By Edith M. Lederer Associated Press Writer
Published: Dec 8, 2004

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Secretary-General Kofi Annan opened the first U.N. seminar on confronting Islamophobia with a plea not to judge Muslims by the acts of extremists who target and kill civilians.

Ok, Kofi, since you cay so, I'll just judge them by the astonishing lack of protest in the Muslam world against those that are perptrating these heinous acts.

The daylong forum on Tuesday came six months after a U.N. seminar devoted to confronting anti-Semitism, also a first for the world body. Both were part a series entitled "Unlearning Intolerance," sponsored by the U.N. Department of Public Information.

Thats what the UN does, talk about everything under the sun, too bad they don't DO anything to really solve any of these problems. They held a seminar on anti-Semitism? So I guess the Palestinian Mis-placed Arabs--Israeli conflict is over?

"The few give a bad name to the many, and this is unfair," he told Islamic scholars, writers and religious leaders as well as representatives of other religions.

It may be unfair, true, but it sure seems that those who SHOULD be speaking out against this in the Muslim world AREN'T, in fact most of the "biggies" seem to be, at the least, tacitly encouraging them with their various fahtwas.

Annan urged people to condemn terrorist and violent acts carried out in the name of Islam but which "no cause can justify."

I won't hold my breath for any in the Muslim Street to do this.

"Muslims themselves, especially, should speak out, as so many did following the September 11 attacks on the United States, and show a commitment to isolate those who preach or practice violence, and to make it clear that these are unacceptable distortions of Islam," he said.

Um... Kofi? Just WHO in the Muslim world did speak out against terrorism on 9/12? I must have been sleeping and missed it. And most of the stories I hear about coming out of the Muslim world is some new Imam issuing a Fahtwa that seems to be more encouraging to terrorist activities than condemning them.

Annan said "it is essential that solutions come from within Islam itself" and suggested and suggested that the Islamic scholarly principle of "ijtihad," a process of critical inquiry, could foster free debate into what is good and bad in Muslim cultures as well as others.

Yes jihad is supposed to be self-battle against sin within, but it has been distorted from the beginning to be battle with those perceived as "infidels". And free debate? It's NOT a part of Muslim culture, at least not in matters of religion, thats why Sunni fights Shia fights Kurd, and the Wahabi sect fights everyone. SHOULD "Islam" suceed in defeating the West, the various sects will take to fighting amongst themselves untill there is only one sect left, like you said, Islam isn't monolithic

He stressed that Islam "should not be judged by the acts of extremists who deliberately target and kill civilians."

Then LET THE "PEACEFUL MUSLIMS" speak out against these fanatics, lest they be judged, at the least, tacit collaberators.

"We should not underestimate the resentment and sense of injustice felt by members of one of the world's great religions, cultures and civilizations," he said.

Injustice brought on by their own actions, by their own people; resentments largly fostered by and between the various sects of Islam.

"And we must make the re-establishment of trust among people of different faiths and cultures our highest priority," Annan added, saying that failure to do this threatens world peace and development.

Seyyed Hussein Nasr, professor of Islamic studies at George Washington University, said Islamophobia was a question not only of fear but also of hatred - often by people who know little about the religion.

Yeah when Omar Ahmed, the Chairman of the Board of C.A.I.R., a supposed "moderate" group, who's stated function is to "foster understanding" says:

"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant, " he said. "The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth," he said.

He was further quoted:

"Muslims are not to separate or assimilate to American society, but instead to deliver Islam's message. Muslim institutions, schools and economic power should be strengthened in America."

If THIS is a "moderate" then I do believe we have it right to not trust them.

In the keynote address, Nasr spoke of the role of fanaticism in conflicts and said there would there would be no Islamophobia without "mistakes" made by Muslims.

Right Mr Nasr...the mistakes being those who state Islams goal of world domination in clear language?

Nasr said most people view Islam as an intolerant, monolithic religion bent on ruling the Western world when in reality, there are various schools of Islamic thought, the religion is not anti-Western and the Islamic dynasties over the centuries accepted both Jews and Christians fleeing persecution.

<Islam has as many varients as Christianity, it's true. The difference is, the sects of Christianty as a general rule, DON'T have bloody conflicts betwen themselves as the Islamic sects do (Ireland being an exception). Islam does show intolerance to every other religeon, just read the Koran. Most of those Christians and Jews were fleeing from another sect of Islam, and were tolerated as second class citizens as long as they paid their "unbeliever" taxes...of course, if you weren't Christian or Jewish, you weren't allowed that option either, you either converted or were executed. Do these people not read ANY History?

Fighting Islamophobia, Nasr argued, requires swift action from those in the West who understand that hatred breeds more hatred. Muslims must also take the lead in speaking out against extremism - steps that should be complemented by educational reforms and more effective use of the media.

Ahmed Kamal Aboulmagd, a law professor at Cairo University and vice president of the Egyptian Council for Human Rights, called for "an undistorted mirror" for Muslims and non-Muslims to examine themselves and others.

He said many Muslims for the first time were feeling part of a larger world and abandoning isolationism. Many Muslims also recognized their negligence in not highlighting Islam's commitment to democracy and respect for human rights, he said.

DEMOCRACY?!? Respect for HUMAN RIGHTS?!? HE said that with a straight face?!? What Islamic Country is a democracy? (Maybe Turkey) Talk about "human rights", even in Turkey, and if the rulers feel it even hints at impugning them, you end up incommunicado in a small cell at the least.

Scott Appleby, director of the Joan B. Kroc Institute at the University of Notre Dame, said that in the United States and much of Europe, terrorism had created anxiety about the vulnerability of Western societies, drawn unwanted attention to Muslims, and elicited intolerance and hatred among some Americans. This is what terrorists wanted, he said.

In the United States, Appleby said, patriotism should require a willingness to recognize differences and honest self-criticism, not condescension towards people cast as "the other."

Yes it was the goal of the terrorists to foster hatred and mistrust, Mr. Appleby, and they suceeded admirably. The stone silent Majority of the Muslim world only heightened that effect.

Let's see...Muslims kill 3,000 of our citizens..."Moderate" Muslims openly state that the goal of Islam is to replace our Constitution, and put the Koran as the highest law of the land (Sharia)

IF we criticize Islam, we are "Intolerant Bigots", but if Muslims criticise us, they are "Purveyors of another Truth"

NO Mr. Appleby, patriotism should be to recognize a clear and present danger and to defend our own way of life against those that would destroy it.
AP-ES-12-08-04 0737EST

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 03:41 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1326 words, total size 9 kb.