Existential Space

A Good Friday Meditation from St. Athanasius, "On the Incarnation"

2009-04-10T01:21:00.002-05:00

A very strong proof of this destruction of death and its conquest by the cross is supplied by a present fact, namely this. All the disciples of Christ despise death; they take the offensive against it and, instead of fearing it, by the sign of the cross and by faith in Christ trample on it as on something dead...Death has become like a tyrant who has been completely conquered by the legitimate monarch; bound hand and foot as he now is, the passers-by jeer at him, hitting him and abusing him, no longer afraid of his cruelty and rage because of the king who conquered him. So death has been conquered and branded for what it is by the Saviour on the cross. It is bound hand and foot, all who are in Christ, trample it as they pass and as witness to Him deride it, scoffing and saying, "O Death, where is thy victory; O Grave, where is thy sting?" (I Cor. 15:55).

St. Athanasius, On the Incarnation, Chapter 27.

Obamabots on parade in Columbus

2008-11-03T11:11:00.007-05:00

The Obama campaign didn't want the mental patients down at the rally at the statehouse this weekend, so they sent them to stand on the corner of High St. and North Broadway to promote those critical political issues of our day - impeaching Bush and 9/11 Truth. (photos courtesy of DanM):

Remember, these people get as many votes as you do!

Starving Joe the Plumber to death - nice touch!!

No Obama event would be complete without the 9/11 Truthers:

It's always fun to see the somewhat world-famous Jihad Brothers:

Aziz the Jihad Brother with Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi:

Sharia law: change you can believe in!!

Believe!!

No, she's not part of the Jihad Brothers.

Sarah Palin and Gretchen Wilson rock Columbus

2008-11-02T18:58:00.009-05:00

(Psst - don't forget to check out my post and pictures Friday's rally with McCain, Schwarzenegger, and Hank Jr.!)

(Double psst - today's Mason-Dixon Battleground poll has McCain up by 2 in OH)

Gov. Sarah Palin, First Dude Todd Palin and Gretchen Wilson came to Columbus today to rally the troops just 48 hours before Election Day.

How energized is the GOP base in Ohio?

Well, this was the front of the line:
And this was the back (going all the way to Alum Creek Drive):

The little girl in her pink cowboy hat was so cute:

Her Hotness, Gov. Palin, and entourage arrived ON TIME!!

Alaska's First Couple:

Gretchen Wilson rocked the house:

HELL YEA!!

More of Her Hotness:

First Dude:

Vets for McCain-Palin! There were two WWII vets (one man, one lady) and a Korean War vet sitting directly beside us. Thank you vets!!!!!

Sarah 4 VP!!

Gretchen signing autographs:

Gov. Palin was proudly sporting her buckeyes:

Note to political newcomers: if you want to shake the candidate's hand, don't try to push your way to the front, but look for the Black Escalades outside (or in this case, a White Tahoe)...

...because good things come to those who wait:

More experienced than Barack Obama - smarter and better looking than Joe Biden.

Hell yes Ohio's going for McCain-Palin!!!

John McCain, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Hank Williams Jr. in Columbus

2008-10-31T18:57:00.014-05:00

Senator John McCain, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Hank Williams, Jr. came to Columbus today to rally the troops in the last few days of this campaign for victory in the Buckeye State. Needless to say, the lines outside Nationwide Arena were long, stretching all the way down Nationwide Blvd.

A reminder of why we were all there:

Buckeyes for McCain!

House Minority Leader John Boehner spoke to the crowd:

As did Ohio 15th Congressional District GOP candidate Steve Stivers:

Hank Williams Jr. warmed up the crowd for about 20 minutes, including his new hit, "McCain/Palin Tradition":

The Straight Talk Express arrived, and Gov. Schwarzenegger gave a rip-roaring speech (note the "Joe the News Photographer" down beside the stage).

Um, did I mention the McCain ladies are HOT!? Not that Lindsey would notice, of course.

Here's the YouTube of Schwarzenegger's speech:

Then came the main event:

What a pleasure it was to be at McCain's final Ohio campaign stop before Tuesday's elections. Work to help get out the vote this weekend, and take somebody to the polls on Tuesday!

Go McCain-Palin!!

A Free, Independent Kosova!

2008-02-17T15:45:00.010-05:00

After nearly 20 years of Serbian oppression and occupation, the Kosova has finally declared its independence!

The Kosovars are to be congratulated that they have achieved their freedom through peaceful, democratic means in cooperation and under the supervision of NATO and the international community (note to the Palestinians). Meanwhile in Belgrade, Serbian leaders are calling for war and more violence, while trying to a lid on anti-Kosova riots. The contrast couldn't be more stark.

In many of the published pictures in the past few days leading up to this historic day the American flag is seen prominently with the Albanian flag. Through the brave and tireless service of our US military, particularly those who served in KFOR, we have won an important ally in the Balkans. It's unfortunate that the late Kosovar Prime Minister Ibrahim Rugova, a man committed to peaceful resolution of the Kosovar situation, and Rep. Tom Lantos, a devoted friend of the Kosovar people and a brave champion for their cause on Capitol Hill, didn't live long enough to see this day.

Congratulations to Kosovars everywhere!

Islam, Science and Christianity

2007-12-28T19:46:00.000-05:00

(Note: I'm cross-posting this from WorldMagBlog)

Popular mythology holds that while Christian Europe was in the so-called "Dark Ages", where intellectual inquiry and human progress was allegedly weighted down under Christian dogma, the Islamic world was flourishing with advancement and learning. But bestselling author Robert Spencer challenges the assumptions underlying this "Golden Age of Islam" narrative, primarily constructed by 19th Century European historical revisionists, in his new book, Religion of Peace?, and in a recent blog post where he notes that virtually all of the scientific and technological achievements following the initial Islamic wars of conquest relied on the Christian and Jewish intellectual capital of the areas they subdued. Spencer concludes:

In sum, there was a time when it was indeed true that Islamic culture was more advanced than that of Europeans, but that superiority corresponds exactly to the period when Muslims were able to draw on and advance the achievements of Byzantine and other civilizations. But when the Muslim overlords had taken what they could from their subject peoples, and the Jewish and Christian communities had been stripped of their material and intellectual wealth and thoroughly subdued, Islam went into a period of intellectual decline from which it has not yet recovered.

Bestselling author Dr. Andrew Bostom also recently addressed another component of the "Golden Age of Islam" myth, that Islamic Spain was a model of religious ecumenism while Christian Europe was simultaneously wracked with inquisitions and intolerance, by examining the writings of the "Second Moses", Jewish medieval philosopher Maimonides, who fled Muslim Spain because of religious persecution there directed against Jews and Christians alike.

Both the Spencer and Bostom articles are well worth reading. I would also note my previous June 2006 post, "The 'Golden Age of Islam' Myth", which covers additional ground on this topic.

An unofficial Fred Thompson campaign ad

2007-12-19T15:15:00.000-05:00

Fred Thompson on the GWOT

2007-11-21T22:21:00.001-05:00

Yes, I'm now writing for Pajamas Media (watch for my article next Monday), but I'm only posting this because it is a rare look at one of the viable presidential candidates in an extended, unedited setting. No 60 Minutes edits to twist things out of context. Nothing here but unvarnished opinion. Fred's views on the Global War on Terror. Entirely worth 15 minutes of your time.

Welcome back, Columbus Dispatch!

2007-10-10T10:47:00.000-05:00

Well, Mike Curtin's crew is back on the prowl and digging for dirt. Someone from the Dispatch appeared this morning from a Google search looking for "Patrick Poole and Curtin". Seriously Mike, don't your people have anything better to do than to do your ego surfing for you?

Ahmadinejad's Apocalyptic Faith

2007-09-24T07:27:00.000-05:00

In light of the present visit to the US by Iranian dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, I would direct readers to an article I wrote more than a year ago at FrontPage, "Ahmadinejad's Apocalyptic Faith". There I wrote about the Hojjatieh brand of Shi'ism that Ahmadinejad follows, which I described as follows:

Most Shiites await the return of the 12th Shiite Imam, Muhammad ibn Hasan, the last direct male descendent of the Prophet Mohammed’s son-in-law Ali, who disappeared in 874AD and is believed to be in an invisible, deathless state of existence, or “occultation”, awaiting his return. Though it is discounted even by the most extremist clerics, a popular belief in Iran holds that the 12th Imam, also called the Mahdi or the sahib-e zaman (“the Ruler of Time”), lives at the bottom of a well in Jamkaran, just outside of Qom. Devotees drop written requests into the well to communicate with the Mahdi. His reappearance will usher in a new era of peace as Islam vanquishes all of its enemies. The Sunnis, who reject the successors of Ali, believe that the Mahdi has yet to be born.

But rooted in the Shiite ideology of martyrdom and violence, the Hojjatieh sect adds messianic and apocalyptic elements to an already volatile theology. They believe that chaos and bloodshed must precede the return of the 12th Imam, called the Mahdi. But unlike the biblical apocalypse, where the return of Jesus is preceded by waves of divinely decreed natural disasters, the summoning of the Mahdi through chaos and violence is wholly in the realm of human action. The Hojjatieh faith puts inordinate stress on the human ability to direct divinely appointed events. By creating the apocalyptic chaos, the Hojjatiehs believe it is entirely in the power of believers to affect the Mahdi’s reappearance, the institution of Islamic government worldwide, and the destruction of all competing faiths.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has clearly indicated that he is a true believer in this faith. It has been reported that he has told confidants that he anticipates the immanent return of the Mahdi. When he previously served as Mayor of Tehran, he advocated for widening the roads to accommodate the Mahdi’s triumphal entry into the city. One of his first acts of office as President was to dedicate approximately $20 million to the restoration and improvement of the mosque at Jamkaran, where the Mahdi is claimed to dwell.

This personal belief directs his official policies as President. He has publicly said, “Our revolution’s main mission is to pave the way for the reappearance of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi. We should define our economic, cultural and political policies on the policy of the Imam Mahdi’s return.”

However, Ahmadinejad’s messianism doesn’t stop with the Mahdi. In fact, he has made it clear that he believes he has personally received a divine appointment to herald the imminent arrival of the Mahdi, tacitly acknowledging his own role in setting aright the problems of the world.

The Hojjatieh sect is so extreme, it was banned by Ayatollah Khomeini (which is saying something). Ahmadinejad's spiritual mentor is Ayatollah Mesbah-Yazdi, known affectionately (or not so) by his moniker, "Professor Crocodile". Mesbah-Yazdi has been pushing to succeed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as I noted in another article, "The War Ayatollah".

Understanding the worldview of our enemies (Iranian-made IEDs and EFPs are killing dozens of American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan each month) is essential for understanding their intentions. You might also want to visit my friend Timothy Furnish's website, MahdiWatch.org, and read his History News Network article, "What's worse than violent jihadists?" for additional background on the virulent brand of Shi'ism practiced by Ahmadinejad.

Hello Columbus Dispatch visitors!

2007-09-05T16:41:00.001-05:00

Over the past few days we've received a number of visits from the good folks at the Columbus Dispatch, who have spent some time riffling through our past blog posts. This was true yet again today. Perhaps their doing opposition research for their good friends at the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), so Ahmad Al-Akhras doesn't have to anymore while sitting at his cushy government MORPC job?

If so, they are no doubt looking for the smoking gun that will prove once and for all that I'm some crypto-bigot, because I say such unkind things about their friends at CAIR, who have assured Mike Curtin that they are peaceful and moderate and really don't support Islamic terrorism (except, of course, when they get caught red-handed speculating on the activity of the "Jewish lobby" in town or saying that Palestinian terrorists are "guerrilla groups").

Or maybe it's just that the Dispatch just holds a grudge against me and they want to do another hit piece for their pain. After all, they cleared Hilliard-based terror cleric Salah Sultan in May 2006, only to have him flee the country following my series of FrontPage Magazine reports over the past year that revealed his appearances at overseas rallies praising HAMAS and doing political analysis for the Muslim Brotherhood. My FrontPage report led to Sultan's US citizenship application getting tossed. Ouch! That had to hurt, especially for Dispatch reporter Felix Hoover who "cleared" Sultan. And then there was the LA Times article back in July which disclosed that Sultan was "glorifying holy war" and stirring up Sunni-Shi'a strife in Bahrain. Double ouch! I know what Felix Hoover is thinking: "But he told me he signed a fatwa condeming terrorism?" And then to have me publish pictures of Sultan cavorting with global terror cleric Yousef Al-Qaradawi at a conference in Qatar just a few weeks ago (wait until they see the video!). You wonder how they gather the courage to go to work every morning to do Mike Curtin's bidding.

So here's an open-ended question for the Dispatch: what exactly is it that you want to know? You know how to get ahold of me. Don't be afraid to ask. I won't bite. Promise.

UPDATE (09/06/07): It seems the Dispatch's curiousity for yours truly is growing, as we had visitors from there again today. Do you people have anything better to do? I don't update this blog nearly enough for it to be that interesting.

UPDATE #2 (09/10/07): OK, this is getting a little weird, guys. I really don't update this blog enough to warrant this much attention from the folks at the Dispatch. Haven't you all downloaded all the previous posts already?

Meet my cyber-stalker: Ahmad Al-Akhras

2007-08-17T10:00:00.000-05:00

"Stop speaking the truth to power, infidel!"
Our friend, CAIR's Ahmad Al-Akhras, has been busy at his government job at MORPC downloading dozens of our articles from this blog this morning (UPDATE: from ~10am-12n, he apparently went through at least 40 different posts):

He might be upset at my FrontPage article this morning, "Ohio State Profs go 'Truther'," discussing the hate panel he moderated with John Mueller and John Quigley not long ago, co-sponsored by Columbus 9/11 Truth, a 9/11-denial organization which claims that the World Trade Centers were not brought down by two terrorist-controlled planes, but through a secret US government conspiracy. Oh, and his fellow hate-monger and terror apologist, Abukar Arman, was also on the panel.

Or he might be seething that his organization, CAIR, had to file an amicus curiae brief in federal court yesterday complaining that they had been named unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation HAMAS terror financing trial. On page 10 of their brief, they specifically cite my FrontPage article, "CAIR Fingered by Feds", as proof of the damage caused by being named unindicted co-conspirator in the case.

Here's a tip, Ahmad: stop supporting terrorist organizations! And get back to work, slacker!

Politically correct curiosities

2007-08-13T22:01:00.000-05:00

Isn't it a testament to the toxic social and cultural atmosphere today that at the very moment that CAIR, other Islamist extremists, and their media establishment allies are publicly attacking me for "Islamophobia" (a definition of which only they are allowed to determine and apply, much like Nazis could label someone a "Jew") and for questioning their claims to speak on behalf of the Muslim community in America, I am simultaneously hailed as one of the chief public defenders of the rights of Albanian Muslims in Kosova against the genocidal "Christian" Serbian government? That at the very same time I am denounced for supposedly being an anti-Muslim bigot, I am accused by fringe elements of the conservative movement for being in league with "jihadist murderers" because of my repeated statements in support of the Albanians? Can anyone explain this to me?

Do a quick word search for "Albania" and "Kosovo" on the CAIR website, and see how concerned they are about the pressing issue of Kosovar independence. The truth is that since Albanian Muslims are non-Arabs, CAIR and their Wahhabi masters could care less about Albania or Kosova.

Exactly who are the racists?

UPDATE #1: I guess I have really made the big time now that convicted felon, mail order "reverend", and pathological liar Jim Sutter has now attacked me. Of course, last week he was a credible source for CAIR, because he was attacking Robert Spencer of JihadWatch. No enemies in dhimmitude, CAIR must reason. Sutter even has a website exposing his serial lies.

Update #2: Sutter leaves this threat in the comments section of this post:

Be advised, Mr. Poole, that linking to the forgeries of my cyberstalker leaves you just as liable as her.

Bring it on, felon-man...

What the Columbus Dispatch doesn't want you to hear

2007-08-07T16:23:00.000-05:00

Update #1: A review of the Abukar Arman kerfuffle and the Franklin County Commission's pseudo-investigation into his extremist statements can be found at FrontPage today: "Terrorist Sympathizer Tossed from Homeland Security Panel".

If you are looking for additional information on the Abukar Arman kerfuffle reported yesterday by the Columbus Dispatch and the Franklin County Commission's pseudo-investigation into the terror apologist sitting on the Criminal Justice Planning Board that oversees Central Ohio Homeland Security, be sure to visit the Central Ohioans Against Terrorism blog. Plenty of breaking developments there, including reports on the County Commission's stonewalling a Open Records Act request into the Abukar Arman matter while passing the same info to the Dispatch.

CAIR's Catastrophe

2007-07-15T19:35:00.000-05:00

What if CAIR launched a jihad and nobody came? That seems to be the case this month, as CAIR's finances continue to plummet. Two weeks ago at the end of June, I observed ("A Bad June for CAIR") that CAIR raised less than one-fourth of their monthly budgeted goal of $250,000 for that month.

This month, however, things appear to have gotten worse. Half-way through July, CAIR has raised less than 1/100th of what they need to make budget (0.969%), bringing in less than $2,500. If last month fundraising had come to a trickle, they have now come to a very, very slow drip. I'm sure being named unindicted co-conspirator in a terror finance trial didn't help last month. Almost makes you sorry for the poor soul responisble for their fundraising. Almost.

A Bad June for CAIR

2007-07-01T07:52:00.000-05:00

Update #1: Welcome RoP readers!

As I reported here earlier in the month, "CAIR's Finances Take Hit from Legal Woes", and in a subsequent FrontPage article, "CAIR's Financial Peril", June wasn't looking too good for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) on the financial front. The Islamist group began June with anemic fundraising, as indicated by a running tally on the main page of their website, and it just kept getting worse.

Now that we are into July, we can see that CAIR had a disastrous month, in terms of both finances and public relations. With a budgetary goal of $250,000, according to CAIR's own statistics, they raised only $59,666 for the entire month - less than one-quarter (23.8%) of what they needed to make budget. In the period between June 20th and the end of the month, CAIR only raised $5,880 ($53,786 raised by 6/20) and $2,929 in the last week of the month - barely one percent (1.17%) of its monthly goal.

This has been a bad time for CAIR's finances to bottom out:

Earlier this month, NY Sun reporter Josh Gerstein broke the news ("Islamic Groups Names in HAMAS Funding Case", 06/04/07) that CAIR has been named by federal prosecutors as an unindicted co-conspirator in an upcoming HAMAS terrorism financing trial in Texas. (See my follow-up article, "CAIR Fingered by Feds")
Then the organization received even more bad news following the Washington Times story that CAIR membership had dropped 90% since 9/11 to a staggering membership low of 1,700 for 2006, a story I had previously reported in February ("Numbers Don't Lie") and May ("CAIR by the Numbers") at FrontPage, and in a blog post ("Honey, I've Shrunk the HAMAS Front Group!").

CAIR hasn't taken this double gut-shot lying down, however. Immediately after the Washington Times story broke, CAIR put out a press release accusing the Times of "agenda-driven reporting". Perhaps one of the most comical aspects of this story was that in addition to slamming the Times, CAIR also issued an action alert asking its supporters to become members in response to the article - thereby proving the point made by the Times!

CAIR is also responding to the news of its being named as an unindicted co-conspirator, not by answering the charges, but by attacking their critics. This lash-back is taking the form of a "nationwide Islamophobia discussion", which according to another CAIR press release begins this weekend with a forum at Nova Southeastern University in Davie, FL; continues next week in Dallas, TX; leading up to an event at the National Press Club on Tuesday, July 17th in Washington DC (if I were the Press Club, I would get payment in advance).

According to CAIR, at the Dallas function next weekend, "Panelists will also discuss the government's actions in the case against officials of the closed Texas-based Holy Land Foundation Muslim charity." Hopefully, that will be an event attended by a more skeptical media than CAIR is used to. They have plenty to answer for.

What does all this mean? Will CAIR be able to weather they financial, legal and public relations perfect storm that they are experiencing? Will CAIR's Wahhabi and Muslim Brotherhood masters bail the group out once again, or will they leave them high and dry now that the Feds are finally on their trail (much as they did the American Muslim Council when it encountered similar travails)? Only time will tell, but CAIR's dismal June doesn't bode well for hopes of a bountiful July. We can only hope.

Hello from Ohiostan!

2007-06-18T15:20:00.000-05:00

I will probably need to have someone else start my car in the morning now after my FrontPage article this morning, "Hometown Jihad: The School Gym that Terror Built", about our local Islamic school, Sunrise Academy, hosting Siraj Wahhaj to keynote two separate school fundraisers. More details at the Central Ohioans Against Terrorism blog, "Sunrise Academy's Fundraising Friends", including a picture of the facility.

Also, a quick shout-out to my friends from the Nixon Center visiting today for the first time in a few weeks! Welcome back! For more information, see this prior post, "Does the Nixon Center Have Anything Better to do?" or my FrontPage article, "Nixon Center's Plumbers Unit".

Putting My Political Science Education to Good Use

2007-06-15T05:20:00.000-05:00

As I mentioned in a recent article at The American Thinker, "Lies, Damned Lies, and CAIR's Statistics", one of the benefits (or drawbacks, depending on how you look at it) of getting a degree in Political Science at Ohio State is that as the top quantitative analysis PoliSci program in the country, all PoliSci students were required to take several polling research and data analysis classes.

Well, I put that education to good use once again in another article this morning at The American Thinker, "New Study: Political Islam Correlated to Support for Terrorism", which analyzes attitudes and opinions regarding support for terrorism in fourteen different countries in the Muslim world.

The study in question is "Correlates of Public Support for Terrorism in the Muslim World" by Ethan Bueno de Mesquita of Washington University in St. Louis. Analyzing data from the Pew Research Center, he finds that greater support for the role of Islam in politics (political Islam or Islamism) is correlated directly to the increased support for terrorism:

People who support a strong role for Islam in politics are more likely to also support terrorism. Perhaps more surprisingly, people who perceive Islam to play a large role in the politics of their home country are also more likely to support terrorism. (p. 7)

This study also puts to rest the tired line about how the lack of education, poverty, or political oppression in the Muslim world causes terrorism. Looking at the data, there is virtually no relationship at all with respect to any of these factors and support for terrorism, especially education, where no relationship exists at all.

I suppose I'm starting to see some dividends from all those polling research and political science statistics classes. I would have rather been in political theory, quite honestly.

Welcome Columbus Dispatch readers!

2007-06-09T18:21:00.000-05:00

Welcome to everybody visiting who read my letter to the editor today in the Columbus Dispatch, "Letter writer distorted results of terrorism surveys"! The letter I'm responding to by Ahmad Al-Akhras, national vice chairman of the Council on American Islamic Relations and Columbus resident, is here. I have more fully critiqued Al-Akhras in an article earlier this week in The American Thinker, "Lies, Damned Lies, and CAIR's Statistics".

Thanks for stopping by. Feel free to look around. And if you are looking for the Central Ohioans against Terrorism (COAT) blog, go here.

AP Writer Manufactures Lie in Story on Pew Muslim Study

2007-06-08T22:20:00.000-05:00

UPDATE: Welcome JihadWatch readers. Thanks to Robert Spencer for the plug.

Earlier this week I had an article published, "Lies, Damned Lies and CAIR's Statistics", in response to a letter to the editor published by Ahmad Al-Akhras, national vice chairman of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), in last Saturday's Columbus Dispatch. My article notes that Al-Akhras substantially misrepresented the findings of a December 2006 survey in order to claim that Americans generally are more prone to endorse attacks against civilians than what was found in the American Muslim population in a recent Pew Research Center study which found that 26 percent of American Muslims age 18-29 would justify suicide bombings.

This evening I was reading an entry by Robert Spencer at JihadWatch responding to an article by Associated Press Religion reporter Eric Gorski, "Young U.S. Muslims Face Mistrust". Spencer notes a number of problems in Gorski's article, which I won't recount here, but the AP article mentions the same study cited by Al-Akhras. Gorski says:

A December 2006 survey by the University of Maryland's Program on International Attitudes found 24 percent of Americans believe "bombings and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians" are often or sometimes justified. The poll found no significant variance based on age.

His statement on this poll is only two sentences long, but there are several misrepresentations here in addition to one outright lie.

The first problem is that they December 2006 wasn't done by the "University of Maryland's Program on International Attitudes", but the Program on International Policy Attitudes (does the AP have any factcheckers?), which is not part of the U of Maryland at all, but is a joint project between the Center on Policy Attitudes (COPA) and the Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM), University of Maryland. It is an independently-funded organization with loose ties to UofM, but both Al-Akhras and Gorski have stretched PIPA's relationship with the university to try to give it more clout. The poll was not conducted by the university, however, as they claim.

As I noted in my previous article, the question they refer to in the PIPA study (survey questionnaire) does not ask about intentional attacks. The specific question (found on page 17, Q-I23 of the questionnaire) was:

"Do you personally feel that such attacks are often justified, sometimes justified, rarely justified, or never justified?"

There is no mention of intentionality in the question itself, but both Al-Akhras and Gorski go out of their way to stress that point.

But the absolutely categorical lie Gorski engages in is when he says, "The poll found no significant variance based on age." But when you look at the PIPA study, the responses are not broken down by age - Gorski conjures this fact completely out of thin air! In fact, the American respondents aren't even broken down by age anywhere in the study or the questionnaire. He has to manufacture it himself.

It's nothing new, of course, for an AP writer to start "making it up", but this manufactured lie is apparently acceptable, because it's victim is the American public. If Gorski had made up some lie about the Pew Study findings on Muslims, he would be without a job today; but when he libels the public at large and that libel passes through the whole AP editorial and factchecking process without a single concern apparently raised, this should raise concerns about the credibility and reliability of the entire Associated Press organization.

Like a dog returning to its vomit, there is a reason why the Islamists and their media establishment apologists keep returning to this PIPA study: they have been successful thus far at twisting and manipulating the poll results to try to divert attention from the shocking findings of the Pew study. And as I stated in my previous article, they have to engage in an equivalence between conventional and internationally recognized warfare (the subject of the PIPA poll) with terrorism (the Pew study asked specifically about suicide bombings) to even try to bring the PIPA study into play. This equivalence between conventional warfare and terrorism is precisely the same that Islamists constantly tell us that they don't make (equating the bombing of factories in Germany during WWII and the HAMAS suicide bombing of Israeli pizza parlors filled with Jewish teenagers).

But not even the Islamists are reading from the same script when it comes to this PIPA study. While Ahmad Al-Akhras of CAIR cites "24 percent of Americans, reported in the Maryland study, who believe these attacks are "often or sometimes justified", Ingrid Mattson, President of the Islamic Society of North America, cites this exact same PIPA study and says:

"And what am I to make of the fact that according to the University of Maryland, 51% of Americans believe that “bombings and other types of attacks against civilians are sometimes justified?"

Citing the exact same poll, CAIR and ISNA come up with two entirely different results for this same question - 24 percent and 51 percent! Can't these clowns get it right? You would think the Islamists would at least collaborate a little more closely so they can tell the same lies. But maybe Mattson thinks it's OK to lie about Americans, because she is Canadian.

Whether it's CAIR, ISNA or the Associated Press, it's all taqiyya to me...

CAIR's Finances Take Hit from Legal Woes

2007-06-06T13:38:00.001-05:00

UPDATE (06/10/07): Welcome RoP readers and Lizardoids! Things are getting worse for CAIR. Today the amount received by CAIR reads $17,001. They have raised just 0.068% of their monthly goal, even though they are one-third of the way through the month.
(06/11/07) CAIR reports just $100 in receipts today. Current total - $17,101.

This graphic, which appears on the website of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) today, is a testament to the ongoing financial woes of the propaganda arm of radical Islam in America. One-fifth of the way through the month of June, CAIR is just 0.046% of the way towards their financial monthly goal, which is presumably their monthly budget. Earlier today that amount was just $5,837, which means they received $5,690 in today's mail. Even if CAIR collects $5,700 everyday this month (24 days left), that means they will still end up $101,673 short of their goal by month's end. There are possibly several reasons for CAIR's precipitous financial shortfall.

First, the announcement this week by NY Sun reporter Josh Gerstein ("Islamic Groups Names in HAMAS Funding Case", 06/04/07) that CAIR has been named by federal prosecutors as an unindicted co-conspirator in an upcoming HAMAS terrorism financing trial in Texas is certain to hurt the organization's fundraising efforts. CAIR supporters will now be much more reluctant to contribute to an organization that they know will be under greater law enforcement scrutiny for fear of being investigated themselves. This is a rational response (though you shouldn't be supporting a HAMAS front group to begin with).

Secondly, as I've discussed in a FrontPage article just a few weeks ago ("CAIR by the Numbers") and a previous blog entry ("Honey, I've Shrunk the HAMAS Front Group!"), CAIR has been hemorrhaging members for several years. Despite the fact that they still claim to be “the largest Islamic civil rights organization in America”, I estimated based on their 2004 and 2005 IRS Form 990s (the latest information they have made public) that membership had falled from a meager 4,761 in 2004 to a startling 2,615 in 2005 - a one-year drop in membership of 45 percent.

This drop in CAIR membership has been correlated in their actual annual financial receipts. In the FrontPage article I noted:

Also seen in the 2004 and 2005 IRS Form 990s is that direct contributions to the organization (line 1) also saw a sharp decline, dropping from $2,166,270 in 2004 to $1,667,057 in 2005, losing almost one-quarter (23 percent) of their contributions from the previous year.

This 23 percent drop in contributions to CAIR was despite the fact that they had more than doubled their fundraising expenses from $262,914 in 2004 to $535,555 in 2005 (a $272,641 increase). What's the saying about throwing good money after bad?

CAIR's role as spokesman for extremist Islam is no suprise, of course, but we're glad that the Feds have finally caught up with the rest of us who already knew that. But it certainly doesn't bode well for CAIR that their own supporters have caught on as well and are abandoning them in en masse.

Maybe in no short time we will be able to spot CAIR spokesman Ibrahim "Douggie" Hooper walking down K Street in Washington DC with a sign that says, "Will shill for Islamic terrorism for food"? Might be hard to fit on a sandwich board, though.

Honey, I've Shrunk the HAMAS Front Group!

2007-05-24T03:23:00.000-05:00

UPDATE: Thanks to American Thinker and LGF for the plugs today!

Welcome to everybody joining us today from my article at FrontPage this morning, "CAIR by the Numbers", which also could have been titled, "The Incredible Shrinking CAIR". If you're here for the first time, be sure to check out the blog for Central Ohioans Against Terrorism (COAT).

The article today has a number of tasty statistical tid-bits about our favorite Islamist organization, but here's the jist:

But their new 2006 Annual Report and their recently posted 2005 IRS Form 990 shows that CAIR continues to hemorrhage members. Whereas my estimates for 2004 showed that based on their membership receipts in that period they had approximately 4,761 dues-paying members, in 2005 their membership plummeted dramatically to an estimated 2,615. This puts CAIR on the same comparative membership level as the American Indian Kaw Nation in Kansas, the Cleveland Section of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, the Society for News Design, the University of Texas Longhorn Alumni Band, and the South Dakota chapter of the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB), none of whom are consulted near as frequently by Beltway politicians or sought after for comment by the media establishment as CAIR.

The steep decline in CAIR membership is directly correlated in membership receipts (line 3 of the Form 990), which dropped off from $119,029 in 2004 to $65,377 – a decrease of $53,652, or almost half (45 percent) of the previous year’s membership revenues. If this trend continues at the same pace, their 2006 Form 990 numbers will show $29,419 in membership revenues, representing only 1,177 members, roughly comparable to the membership of the Genealogical Society of Rockingham County, Virginia and the Garden Club of Tacoma, Washington – neither of which has a Washington DC lobbying office.

In a previous post, "CAIR and all that", I linked to some of my previous articles on CAIR, but here's an updated list of CAIR-related pieces:

CAIR’s Grievance Theater, the Flying Imams and 9/11 (04/18/07) Did a previous CAIR lawsuit indirectly aid the 9/11 terrorists?

CAIR’s Blood Money (03/13/07) CAIR-OH hosts an unindicted co-conspirator of the 1993 WTC Bombing as its annual fundraiser banquest keynote speaker.

Numbers Don’t Lie (02/12/07) Reality doesn't quite measure up to CAIR's propaganda.

CAIR Betting on Democrats (10/27/06) Islamists put their money where their ideology is.

Agence France Presse Pushes CAIR's Fake Hate Crime Numbers (09/04/06)

CAIR, Assault and Videotape? (08/08/06) CAIR's version of "free speech".

Kafir-phobia: Americans as Violent Anti-Muslim Bigots (08/31/06) CAIR indulges in the very bigotry they attribute to others.

Thanks for stopping by!

Going Global on the Muslim Brotherhood

2007-05-10T05:50:00.000-05:00

Last week, my ongoing debate with Nixon Center "scholars" Robert Leiken and Steven Brooke on the Muslim Brotherhood was noticed by the Italian daily, Il Foglio, in reporter Guilio Meotti's 3-part series examining in detail Leiken and Brooke's claims of a "Moderate Muslim Brotherhood".

My translation of the Il Foglio series appears today at FrontPage, "Going Global on the Muslim Brotherhood". I am cited in the third article, where Meotti refers to my extensive critique of Leiken and Brooke's thesis, "Showdown on the Muslim Brotherhood, Part 1" [Part 2] [Part 3]:

The American analyst Patrick Poole remembers that "in 2004, when the Kuwaiti authorities attacked the radicals, the government discovered that the source of the jihadist preaching were the imams associated with the Brotherhood".

The series is well worth the read, notwithstanding my rather lumpy translation.

Albanians and Anti-Jihad Bigotry

2007-05-09T09:36:00.000-05:00

UPDATE (05/10/07): Welcome to everyone visiting today from Our Man in Tirana blog! And thanks to Our Man for the plug. New details have emerged that at least three of the four Albanians have been in the US for 23 years (courtesy Fox News) and were not part of the refugee community that came to Fort Dix in 1999. That notwithstanding, the bigotry continues.

A few weeks ago when I had my article published at The American Thinker, "Albania and the Perils of the 21st Century," one letter to the editor that AT received likened me to a Nazi sympathizer for having a kind word to say about the Albanian people. That article raised the issue of Albania's struggles with radical Islam, which you would think the anti-jihad crowd would have appreciated.

But my article today, "Kosova and Anti-Jihad Bigotry", has absolutely brought out the worst. An email I just received called me "an angry apologist for jihadist murderers". This was from a well-known anti-Jihad writer, who had previously agreed with the sentiments expressed that I was a Nazi sympathizer. The jist of his position would be: "Albanian Muslims bad, Serbian Christians good; Albanians jihadist murderers, Serbians innocent victims." But as with all things in the Balkans, things just aren't that simple. If anything, at least I'm not an apologist for Serbian genocide.

EXHIBIT A for the thinly-veiled racism that bubbles to the surface whenever the issue of the Albanians arises is Julia Gorin's leading article today at FrontPage Magazine (yes, a publication I regularly write for), "Balkan Muslim Gratitude". Her point is to condemn the entire Kosova Albanian refugee community for the arrest yesterday of six men, four of whom are Albanian, for plotting to kill soldiers at Fort Dix, New Jersey. EXHIBIT B would be the reader comments. EXHIBIT C would be Srdja Trifkovic at Chronicles, "Kosova Blowback Reaches America", where he compares Kosovar refugees to Al-Qaeda.

Gorin charges that this is "Balkan blowback" for NATO having intervened in the Serbian ethnic cleansing campaign in Kosova that drove hundreds of thousands of Albanian out of their own country. Notwithstanding that we have had thousands of US troops stationed in Kosova for almost a decade, not a single combat-related fatality has been recorded. In fact, the Albanians are perhaps the most pro-US group in Europe, and Albanian troops have fought alongside US troops in Afghanistan. The NATO mission in Kosova very well may be the most successful international peacekeeping operation in modern history. Does this sound like the Albanians are all raging jihadists, bloodthirsty to kill American soldiers?

Even while writing this post I have received emails that I would not dare post for their vulgarity, openly racist, and religiously bigoted sentiments. As I say in my article, if these individuals would just substitute the word "Jew" for "Albanian", I believe many of them would be ashamed at the malignant spirit that is driving them. Unfortunately, some of them still wouldn't be ashamed. It seems I have struck a wound deeply into the heart of the anti-jihad movment. Those, like me, who are concerned about the opposition to global jihad would do well to take note.

Debunking Muslim Brotherhood Myths

2007-05-08T07:22:00.000-05:00

In an article today at The American Thinker, "The US and the Muslim Brotherhood", I take aim at one of the cardinal myths invoked by the Brotherhood's Western apologists in defense of their claims of a "moderate" Muslim Brotherhood. Here's a quick summary:

In the current debate on the Muslim Brotherhood, the group's Western apologists claim that the jihadist ideology of their leading thinker, Sayyid Qutb, was discarded in the late 1960s and 1970s with the publication of Hassan al-Hudaybi's "Preachers, Not Judges". But recent scholarship demonstrates Hudaybi didn't write the book, promote it, or even agree with it.

That's right. The main piece of evidence used the Muslim Brotherhood's defenders (the Nixon Center, James Traub's recent piece in the New York Times Magazine, etc.) is fabricated whole-cloth.

Perhaps the top scholar on this subject is Barbara Zollner, Director of Islamic Studies at Birbeck College, University of London. Not only is the book the topic of her PhD dissertation, but she has a volume on the subject, The Muslim Brotherhood: Hasan al-Hudaybi and Ideology, which is due to be published by Rutledge early next year.

At a conference held at Georgetown University in March on the theme of "Islamist Politics: Contemporary Trajectories in the Arab World," Zollner delivered a brief synopsis of her extensive research on the subject, "Du'at la Qudat: Notes on the Authorship, Purpose, and Relevance of a Text Purporting a Moderate Theology". During her lecture (available in audio here) she challenged the popular myth still advanced by the Muslim Brotherhood's Western apologists:

There are a number of writers who argue that Du'at la Qudat, when it was published in the 1970s, to be exact in 1977, that it is an evidence of the Muslim Brotherhood's turn away from radical thinking, and that it evidences a shift of the Muslim Brotherhood's stance towards a centrist Islamist ideology...What I want to say today are two things. Overall my argument that Preachers, Not Judges was not written by Hassan al-Hudaybi, and secondly, it is not written as a response to Sayyid Qutb.

Utilizing my recent research on the topic, journalist and terrorism finance expert Doug Farah blogged yesterday on "The Amazing Deception in the Muslim Brotherhood's Charm Offensive". In the comments section of Farah's post, however, appeared Ibrahim El Houdaiby, the great-granson of Hassan al-Hudaybi, invoking family folklore to rebut the overwhelming consensus of scholars on this subject, but not providing any substantive evidence in support of his claims. The strange thing is that since the revelations first appeared in 1995 about the true origins of "Preachers, Not Judges", and the testimony of others inside and outside the Brotherhood, this new information (that Hudaybi had no role in the creation of the book) has gone unchallenged until now.

This raises a lot of questions in the ongoing debate over the Muslim Brotherhood. Here's my conclusion:

These evidences raise some important questions in the current debate in the West over the Muslim Brotherhood: is it the case that the journalists and Beltway wonks appealing to Preachers, Not Judges as proof of a "reformed" Brotherhood are simply ignorant of most of the scholarship over the past decade on this topic, or have they determined to bury this evidence with their silence in the hope that it will be ignored? If the former, we have cause to question their credibility as self-appointed experts on the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood, and we also have to acknowledge their gullibility in accepting unquestioned the propaganda put out by the group; if the latter, their pretended objectivity is little more than the component of the official duplicity that characterizes the Muslim Brotherhood's long-standing operational methodology. Only they can tell us which it is.

I'm not holding my breath for a response.

Does the Nixon Center Have Anything Better To Do?

2007-05-02T16:47:00.000-05:00

UPDATE (05/03/07): For more, see my article in today's edition of FrontPage Magazine, "Nixon Center's Plumbers Unit". If you're visiting from the link in that article, be sure to read this post from earlier this week.

Earlier this week I observed that someone from the Nixon Center had paid me a visit to download virtually all of the blog posts here at Existential Space. Well, this afternoon we had several different people from the Nixon Center riffling through my blog archives (opposition research interns?), this time downloading even more blog entries - apparently the ones they missed earlier in the week:

I notice that they all were visiting at the same time and are coming through Google searches targeting my name. Yet even more evidence that they're attempting to dig up dirt to attack me with rather than face the prospect of having to respond to the massive amount of evidence I cited against their preposterous "Moderate Muslim Brotherhood" thesis.

A note to the folks at the Nixon Center:

First, do you guys have anything better to do, like lobbying to get al-Qaeda taken off the Specially Designated Global Terrorist list?

Secondly, if you're so eager to find my skeletons, just email me! I'll be glad to tell you where they are! But that doesn't change the fact that your rehabilitation of the Muslim Brotherhood is factually bankrupt.

Nixon Center's Plumber's Unit?

2007-04-30T21:23:00.000-05:00

I noted with great interest when looking at my blog stats this evening that someone from the Nixon Center showed up today to download most of my blog posts here at Existential Space (they downloaded ~120 of my 145 posts):

You might recall that over the past few weeks I've been having a bit of a debate with Robert Leiken and Steven Brooke of the Nixon Center following the publication of their article in the last issue of Foreign Affairs, "The Moderate Muslim Brotherhood", where they claimed that the Muslim Brotherhood, which has spawned virtually every single terrorist organization in the world, had "rejected jihad" and "embraced democracy".

Startled by those outrageous claims, I responded at FrontPage with a critique, "Mainstreaming the Muslim Brotherhood", (blogged on it here) where I remarked:

As the worldwide jihad has grown in intensity in recent years, the Brotherhood’s supporters in the US are trying to capitalize on the upward trend of Islamic radicalization to paint the organization as “moderate” on this shifting scale. This is precisely the methodology employed by Leiken and Brooke, who attempt the Herculean task of cleaning out the Augean Stables of the Muslim Brotherhood’s long involvement in terrorist activity through misrepresentation and outright fabrication.

A few weeks later, Leiken and Brooke attempted to respond to my critique, "A Response to Patrick Poole's 'Mainstreaming the Muslim Brotherhood'", engaging in a shameless attempt at doublespeak by claiming that there was some kind of distinction to be made between the Brotherhood's support for terrorism in the name of "defensive jihad" against innocent Israeli civilians and American troops serving in the Middle East and the "global jihad" against "Jews and Crusaders" proclaimed by al-Qaeda.

The Muslim Brotherhood so enthusiatically welcomes Leiken and Brooke's reponse to me that they reprinted it on their English-language website.

What they didn't expect, however, was less than a week later I would begin a devastating 3-part rejoinder to their demogoguery, "Showdown on the Muslim Brotherhood, Part 1" [Part 2] [Part 3] (see my blog entry, "A Rejoinder to the Muslim Brotherhood Lackeys")

Once again, Leiken and Brooke rely on evasion, duplicity and outright lies (I’ll discuss one glaring example of this latter tactic in relation to statements they made regarding the Brotherhood’s Jordanian affiliate) – methods not dissimilar to those used by the Muslim Brotherhood itself – to avoid answering the hard questions posed not just by myself, but by analysts from all across the political spectrum, about the organization’s deep and long-time connections to terrorism, their supposed disavowal of violence, and the genuineness of their claims to be favorably inclined towards democratic activity.

Since that time, I've been receiving regular visits from the Nixon Center to this blog, but they either haven't found the courage or the time to respond.

So what do I make of their new-found interest in my writings? It seems rather than respond to the substance of my arguments (my rejoinder came out to a full 54 pages and cited 50+ scholarly papers, government reports and journalistic works contradicting their claims) they are planning a full-frontal ad hominem attack - the last refuge of scoundrels left without any substance to their arguments.

Honestly, I feel sorry for the Nixon Center intern that they are probably forcing to go through all of these blog posts searching for something they can twist out of context and attack me with. but I hope they don't forget to include in their literature review some of my previous work (most of which I link to in the sidebar), such as my translation of Sixteenth Century Reformation-era political works, my previous public policy reports, the articles I've done for other publications (WorldNetDaily, American Thinker, etc.), or my worldview essay series for Christianity & Society.

Who knows? While they are already on ideological lockdown on the issue of the Muslim Brotherhood, they might nonetheless (or at least the Nixon Center intern) might learn a few things.

UPDATE (05/02/07): Welcome again to everyone joining us today from the Nixon Center!

Albania and the Perils of the 21st Century

2007-04-27T01:14:00.000-05:00

While it is easy to get me to speak endlessly on any topic, if there's one topic that's near and dear to my heart it is anything having to do with my travels to Albania. I get teary just thinking about it. I should qualify at the outset that I'm not Albanian; in fact, I would be reminded of that fact anytime I walked down the streets of Tirana, at 6'3" towering over virtually every Albanian male. But in my travels there, I was the grateful recipient of the overwhelming hospitality of the Albanian people, which has made me a friend of the country ever since.

So I was pleased earlier this week when I submitted an article to The American Thinker reflecting on the changes that are occurring, and have occurred, since my first visit there in March 1994 - just a few years after the country emerged from one of the most oppressive Communist regimes ever. During those dark years, Albania was officially atheistic. After Communism, religious struggle was unheard of; today, that is no longer the case, as I discuss in my American Thinker article published this morning, "Albania and the Perils of the 21st Century".

Prompted by a recent Washington Post article by Mary Jordan, "Albanians Discover God, If Not Old-Time Religion", in my article I discuss the growing conflict between Christians and Muslims in the country, caused by the exponential growth of Saudi Wahhabi-backed mosques all over the country. As I mention, I witnessed this phenomena first-hand.

Thus, not even two decades after emerging from Communist atheistic darkness, Albania is right in the middle of the current conflict between Islam and the rest of the world. As one of the areas historically straddling the divide between East and West, and a former battleground between Christian Europe and Islamic imperialism, Albania is one of the most important areas to watch to guage how this newest battle in the ancient conflict is going. I conclude:

Once more, Albania faces extraordinary odds. Yet it might be that the country's survival over decades of brutal atheism may be the key to preserving its hard-won freedoms. The developing story of Albania and the perils of the 21st Century is very much our own. Paying attention to their story, their failures and successes, along with their long history in this battle, may be the lessons we must eventually learn to save ourselves in the ideological and religious long-war that lies ahead.

Read the whole article! And here's a picture of me at the tender age of 25 somewhere in middle of nowhere Southern Albania.

Central Ohioans Against Terrorism New Blog!

2007-04-26T03:22:00.000-05:00

To keep up on the many terrorism-related news and events in the Columbus area, be sure to add a bookmark to the new blog for Central Ohioans Against Terrorism! Two new posts discuss the Al-Qaeda problem in Columbus and the establishment media's silence on it.

A Rejoinder to the Muslim Brotherhood Lackeys

2007-04-16T18:48:00.000-05:00

Over at FrontPage Magazine today is Part 1 of my rejoinder to Robert Leiken and Steven Brooke of the Nixon Center, "Showdown on the Muslim Brotherhood" [Part 2] [Part 3]. This is in response to their attack last week, "A Response to Patrick Poole's 'Mainstreaming the Muslim Brotherhood'".

There are four areas I address in this segment of my rejoinder:

1) The distinction they attempt to draw between terrorism committed for the sake of "defensive jihad" and "global jihad". According to Leiken and Brooke, the former justifies terrorism against Israel and the US in Iraq by groups like HAMAS and Iraqi insurgents, while the "war against Zionists and Crusaders" is being waged by al-Qaeda, etc. They are forced to make this meaningless distinction because the Muslim Brotherhood enthusiastically endorses and supports HAMAS, and Brotherhood clerics have issued fatwas permitting attacks against US soldiers. I argue this is a distinction without a difference, as the Brotherhood has not abandoned violence, which directly contradicts their claim of a "moderate" Muslim Brotherhood.

2) They claim that in the late 1960s, the Muslim Brotherhood rejected the jihadist doctrine of Sayyid Qutb, and adopted more peaceful, non-violent ideology. They point to Hasan al-Hudaybi's book, Preachers, Not Judges, as proof of this shift. But as I document, not only did Hudaybi pen that volume while he was in prison, when he first heard of Qutb's book, Signposts, he believed that it represented the "future of our organization". I also note that Hudaybi's book, which Leiken and Brooke claim is the key piece of evidence in the Muslim Brotherhood's ideological shift and critical for understanding the organization's strategy today, has not been reprinted in Egypt for almost 30 years, and has not been reprinted anywhere since 1985, while Qutb's Signposts is perhaps the best-selling Arabic-language book of the past half-century.

3) The pair equate their interpretation of "defensive jihad" with the Christian doctrine of "just war", though the latter has never permitted terrorism against innocents. In the end, whether it is "defensive jihad" or "global jihad", it is all terrorism and violence; and since the Brotherhood preaches both, there is little room to pronounce them "moderate".

4) In their original Foreign Affairs article, and in their response last week, Leiken and Brooke make much ado about alleged differences between the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda. They point to a statement last year where Ayman al-Zawahiri denounced the Muslim Brotherhood for participating in Egypt's parliamentary elections, where they won 20 percent of the seats. But we find that Zawahiri's position is unique amongst al-Qaeda, and the two organizations actually drew closer last summer during the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict. And al-Qaeda actively operates in the Palestinian Authority with the full knowledge and support of HAMAS, the Brotherhood's Palestinian affiliate and terrorist organization. Thus, al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood are much closer than they would like us to believe.

Thanks to Doug Farah and Alyssa Lappen for their respective posts at Counterterrorism Blog ("The Islamist Charm Offensive") and The American Thinker ("The Fount of Modern Terror").

UPDATE: "Showdown on the Muslim Brotherhood, Part 2" is now online. Here's my summary statement:

"Today I turn my attention to several national affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Middle East – the Palestinian terrorist organization HAMAS, the pro-HAMAS Islamic Action Front (IAF) in Jordan, the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic Constitution Movement (ICM) in Kuwait, and the genocidal National Islamic Front (NIF) government in Sudan. The activity of these respective Brotherhood affiliates, and their ties to the main Muslim Brotherhood group in Egypt, severely undercuts Leiken and Brooke’s assertion of a “moderate” Muslim Brotherhood."

UPDATE #2: "Showdown on the Muslim Brotherhood, Part 3 (Conclusion)" is now up. Here's a summary:

1) The very un-moderate statements of the so-called “moderates” they identify within the Muslim Brotherhood;

2) I take note that many of the reformists within the Brotherhood, many of whom served in the organization’s leadership, left a long time ago (1996) to form the Al-Wasat (“Center”) Party, frustrated by the radicalization and ideological lockdown within the Brotherhood;

3) I respond to their accusation that US foreign policy is responsible for Islamic radicalization in the Middle East;

4) I document my previous claim that the Brotherhood has engaged in vote rigging and rampant financial fraud in their administration of the professional syndicates in Egypt, as well as observing that the sole piece of evidence they cited in their response on this point was subject to some suspicious editing on their part;

5) I directly challenge their claims that the Muslim Brotherhood has not been implicated in the violent and fatal attacks against the Coptic community in Egypt by citing a report published by the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, in addition to reports issued by the Coptic community and articles in the Egyptian press;

6) I revisit the events surrounding the military demonstration by Muslim Brotherhood youth cadres at Al-Azhar University this past December, which prompted the current government crackdown on the organization, as evidence that
the intentions of the Brotherhood are not entirely peaceful;

7) I observe that their characterization of the Muslim Brotherhood affiliate in France, the UOIF, as a “moderate” organization is directly contradicted by recent studies published by their own organization, the Nixon Center, and that most careful researchers have concluded that France’s policy of embracing the Muslim Brotherhood has been a catastrophic failure and fueled Islamic radicalization – the same policy Leiken and Brooke demand the U.S. implement.

On the basis on the extensive evidence I have provided throughout this report, I conclude that when it comes to anything challenging the carefully manicured image of the Muslim Brotherhood crafted by Leiken and Brooke, they resort to the old maxim: see no evil; hear no evil; speak no evil. Other contradicting evidence is steadfastly ignored. In the event that fails, their policy has been: attack the critic. This is hardly the way to determine US foreign policy, but admittedly this is how business is conducted in the think tanks and policy shops of the Beltway intelligentsia.

The Muslim Brotherhood's Lackeys Strike Back!

2007-04-11T03:36:00.000-05:00

A few weeks ago I had an article published at FrontPage, "Mainstreaming the Muslim Brotherhood" (blogged on it here), which critiqued an article in the current issue of Foreign Affairs by Robert Leiken and Steven Brooke, "The Moderate Muslim Brotherhood". Well, this morning the pair launch a counter-strike, "A Response to Patrick Poole's 'Mainstreaming the Muslim Brotherhood'".

Having done just a quick read-through, it seems that Leiken and Brooke are determined continue their policy of outrageous falsehoods and outright duplicty to get us to "ignore the man behind the curtain" regarding the MB.

Here are just a few quick thoughts:

Yet again, any evidence that flatly contradicts their argument about the Muslim Brotherhood's "moderation" is either ignored or immediately discounted and quickly explained away. Anyone within the Brotherhood that has said or done something that betrays something other than "moderation" -- even if it is the Supreme Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood, the top ranking officer of the organization -- is attributed to "hard-line" and "controversial" figures, and out-of-step with the supposed majority "reformist" elements of the MB. And to make sure they cover all their bases, I have "ripped everything out of context".

They ignore the analysis I gave of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood's 2004 Reform Initiative, where the Brotherhood outlined their vision of "democracy" and detailed their plans for an Islamic state governed by shari'a, where non-Muslims will be prohibited from holding public office with any substantive authority. But remember, they're moderate!

They ignore as well the role that the Muslim Brotherhood's extensive financial networks have played in financing virtually every Islamic terrorist organization in the world, including Al-Qaeda (putting the lie to their repeated claims that the MB rejects Al-Qaeda's "global" jihad). Much like the monster under the bed, if you ignore it, it will go away.

Once again HAMAS, the terrorist organization that is the Palestinian affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood, is virtually non-existent in their analysis (two paragraphs of their response). And they explain, since HAMAS is only killing Jews in Israel, instead of Americans (even though they do kill Jewish Americans every now and then, which they apparently expect us to forgive and forget), all is well. And they assure us that the relationship between the Palestinian and Egyptian branches are "more strained than Poole believes" (and they make sufficiently clear that they are also experts about what I believe).

They quibble over the definition of "rejecting jihad" and "rejecting global jihad", which when you're getting your head cut off, or your children are being blown to bits in the market square, makes all the difference in the world.

They completely fabricate that I believe that the Egyptian government is only cracking down on Muslim extremists, and that I am ignoring the plight of bloggers, journalists, etc. under the Mubarak regime. Where exactly did they get this?

They accuse me of manufacturing claims that the Brotherhood incites violence against the Coptic community, which I'm sure that the Copts will be glad to hear that it's all just a figment of my imagination!

This "response" by Leiken and Brooke is as flatly dishonest as the response they recently offered to Douglas Farah and other critics of their Foreign Affairs article (Farah offers a detailed response at his blog) two weeks ago.

And I would direct your attention to a must-read entry yesterday at Counterterrorism Blog by Bill West ("Some US Diplomats & Politicians Think MB = “Moderate” Brotherhood - They Should Think Twice") taking note of an Adnkronos International (AKI) report that HAMAS has now opened up operations against the US in Iraq as "Iraqi HAMAS". I'm sure that Leiken and Brooke will remind us next how strained the relations are between the moderates and the new Iraqi HAMAS branch. Needless to say, a more detailed rejoinder to their response will be forthcoming.

Finally, let me also direct you to my headline article today at FrontPage on "Mortgage Fraud Funding Jihad".

UPDATE: Following up on a point I made above, the picture below taken in 2005 shows a crowd of the Muslim Brotherhood faithful demonstrating their friendship to the Copts with rocks, bottles, sticks and machetes. With friends like these...

The Quranic Concept of Power

2007-04-08T23:16:00.000-05:00

I've previously written on Pakistani General S.K. Malik's critically important work, The Quranic Concept of War. I've gone so far as to post this very difficult to find work online in its entirety a few months ago. This basic work is essential for understanding the Islamic way of war and its religious justification (the doctrine of jihad).

Now I'm glad to make available online Malik's expanded treatise on military strategy, The Quranic Concept of Power. This hefty volume (444p.) expands on the theme of his previous work (155p.), and is even more scarce than the Concept of War. Only 500 copies were printed by the publisher in Pakistan. Hopefully, we can soon have Malik's study of the Muslim general, Khalid bin Walid, online.

Several inquirers have asked me: why are we making these works available? Apart from the fact that we are presently engaged in a war against Islamic terrorism (you might have heard something about it), the study of the Islamic doctrine of war has long been neglected by our military. One observer recently had this to say:

As late as early 2006, the senior Service colleges of the Department of Defense had not incorporated into their curriculum a systematic study of Mohammad as a military or political leader. As a consequence, we still do not have an in-depth understanding of the war fighting doctrine laid down by Mohammad, how it might be applied today by an increasing number of Islamic groups, or how it might be countered. William Gawthrop, "The Sources and Patterns of Terrorism in Islamic Law," The Vanguard: Journal of the Military Intelligence Corps Association 11:4 (Fall 2006), p. 10 (pp. 9-14)

That is not encouraging news. But one reason why this is such a neglected area of study can be attributed to the difficulty in finding many original sources in English. Add to this the difficulty in getting ahold of a copy of either of these volumes by Malik (the Concept of War I purchased from a bookstore in India; the Concept of Power an associate had to obtain through inter-library loan from one of the few US libraries that owns a copy), and anyone looking to engage in serious study of the topic will face significant obstacles. But by making these volumes available online, we hope to provoke further study in this area.

To that end, I have also uploaded some additional resources. The first is a radio interview with my friend and colleague LTC Joe Myers, who spoke on the importance of The Quranic Concept of War on The Right Balance program. That audio file (mp3) can be downloaded here. LTC Myers' review article of that same title was in the previous issue of Parameters, the Army War College Quarterly [html] [pdf], and is essential reading. And for convenience sake, William Gawthrop's excellent article cited above, "The Sources and Patterns of Terrorism in Islamic Law", can be downloaded from our website as well.

The Muslim Brotherhood and Democracy

2007-03-28T18:56:00.000-05:00

Earlier this week FrontPage published my article, “Mainstreaming the Muslim Brotherhood,” where I challenged the claims made by Nixon Center policy fellows Robert Leiken and Steven Brooke that characterize the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as “rejecting jihad” and “embracing democracy”. Leiken and Brooke initially made their argument in the current issue of Foreign Affairs in their article, “The Moderate Muslim Brotherhood”. Late last week they lashed out at their critics (without responding to the criticism) in another article, “Strategic Thinking about the Muslim Brotherhood”.

What makes the Leiken/Brooke articles so dangerous, apart from the fact that they were featured in a publication of the influential Council on Foreign Relations and have the endorsement of the Nixon Center, is that they are so fundamentally dishonest. The pair attempts to make their case by intentionally excluding the overwhelming evidence that contradicts their most basic assertions. As I mentioned in my previous article, they contend that the Muslim Brotherhood has “rejected jihad”, and yet their article of 15 pages only once makes mention of the Brotherhood’s Palestinian affiliate, the terrorist group HAMAS. And in that one mention, they never indicate any organizational connection whatsoever between HAMAS and the Brotherhood.

Then there is the Brotherhood’s international financial network of banks, especially the Al-Taqwa Bank led by the Brotherhood’s “foreign minister” Yousef Nada, which have served as the ATM for virtually every Islamic terrorist group in the world – a point made earlier this week by terrorist finance expert Douglas Farah, “The Ongoing Debate over the Muslim Brotherhood”. As recently as October 2000, Al-Taqwa even maintained an open revolving line of credit for Al-Qaeda’s terrorist operations, which prompted US Treasury authorities to designate it as a terrorist financing operation just weeks after 9/11 (among other reasons).

In a separate post, Farah expands on a point I raised in my own article, that we have a real-world working example of the kind of government the Muslim Brotherhood envisions in the genocidal National Islamic Front (NIF) regime of Sudan (Note: in my previous article, I mis-identified the NIF as the Islamic Salvation Front). The NIF came to power in 1989 in a military-backed coup that overthrew the democratically-elected government. The Bashir/Turabi NIF Brotherhood regime is responsible for millions of Christians and animists killed and starved in the South of the country during their tenure. And then there is the present crisis in Darfur, where the Arab Muslims of Khartoum are waging jihad against the non-Arab Muslims in the West, where more than 200,000 have been killed and many more displaced. Thus, the Muslim Brotherhood in Sudan is responsible for the greatest acts of genocide seen since the Holocaust. We should also recall that the Brotherhood regime in Khartoum gave Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda shelter after bin Laden’s Saudi Arabian citizenship was revoked.

For the purposes of the current discussion, it’s important to note that none of these facts about the involvement of the Muslim Brotherhood in ideological and financial support of terrorism are really under dispute, nor are the connections of the larger organization to HAMAS and the NIF regime in Sudan.

Then we turn to the issue of the Brotherhood’s “embrace of democracy”. The Brotherhood had an opportunity this week to demonstrate their commitment to democracy in Egypt, where they hold 88 seats in Parliament (about one-fifth of the total), in a constitutional referendum. The Muslim Brotherhood boycotted the vote, however, claiming that the amendments up for consideration were designed to limit their ability to engage in political activity – a claim with merit. One of the 32 amendments up for consideration bans religiously-based political parties, which directly targeted the Brotherhood.

I am certainly no apologist for the Mubarak regime, and I agree that many these amendments increase the powers of an already autocratic government, which is what makes the Brotherhood’s boycott of the referendum so hypocritical. Their non-participation in the referendum betrays their lukewarm (at best) adherence to democracy. The called boycott of the referendum only came after the Brotherhood was unable to defeat the amendments legislatively. Being in favor of democracy hypothetically for Western audiences is useless for establishing peace and stability in the Middle East (the intentions of the West) if the Muslim Brotherhood regularly renounces opportunities to practice democracy in actuality or participates only when it suits their purposes.

The constitutional amendments before the Egyptian electorate this week passed with 76 percent of the vote, and yet voter turnout was a meager 27 percent. If the Muslim Brotherhood believed that these amendments threatened their political existence, it would have been quite easy to defeat these amendments by mobilizing their supporters. Again, only 27 percent of voters showed up, and at least 24 percent of those voted against the amendments. But facing the risk of trying and possibly losing (and thus giving the results legitimacy), the Brotherhood opted out of democracy altogether.

In this instance, the Brotherhood boycotted the referendum and their chance to convince their skeptics at home and abroad that they were serious about democracy. The truth is that the Muslim Brotherhood is only interested in democracy as long as it’s to their benefit. Their commitment to democracy is not principled, but pragmatic; it is one option amongst many that they maintain, including turning to violence, which means they have no commitment to democracy at all. Their theoretical “embrace” of democracy is what they believe they need their supporters in the West to see and hear in order to obtain the international legitimacy they know will be essential to advance their Islamist agenda in Egypt, the Muslim world and beyond.

So I put the question to Robert Leiken, Steven Brooke, and the many promoters of the Muslim Brotherhood’s “moderation”: if their commitment to democracy is sincere, why the boycott on the referendum when a defeat of the amendments they opposed could have easily been had? If they are so committed to “embracing democracy”, as their Western supporters tell us, and the stakes so admittedly high for them in this constitutional referendum, why would they simply take a pass?

If the Brotherhood was really serious about “embracing democracy” they would not make it a policy of picking and choosing when they were going to do so. That they in fact do pick and choose, so clearly demonstrated in their boycott of the referendum this week, should indicate to policymakers in Washington that the Muslim Brotherhood’s “embrace” of democracy is tenuous at best, and duplicitous at worst.

For further reading on the Muslim Brotherhood, see this previous post, "More on the Muslim Brotherhood".

UPDATE: A colleague emailed and made this point:

"Not sure I agree entirely, this may be the wrong example. Even Egyptian judges say this election was a farce and the results should be ignored. As usual Mubarak went too far: he should have had a straight election with a typical 55% turnout, and let the MB's 25% showing reflect their marginal status."

I responded:

"I would agree with your assessment regarding the referendum (and admitted as much in my post), but there's no indication that this election was anymore fraudulent than in the past. There really wasn't much need for excessive vote rigging with such low turnout. The simple fact is that the Mubarak regime is a reality; if the MB wants to play democratic, they are going to have to do so dealing with that reality, much like we have to do here with Democrats stealing elections when they are able (Woody Jenkins, Bob Dornan, Dino Rossi, et al.). If the MB wanted to protest the corruption in this election, they should have walked out of Parliament, not lost the vote legislatively and then called for a boycott on the referendum. It's precisely the picking and choosing when they are going to be democratic that shows their duplicity. I don't immediately see how the behavior of the Mubarak regime changes that.

"From a strictly diplomatic point-of-view, we can't demand that the MB in Egypt act democratically and fault them for not doing so, then turn right around and question if there even is a democracy - this justifies the MB's position and propaganda with reference to the government. And it is precisely the diplomatic recognition of the MB on our end that's presently at issue."

My friend's point is well-taken. He's right from a strategic point of view that Mubarak should have at least pretended that the referendum was more legitimate than it was, and let the MB walk the plank. The point I am raising though is the "he loves me, he loves me not" relationship of the MB to democratic action. Are boycotts ever acceptable democratic behavior? Historically speaking, they are not very successful in effecting regime change. But is it appropriate to lose an issue democratically, as the MB did when these constitutional referendum amendments were approved by the Parliament over the MB's dissent, and then turn around and boycott the referendum claiming corruption after they lost the issue legislatively? Are they allowed to have it both ways?

Mainstreaming the Muslim Brotherhood

2007-03-26T16:51:00.000-05:00

Welcome to everybody visiting today from my FrontPage Magazine article, "Mainstreaming the Muslim Brotherhood". The article is in response to Robert Leiken and Steven Brooke's piece in the current issue of Foreign Affairs, "The Moderate Muslim Brotherhood", where they claim that the MB has abandoned violence and embraces democracy. This, of course, is categorical BS, but it is sentiment common enough these days, as seen in a Washington Post op-ed a week ago, another op-ed in the Boston Globe this past weekend, and an article in the Toronto Star. It seems that the Brotherhood is going on the offense to try to get the Bush Administration to begin dialogue with the MB.

Here's my conclusion:

I would contend that when the advocates of engagement with the Muslim Brotherhood make their case, they never do so as honest brokers. As we can see in the current Foreign Affairs piece, any evidence that would immediately contradict their thesis is not only excluded, but intentionally obscured. Their message is clearly directed at an audience unfamiliar with the Brotherhood’s history, message and program, and insults the intelligence of anyone somewhat familiar with such.

In arguing that the Brotherhood is presently “rejecting jihad”, even the limited examples they cite don’t hold up under scrutiny; and in claiming that the organization is “embracing democracy”, they are clearly equivocating in their use of the term.
To make a case for the “Moderate Muslim Brotherhood” requires nothing short of blind faith. No amount of spin offered by the “progressive” policy wonks or media pundits can account for the fact that not only has the Muslim Brotherhood spawned virtually ever single Islamic terrorist organization in the world, but they have used the financial network established by the Brotherhood to conduct their bloody business (an excellent and concise treatment of this subject is available: Douglas Farah, “The Little Explored Offshore Empire of the International Muslim Brotherhood”). This direct support for terrorism is not just past, but present, policy on their part.

Policymakers in Washington should not be fooled by the carefully manicured, but entirely misleading, presentation of the Muslim Brotherhood offered by their US defenders. If any policy change is needed, it isn’t to engage them as a force for moderation and positive change in the Middle East, but to finally designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a Specially Designated Terrorist Organization and make any exceptions from that point.

For some required reading on the Muslim Brotherhood, check out this previous post, "More on the Muslim Brotherhood".

Thanks to Douglas Farah for plugging my article at Counterterrorism Blog and an entry on his personal blog today, and thanks to Charles at Little Green Footballs for the plug as well.

UPDATE: And a special welcome to the folks visiting from the Nixon Center, Leiken and Brooke's place of employment. We're glad to see you were able to stop by earlier today!

Buckeyes "Refuse to Lose"™

2007-03-23T03:41:00.000-05:00

Sorry, folks. The Cinderella team in this year's NCAA Basketball Tournament is Ohio State. Yes, even though they are a #1 seed. The Buckeyes have been the victims of trashtalking from virtually every quarter all season. In their past two games with the Buckeyes facing seemingly impossible odds, even their stoutest fans (myself included) had given up hope. The sting of the Buckeyes' loss in the BCS National Championship game back in January still hangs in the air in Columbus. And yet it's clear that Thad Matta is the kind of coach that can show his team how to believe.

The heartstopper last Saturday against Xavier was a clear-cut case of finding a way to win. And they needed a little help to find their way. Tonight, however, in the Sweet 16 match against Tennessee, the Buckeyes refused to lose™. It was a game for the ages as well as the highlight reel. No #1 seed has come back from a greater deficit in a Sweet 16 game in the past 20 years (to the day, in fact, when UNLV came back from 16 down). Tonight's game was the tale of two halves: in the first, the Vols couldn't miss and the Buckeyes looked like a team that would be home on Friday; in the second, the Buckeyes rallied from the start, quickly cut the Vols' lead and took control of the game. Refusing to lose™, they did what they had to do to win. If the Buckeyes can ever get all cylinders clicking (particularly Oden's play), they have a real shot at the National Championship.

Hats off to the Tennessee Vols, who played a great game and clearly deserved to be there. The sting of losing two razor-thin close games against Ohio State this year will surely be felt in Knoxville. Couldn't happen to nicer fans. The difference between a good team and a great team is winning the close ones. Good luck next year!

Ohio State 85, Tennessee 84.

Go Bucks! Beat Memphis!

UPDATE: Signals to Noise has this to say:

What kind of deal did Thad Matta make with the devil at the crossroads before the tournament began? Did he go to the river Styx and send a message to Hades that he would be his as soon as the national championship trophy was in his arms? Did he hand his soul over before the Big Ten tournament, or was it before the season even started? Or did he have to do it to get Greg Oden and Mike Conley, Jr. in the first place?

Here's another shot of the block heard 'round the world.

CAIR and all that

2007-03-13T14:01:00.000-05:00

Update (03/16/07): Here's Steve Emerson of The Investigative Project on Hannity & Colmes completely dismantling CAIR. Watch the whole thing!

Thanks and welcome to everyone visiting today from my FrontPage article, "CAIR's Blood Money"! And apologies to regular readers for the long delay since my last post. I'm still recovering from last week's Intelligence Summit (particularly, the head cold I caught on the flight home). Yes, I did finish my presentation (see my last post on procrastination) and all went well. I hope to publish the text of my presentation on the Muslim Brotherhood here shortly. Stay tuned.

For anyone looking for more information on CAIR, here are some past articles of mine you should check out:

Numbers Don’t Lie (02/12/07) Reality doesn't quite measure up to CAIR's propaganda.

CAIR Betting on Democrats (10/27/06) Islamists put their money where their ideology is.

CAIR, Assault and Videotape? (08/08/06) CAIR's version of "free speech"

Kafir-phobia: Americans as Violent Anti-Muslim Bigots (08/31/06) CAIR indulges in the very bigotry they attribute to others.

Procrastination Pays Off Now

2007-02-27T16:50:00.000-05:00

While trying in recent days to avoid finishing my presentation for next week's Intelligence Summit, I was reminded of this wonderful Demotivator beautifully presented by Despair.com.

Paint Me Paranoid

2007-02-19T17:23:00.000-05:00

One of the little convenient features here at Existential Space is the MindViz tracker that can be accessed by anyone at the bottom of the index page. Interested in who might be visiting? I didn't think so, but this morning I noticed one particular visitor who stopped by this morning. The image below is a screen capture of that visitor.

It might be a little hard to read, but someone in Egypt came here after doing a Google search looking for "Patrick Poole images". Now might it be the case that word of my legendary good looks has now gone international? Not likely. So exactly who in Egypt might have an interest in my personal details? One possible explanation might be someone associated with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood trying to dig up dirt to counteract the public pounding I've been giving that organization recently. But that doesn't quite explain why they would looking for a picture of me. Another explanation might be that they were just looking for my fabulous photography. That possibility notwithstanding, I carry my CCW and my .380 in the event that any of my Egyptian, Saudi Arabian, Pakistani, etc. "fans" are looking for more than my picture.

As the saying goes, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they're not out to get you. Yes, paint me paranoid.

More on the Muslim Brotherhood

2007-02-13T09:07:00.000-05:00

UPDATE (03/26/07): Welcome to everyone visiting from LGF today! Feel free to stay and look around a while!

Following up on my article this morning at The American Thinker, "The Militarization of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood," here are a few background resources for those interested in more information on the Muslim Brotherhood:

Patrick Poole, "The Muslim Brotherhood 'Project': The Radical Islamist Plan to Conquer the West - and the World" FrontPage Magazine (May 11, 2006) [text of "The Project"]

Noreen S. Ahmed-Ullah, Sam Roe and Laurie Cohen, "A Rare Look at Secretive Brotherhood in America", Chicago Tribune (09/19/04)

John Mintz and Douglas Farah, "In Search of Friends Among the Foes", Washington Post (09/11/04)

Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa A. Lappen, "The Truth About the Muslim Brotherhood" FrontPage Magazine (06/16/06) [Part II] [Part III] [Part IV]

Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa A. Lappen, "The Progress of Hassan al-Banna's Vision" The American Thinker (Nov. 24, 2006)

Lydia Khalil, "Al-Qaeda & the MB: United by Strategy, Divided by Tactics," Terrorism Monitor, Vol. IV, Issue 6 (March 23, 2006)

Adel Guindy, "The Islamization of Egypt", Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Vol. 10, No. 3 (Sept. 2006)

Lorenzo Vidino, "The Muslim Brotherhood's Conquest of Europe," Middle East Quarterly Vol. XII, No. 1 (Winter 2005)

Lorenzo Vidino, "Aims and Methods of Europe's Muslim Brotherhood," Current Trends in Islamist Ideology Vol. 4 (November 2006)

Glen Feder, "The Muslim Brotherhood in France", In The National Interest (Sept. 2005)

Diaa Rashwan, "Islamism in Transition", Al-Ahram Weekly No. 420 (March 11-17, 1999)

Alain Chouet, "The Association of Muslim Brothers: Chronicle of a Barbarism Foretold", European Strategic Intelligence and Security Center (04/06/06) [pdf]

Douglas Farah, "The Little Explored Offshore Empire of the International Muslim Brotherhood", International Assessment and Strategy Center (April 18, 2006)

A Historical Note on the Symbolism of Regensburg

2007-02-09T02:52:00.000-05:00

Update: Welcome to everyone visiting today from JihadWatch! Feel free to look around a bit while you're here, and thanks for stopping by. And thanks to Robert and rest of the hard-working JihadWatch staff for the plug!

Update #2 (2/12/07): Welcome to everyone visiting from Jihad i Malmo (Sweden)!

James Arlandson in a blog entry at The American Thinker ("Muslims Rebuke Pope in Open Letter") notes the continuing fallout from Pope Benedict's lecture at the University of Regensburg this past September. As evidenced by this open letter, as well as the Christian churches destroyed and Christian ministers murdered by adherents of the Religion of Peace™ in response (such as the cold-blooded murder of an aged Italian nun in Somalia, shot in the back by the brave warriors of jihad), it seems evident that Benedict's lecture was not well received by Muslims around the world. That said, there are much better equipped commentators out there to respond to this latest salvo.

But I wonder if some of the rage acted on by the adherents of the Religion of Peace™ comes from the deep recesses of the collective consciousness of Islam itself. One historical note lost thus far in the discussion of Benedict's Regensburg lecture is the symbolism that the city of Regensburg represents for Muslims and Christians alike in the history of anti-jihad. Paul Fregosi in his book, Jihad in the West: Muslim Conquests From the 7th to the 21st Centuries (1998, Prometheus), reminds us of two important historical tidbits related to Regensburg (p. 295):

The first is that during Suleiman the Butcher's push into Europe to lay siege to Vienna in 1529, Regensburg was the place at which his calvary was finally stopped in their advance into the European heartland. As the main body of Suleiman's Ottoman army advanced towards Vienna, his troops massacred, tortured, enslaved and killed Christians all along the way. As his calvary approached the city walls, his soldiers carried on their pikes the severed heads of their Christian victims. The city was defended by only 16,000 troops led by Nicolas von Salm in the face of Suleiman's 250,000 troops. After three weeks of an unsuccessful siege, and the inhabitants of Vienna continuing to hold fast against Suleiman's vast army, Suleiman declared victory, murdered all of his Christian captives, and set about his return to Istanbul with Vienna unconquered, raping, pillaging and enslaving all along the way as is the custom of the Religion of Peace™. The Ottomans would return to Vienna under Kara Mustapha in 1683, only to be vanquished again by John Sobieski, King of Poland (Fregosi tells the whole story of Sulieman's failed siege of Vienna, pp. 285-287, and Sobieski's defense, pp. 343-348). Thus, Regensburg represents the highwater mark of the European conquests of Islam's greatest jihadi, Suleiman the Butcher.

The second historical tidbit related to Regensburg is that in 1545, it was the birthplace of Don Juan of Austria, hero of the Battle of Lepanto in 1572. Born the illegitimate son of Charles I of Spain, raised in Spain as the anonymous Gerónimo, and finally recognized by his half-brother, Philip II, John resisted the clerical life that Philip had planned for him, and gravitated towards military service. After demonstrating his leadership ability in defeating the Barbary pirates in the Mediterranean, John was appointed as Commander-in-Chief of the naval forces of the Holy League gathered from all over Catholic and Protestant Europe alike to confront the invading forces of Ali Pasha. In fact, Christians were participants on both sides of the battle at Lepanto, as Ali Pasha's ships were powered by Christian slaves and manned by Janissaries. On October 7, 1572, with the Ottoman ships in sight, Don Juan shouted to his men, "We are here to conquer or die! In death or in victory, you will win immortality!" By the end of the day, the Holy League had won by God's grace a decisive victory: the Turks had lost 210 ships and 25,000 Muslim soldiers and sailors, including Ali Pasha, as well as 8-10,000 Christian slaves that drowned chained to their oars. The Christian fleet lost 12 ships and 7,500 men, but freed 15,000 Christian slaves from their defeated and dead Muslim masters. Only bad weather prevented Don Juan and the fleet from striking deep into the heart of Ottoman territory in the Dardanelles. Rising from an ignoble birth in Regensburg would come one of the greatest Christian heroes fighting victoriously against the Ottomans and halting one of the most ambitious expeditions of the perpetual campaign of jihad in history, thus protecting the mainland of Europe. (Fregosi provides even more wonderful detail of Don Juan and the victory of Lepanto, pp. 322-328)

In light of these tasty tidbits from history, one is given to wonder whether Benedict chose Regensburg for its historic and symbolic value in the 1,400 year Christian defense against jihad. By his lecture was he drawing a line in the sand at Regensburg, much like in 1529, and telling the modern day forces of jihad, "Here we push back"? Did his speech reflect a silent prayer for a new generation of Don Juans to push back the Islamic imperialist threat that today threatens to overrun Europe once again? Was Benedict in fact aware of the symbolic value of Regensburg in the history of anti-jihad?

We may never know...

Everybody Wants to Rule the World (But Islamists Are Planning for It!)

2007-01-28T19:53:00.000-05:00

"I have complete faith that Islam will invade Europe and America, because Islam has logic and a mission.” – Muhammad Mahdi Othman ‘Akef, Muslim Brotherhood General Guide and Supreme Leader

One present area of study for me are the many cultural strategies developed by Islamists for the eventual Islamization of the West and the rest of the world. I have previously written about the Muslim Brotherhood "Project" and have provided for the first time an edited translation of that document for American readers. The Project, drafted by MB "researchers" in 1982 when the organization was rechartered, is part of an entire genre of Islamist literature of that period dedicated to the strategic takeover of the West inspired by the birth of the Islamic "Republic" of Iran and the reinstitution of shari'a law there.

In my analysis of The Project, I described it thus:

What makes The Project so different...is that it represents a flexible, multi-phased, long-term approach to the “cultural invasion” of the West. Calling for the utilization of various tactics, ranging from immigration, infiltration, surveillance, propaganda, protest, deception, political legitimacy and terrorism, The Project has served for more than two decades as the Muslim Brotherhood “master plan”. As can be seen in a number of examples throughout Europe – including the political recognition of parallel Islamist government organizations in Sweden, the recent “cartoon” jihad in Denmark, the Parisian car-burning intifada last November, and the 7/7 terrorist attacks in London – the plan outlined in The Project has been overwhelmingly
successful.

Rather than focusing on terrorism as the sole method of group action, as is the case with Al-Qaeda, in perfect postmodern fashion the use of terror falls into a multiplicity of options available to progressively infiltrate, confront, and eventually establish Islamic domination over the West.

While some have questioned the authenticity of The Project (one critic responding to my analysis of dubbed it "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Mecca" and therefore an apparent fake), the fact that a number of these Islamist strategic plans have been documented coming from several different organizations should give some evidence that acknowledging the existence of such is hardly conspiratorial. Rather than revealing some secret cabal exercising power globally, this genre of Islamist cultural strategic studies is dedicated to obtaining power. The Project is no more conspiratorial than Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals was for the New Left in America during the 1960s (it is worth noting that 2008 Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton dedicated her senior thesis at Wellesley College to Alinky's political and social thought - a thesis that is currently under seal thanks to Wellesley administrators).

In Europe, of course, they are much more aware of the intentions of the Islamists since the large Muslim communities throughout Western Europe have attained much greater social and political influence there than here in America, where the Muslim population is still quite small (around 1 percent of the overall population). One recent analyst of the present situation in Europe is Egon Flaig, who had an article published by Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung entitled, "Islam Wants to Conquer the World" (English translation thanks to Western Resistance; the original article in German can be found here at the FAZ site). Flaig's article (which was banned in Egypt) provides some historical context from the history of Islam itself, from the rapid conquest and domination of North Africa, followed by Islamization efforts in Spain, Anatolia, and the Balkans - all at the expense of Christianity. Despite the revisionist attempts by 19th Century European scholars to whitewash this history, Islam has plenty of experience transitioning from minority community to ruling community through the escalating use of violence against non-Muslims. In his conclusion, Flaig warns against ignoring this reality:

To ignore the past means to re-live it. He who keeps on spreading the fairytale of Muslim tolerance, stands in the way of those Muslim intellectuals, who seriously work towards a reformation of islam, which started out so promisingly in the 19th century. He steals away their chance to overcome a past, which threatens to become a horrible present. If the reformers could achieve a radical de-politicization of Islam, the Muslims could become real citizens of their states.

Another scholar that presents the European dilemma in stark detail is Dr. Patrick Sookhdeo, an Anglican cleric and Christian convert from Islam. In his August 2005 article, "The Islamization of Europe", he cites a book published in 1980 by the Islamic Council of Europe, Muslim Communities in Non-Muslim States, which offers a comprehensive program for the eventual domination of Muslims throughout Europe:

When Muslims live as a minority they face theological problems, because classical Islamic teaching always presupposed a context of Islamic dominance; hence the need for guidance on how to live in non-Muslim states. The instructions given in the book told Muslims to get together and organise themselves with the aim of establishing a viable Muslim community based on Islamic principles. This is the duty of every individual Muslim living within a non-Muslim political entity. They should set up mosques, community centres and Islamic schools. At all costs they must avoid being assimilated by the majority. In order to resist assimilation, they must group themselves geographically, forming areas of high Muslim concentration within the population as a whole. Yet they must also interact with non-Muslims so as to share the message of Islam with them. Every Muslim individual is required to participate in the plan; it is not allowed for anyone simply to live as a “good Muslim” without assisting the overall strategy. The ultimate goal of this strategy is that the Muslims should become a majority and the entire nation be governed according to Islam.

Regardless of the means and ends they recommend, as an outside observer, I have to give Islamists credit for their shrewd cultural strategy and the effectiveness and discipline they have demonstrated in implementing their agenda in Europe and America. They are well ahead of the game, aided in no small part to the spiritual vacuum created by militant secularism and the decline of the Christian faith.

In coming weeks I hope to expand on this theme of Islamist cultural strategic studies and discuss other variants on the theme of the Islamist takeover of the West in addition to The Project of the Muslim Brotherhood, including similiar plans by the Islamic Foundation (UK)/Jamaat-e-Islami (Pakistan) and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. This is part of my preparation for the speech I will be delivering at the upcoming International Intelligence Summit, March 5-7, in St. Petersburg, FL. Stay tuned!

Should We Read Richard Dawkins Literally or Allegorically?

2007-01-19T01:12:00.000-05:00

Update: Welcome to everyone visiting today from WorldMagBlog! Feel free to look around and stay a while.

As a Christian, there are few things I detest more than an atheist pontificating to me on the subject of religion. Self-professed atheists and agnostics are testaments to the loss of nerve for living life as human beings; rather than seeking meaning and purpose in life as humans have done for at least as long as recorded human history, they decidedly abandon the project altogether. In lecturing the rest of us with absolute certainty on the meaning of life and the necessity of human freedom, in the end all they have to tell us is that there is no meaning, certainty or freedom in the universe.

This is precisely what nauseated me while reading University of Texas physicist Steven Weinberg’s Times of London review, “A Deadly Certitude”, of fellow atheist Richard Dawkins’ new book, The God Delusion. (HT: Worldmagblog) In grotesque display of condescension and bigotry, Weinberg – a Nobel Prize-winner and recipient of the US National Medal of Science – so wantonly wallows in his ignorance of the Christian faith and Christian history that it betrays his blind faith in the dark dogmas of doubt.

(For a devastating analysis of Richard Dawkin’s The God Delusion, see Terry Eagleton’s article in the London Review of Books, “Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching”)

Weinberg doesn’t get past the first paragraph of his review before making several glaring (and self-serving) factual errors. He mockingly cites the Second Century Church Fathers Theophilus of Antioch and Clement of Alexandria as examples of dim-witted biblical literalist Neanderthals who believed that the earth was flat. But this is flatly (pardon the pun) not true. Rather than being biblical “literalists”, Theophilus and Clement were two of the more prominent advocates of an allegorical approach to Scripture – a position that Weinberg seems to accept as not quite as detestable as biblical “literalism”. In fact, it is Theophilus’ explanation of Genesis 1-3 that is perhaps the section he subjects most to his allegorical reading of the Bible.

One wonders if Weinberg reads Darwin’s Origin of Species, James Watson’s The Double Helix or Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time literally or allegorically? If he takes these texts literally, can’t we just dismiss him as some secular fundamentalist crank?

Having read the Bible regularly for almost twenty years, I have yet to come across anything that advocates a flat earth. That must be why he has to qualify his position that “verses could be interpreted to mean that the Earth is flat” (my emphasis), an admission that a non-literal approach to Scripture – Weinberg’s preferred method – is what is required to arrive at a very conclusion he deplores.

The acceptance of helio-centrism in Christian Europe is the next straw man that Weinberg sets ablaze. He states that “the more radical idea that the Earth moves around the Sun was harder to accept.” This is partially true, but again, the culprit was not biblical literalism. Galileo’s tormenters were not literalist zealots, but rather, Renaissance Humanists unwilling to discard the ideas of the Greek rationalists, in particular Aristotle and Ptolemy. It was Aristotelianism and Ptolemy’s terra-centric universe that Pope Urban VIII was so desperate to protect against Galileo’s ideas, not the biblical literalism that Weinberg is so quick to deride. Exactly how did he win a Nobel Prize with such shoddy scholarship?

Of course, secular humanism has been such an advancement to humanity over monotheism, hasn’t it? What with the Reign of Terror and its goddess of Reason, Napoleonic total war, Prussian militarism, Marxist revolutions, Darwinian eugenics and racism, Bolshevik communism, Stalin’s collectivization of the kulaks, Italian fascism, German Nazism and the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Stalin’s purges, Third World “liberation” movements, Nasser’s Arab socialism, Soviet gulags, the brutal crackdown on the Prague Spring, Pol Pot’s killing fields, Mao’s Great Leap Forward, the Baathist regimes of Syria and Iraq, Sandinista death squads, Nicolae Ceausescu’s Securitate, and those atheistic paradises on earth, Enver Hoxha’s Albania and Kim Il-Sung’s North Korea, it is amazing that religion exists at all these days and that atheism hasn’t been universally embraced for the empowering and humanizing idea that it is.

Then again, the estimated 100 million people murdered in the name of atheism in the 20th Century alone so far surpass the collective abuses and persecutions launched in the name of Christianity over the past two millennia that the two are entirely incomparable – not really a record of the joys of secularism that Dawkins or Weinberg are really interested in revisiting.

Perhaps the most striking feature of atheism is the self-loathing manifested by the most strident atheists. In all of my travels, I have never met a happy-go-lucky atheist. This is only natural; as creatures created in the image of God, to be consistent they must not only hate the reflection of that image in others, but themselves as well. This explains the unparalleled butchery of the 20th Century: as a measure of sheer survival, atheists must vent their rage homicidally to avoid its suicidal implications; only when there is no one else left to kill will they finally eat their own ideological bullet.

Much like a man whistling past a graveyard, Weinberg assures us that all is well with atheism. This, too, is an article of his blind faith. He chides Dawkins for “he does not seem to realize the extent to which his side has won. Setting aside the rise of Islam in Europe, the decline of serious Christian belief among Europeans is so widely advertised that Dawkins turns to the United States for most of his examples of unregenerate religious belief.”

The simple fact is, however, that both atheism and the Europe “inspired” by it are dying a rapid death. Inevitably, atheism like Cronus is forced to eat its own. This is the subject of Oxford scholar Alister McGrath’s recent volume, The Twilight of Atheism (I should note that McGrath, now a theologian, holds a doctorate in molecular biophysics from Oxford).

After reading Weinberg’s review of Dawkins, I was prompted to pick up G.K. Chesterton’s devastating critique of modern thought, Orthodoxy. Chesterton long ago had seen the end of atheism:

It is vain for eloquent atheists to talk of the great truths that will be revealed once we see free thought reign. We have seen it end. It has no more questions to ask; it has questioned itself. You cannot call up any wilder vision than a city in which men ask themselves if they have any selves. You cannot fancy a more skeptical world than that in which men doubt if there is a world…Free thought has exhausted its own freedom. It is weary of its own success. If any eager freethinker now hails philosophical freedom as the dawn, he is only like the man in Mark Twain who came out wrapped in blankets to see the sun rise and was just in time to see it set…We have no more questions to ask. We have looked for questions in the darkest corners and on the wildest peaks. We have found all the questions that can be found. It is time we gave up looking for questions and began looking for answers. (1990 Image edition, p. 37)

Atheists have long ago worn out their welcome to flog the rest of us on the matter of religion, particularly those of the rabidly bigoted variety represented well by Richard Dawkins and Steven Weinberg (among many others). In their malicious handling of Christianity and its history we find that they are not intellectually honest; this should be no surprise to us, however, as they don’t have any reason to believe in honesty.

Bereft of anything meaningful or insightful, they must resort to the tired secular mythologies and endless litany of errors to tear down the Christian faith in order to make it appear that they have actually built something on their own. In the end, all atheism leaves us with is nothing more than a pile of intellectual rubble. The demise of atheism would be so much more fun to watch if they didn’t keep trying to dismantle the rest of humanity in the endeavor.

Gov. Schwarzenegger Goes to Nashville

2007-01-17T06:12:00.000-05:00

UPDATE: Thanks to Nashville-area political blogger Bill Hobbs for the plug!
UPDATE #2: And thanks to Lynn Vincent at WorldMagBlog for the link as well. As she told me today, I'm "world famous and totally unknown." How true!

Just a quick note to let my regular readers know about my article published today by The American Thinker, "Governor Schwarzenegger Should Go To Nashville". In light of the Govenator's plan for universal health care scheme for all Californians, I note:

But before riding the universal health care train too far, Gov. Schwarzenegger might want to make a stop in Nashville to see exactly how such a plan has actually worked for Tennessee, where that state's abysmal TennCare program has forced dozens of hospitals out of business, pushed thousands of doctors and other health care professionals out of the state, destroyed any semblance of competitive health insurance market, and nearly drove the state government into bankruptcy.

This is based off my experience dealing with TennCare while I was a policy analyst for the Tennessee Institute for Public Policy. My published study of the TennCare system can be found here (though it is quite dated at this point, but the first section about the failures of Tennessee's experiment with universal health care are still valid).

For my previous articles at The American Thinker, go here.

Ohio State: From Heroes to Zeros

2007-01-09T00:13:00.000-05:00

Absolutely stunned and embarrassed is about all I can say about my Buckeyes' performance tonight. All credit due to Florida for playing a solid game and not making any mistakes. It was clear that they showed up ready to play and they represented their school, fans and the SEC in fine fashion. The Buckeyes, however, were the perfect picture of a team self-destructing. About the only saving grace of the game is that the score doesn't really reflect how badly Ohio State played. Fourteen points makes it seem that they were actually able to put together one or two offensive series, but the simple fact is that they couldn't. The majority of Ohio State's offense came in the first six seconds of the game. And Troy Smith - don't get me started.

I seriously doubt that all the hand-wringing and second-guessing in the days and weeks to come really will be able to fully answer the question of exactly how the wheels fell completely off the Ohio State Buckeyes. Not really much more I can say other than to tip my hat to the Florida Gators for a game well played. Congrats.

Happy Hajj!

2006-12-22T06:37:00.000-05:00

In an effort that is sure to warrant a fatwa calling for my death, FrontPage is headlining today my article, Happy Hajj! You're Not Invited!. Or at best, it will prompt some really creative hate mail. Lest anyone think that the Saudis aren't serious about preventing non-Muslims from entering Mecca or Media - or even approaching either city - be sure to read this article published yesterday regarding an Indian citizen traveling to see his wife who works near Medina who lost his way, was stopped by Saudi authorities and was sentenced to death by beheading earlier this week. No one can accuse the Wahhabis about being soft on crime! As the article reports, it was only through the intervention high-ranking Indian government officials with the Saudis that the man's life was spared. I would have included that information in my own article, but I didn't see that piece until I had already turned it in to my editors.

Also of interest is another article from 2003 by Jonathan Last in the Wall Street Journal that discusses the incongruity of Muslims building mosques in the heart of Christian Europe (in this case, right near St. Peter's Square in Rome), versus the prohibition of non-Muslims from entering Mecca.

And just to prove that I'm an equal opportunity critic, read an old article of mine (from Dec. 1997, as I recall), Happy Kwanzaa! (note: the original location of the article is no longer in service, and this site republished it without permission, but it is the only place I can find it; so don't hold me responsible for anything else there that might offend, because I haven't scoped it out.)

For anyone who might still be skeptical of the treatment of non-Muslims around Mecca, here's some visual evidence:

Happy Hajj! Happy Kwanzaa! Happy Hanukkah! And a Merry Christmas to all!

Existential Space goes global!

2006-12-13T13:55:00.000-05:00

I was delighted to see earlier today that my article for FrontPage earlier this week, "The War Ayatollah," has been translated and republished in France by ResilienceTV, "L'ayatollah de la guerre". Though I'm not quite sure how well my war-mongering piece today for American Thinker, "Bush's March to the (Mediterranean) Sea" will be received by les Francais, where I recommend that our withdrawal from Iraq be through Syria and Lebanon, where we can take out the Assad regime and help the Israelis put the squeeze on Hezbollah before our troops board ship in the port of Beirut to come home. Nonetheless, I was glad to see Existential Space getting some global love!

Merci, mes amies!

Rise of the Metroevangelical™

2006-12-03T14:27:00.003-05:00

An article in today's NY Times offers a portrait of uber-perky actress and current it-girl, Kristin Chenoweth ("She Sings! She Acts! She Prays!"). In the first few paragraphs reporter Jesse Green lets us know that not only does Chenoweth carry authentic evangelical bona fides, having released a CD (As I Am) of Christian power pop, but that she manifests all of the politically correct virtues of the Manhattan elite (her regrets at having appeared on the 700 Club, her support for gay marriage, and wearing an Obama Barack for President button). And then there was the racy bikini spread in FHM (and I have to say she looks hot in the knee-high white leather boots in the NYT article).

Kinky!

For years, culturally-minded evangelicals have been urging Christians to engage culture in order to break out of the "evangelical ghetto". We were supposed to go to the rabidly secular universities, be familiar with all the various media (books, magazines, movies, music) that the world had to offer and generally take our place among the central cultural institutions of America - in short, to be culturally "relevant". Many of us bought into that project, myself included. In these positions of cultural influence, we were told, we would be able to affect the transformation of our culture "for Christ".

There is a lot of wisdom in that model of cultural transformation. Jesus himself never shied from the seedier elements of cultural life in his day, a tradition carried on by noble outreach efforts, such as XXXchurch.

That said, I wonder if there isn't in Chenoweth's story a warning to those of us who want to engage culture of the consequences of the many slight accommodations we are forced to make to get into those positions of cultural influence. With obvious talent, Chenoweth went to college and majored in Theater, eventually cultivating her career into wild success on Broadway, television and Hollywood. Bravo! But what does it say that this self-identified Baptist girl has been forced to reshape her standards to fit into these wildly liberal, but incredibly influential, cultural microcosms? Did anything resonate in her conscience when her gay theater clientele forced her contrition for appearing on the 700 Club and demanded her repentance for the crime of being remotely associated with the bane of East Coast and Left Coast sensibilities, Pat Robertson (who admittedly is nuttier than a loon)? Would Chenoweth be able to return to the small-town Oklahoma world she grew up in and that instilled in her the very values that have made her a success?

As we saw last week in the hand-wringing over uber-evangelical Rick Warren's AIDS conference and the resignation of Christian Coalition president-elect Joel Hunter after a rejection of his "social justice" agenda, these questions about who is really being influenced and in what ways when evangelicals engage culture are not insignificant or inconsequential. In fact, it seems to be the very issue we should be talking about, but really aren't.

Strangely, I think the world has much to teach us here. We only need to look at the many evangelical leaders tripping over themselves to preach on Third World debt (see my thoughts on Bruce "Prayer of Jabez" Wilkinson's disastrous project in Swaziland, "When Jabez Just Isn't Enough)", the environment and AIDS to be able to get a photo op with Bono, and then see that Bono and his U2 pals moving their assets out of Ireland to avoid paying the taxes to fund the very policies they promote. When given the opportunity, the world isn't willing to put their money where their principles are; they just are expecting you to pay for their policies without any complaint. The world must look at the Christian community (rightly so) and laugh at our desperate attempts to be hip and emergent. We are not much unlike the Seinfeld episode when Elaine shows off her horrid dancing skills completely oblivious to how bad they really are.

And I'm sure the Manhattan and Hollywood limousine liberal crowd applaud themselves when they see someone like Kristin Chenoweth fall right into line with their cultural agenda. In becoming agents of cultural change, we need to ask who we have become agents of cultural change for.

If anything, Kristin Chenoweth's success heralds the rise of a new kind of culturally relevant Christian, the Metroevangelical™ - a trend that should give Christian leaders a moment of pause. I would roughly define a Metroevangelical™ to be a thoroughly postmodern American Christian evangelical, who under pressure from popular culture feels compelled to transform objective moral values into subjective personal/political preferences. With that in mind, we would do well to remember that Jesus made a point about being in the world, but not of it.

Some of my previous observations on Evangelicalism:

The SS Titanic of Evangelicalism (12/11/05)

Evangelical Cultural Bankruptcy, Exhibit A (12/12/05)

Evangelical Cultural Bankruptcy, Exhibit B (12/17/05)

Congrats Hilliard Davidson Wildcats!

2006-12-03T02:37:00.000-05:00

It's been a great season for football in Central Ohio. Not only are my Ohio State Buckeyes headed to Arizona to play for the National Championship next month after defeating two No. 2 ranked teams - Texas and Michigan - during the season and securing an outright Big Ten conference title, and quarterback Troy Smith looks to be a shoe-in for the Heisman Trophy (Ohio State's seventh, by the way), but also last night my high school alma mater, Hilliard Davidson, won an astounding 2OT victory to win the Ohio Division I-A State Championship 36-35 over Mentor in the first I-A overtime game in history. Since 1972, only one other Central Ohio team has won the I-A championship, which is usually dominated by the mammoth play-for-hire teams from Cincinnati and Cleveland (Mentor has double the enrollment of Hilliard Davidson). In their first trip to the state championship (falling last year in the semi-finals to the eventual winner), the Wildcats clawled their way back from a 14-0 deficit, intercepted a pass in the closing seconds of regulation to push the game into overtime, and in the last overtime went for gutsy a 2-point conversion to win the game, exhibiting Coach Brian White's philosophy - GO FOR THE WIN! Last week, the Wildcats had to beat the USA Today 12th nationally ranked Cincinnati Colerain to get into the title game to play against Mentor.

Congrats to my Hilliard Davidson Wildcats - Ohio Division I-A State Champions!

Next up, Glendale, AZ. Go Bucks!

Islam and the Problem of Rationality

2006-12-01T13:26:00.000-05:00

Greetings to everyone visiting today from my article in today's American Thinker, "Islam and the Problem of Rationality". You can find some of my Islam-related blog posts linked on the sidebar to the right, as well as links to my other articles for The American Thinker and also for FrontPage Magazine. Thanks for visiting!

In Defense of Napping

2006-11-02T14:38:00.000-05:00

Whenever I get a phone call during the day, invariably the first question usually asked is whether I was asleep or not. In fact, whenever one of my mother's friends stops over at the house, she always asks whether I was still in bed - at two o'clock in the afternoon. Yes, it is well known that I'm a napper. As a result, I experience the heavy weight from the social stigma that comes with being a napper.

But is the social stigma attached to napping warranted? Are nappers just lazy bums? According to Kurt Kleiner of the Toronto Star, the answer is no. In an article published earlier this week, The Modern World Killed Off the Nap, Kleiner explains that not only are researchers discovering that naps are entirely natural, but they are signs of a balanced life. He also notes that some of the greatest and most productive figures in history (Napoleon, Thomas Edison, John D. Rockefeller, Winston Churchill, et al.) were all nappers. I'm in good company, it seems.

But that doesn't relieve the social stigma associated with napping. With my peculiar schedule of working through the night (I was up writing until 5 am this morning before going to bed), many people have concluded that I am an unproductive bum. That may be true, but it isn't because of my sleeping habits. In fact, what I have found is that I usually get less sleep than most of my critics (those critics usually go to bed at 9pm and get up at 6am, while I rarely get more than 7 hours of sleep). And I find that I'm much more productive. When I was a working stiff (much like yourself) I would regularly see that productivity around the office would decline precipitously after lunch. Getting something done after 3pm was virtually impossible. I remedied this problem in my own life by going home during lunch and taking a nap, which usually enabled me to work into the evening long after most of my co-workers had gone home. I was also one of the last persons into the office in the morning, which meant that I avoided long traffic delays and that the office was in full gear by the time I got to work. Thankfully, all of that is behind me now.

So what is the moral of the story? Get in touch with your inner napper and enjoy a more balanced life. There are few things in this world as sweet as a post-lunch sugar coma.

I think it's time for my nap.

Cathedral Music Videos

2006-11-01T15:05:00.000-05:00

We are on the cutting edge of technology here at Existential Space. To prove it, I've posted two of my music videos online thanks to something called "YouTube". Maybe you've heard of it. Amongst all the jihadist ranting, moonbat Leftist drivel and ego masturbation there, you can find my "Cathedrals of England, Ireland and Scotland" and "Washington National Cathedral", or you can watch them right here by clicking the controls below. Both videos are comprised entirely of pictures I have taken. Enjoy!

Cathedrals of England, Ireland and Scotland

Washington National Cathedral

Ohio State Prof: "What Terrorist Threat?"

2006-10-22T12:10:00.000-05:00

UPDATE #1: Thanks to Charles at Little Green Footballs for the plug, and welcome to all lizardoids. Thanks also to Ciaospirit. And lest any U of Michigan football fan take false hope in Mueller's corrupting influence on the#1 ranked OSU Buckeyes - keep dreaming! GO BUCKS! BEAT THE BLUE!

UPDATE #2: I am informed that Professor Mueller has a book due out in mid-November, Overblown: How Politicians and the Terrorism Industry Inflate National Security Threats, and Why We Believe Them (Free Press), that also advances his thesis that terrorism doesn't exist. I just hope he sent an advance copy to Osama bin Laden!

With the fifth anniversary of 9/11 now behind us, I'm sure that few of us can forget the horror and uncertainty of that day. But despite the pervasive presence of that event in our collective memory, some in academia say we do not need to fight a war on terror because we are fighting “an enemy that scarcely exists.”

See as Exhibit A the lead article in the September-October issue of Foreign Affairs – published by the Council on Foreign Relations and considered one of the premiere sources of foreign policy for the East Coast Leftist and inside-the-Beltway establishments, where you will find an article by John Mueller, “Is There Still a Terrorist Threat?”, which is summarized as follows:

Despite all the ominous warnings of wily terrorists and imminent attacks, there has been neither a successful strike nor a close call in the United States since 9/11. The reasonable – but rarely heard – explanation is that there are no terrorists within the United States, and few have the means or the inclination to strike from abroad.

This conclusion might strike most of us who pay attention to the news as patently bizarre, but Mueller is not some visiting lecturer at Antioch College or Berkeley; he is a professor at one of the largest and most respected public universities in the country: The Ohio State University (my alma mater). In fact, Mueller holds the Woody Hayes Chair of National Security Studies, named after Ohio State’s beloved pugilistic and military historian football coach, and a professorship in the Department of Political Science (my undergraduate major).

Of course, in August the U.S., UK, and Pakistan foiled a terror plot to attack U.S.-bound airliners, potentially killing hundreds or thousands of Americans, but we find out that Mueller doesn’t let that fact get in his way. More to the point, there is evidence immediately at hand in Central Ohio to refute his ridiculous argument. In June 2004, Nuradin Abdi and Iyman Faris were arrested and charged with terrorism for plotting to blow up a Columbus-area shopping mall and making plans to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge. Faris, who admitted to receiving his orders directly from former al-Qaeda terror operations chief, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, pled guilty to the terrorism charges; Abdi’s case comes to trial this month at the Federal courthouse just a few miles from Mueller’s office.

Upon reading his argument that there is no terror threat to the US, I sent Professor Mueller an e-mail identifying myself as an Ohio State alum and Political Science graduate, politely asking him whether the revelations of this most recent plot to blow up US-bound airliners contradicted his thesis that there is no actual terrorist threat. Within a few hours, I received his single sentence reply:

“Why do you think it contradicts my thesis?”

In my response to his question I noted the fairly obvious conclusion that the existence of actual terror plots against the United States would flatly refute his contention that there are no terror plots against the US. That seems logical to me; but then again, Mueller is Political Science faculty, not Philosophy. Needless to say, since I pointed this out to him, I haven’t heard from Mueller again.

In his article, he gives evidence that logic is not his strong suit when openly contradicts himself:

But if it is so easy to pull off an attack and if terrorists are so demonically competent, why have they not done it? Why have they not been sniping at people in shopping centers, collapsing tunnels, poisoning the food supply, cutting electrical lines, derailing trains, blowing up oil pipelines, causing massive traffic jams, or exploiting the countless other vulnerabilities that, according to security experts, could so easily be exploited? One reasonable explanation is that almost no terrorists exist in the United States and few have the means or the inclination to strike from abroad. But this explanation is rarely offered.

Given their previous history of striking when their media cache sinks, wouldn’t it be more likely that al-Qaeda would attempt another 9/11-style attack to demonstrate their potency and to mask their current "desperation, isolation, fragmentation, and decline," much as he claims they did on 9/11?

Of course, there are a number of factors that have prevented al-Qaeda from striking America again, most importantly our military assaults against them abroad and vigorous law enforcement measures at home. This includes the destruction of Al-Qaeda’s Taliban safe haven, intensive signals surveillance and human intelligence gathering, the capture and dismantling of their terror cells around the world, the identification and freezing of their financial assets and disrupting their sources of income, and the U.S. military pushing what remains of al-Qaeda’s leadership into the remote mountain caves of Waziristan.

None of that fits into his assessment, however: if al-Qaeda actually intended to strike us again they would have successfully done so by now; therefore there is no real terror threat to the US, Mueller smugly concludes. Just who exactly is arguing for the "demonically competent" terrorist, Professor Mueller? But elsewhere he writes that al-Qaeda’s powers are "overblown" and "greatly exaggerated"; that they have reached the point of "desperation, isolation, fragmentation, and decline"; and that they "scarcely exist."

Being the good social scientist, Mueller finally retreats to the data, equating the risk to individual Americans of being killed in a terrorist attack as being hit by a meteor or drowning in the bathtub:

But while keeping such potential dangers in mind, it is worth remembering that the total number of people killed since 9/11 by al Qaeda or al Qaedalike operatives outside of Afghanistan and Iraq is not much higher than the number who drown in bathtubs in the United States in a single year, and that the lifetime chance of an American being killed by international terrorism is about one in 80,000 -- about the same chance of being killed by a comet or a meteor. Even if there were a 9/11-scale attack every three months for the next five years, the likelihood that an individual American would number among the dead would be two hundredths of a percent (or one in 5,000).

If we were to take Mueller’s argument to its logical conclusion, since the annual fatality rate for car crashes in the US is 14 out of every 100,000 people, we should stop having law enforcement patrol highways. And since the lifetime risk of dying in an airplane crash is a staggering 1 in 8 million, the U.S. government should close down the National Transportation Safety Board, because there really isn’t much of a threat statistically speaking. But what comfort would Mueller's cold calculus be to a grieving widow or widower that lost their spouse on 9/11 that their death was little more than a statistical improbability?

It is interesting to note that one scholar that Mueller cites in support of his argument is Fawaz Gerges, a Middle East studies professor at Sarah Lawrence College, who argues that militant Islam is an invention of the West and that radical Islam had for the most part abandoned violence prior to 9/11 for politics. As Jonathan Calt Harris of Campus Watch explained in the National Review in 2003, Gerges has a habit of trying to hold mutually exclusive positions – all to the detriment of the foreign policy and national security of the United States:

Gerges feels America is wrong for taking militant Islam seriously, wrong for aiding Arab states against militant Islamic opposition and wrong for not aiding Arab states against Israel. America should not "collectively punish," yet should deny aid to a state based on the actions of its unelected ruler. America should not act "hegemonically," yet must "push along" Islamist groups to democracy, and "literally push" Arabs and Israelis to a solution. America cannot escape its "blood legacy" for supporting Saddam decades ago, yet now it is perpetrating a "unilateral military onslaught" by removing him.

Mueller not only quotes Gerges approvingly, but heartily embraces his “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” approach to radical Islam and terrorism. For both, it is as if 9/11 never occurred and that there really is no enemy for us to protect ourselves against – except the Bush Administration, which in their mind is a cross between the Khmer Rouge and Italian fascism. Thus for these “scholars”, any terror-related intelligence gathering, investigations, or (heaven forbid) arrests of terror suspects are gross human rights abuses and war crimes.

The only other scholar cited by Mueller in his Foreign Affairs article is Georgetown law professor David Cole, who has recently received awards from the Communist Party USA-founded National Lawyers Guild (who Erick Stakelbeck has described as “Cheerleaders of Terrorism”), the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (which openly supports suicide terrorist attacks against Israel), and the American Muslim Council (whose chairman was imprisoned in 2003 for terrorism-related charges). In addition, he serves as the legal affairs correspondent for the far Left magazine, The Nation.

Last year, Cole complained to U.S. News and World Report that the Department of Energy’s Nuclear Emergency Support Team was conducting radiation monitoring at 120 sites, including mosques, in the Washington D.C.-area and five other cities to prevent a nuclear attack against the US. Cole asserted that driving by these places each day with a Geiger counter was a violation of the most basic constitutional protections. This past May he protested the fairness of the conviction of Palestinian Islamic Jihad support, Sami al-Arian, and defended al-Arian’s innocence, despite the fact that al-Arian eventually pled guilty to the charges.

Cole is also a volunteer staff attorney and sits on the board of the George Soros-financed Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR). The most recent publication by the CCR is the book, Articles of Impeachment of George W. Bush, and their most recent legal victory was securing civil liberties for the captured terrorists imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Again, Fawaz Gerges and David Cole are the only two scholars cited by Mueller, both of whom play to the conspiracy-mongers among the Daily Kos and Democratic Underground crowd. Is it any wonder then that Mueller’s Foreign Affairs article is laced with very familiar Leftist catch-phrases (“the ill-considered U.S. venture in Iraq”), politically-charged indictments (“The FBI embraces a spooky I-think-therefore-they-are line of reasoning when assessing the purported terrorist menace”) and completely over-the-top comparisons (likening US terror investigations to the Japanese-American internments of WWII)?

Professor Mueller’s opinion is sure to be sought out by eager New York Times reporters digging for quotes and his Foreign Affairs article cited in the press releases that stream endlessly from Howard Dean’s office at the Democratic National Committee, but what does it say about academia in America today that recognizing the deadly obvious terror threat to our country is considered a Copernican heresy by the faculty of our some of our most prominent colleges and universities? If 9/11 wasn’t sufficient to convince these academics that terrorism exists and that the US is the prime target, it’s doubtful that another attack will.

Having been born and raised in Columbus, having grown up as an Ohio State football fan, and being an Ohio State alumnus, I can safely conclude that if Woody Hayes were still alive, he would punch John Mueller in the mouth as quick as a Clemson football player.

Long live Woody! Go Bucks!

Christian Worldview and Changing Cultures

2006-10-04T02:04:00.000-05:00

I am pleased to announce that I am now able to offer all three parts of my essay series published by Christianity & Society, "Christian Worldview and Changing Cultures," which appeared serially in the Summer 2005, Winter 2006, and Summer 2006 issues of that journal:

Christian Worldview and Changing Cultures, Part 1 Part 2 Part 3

I have said previously here that Christianity & Society should be among the subscriptions list of any serious-minded, culturally-aware Christian. Now that many back issues are available for free online on the Kuyper Foundation website, even the most skeptical should be convinced that this excellent international publication is worthy of your support. Subscribe today!

I hope to revise this essay and issue it as a short book in the near future. Comments welcome and appreciated!

The Islamist Cult of Death at Work in Iraq

2006-10-03T14:26:00.000-05:00

Welcome to the visitors joining us today from The American Thinker! Thanks for stopping by! For you regulars, the visitors have come to us from my AT article posted this morning, The Islamist Death Cult at Work in Iraq. Here's a sample:
Superlatives are insufficient to describe the horror currently seen in Iraq: bags filled with severed human heads; scores of bodies found with the eyes drilled out; limbs amputated with power saws; crowds of Iraqi children blown to bits for accepting candy from American troops; pits filled with bodies of executed “collaborators”. These are the daily deeds of the self-proclaimed Islamic “freedom fighters” in Iraq – the Warriors of Jihad...

...To begin to get a grip on the scale of awful magnitude of the situation, consider that more people will be murdered by al-Qaeda and its jihadist allies in Iraq this month alone than all of the victims they killed on 9/11 (3,009 murdered in Iraq in August 2006 vs. 2,996 on 9/11). They seem intent on liquidating the entire populace in order to save them for the New World Caliphate.

Thanks to the good folks at The American Thinker for continuing to give me a regular place in their excellent line up. If it isn't a regular stop on your daily reading, it should be!

Rome Getting It Wrong on Islam

2006-09-30T14:21:00.000-05:00

I have previously written two posts (Part 1, Part 2) on "Rome Getting It Right on Islam", praising the shift in official Vatican policy regarding Islam from Pope John Paul II to Benedict XVI. Just when it looked like it was safe to loudly cheer Benedict's recent comments regarding Islam at a conference in Regensberg, Germany - comments that have rightly inflamed the Muslim world - it seems that what he has given on one hand, he has taken away with the other.

Daniel Pipes reports that in the wake of violence and condemnations in the Muslim world in response to Benedict's Regensburg address, the Roman Catholic pontiff has this past week acknowledged Islam's filial relationship to Christianity as a member of the Abrahamic faith. In his address to the Ambassadors to Rome from Muslim countries, Benedict reaffirmed the Second Vatican Council's Nostra Aetate Declaration, which equates the Islamic Allah with the Christian God:

The Church looks upon Muslims with respect. They worship the one God living and subsistent, merciful and almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to humanity and to whose decrees, even the hidden ones, they seek to submit themselves whole-heartedly, just as Abraham, to whom the Islamic faith readily relates itself, submitted to God.

Benedict went so far as to cite this conclusion as "the Magna Carta of the Muslim-Christian dialogue." This is clearly a step in the wrong direction, though he is following in the path of his predecessor, who said regarding Christians and Muslims while visiting Morocco in 1995, "we believe in the same God, the one God, the living God."

As we are engaged in the most recent phase combatting the 1400 year-long defense of the West against violent and aggressive Islamic imperialism, it is tempting to lose our nerve. In this case, Pope Benedict has lost his. The furor by Muslims over his recent comments has prompted him to retreat into the institutional complacency that has plagued the Roman Catholic Church for the past two hundred years. Benedict has shown signs of breaking this habit. He has made some bold steps to break with the policies of JPII in a short period of time. But this is a time for leadership, not safety.

Islam is not a step forward for monotheism, but is a retreat into paganism. This has been the unmistakable message of the Christian Church since the 7th Century. Benedict is in an unparalleled position to provide leadership the world by proclaiming Christian truth in the face of the Islamic threat to global civilization. He only squanders this opportunity by mau-mauing to the political correctness endemic to the Vatican diplomatic mandarins.

Al-Qaeda's 20-year Plan

2006-09-15T03:38:00.000-05:00

For anyone that is interested in the war on terrorism, and article in last week's issue of The New Yorker is must reading. Lawrence Wright's, "The Master Plan," discusses the development of al-Qaeda's strategy since 9/11, gives an overview of their primary strategists, including Abu Musab al-Suri (who I wrote about here back in July, "The Architect of the New Global Jihad"), Abu Bakir Naji (author of The Management of Savagery, now available in a translation by William McCants at the Counter Terrorism Center at West Point), and a critical analysis by Jordanian author Fouad Hussein, who outlines al-Qaeda's 7-step 20-year plan in his book, Al-Zarqawi: al-Qaida's Second Generation. Hussein's book is based off a number of interviews with al-Qaeda leaders and his time in prison with Zarqawi.

The German daily Der Speigel covered Hussein's book last August. They summarized al-Qaeda's 20-year plan:

In seven phases the terror network hopes to establish an Islamic caliphate which the West will then be too weak to fight.
The First Phase Known as "the awakening" -- this has already been carried out and was supposed to have lasted from 2000 to 2003, or more precisely from the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 in New York and Washington to the fall of Baghdad in 2003. The aim of the attacks of 9/11 was to provoke the US into declaring war on the Islamic world and thereby "awakening" Muslims. "The first phase was judged by the strategists and masterminds behind al-Qaida as very successful," writes Hussein. "The battle field was opened up and the Americans and their allies became a closer and easier target." The terrorist network is also reported as being satisfied that its message can now be heard "everywhere."
The Second Phase "Opening Eyes" is, according to Hussein's definition, the period we are now in and should last until 2006. Hussein says the terrorists hope to make the western conspiracy aware of the "Islamic community." Hussein believes this is a phase in which al-Qaida wants an organization to develop into a movement. The network is banking on recruiting young men during this period. Iraq should become the center for all global operations, with an "army" set up there and bases established in other Arabic states.
The Third Phase This is described as "Arising and Standing Up" and should last from 2007 to 2010. "There will be a focus on Syria," prophesies Hussein, based on what his sources told him. The fighting cadres are supposedly already prepared and some are in Iraq. Attacks on Turkey and -- even more explosive -- in Israel are predicted. Al-Qaida's masterminds hope that attacks on Israel will help the terrorist group become a recognized organization. The author also believes that countries neighboring Iraq, such as Jordan, are also in danger.
The Fourth Phase Between 2010 and 2013, Hussein writes that al-Qaida will aim to bring about the collapse of the hated Arabic governments. The ultimate is that "the creeping loss of the regimes' power will lead to a steady growth in strength within al-Qaida." At the same time attacks will be carried out against oil suppliers and the US economy will be targeted using cyber terrorism.
The Fifth Phase This will be the point at which an Islamic state, or caliphate, can be declared. The plan is that by this time, between 2013 and 2016, Western influence in the Islamic world will be so reduced and Israel weakened so much, that resistance will not be feared. Al-Qaida hopes that by then the Islamic state will be able to bring about a new world order.
The Sixth Phase Hussein believes that from 2016 onwards there will a period of "total confrontation." As soon as the caliphate has been declared the "Islamic army" it will instigate the "fight between the believers and the non-believers" which has so often been predicted by Osama bin Laden.
The Seventh Phase This final stage is described as "definitive victory." Hussein writes that in the terrorists' eyes, because the rest of the world will be so beaten down by the "one-and-a-half billion Muslims," the caliphate will undoubtedly succeed. This phase should be completed by 2020, although the war shouldn't last longer than two years.

Douglas Farah at Counterterrorism Blog asks, "Islamists Have a 20-year Plan: Do We?". According to Wright's New Yorker article, our policymakers have unwittingly played into al-Qaeda's strategy because they refuse to learn from the terrorists themselves:

Although American and European intelligence communities are aware of the jihadi texts, the work of these ideologues often reads like a playbook that U.S. policymakers have been slavishly, if inadvertently, following. “The data don’t get to the top, because the decision-makers are not looking for that kind of information,” a policy analyst who works closely with the American intelligence community told me. “They think they know better.”

It would be suicidal for us to ignore what al-Qaeda is willing to tell us directly. I'll have more on this issue in coming weeks, including some material never made public in English before. Stay tuned.

Hometown Jihad: Citizen Salah Sultan

2006-09-08T03:44:00.000-05:00

My newest article, Hometown Jihad: Our Newest Citizen?, is headlining this morning at FrontPage Magazine. Follow the links to my previous articles on this topic, Hometown Jihad, the initial exposé published back in April, and Hometown Jihad: Blowback, which came out in late May.

The newest revelation is that Salah Sultan, the individual who has been the subject of these articles that lives here in my hometown of Hilliard, Ohio, is set to get his US citizenship within the next few weeks. This despite extensive connections and close relationships to terrorists, terror sympathizers, apologists and financiers. He is also the protégé of HAMAS spiritual leader Sheikh Yousef Qaradawi, who the Anti-Defamation League has characterized as the "Theologian of Terror".

For those who have asked me what can be done to prevent Salah Sultan from receiving US citizenship, my suggestion would be to contact Rep. Deborah Pryce , our local congressional representativewho is looking into the matter (be sure to be polite), and Ohio Senator Mike DeWine, who is in a tight race for re-election. Also be sure to contact your own Congressman and Senators. They are the only people who can apply the pressure to the idiots at the USCIS to put the kabosh on this deal.

I'll be sure to post any updates as I receive them.

Agence France Presse Pushes CAIR's Fake Hate Crime Numbers

2006-09-04T23:12:00.000-05:00

UPDATE #1: It seems from information gleaned from Ms. Oberman's personal website that she is the sole reporter in AFP's Chicago Bureau. AFP's North American Regional Office is located in Washington DC.

UPDATE #2: Thanks to The American Thinker, Little Green Footballs, Miss Kelly and Solomonia for picking up this blog entry. Apologies if I missed anyone else.

UPDATE #3: A hearty Bonjour! to all of our friends joining us from France, Belgium and the Francophone world, courtesy of Bureau audiovisuel francophone.

UPDATE #4: I finally received a reply from Mira Oberman, the reporter who wrote the AFP article, who informed me that she had received the numbers directly from CAIR and that she wasn't aware of the statistics' dubious authenticity. I appreciate her response. But will the story be corrected? I'm not holding my breath.

I was catching up on the holiday weekend news by visiting Little Green Footballs a few hours ago and noticed an entry from Sunday, CAIR's 9/11 PR Push Continues. It references an article by Mira Oberman of Agence France Presse, "US Muslims plagued by discrimination after 9/11 attacks", that makes the following claim advanced by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR):

CAIR has seen a steady increase in the number of complaints of harassment, violence and discriminatory treatment over the past five years. In 2004, complaints rose 49 percent to 1,522, of which 141 were reports of actual and potentially violent hate crimes.

These numbers are taken from CAIR's May 2005 report, Unequal Protection: The Status of Muslim Civil Rights in the United States 2005:

In 2004, CAIR processed a total of 1,522 incident reports of civil rights cases compared to 1,019 cases reported to CAIR in 2003. This constitutes a 49 percent increase in the reported cases of harassment, violence and discriminatory treatment from 2003 and marks the highest number of Muslim civil rights cases ever reported to CAIR in our eleven year history.

In addition, CAIR received 141 reports of actual and potential violent anti-Muslim hate crimes, a 52 percent increase from the 93 reports received in 2003. (p. 5)

Just one problem: a week after CAIR published the report, Daniel Pipes and Sharon Chadha revealed ("CAIR's Hate Crime Nonsense") that this report included "a pattern of sloppiness, exaggeration, and distortion", especially that it included incidents that CAIR reported as hate crimes when it was known that the "hate crimes" they cited were perpetrated by the Muslim "victims" themselves. In one case in McAllen, Texas included in the CAIR report, even the New York Times had debunked CAIR's "hate crime" claims seven months prior to the CAIR report's release. In another case reported by CAIR in May 2005 as a "hate crime", an Everett, Washington grocer had been charged with setting fire to his own store in August 2004 - a full eight months prior to CAIR's published report. The Seattle Times reported CAIR's "hate crime" as a hoax in August 2004 when the charges were filed against the owner.

If you read the CAIR report that's posted on their website today you will find that all references to these hate crime hoaxes have been scrubbed, but CAIR has never changed the 2004 statistics in the report to account for these fraudulent incidents. Those statistics remain completely unchanged since the original publication of the report, and these are the very same stats parroted by AFP in the article from this weekend.

CAIR was clearly aware enough of this problematic information to scrub any mention of these incidents from the current version of the report available on their website, but careless or deceptive enough not to change the statistics. Regardless, CAIR nowhere indicates that the report has been corrected. And they are still peddling this fraudulent information to their old media allies, who appear to take any information received from CAIR at face value.

How was I able to catch this fakery by CAIR and their useful idiots in the mainstream media? I mentioned the problems with CAIR's report last week in an article for The American Thinker, "Kafir-phobia: Americans as Violent Anti-Muslim Bigots". My American Thinker article concerned CAIR's promotion of yet another staged "hate crime" this past July in Xenia, Ohio where two Jordanian restaurant owners hired a former employee to vandalize their store and later were severely injured in a blast when one of the owners lighted a cigarette while standing in a pool of gasoline they had spread intending to set fire to the shop later that evening. As of this evening, CAIR still has an uncorrected post on their website, "Blast at Arab-American Restaurant 'Suspicious'", containing false information about this latest incident. As I mentioned in my American Thinker article, it was reported by the local news media, including the Cincinnati Enquirer, that the owners were themselves responsible for the blast a week before CAIR posted the erroneous information on their website.

But I'm still not finished. Remember those two faked hate crime incidents in McAllen, Texas and Everett, Washington I mentioned earlier? A CAIR press release and news brief continue to tout these faked hate crimes almost a year and a half after the Pipes/Chadha exposé was published.

This raises some serious questions:

The most serious is that CAIR - the most prominent Islamic organization in the US today - is deliberately floating fraudulent information to the media despite CAIR's awareness that the information is bogus. That notwithstanding, they are still the darlings of the old media and inside-the-Beltway establishment elites and cited as a reliable source of information.
Another concern is that the May 2005 CAIR report has been scrubbed to conceal this problematic information without any notation whatsoever that the report has been changed.
In all likelihood, Mira Oberman at AFP was unwittingly duped by CAIR, who probably provided her with these stats (see UDPATE #4 above). But has she ever heard of FACTCHECKING or a Google search?
When the CAIR report was debunked by Pipes and Chadha just a week after its release, none of the mainstream media who covered the report's release corrected their stories. I have emailed Ms. Oberman this evening and informed her of the bogus information included in her report. Will AFP correct it and note the fraud? We'll see...

It should be clear to any informed observer that CAIR consistently and deliberately purveys false and fraudulent information (as the numerous instances cited in this blog entry confirm). They are aided in their deception, wittingly or unwittingly, by their go-to people in the mainstream media, much like Ms. Oberman, who take CAIR's propaganda and run with it without the slightest reservation, disregarding a mountain of evidence that should scream "CAUTION! HANDLED BY CAIR!".

As Pipes and Chadha note at the end of their exposé of CAIR's report:

But why do journalists report the results of CAIR’s survey – as though it came from a source without a viewpoint bias, as though past studies had been reliable, as though its polls are scientific, as though it has not been party to threats against an American Muslim dissident, and as though it has not protected Osama bin Laden’s image, as though five of CAIR’s staff and board members have not already been associated with terrorism, and as though it is not named as a defendant in 9/11 terror lawsuit?

One wonders what it will take for old media to ignore CAIR’s unreliable research and instead start reporting the words of Steven Pomerantz, a former chief of the FBI's counterterrorism section, that CAIR's activities “effectively give aid to international terrorist groups.”

Those are excellent points to ponder...

Notes on Beethoven

2006-09-03T23:20:00.000-05:00

"... there begins in my head the development in every direction ... the fundamental idea never deserts me - it rises before me - grows, I see and hear the picture in all its extent and dimensions stand before my mind like a cast ..."
- Beethoven on composing, to Louis Schlösser, 1822.
Over the past few days I have been viewing the 3-part BBC docu-drama broadcast in June 2005, Beethoven, presented by composer and conductor, Charles Hazlewood. To say that the series is worth the viewing would be an understatement, and to try to summarize it would be foolish. Watch it for yourself.

What impresses me about Beethoven is that his music is intensely personal. As Hazlewood shows, you can chart the progress of his music by what was going on in his life. Beethoven was an absolute egoist self-consumed with his art and his talent. This is hardly unique in the post-modern era where everyone is consumed with themselves and when contemporary art is rarely more than masturbating the artist's ego resulting in absolute drivel; but in his day, it was extraordinary when music was written strictly for patrons and discriminating audiences.

But Beethoven's music also reflects the spirit of his times. Since his life bridges the Enlightenment and the beginnings of Romanticism, it is hardly surprising to find his music both revolutionary and romantic. And he is self-conscious about integrating the philosophy of his day with his music, as seen in Movement 4 in Symphony No. 9, incorporating Schiller's "Ode to Joy" - the first time that choral had been matched with a symphony. As such, Beethoven is full of the contradictions of his day: he is democratic and a humanist, but can't stand people. His paradoxical sentimentality and overbearing fortitude are best expressed in his 5th and 6th Symphonies, which were composed at the same time. The 6th (Pastoral) is light, airy and somewhat nostalgic; whereas the 5th is nothing short of kick-you-in-the-balls brutality. How could I not love Beethoven?

There is much in his tumultuous biography that I can appreciate and identify with, as I am sure is true with many others: his constant financial struggles; his crass and rude behavior that was a defense mechanism to keep others away; his ill fortunes in the area of love; the broken relationships with his family; others taking advantage of his talent for their own purposes. The themes that Hazlewood identifies in Beethoven's music are tension and reconciliation, creativity out of chaos, and integration and creative freedom - all reflective of Beethoven's own experience.

And then there is his deafness. I have pondered as to why Providence would decide that one of the greatest musicians in history should go deaf. We will never know. It would be as if Shakespeare were unable to write. It is a seeming tragedy. But is it? What better testament to the fact that it was God's gift that inspired Beethoven than the faculty through which Beethoven's art was expressed and received by others was the very one denied to him. Who else but God could have allowed the music to dwell in him such that he never needed to hear the music, but just simply had to think it? Those are not talents that are self-developed. They must come with the package.

In contrast to Mozart who expressed his genius within the boundaries and confines of convention, stretching them in the process, Beethoven is about the business of destroying boundaries, breaking rules, shattering and rending worlds. In many respects, Beethoven is the point of no return for music in the West. After him, there was no way to go back and examining the classical age without carrying the baggage and perspective of Modernity. Beethoven is the prism through which we see his predecessors, whether we know it or not. He is much like Kant in philosophy.

As I have been watching the series, I have also been listening to Beethoven's symphonies (the Deutsche Grammaphone collection directed by Herbert von Karajan and played by the Berliner Philharmoniker), as well as several additional pieces. Beethoven's music is still a special challenge to musicians today - think of how difficult it was for the musicians in his own day. The technical demands on the pianist in his piano concertos (think No. 4) are stunning. And then there is the vast range of the music itself in his corpus. Amazing!

The series does an excellent job of demonstrating the meaning of Beethoven's music within the context of the life of the man. It is worth the viewing if you can get ahold of it. Paul Rhys (do the Brits not have vowels?) does as excellent job as Beethoven. Getting a handle on Beethoven's music, however, is not so easy. It has taken me more than a decade to begin to digest his music. The first place I started a number of years ago was a 2-disc set called "Beethoven: The Greatest Hits", which is still in print and available at most music stores. It is a pretty broad selection (including my favorite, the Moonlight Sonata), but most of the work would be familiar to the average listener. That collection is a good jumping-off point before diving into his symphonies, sonatas, concertos, etc. You can only eat the elephant one bite at a time, but the meal is worth the effort!

What's next on the viewing list? BBC's The Genius of Mozart, also presented by Hazlewood, and The Romantics, presented by Peter Ackroyd. The Beeb might be filled with moonbat Leftists, but they sure make good documentaries. Something Americans could learn from.

CAIR's Kafir-phobia

2006-08-31T10:38:00.000-05:00

If you're here visiting from my article today in The American Thinker, Kafir-phobia: Americans as Violent Anti-Muslim Bigots, welcome! Feel free to put your feet up and look around a while! For my Islam-related posts, check the sidebar to the right.

Ya'll come back again!

UPDATE (09/01/06): Thanks to WorldNetDaily for linking to the article on their Commentary page.

Remembering the St. Bartholomew Day Martyrs

2006-08-24T21:02:00.000-05:00

A contemporary portrait of the St. Bartholomew Day Massacre

It was on this date in 1572 that one of the most tragic episodes in the history of the Christian Church occurred. The slaughter of tens of thousands of Protestants began in Paris at 3am on St. Bartholomew's Day, August 24th to the sound of church bells. One of the first victims was Gaspard de Coligny, the Admiral of France and the leader of the French Calvinists, the Huguenots. Admiral Coligny was arguably the most powerful man in France at the time and one of the closest advisors to Charles IX.

Paris was full of thousands of French Calvinists who were in the city to celebrate the marriage of Henry, King of Navarre, a Protestant, to the Princess Marguerite, the sister of Charles IX. The wedding was held on August 18th much to the dismay of Charles' mother, Catherine de Medici - the she-wolf of European politics and a staunch Roman Catholic. The marriage was intended to resolve tensions between the competing religious factions in France.

When an assassins bullet struck Coligny as he walked the streets of Paris on August 22nd, taking off one of his fingers, Catherine de Medici saw an opportunity to strike against the Protestants while their leader was recovering from his injuries. She pressured her son, Charles, with the help of the Duke of Guise and the Duke of Anjou. She convinced Charles that a Calvinist revolt was imminent. The Huguenot leadership must be eliminated, she argued. She threatened to leave her 23-year old son and return to Italy if he refused to act. Finally, Charles cracked, shouting, "By the death of God, since you choose to kill the Admiral, I consent! But then you must kill all the Huguenots in France, so that not one shall be left to reproach me...Kill them all! Kill them all!"

With that, the butchery began. The king's Swiss Guards were summoned to dispatch the Huguenot leaders, including Coligny (pictured left), who was murdered in his bed by the Duke of Guise. Coligny's body was beheaded, his head presented to Charles, and his body hung up on display.

Spurred on by the Roman Catholic clergy, the masses soon seized upon any Huguenot that could be found. One Protestant witness who survived, Jacques-Auguste de Thou, who would later become a prominent Huguenot leader in his own right, described the horror:

"...the streets and ways did resound with the noise of those that flocked to the slaughter and plunder, and the complaints and doleful out-cries of dying men, and those that were nigh to danger were every where heard. The carkasses of the slain were thrown down from the windows, the Courts & chambers of houses were full of dead men, their dead bodies rolled in dirt were dragged through the streets, bloud did flow in such abundance through the chanels of the streets, that full streams of bloud did run down into the River: the number of the slain men, women, even those that were great with child, and children also, was innumerable."

Within days, 5,000 Huguenots lay dead in Paris alone. In the weeks and months that followed, the mass violence spread to virtually every region of France. In Lyon, Dijon, Tours, Troyes, Rouen, Bourges, and Toulouse, few Huguenots were spared from the savagery. The numbers of those murdered are estimated to be between 30,000-100,000.

The reaction to the massacre in Europe ranged from horror to jubilant celebration. The Spanish Ambassador in Paris rejoiced at the savagery: "As I write, they are killing all of them, they are stripping them naked...sparing not even the children. Blessed be God!" In Rome, Pope Gregory XIII welcomed the news of the massacre with a singing of the Te Deum. Pope Gregory also authorized the striking of a commemorative medal honoring the "Slaughter of the Huguenots" and commissioned the painter Giorgio Vasari to paint a mural of the massacre in the Vatican, bearing the inscription, Pontifex Colbni necent probat ("the Pope approves the killing of Coligny"). A portion of Vasari's painting is shown below to the right.

Commemorative medal struck by Pope Gregory XIII honoring the massacre of the Huguenots

The massacre had more impact amongst the Protestants across Europe. Perhaps one of the most important legacies of the event was the shift in Protestant political theory. For the next thirty years, printing presses would flow with new books contending against the "divine right of kings" and contending for constitutional monarchies. Francois Hotman's Franco-Gallia would argue that French kings were bound to follow the law and to protect their subjects. Calvin's successor in Geneva, Theodore Beza, argued in his The Right of Magistrates over Their Subjects (1574) from classical, medieval and contemporary history that subjects had a right to defend themselves against unbridled monarchical tyranny and that kings were not due unconditional obedience. Phillipe de Plessisis du Mornay -- another French Calvinist -- wrote in his Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos that Scripture allowed for the murder of a tyrannical monarch to defend liberty of conscience. In Scotland, George Buchanan authored a dialogue, De Jure Regni Apud Scots, dedicated to his pupil, King James of Scotland (later King James I of England). As many Founding Fathers attest to, these monarchomach treatises would play an important ideological role in the America War for Independence two centuries later.

The massacres did not have the intended effect in France that Catherine de Medici and her Roman Catholic supporters hoped for. Within two months, the French Wars of Religion flared again as Huguenots were forced by sheer survival to oppose Charles. Within a year, the Protestants had secured from Charles a guarantee of freedom of religion. In 1574, Charles IX died, which began what is known as the "War of the Three Henries". In the end, Henry of Navarre, who had survived the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre by "converting" to Roman Catholicism, became Henry IV of France. He had joined Protestant forces fighting against the Catholic League after again claiming his allegiance to the Protestant faith. When it became clear that Paris would not tolerate a Protestant king, he reconverted to Roman Catholicism in 1594, remarking, "Paris vaut bien une messe" ("Paris is worth a Mass") and was crowned King of France at Chartres on February 27, 1594. This act united the country and laid the ground for the prosperity that occurred under Henry's reign.

In 1598, Henry signed the Edict of Nantes, which granted official toleration of the Huguenots and purchased civil and religious peace for France for a century until Louis XIV revoked the edict in 1685, which prompted most Protestants to leave France forever (who were warmly welcomed by Protestant countries, including England, Germany, Switzerland, the Dutch Republic, South Africa and America).

Ahmadinejad's Apocalyptic Faith

2006-08-17T03:42:00.000-05:00

My most recent article, Ahmadinejad's Apocalyptic Faith, is up today at FrontPage. For those of you just joining us in the 21st Century, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is Iran's current president and chief sabre-rattler. Here's a preview:

Ahmadinejad’s worldview is shaped by the radical Hojjatieh Shiism that is best represented by Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi, the Iranian President’s ideological mentor and marja-e taqlid (object of emulation), of the popular Haqqani religious school located in Qom. The affection seems to be mutual: in the 2005 Iranian presidential campaign, Ayatollah Yazdi issued a fatwa calling on his supporters to vote for Ahmadinejad.

The Hojjatieh movement is considered to be so radical that it was banned in 1983 by the Ayatollah Khomeini and is still opposed by the majority of the Iranian clerics, including the Supreme Leader of the Supreme National Security Council, Ayatollah Ali Khamanei. That should be telling in and of itself. That opposition notwithstanding, it is believed that several adherents of the Hojjatieh sect are in Cabinet-level positions in Ahmadinejad’s government.

Most Shiites await the return of the 12th Shiite Imam, Muhammad ibn Hasan, the last direct male descendent of the Prophet Mohammed’s son-in-law Ali, who disappeared in 874AD and is believed to be in an invisible, deathless state of existene, or “occultation”, awaiting his return. Though it is discounted even by the most extremist clerics, a popular belief in Iran holds that the 12th Imam, also called the Mahdi or the sahib-e zaman (“the Ruler of Time”), lives at the bottom of a well in Jamkaran, just outside of Qom. Devotees drop written requests into the well to communicate with the Mahdi. His reappearance will usher in a new era of peace as Islam vanquishes all of its enemies. The Sunnis, who reject the successors of Ali, believe that the Mahdi has yet to be born.

But rooted in the Shiite ideology of martyrdom and violence, the Hojjatieh sect adds messianic and apocalyptic elements to an already volatile theology. They believe that chaos and bloodshed must precede the return of the 12th Imam, called the Mahdi. But unlike the biblical apocalypse, where the return of Jesus is preceded by waves of divinely decreed natural disasters, the summoning of the Mahdi through chaos and violence is wholly in the realm of human action. The Hojjatieh faith puts inordinate stress on the human ability to direct divinely appointed events. By creating the apocalyptic chaos, the Hojjatiehs believe it is entirely in the power of believers to affect the Mahdi’s reappearance, the institution of Islamic government worldwide, and the destruction of all competing faiths.

This is an important issue. Read it all (if I say so myself).

Getting Noticed Across the Pond

2006-08-07T06:59:00.000-05:00

Every now and then when I think that no one is listening, evidence arrives that I'm being heard. A few weeks ago, I had a piece published by The American Thinker, entitled, Radical Islamists and Western Governments, about the collusion between Tony Blair's government (America's supposed partner in the Global War on Terrorism) and the Islamist Muslim Council of Britian, and the presence of known Islamists in Blair's Foreign Office, the equivalent of our Department of State. I received suprisingly little feedback, which is unusual for an article of this sort. At least I usually get some hate mail of the "Die Zionist Pig" variety. That's the standard indicator. The absence of any feedback at all led me to believe that it got lost in the wash or ignored altogether.

Lo and behold, a week ago my American Thinker article was positively mentioned in an opinion piece in the left-leaning British Guardian/Observer. It isn't every day that you get international media attention, even if it was offered with a bit of a political jab at conservatives such as myself. But hey, you take what you can when it's offered.

UPDATE #1: Oi vey! I entirely forgot to mention earlier that my FrontPage Magazine article, The Muslim Brotherhood "Project", was recently reprinted by the Paris-based Institut pour la Défense de la Démocratie.

I have some additional articles coming out hopefully this week. Stay tuned for updates!

In Memoriam: Leon Morris (1914-2006)

2006-08-04T04:04:00.000-05:00

I was saddened to hear last week of the death of reknowned Australian Reformed Anglican scholar, Leon Morris. In recent years, Morris' works have been the source of tremendous spiritual encouragement and education for me. It was four years ago that I first read his The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, his PhD dissertation for Cambridge that is still today one of the most compelling defenses and expositions of the substitutionary atonement of Christ. Covering the biblical themes of Redemption, Covenant, "The Blood", "The Lamb of God", Propitiation, Reconciliation and Justification, it is a tour de force of biblical theology.

What has attracted me to Morris' work has been the centrality of Christ's work of atonement in the Gospel. There is little room for the works of man in our salvation, as this quote (one of my favorites) found in the closing pages of The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross argues:

The people of God on the scriptural view are those who have entered into covenant with Him, and this might well be viewed as an activity of man as well as of God. But the initiative is always thought of as resting with God, and man's part is no more than the accepting of a covenant whose terms have been laid down by God. Thus the very idea of covenant, as the Bible understands it, puts the stress on the divine activity, and this is reinforced by the fact that the covenant in the New Testament is established only because the Son of God died for man and thus put away his sin. There is very little place for human activity in this way of viewing Calvary, and once again we see that atonement is essentially something wrought for, rather than in, man. (p. 300)

The theme of the centrality of the Cross as the heart of the Gospel was a theme I encountered when I read his Galatians: Paul's Charter of Christian Freedom:

That the cross is absolutely central means that the keeping of the law cannot be imposed on Gentile believers. The teachers Paul was opposing apparently did not grasp this. They were insisting that all converts must keep the whole law. The law was part of revealed Scripture and they saw it as binding on all. The law was at the heart of God's purpose, they thought, and this for Gentile believers as for Jews. Paul does not denigrate the law. It was divinely given and it was regarded as a great treasure by the Israelites in general, and Paul in particular. Paul sees it as very important. But it is not the way of salvation. To see the law as divinely given and as an incomparable guide to the way we should live out our salvation is one thing, but it is quite another to affirm that anyone's salvation hangs on the way he or she keeps the law. (p. 27)

These two books are excellent antidotes to those who today want to smuggle man's work and obedience into our salvation under the guise of "covenantal obedience" and other sundry postmodern theological inventions.

It was more than a year ago that Morris' The Cross in the New Testament took a place in my reading stack. Honestly, I have still not finished it, more out of laziness than anything else. But the third that I have read (covering Matthew, Mark and Luke) are a testament to solid biblical scholarship. His footnotes alone are worth the read, for they demonstrate his masterful handling of the vast body of theological literature on the topic. And still, the dominant theme of Christ's work and his identification with sinners is central:

The revolutionary thing in the practice of Jesus was his readiness to identify Himself with ordinary men. He did not take up a position anythig like that of the general run of religious leaders. He did not blame or despise men for failing to keep the traditions. He did not regard Himself as too holy to come into contact with them. He did not thank God that he was not like other men. Instead He sought them out. He talked with them. He dined with them. He made Himself one with them... He made Himself one with sinner because His mission concerned sinners, because He came to do for them that which was vitally necessary, but which they could not do for themselves. (pp. 90-92)

About the same time as I started reading The Cross in the New Testament, I also picked up his New Testament Theology. For good reason, this is a standard theological textbook in many evangelical seminaries. This is an excellent study of theology proper - the study of the person of God. And as Morris progresses through the New Testament, he shows how each biblical writer adds to our understand of who God is.

Morris, of course, is best known for his magnum opus, his NICNT commentary on the Gospel of John. The Gospel of John was a frequent stomping ground for Morris, and his lectures on John (some of which are available for free from SermonAudio) communicate his love for the topic. I hope to get to his commentary soon after finishing The Cross in the New Testament and the NICNT commentary on Hebrews by Bruce.

For me, the particular value of Morris' work has been for its clarity, accessibility, and focus on the work of Christ for us as the paramount message of the Gospel. Excepting The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, which does have some discussion on Greek terminology that might that might require some modest familiarity with the language, Morris writes without all of the flower and show that seems to be endemic with theological writers today. He is a "meat and potatoes" theologian. But it is rock solid. Even in his shorter devotional works, like The Cross of Christ, have meat enough to eat. His commentary on Galatians I cited above is an excellent example of what popular commentaries should be - engaging, informative and readable. Through his theological writings and his many years of teaching, Leon Morris has forged a lasting legacy worthy of the saying, "Though dead, he yet speaks". Blessed in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints.

What I'm listening to: At the recommendation of Clay Biggs, I'm listening to Maurice Duruflé, Sacred Choral and Organ Works. I've only listened to the first disc of two thus far (which includes his Requiem, Op. 9), but this is great music to soothe the soul. Very passionate and an excellent blend of organ and voice. As always, this is a good call by Mr. Biggs.

Update #1: D.A. Carson has some remembrances of Morris at Reformation21.

New documentary: Obsession, Radical Islam's War Against the West

2006-07-28T04:09:00.000-05:00

Friends,

I wanted to direct your attention to my movie review published this morning by FrontPageMag.com of Obsession: Radical Islam's War against the West. This is an absolutely MUST SEE documentary from HonestReporting.com. Sadly, this isn't something that you're likely to see on PBS or the History Channel.

I think that there are three important points made by the movie (I'm boiling this down from about 20 important points):

1) The jihad of radical Islam is a global movement. The US media does not do a good job of covering the terrorist attacks outside of the West (compare the coverage of the 7/7 London bombings last year that killed 55 vs. the coverage of the Mumbai train bomb in India that killed 200+ earlier this month). You probably don't understand how widespread the jihad really is. The first 10 minutes of this movie will correct those misunderstandings.

2) Radical Islam as an ideology is a greater threat than Communism and Nazism. The movie notes that the threat is not just to Westerns, but to Muslims themselves that do not share the views of radical Islam. The parallels between the West's lack of action in the 1930s to Nazism and the laissez-faire policies of the West today regarding Islamic extremism are strikingly similiar.

3) Pretending that the threat doesn't exist, or recognizing that the threat exists and choosing to do nothing about it, is a suicidal policy that threatens us, our children and our grandchildren. Ignoring it will not make it go away. Each one of us must decide what we will do in response to this menace.

I can't say it strongly enough that this is a movie that you, your family, your friends, your church, your civic group, your school, and your elected representatives needs to see. The film is a very balanced presentation and they do not resort to graphic images of carnage (which they easily could have done). It is a family-friendly movie. Even at 73 minutes, it moves along at a quick pace. This is not your lazy documentary. They squeeze in a lot of information in a short amount of time.

You can view a trailer or purchase a copy from the movie's website. Buy extra copies to loan out to friends and to give to others.

This film will rock your complacent Western world!

"The only thing need for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

New Article at American Thinker

2006-07-26T08:36:00.000-05:00

Greetings to everyone joining us today from The American Thinker and Boars Head Tavern. My most recent article, Radical Islamists and Western Governments, is up this morning at American Thinker. If this is your first time here, you can also read my previous articles for FrontPage Magazine by going to my author's page. My Islam-related blog posts can be found on the sidebar on the right of this page.

Thanks for visiting! Enjoy your stay!

The Architect of the New Global Jihad

2006-07-17T04:25:00.000-05:00

When US intelligence officials confirmed in May that Mustafa bin Abd al-Qadir Setmariam Nasar, one of the top five wanted al-Qaeda leaders and better known to the world under his nom de guerre, Abu Mus’ab al-Suri (“The Syrian”), was in US custody after being taken in a sting in Quetta, Pakistan last November, few mainstream media outlets in the US outside of the Associated Press and NBC News took notice at the time. The Washington Post finally stepped up to note the importance of al-Suri’s capture and career in a May 23rd article, Architect of New War on the West.

In fact, al-Suri’s capture may be the most significant in the Global War on Terror since that of Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, the Number 3 man in al-Qaeda and the operational leader of the 9/11 attacks, in March 2003. One analyst has called al-Suri “the most dangerous terrorist you’ve never heard of”. Identified by European intelligence officials as one of the operational leader of the al-Qaeda bombings in Madrid and London, al-Suri is also responsible for crafting and implementing a new terror strategy to unleash a new campaign of indiscriminate attacks at America and its allies in Europe and the Middle East. Unfortunately, despite his detention by US authorities, al-Suri’s legacy as the architect of the new global jihad will continue well into the forseeable future.

In March 2006, Brynjar Lia, a senior researcher for the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment (FFI) and the author of a forthcoming book on al-Suri’s career and ideological innovations, published an extended profile on the al-Qaeda strategist (which I have relied on heavily in preparing this article), noting his impressive terrorist resume:

Al-Suri began his career in the early 1980s with the Syrian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, where he received extensive training from Egyptian, Iraqi and Jordanian military officials in guerilla warfare and explosives engineering. He served in the organization’s leadership in Baghdad after the Syrian Ba’ath regime suppressed a revolt by the Brotherhood in 1982, finally breaking with the group due to their growing ties to Saddam Hussein.
He moved to Spain in 1985 where he opened an import business and planned to continue the resistance in Syria. During this time he authored an extensive and advanced study of the strengths and weaknesses of the Syrian resistance, The Syrian Islamic Jihadist Revolution – Pains and Hopes, marking his talents in theory and strategy. He also penned a number of essays under the pen name Umar Abd al-Hakim. After marrying a Spanish convert to Islam in 1988 (thereby gaining Spanish citizenship), he left to join the muhajadin in Afghanistan, who were still fighting the Soviet occupation.
During his tenure in Afghanistan from 1987-1992, he quickly rose to prominence due to his extensive training in Syria and after catching the attention of Abdullah Azzam, the father of the Arab-Afghan movement, mentor to Osama bin Laden, and one of the chief founders of al-Qaeda. Al-Suri claims to have been in constant company with Azzam until Azzam’s assassination in 1989 in a struggle over direction of the Afghan resistance. He eventually was promoted to al-Qaeda’s Shura Council as Emir of the Syrians, representing the Syrian contingent in Afghanistan. In 1990, al-Suri published the first draft of his Call for a Global Islamic Resistance, which has gone through several subsequent revisions and expansions. As Lia notes (p. 6), this period is when al-Suri recognized the local emphasis of jihadist revolution needed to be expanded to a global scale.
In 1992, al-Suri left Afghanistan and moved back to Spain to establish an al-Qaeda cell there. As a result of his many international contacts obtained in Afghanistan and as one of the most experienced leaders in the global Islamist movement, the Spanish cell became a primary backbone for al-Qaeda operations in Europe and al-Suri became one of its most important leaders. During this time he also became actively involved in supporting the Islamists in Algeria and Bosnia.
In 1994, he moved to London to establish an al-Qaeda media center, the Islamic Conflicts Study Bureau, where he organized interviews for the BBC and CNN with Osama bin Laden. As Lorenzo Vidino of the Investigative Project noted in a May 2004 National Review article, al-Suri was one of the chief architects of the radical Islamic scene now referred to as “Londonistan”. He also contributed a number of articles to the UK-based Al-Ansar Magazine in defense of the murderous Algerian GIA; and his close associate, Abu Qatada, described as “Bin Laden’s Ambassador to Europe” and chief editor of Al-Ansar, issued a fatwa allowing for the killing of women and children by the GIA. Because al-Suri was suspected of being involved in the 1995 Paris metro bombing and his active contacts with bin Laden, he was briefly arrested by British authorities and released.
Al-Suri returned to Afghanistan in 1998 after the Taliban takeover to escape what he thought was increased scrutiny by British intelligence. He initially directed a training camp for bin Laden schooling Arab jihadists, and in April 2000 he swore bayat to Taliban leader Mullah Umar and was charged with establishing a Taliban military camp, al-Ghuraba (“The Aliens”), at the Taliban’s Kargha military base for training sleeper cells made up of Muslims from all over Europe and the US. He was also involved in WMD training at the Durunta training complex near Jalalabad.

Safely back in Afghanistan, al-Suri began producing a series of strategic studies of the global jihad movement, including a detailed and frank analysis of the Taliban regime, which, according to Lia, concluded that “despite some weaknesses, must be considered a true Islamic Emirate, and the only true Islamic State on the planet” (p. 10).

It is during this critical period in the life of the jihadist movement and al-Suri’s career that he began reevaluating al-Qaeda’s tactics and began questioning the direction of the group’s leadership. One of the most telling indicators of the shift in his thinking is an email sent by al-Suri and his associate Muhammad al-Bahayah to bin Laden in July 1999, which was discovered when a reporter covering the fall of the Taliban regime in November 2001, Alan Cullison, unknowingly purchased an al-Qaeda official’s laptop that had been left behind in the evacuation of Kabul. The email is reprinted in Cullison’s September 2004 article in The Atlantic, Inside Al-Qaeda’s Hard Drive.

In al-Suri’s email, he expresses frustration with bin Laden’s obsession with international publicity and the danger that it posed to their Taliban safe haven by attracting the attention of Western authorities. “I think our brother has caught the disease of screens, flashes, fans, and applause,” the pair wrote. Disagreements notwithstanding, when suspicions were raised about a fracture within al-Qaeda, al-Suri appeared on al-Jezeera TV in 2000 to dismiss the rumors, and he still served among the highest ranking officials within al-Qaeda.

But the 9/11 attacks changed the playing field for al-Qaeda and for al-Suri’s thinking on the future of the global jihadist movement in particular. Some intelligence reports place him at the July 2001 “Tarragona Summit” in Spain when Mohammad Atta met with al-Qaeda officials to complete instructions for the 9/11 attacks. Ominously, in December 2004 after it was announced that the US government had put a $5 million bounty on al-Suri’s head and listed him as one of the top five wanted al-Qaeda leaders, he posted on his website a denial of his involvement in the 9/11 attacks and offered his assessment of how weapons of mass destruction should have been included in the planning:

I – along with millions of other Muslims – enjoyed watching the beginning of the collapse of America…if I had been consulted about this operation, I would have advised them to select aircraft on international flights and to have put weapons of mass destruction aboard them. Attacking America with weapons of mass destruction was – and still is – a difficult and complicated matter, but it is still a possibility in the end, if Allah permits us. More importantly, it is becoming a necessity…Let the American people – those who voted for killing, destruction, the looting of other nations’ wealth, megalomania, and the desire to control others – be contaminated with radiation! We apologize for the radioactive fallout.

In the wake of the American response to the 9/11 attacks and the fall of the Taliban, al-Suri’s prediction of the end of their Afghan safe haven was realized. For three years he was on the run, alternating hiding places between Iran and Pakistan before his capture last November. According to his December 2004 statement, he claimed he had not seen bin Laden since November 2001, at which time he pledged bayat to the al-Qaeda leader.

During that time in exile, he reassessed the global jihad strategy and reworked his tactical masterplan, Call for a Global Islamic Resistance. What his post-9/11 experience had taught him was that the standard tactic used against the Soviets of drawing them into a protracted conflict in a Muslim territory and waging a war of attrition was now futile. Not only had the American military learned the lessons from the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan by working with indigenous opposition forces, the overwhelming US airpower decimated the ranks of the al-Qaeda fighters. The muhajadin strategy was suicidal against the US.

What the situation demanded, and what al-Suri proposed when he republished his 1,600 page revised version of Call for a Global Islamic Resistance in 2004, was a dramatic restructuring of the global jihad. According to Lia,

Al-Suri concluded that in the post 9/11 era territorial consolidation and guerrilla warfare from fixed bases in rugged terrain is impossible. A new Afghanistan is unimaginable, at least in the short term. Instead, the future jihadist war must be led by small decentalised, mobile units operating completely independently of any centralised organization. (p. 16)

The changes recommended by al-Suri in his “individualized terrorism” strategy include:

Identifying the weaknesses of past strategies, especially the reliance on safe havens, like Afghanistan, Iraq and Sudan.
Understanding the vulnerability of the current hierarchical model and moving to an independent, decentralized structure for operations.
Reorienting the emphasis from confrontation in one particular country to a regional goal of pushing Western forces out of the Muslim world.
Requiring that all cells be financially self-sustaining to reduce the risk of detection.
Recognizing that the global jihad should no longer be the exclusive domain of an Islamic vanguard, but should be responsibility of the entire Islamic ummah. Jihad should be open to Muslims everywhere, and not limited to one group or set of leaders.
Expanding the operational parameters beyond the Middle East to create a global theatre of terror.

What is perhaps most important about the shift in al-Suri’s doctrine of jihad is his advocacy for jihadists to impose a “template of terror” in their actions worldwide, as Lia explains:

Al-Suri’s slogan is: nizam, la tanzim, ‘System, not organisation’. In other words, there should be ‘an operative system’ or template, available anywhere for anybody, wishing to participate in the global jihad either on his own or with a small group of trusted associates, and there should not exist any ‘organisation for operations’…The glue in this highly decentralised movement is nothing else than ‘a common aim, a common doctrinal program and a comprehensive (self-) educational program’. (p. 17)

Al-Suri’s “template of terror” and “individualized terrorism” is what has been used in the post-9/11 al-Qaeda attacks in Bali, Istanbul, Madrid and London. In the case of bombings in Madrid and London, this new strategy has been put into practice effectively in the West. Evidence indicates that these operations were under the direct oversight of al-Suri. Documents recovered after the March 11, 2004 Madrid train bombings, which left 191 innocent civilians dead, indicate that al-Suri not only had direct control of the operation and ordered the action to immediately precede the Spanish parliamentary elections, but he also planned a second wave of suicide bombings in Spain – a plan that was foiled when Spanish authorities trapped the bombers in their hideout, where they blew themselves up rather than surrendering.

Spanish intelligence authorities also recovered evidence in the wake of the Madrid massacre that al-Suri was planning an action in the UK and reported such to British intelligence at least four months before the 7/7 bombings in London last summer. Needless to say, despite the advanced warning of al-Suri’s plans, British officials were not successful in defusing the threat. Immediately after the 7/7 bombings, Western intelligence agencies were already acknowledging al-Suri’s role in the attack, as reports from the London Times and the Chicago Tribune indicate.

The Madrid and London attacks are both textbook examples of al-Suri’s “template of terror” strategy, and probably foreshadow the kind of attacks to be launched in the future against the US. In his last public statement before his capture published in August 2005, al-Suri stated his hope to see these kinds of operations conducted in the American heartland:

We also have mujahidden living amongst you. We will unleash the mujahideen to detonate themselves amongst you so that you will all taste the death and terror that you have forced on all of our people, including targeting women and children…In short, and in a sincere way, we would like to tell the Americans and their European allies that we will never obey you…Do you really understand why so many people are so excited to become human bombs and blow you up?

Despite his capture and detention (hopefully he is experiencing the kind hospitality that the CIA is well-known for), al-Suri’s legacy as the architect of the new global jihad extends far into the foreseeable future. I suggest there are four identifiable reasons why this is so:

Al-Suri has trained through his studies, manuals, sermon tapes and instructional videos, as well as his tenure directing al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan, a new generation of terrorists, what one analyst has called “the Third Generation of Salafi-Jihadists”. The breadth of training he has provided this new generation is stunning in its scope: media relations, tactical operations, organizational structure, long-term strategy and planning, and individual disciplines critical for the future of jihad (guerilla warfare, explosives engineering, WMD, etc.).
He has rightly identified the best method for advancing the cause of Jihad by recognizing America’s special vulnerability to his “individualized terrorism” tactics. And because of the decentralized nature of the sleeper cells that he himself has planted, most, if not all, of the details about these cells waiting for activation in Europe and the US are unknown to him and may not be exposed no matter how much interrogation he is subject to. In many respects, he prepared al-Qaeda for his own capture.
When reading his writings, it is clear that in recent years his attitude towards the West – particularly Britain and the US – had degenerated into an unbalanced rage. This is reflected in the terror methods he advocates: terror is no longer a means, but an end in itself. He recommends terror for terror’s sake. It might be a difficult contention for Americans to swallow and to look at objectively, but even the 9/11 attacks had concrete strategic value beyond terror: the attacks were aimed at destabilizing our governmental, military and economic institutions, which it accomplished to varying degrees (more economic, less governmental and martial). But bombing a school bus, shooting up a shopping mall, or bombing a church in middle America solely has terror as its objective. Terrorism is no longer to change American policy, but for perceived blood vengeance.
The one area that should be a concern for all Americans is the shift in al-Qaeda strategy related to WMD represented by al-Suri and the technical training he has provided. Just last year, al-Suri posted a 15-page “how-to” instructional pamphlet entitled Biological Weapons on his website. As one WMD terrorism analyst has observed, “Al-Suri, in a sense, has departed from the current strategy of al-Qaeda’s traditional leadership. Al-Qaeda’s leadership has been primarily concerned with providing the justification for jihadis to use WMD, while al-Suri advances this to actively advocating CBRN weapons as essential to the ‘end-game’ strategy.” Al-Suri has shifted the debate from seeing WMD as one of many options for al-Qaeda to use to WMD as a key component to victory of jihad against the US, going so far as to say that their use is “a necessity”.

The capture of al-Suri is a significant accomplishment for the US, but in realistic terms, it might have done nothing to mitigate the threat from his sleeper cell network which may begin operations on their own without activation by al-Qaeda. As the architect of the new global jihad, through the execution and improvement of his “individualized terrorism” and “template of terror”, along with his ideological shift regarding the use of WMD, Americans may experience the victims of al-Suri’s legacy for many years, or even many generations, to come.

The Decline of Western Civilization, Part 1

2006-07-14T01:42:00.000-05:00

I was watching Late Night with Conan O'Brien this evening when I encountered perhaps the most telling sign of the decline of Western Civilization I have ever been witness to - David Lee Roth singing Van Halen tunes to country music. "Jamie's Crying" played to a banjo, steel guitar, fiddle, mandolin, the whole works. I wish I was lying.

Is nothing sacred anymore!!!!

Apparently, Roth has cut an entire album, Strummin' With the Devil: The Southern Side of Van Halen, filled with this sacrilege. What's more, various country artists have joined his Satanic coven to defile these sacred tunes. May David Lee Roth and his record company executives rot in the deepest bowels of Rock N' Roll Hell for such blasphemy!

Thoughts on Gothic, Part 1

2006-07-07T11:09:00.000-05:00

(Note: This is something I wrote for a book project several years ago. I ran across it in my files and thought it worthy of a reprint, with a few modifications. Also, see this previous post taken from my unpublished devotional using encounters with Gothic cathedrals as an allegory for life.)

Among the few remaining cultural glories of the Age of Christendom are medieval Gothic cathedrals. Having had the opportunity over the years to visit dozens of cathedrals all over the globe, I recall those magnificent structures, with their spires, windows, statues and gargoyles, and have concluded that a Gothic cathedral is a vivid expression of resisting the tyranny of the urgent. Towering above the city skylines, cathedrals are a testament to the slow, deliberate, long-range thinking of the medieval mind. Built with painstaking precision and incredibly complex detail, their edifices rose at a painstakingly protracted pace, generation after generation.

Standing almost a thousand year after they began to appear, it is safe to say that they are the antithesis to our fast-food, disposable culture – they took forever to build, and when finished, they were impossible to get rid of. Because of the awful physics of the project, the cathedral builders had to be equally mindful of both the means and the end. Any shortcut would eventually have catastrophic consequences, possibly costing many lives and undoing hundreds of years of work. Patience and safety were the order every single day.

But there is more than the mechanics and science of it all. There is the psychology of cathedral-building. Every successful cathedral project, including the modern-day Gothic revival churches, required astonishing leadership ability. It took remarkable people skills to build ongoing support in a community to initiate and sustain a project that the original participants, their children, their children’s children, and several generations after that would never see to completion. The organizer of the project, whether it was a bishop, an abbot, or an architect, had to be spiritual leader, project manager, financier, cheerleader, and intergenerational visionary all rolled up into one. They had to make such a dramatic impact in their time to propel the project into the future with such a force that successive generations would pick up the ball and run. The cathedral-builders had to not only cast a vision, they had to literally build the foundations for it. The talent, time and resources necessary for building a cathedral meant that many who tried, failed.

Motivating these leaders was a worldview that wanted to proclaim an inspiring vision of God and an understanding of man’s role in the universe. They wanted to display eternal truths, beauty and art. They sought to make a powerful statement about their ideas and understanding of human existence. These medieval visionaries believed that these radical buildings were symbolic representations of an ordered reality. Furthermore, the cathedral-builders intended their work to be a monumental protest against the prevalent ideas of that time.

The appearance of the cathedrals was a revolt against the Romanesque style that dominated Europe. Rather than being places to display art, such as mosaics and tapestries, the cathedral itself was the art. It was also a massive insubordinate statement of the metaphysical views of the day. The high, upward thrust of the walls was intended to defy gravity, allowing the worshipper to transcend earthly existence to heavenly reality. The walls of glass represented the power of the spiritual world to penetrate the material. Light, seen as absolute truth, was not intended to shine on objects to merely illuminate them; instead, the light of truth would penetrate the walls of our hearts from all directions, to transform and change it. The truth was not subject to our judgments of how it was to shine in our lives; rather, it passed through us regardless and leaves its reflection in a multitude of colors.

As Jean Gimpel notes in his book, The Cathedral Builders, more stone was quarried in France during the 13th Century for cathedrals than for all the pyramid-building at Giza. The architecture of the cathedral, much like the enormity of the pyramids or the extravagant grandeur of Versailles, was intended as propaganda. But the cathedral-builders contradicted the spirit of the Egyptian pharaohs and the French Sun King, because they were marketing, not the vanity and brilliance of man, but the glory of God and His perfect and proportionate attributes reflected in the created order. And they determined to fashion the building with God’s own materials – stone and light.

The medieval visionaries wanted to put our lives in perspective to the divine. Anyone who has walked into Notre Dame de Paris, Cologne, Westminster Abbey, St. Paul’s, or the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C. understands that they are entering sacred space. They created a clear-cut distinction between our everyday lives and entering into eternity. Cathedrals are a backhanded statement about our mortality. We all have a beginning and an end, with the tombs and crypts of previous generations in the cathedral itself serving as an unmistakable witness to that fact. The world we live in is bigger than any of us. But there is a role for us in the eternal order of things if we would only look up and realize our place and come to terms with the purpose of our lives. It is an experience only comparable to viewing the staggering geography of the Grand Canyon; or gazing at the supreme heights of the Rocky Mountains; or watching the powerful shaping energy of the waves of the Pacific Ocean. That was the intent – to take your breath away and to place you into eternal perspective.

Cathedrals are also a profound statement about the medievalist view of the future. And at best, the project would take a lifetime to complete (Salisbury Cathedral being one of the few completed within one lifetime). The more ambitious the program, the further it extended plans into the future and grew more distant from the planners themselves. The commitment and time frames involved are unparalleled in the field of human endeavors. Thus, it required tremendous assurances in the ability to train and pass off the project to their progeny. In glaring contrast to our era of just-in-time delivery, the construction of a cathedral took incredible foresight and dedication on the planners and builders. As the German poet, Heinrich Heine, noted: “In the Middle Ages, they had convictions, whereas we moderns today only have opinions; and it takes more than opinions to build a Gothic cathedral.”

The Gothic cathedral is an excellent allegory for leadership. At the very beginning, you must have a plan. Failing to develop a strategy inevitably leads to little being accomplished. Then you need solid foundations sufficient to bear the weight of the building. If you are not grounded in your first principles, what you are attempting to build will begin to sink and become unstable. And as the walls grew higher, there had to be buttresses to support the downward pressures that would otherwise crush the structure. Remove the supports of family, friends and faith from a leader, and the gravity of circumstances will merely do its job and bring things crashing down.

And finally, you need time. Any attempt to rush the project of your life is flirting with disaster. If you want to build something that will really last, you can’t be constantly consumed with the here-and-now. As a leader, you must always have an eye on the future while simultaneously working in the present. You have to be both visionary and strategist. You have to know where you are going and how you intend to get there. And you have to take the time to find suitable ground to do your work. Anything less will mean that you will end your life with a pile of rubble. But getting the mixture right will mean that you have an incredible legacy that will serve as an example for future generations.

Reflections on the American National Spirit (reprint)

2006-07-02T21:51:00.000-05:00

NOTE: In commemoration of our nation's 230th birthday, I am reprinting here a creative writing piece I published a few months ago. It still seems appropriate. Happy Fourth of July! - P

I was recently reading an article by Victor Davis Hanson, Has Ahmadinejad Miscalculated?, regarding the ongoing pot-banging by the Iranian ayatollahs’ current political stooge, Iranian President Ahmadinejad. We offer our congratulations to the Iranians for their recent nuclear achievements. We’re glad that you’ve joined the 20th Century now that we are in the 21st, and that you’ve been able to replicate the accomplishments of an American generation that has largely passed into history. We must note, however, that you were only able to reach this goal by using American methods and using our own technology. At best, the rest of the world can only imitate America.

I’ve always appreciated Hanson’s understanding of ancient and modern warfare. But what struck me was something he said towards the end of the piece. He wrote:

Ever since September 11, the subtext of this war could be summed up as something like, “Suburban Jason, with his iPod, godlessness, and earring, loves to live too much to die, while Ali, raised as the 11th son of an impoverished but devout street-sweeper in Damascus, loves death too much to live.” The Iranians, like bin Laden, promulgate this mythical antithesis, which, like all caricatures, has elements of truth in it. But what the Iranians, like the al Qaedists, do not fully fathom, is that Jason, upon concluding that he would lose not only his iPod and earring, but his entire family and suburb as well, is capable of conjuring up things far more frightening than anything in the 8th-century brain of Mr. Ahmadinejad. Unfortunately, the barbarity of the nightmares at Antietam, Verdun, Dresden, and Hiroshima prove that well enough.

In these few sentences Hanson captures the essence of the American national ethos. Americans are by nature decadent, rebellious, brash and reckless – we always have been. But history has recorded time and again that when America has been threatened and attacked, from the deepest recesses of the American heartland rises a fierce response prepared to let slip the dogs of war to hound its enemies into submission or oblivion.

This national spirit is something we need to remind ourselves of occasionally; and quite honestly, it is something we have tucked away like an old nostalgic remembrance that we only bring out on flag-waving occasions, like during the Gulf War or after the 9/11 attacks. We live in a troubled time when patriotism is mocked more than celebrated; vices are indulged and virtues are forgotten; heroism and sacrifice replaced with self-interest and inaction. That notwithstanding, the national ethos that Hanson identifies still is in the lifeblood pumped by the heart of America. It is woven into the very fabric of American life itself; it is in our civic institutions; it is in our politics; it resides in its people. The fire of the American spirit can be doused, but never extinguished.

The sense of steely determination in the face of terrible odds and fierce enemies has been in the American bloodline since the beginning. In the dark days when General George Washington and his men were struggling for survival, Thomas Paine would write these stirring words of encouragement in The Crisis:

These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but "to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER" and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God.
These are indeed the times that try men’s souls. Our faith in America’s founding spirit is waning. Critics from all sides express their doubts in loud, whining tones and wring their hands in self-imposed grief at the present state of affairs, all while America’s men and women in uniform live day-to-day in harm’s way in the furthest reaches of the globe to extend freedom to peoples who not long ago were (and some who still are) our enemies. These critics are the summertime soldiers and the sunshine patriots of our day.

Yet it is the weary and wounded men at arms fighting for their lives from disease and the cold that would gamble America’s future on crossing the icy Delaware just days after Paine’s words were first published and capture the Hessian garrison at Trenton, reversing the trend of constant defeat and forced retreat for the embattled colonial troops. George Washington, the Father of our Country, understood the value of risking all to take the battle to our enemies. In the years that followed, America’s hard-won victories and tragic defeats that followed in the War for Independence would eventually win our nation’s freedom. And when the final victory at Yorktown was secured, no one begrudged the summertime soldiers and sunshine patriots from celebrating as well. Even so, few could name any of those colonial naysayers today. America loves the winner.

It isn’t unusual for Americans to lose their way, though Providence has a way of forcing events upon us to remind us of who we are as Americans. These events are the adrenaline that gets the heart pumping our lifeblood to the body politic once again.

As I’ve thought about Hanson’s essay over the past few weeks I have been reminded of two historical incidents (though there are many to choose from) that I think captures the two-sided nature of the American national spirit.

The date of the first event is September 13, 1814. It is an event that we commemorate every time that we sing our national anthem. However, many Americans forget the circumstances surrounding the British assault on Fort McHenry in the misnamed War of 1812. Just weeks before the attack on Baltimore, the British had sailed up the Potomac and put Washington D.C. to the torch, forcing President James Madison and his Cabinet to flee for their lives. The burning of Washington in August 1814 was a demonstration of British military power intended to show America’s military impotency. The British quickly sailed to capture the strategic port of Baltimore to issue the coup de grace and bring America to its knees and back under the dominion of the British crown.

This is the plan that America’s enemies had in mind.

But the British miscalculated. They didn’t underestimate the number of men or firepower of the American troops huddled inside Fort McHenry; it was the spirit and resolve of the American forces that the British misjudged.

The British landed a large force at North Point and advanced within sight of the city of Baltimore. The British command intended to sail their fleet up to Fort McHenry and literally pull out their big guns and pound the American forces into submission and surrender and press in to take the rest of the town. On the morning of September 13, 1814, the British Navy began the most intense bombardment ever unleashed in the history of human warfare up to that time against the huddled defenders of Fort McHenry – a bombardment that would continue through the day and well into the night.

Francis Scott Key was an accidental observer to these events. He and a friend had approached the British under a flag of truce to secure the release of an elderly doctor that had been captured and accused of giving aid to some British deserters. As they negotiated with British officials for their friend’s release they became privy to the battle plans of the British and were held onboard one of the ships as a precaution until the British had secured their victory. Even though Key would only observe the bombardment from a ship distant from the battle, the rockets, bombs and flares of the ferocious attack on the American defenders could clearly be seen from miles away.

Using their superior long-range cannons, the British fleet attacked Fort McHenry beyond the effective range of the American guns. The only American weapon was courage and resolve as the massive bombardment continued. When the shelling stopped at 1 a.m., the dark prevented any view of the American battlement. Key and the other American observers down river would have to wait until morning to see who had won the victory. Those hours of waiting must have tried their souls. They surely must have thought that the awesome firepower of the British fleet had prevailed against the outmanned and outgunned Americans. But the darkness held out the possibility of hope. Maybe the men at Fort McHenry had been able to withstand the British fury.

When dawn finally came, what a sight Francis Scott Key would see: the Americans inside Fort McHenry had taken down their standard storm flag and raised a new massive flag in its place, telling the world of the American ability to withstand the mightiest blow that its enemies could strike and that England’s best was still not enough to prevail. Even though the British had just burned our public buildings in Washington to the ground, the commander at Fort McHenry had the larger flag prepared in anticipation of an American victory. This sign of the triumph of the American spirit was Key's inspiration as he sat down to pen those immortal words familiar to every American heart.

Raising that flag – that Star-Spangled Banner we can still see today at the Smithsonian Museum – was a haughty gesture, but one completely in line with the American national spirit. It was like General Patton pissing in the Rhine as he and the crusading American forces were storming into Germany on the verge of crushing our Axis enemies. On that day in Baltimore Harbor, America had taken the most savage beating ever unleashed in the history of warfare from the greatest military power in the world – and won. How utterly American.

We should remember that at the time of the siege of Fort McHenry, the British had Napoleon imprisoned on Elba, and that a year later after his escape they would finally vanquish Bonaparte at Waterloo. The great Napoleon was defeated; America was victorious. American courage and resolve alone had won the victory that brave day on the Chesapeake. This is what our national anthem means when we sing, “O say can you see by the dawn’s early light…”.

Yet it means even more than that. When we sing that immortal refrain, “O say does that Star Spangled Banner yet wave o’er the land of the free and the home of the brave,” we should remember what that Key’s question is rhetorical: he urges us to recall that, yes, the flag still waves and Americans remain free and brave. It means you can burn down our Capitol and White House and send our elected officials fleeing, but the American spirit will allow us to take your best shot and overcome. As long as Americans remain on the field of battle, the American spirit will remain. Through the darkness we remember, just like Francis Scott Key, that hope remains for America, because our most potent weapon has always been Americans themselves.

I think it’s for this reason that Americans love a good fight. Raising the Star-Spangled Banner that day recalled the spirit of Leonidas and the Spartans at Thermopylae responding to the Persian King Xerxes demands to lay down their arms, telling the innumerable Persian foe that faced them, “MOLON LABE” (“Come and get them!”) Americans have been known to scour the world looking to join the other’s fights when we didn’t have our own to occupy us. We think of Davy Crockett and his Tennessee Volunteers arriving at the Alamo spoiling for a fight. And when all looked hopeless, Crockett, the Volunteers and the rest of the men of the Alamo didn’t flee. They had the American spirit. They knew that there are things more valuable than life and leisure; and that death and defeat could not measure up to disgrace and dishonor by abandoning hope in the face of our enemies.

This is the testimony of the Americans who died at the Alamo. And the Marines at Wake Island. And the passengers of United Airlines Flight 93 on 9/11. They weren’t fighting to beat the odds; they were fighting because they refused to abandon the American spirit. At certain times in our history, all Americans have had left to fight with is their refusal – telling our enemies in desperate hours and deadly circumstances that they would not go gently into that good night. And laying down their lives, they knew there was hope because Americans remained. Their respective sacrifices were not the abandonment of hope, but the preservation of it. Those American heroes believed that the battle would be won and invested their lives in that hope. Through the darkness and doubt, hope remains for America.

The American spirit allows us to see our most prominent commercial and military buildings destroyed in acts of terror, killing thousands on our own soil on 9/11. And yet in ninety days our enemies that attacked us were forced to hide and fight in caves in the most remote point on the planet trying to survive the American fury. They had taken their shot at us and won a symbolic victory. But they miscalculated about the mettle of the American spirit, and most of them have paid with their lives, thanks be to God. That spirit of taking the best shot America’s enemies can deliver is what inspired the men at Fort McHenry: burn down our Capital if you can, because in short order we will chase you into the sea and out of America forever. You may give us your best shot but we will unleash the furies of Hell against you in due course.

America’s battles have been won because there is a parallel element to the American spirit. This added element to our national character is what brought to mind the second event that I recalled after reading Hanson’s essay. The date I have in mind is April 18, 1942. Just months before the worldwide furies of nationalism and fascism set their sights on America with the intention of taking her down and neutralizing her to end any opposition to their plans of worldwide domination.

The Japanese Empire struck their first blow on December 7, 1941 by raiding Pearl Harbor. Almost 2,500 American servicemen and civilians were killed that day, along with the destruction of most of our Pacific fleet. Almost sixty-five years later, the USS Arizona still lies in Pearl Harbor as a tomb for her crew. But our three Pacific aircraft carriers survived, and so did the American spirit. Through the darkness, hope remained.

Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, who planned the assault and led the Japanese forces in the Pearl Harbor attack, was aware of this. Even as his planes returned hailing their decisive victory, Yamamoto warned his staff, "I fear that we have awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve." As a shrewd commander, he knew the character of his American adversary. Yamamoto knew more about the American spirit than many Americans themselves that dark day. Events like these force us to remember who we are and what we represent to the world.

The attack on Pearl Harbor brought to Americans clarity of vision by exposing the degree of threat posed by their enemies. Much like Hanson observes, it wasn’t just America’s international interests that were being attacked by the fascists Axis Powers – it was the way of American life itself that the enemy was determined to destroy. And Americans from every corner of the country and every walk of life rose to fight America’s battle on behalf of the free world. It was not America’s martial might that was released against our enemies; it was the American spirit itself. The country’s resources and industry were dedicated to retaking the initiative from our enemies, and this is precisely what Yamamoto rightly feared. Within months, the engines of American industry were put to the war effort and millions of American warriors were flung to the farthest reaches of the globe to defeat our enemies. Having taken their best shot against America, Yamamoto knew even then at the beginning of the conflict that the American spirit would prevail.

Still bruised and broken from the Pearl Harbor attack, America’s leaders drew deep from the well of our national spirit and approved a plan to take the battle to our enemies and to demonstrate the American resolve to win the war that had been thrust upon us. Less than a month after the attack, a cavalier Army Air Corps Lt. Colonel, Jimmy Doolittle, formulated a strategy to attack the Japanese homeland. The plan, however, was risky and would require that American technology and the flight crews themselves would be pushed to their very limits and beyond. The mission could easily end in total failure and death for all the personnel participating in the raid. One of the three aircraft carriers that had avoided destruction on December 7th would also be put in jeopardy. The B-25s that were used had never been launched from an aircraft carrier, and there was no margin for error as the planes took off. The risks were enormous, but it would be a perfect opportunity to demonstrate to our enemies and to ourselves the American national spirit. In a decision that reflects what is best and true about the American national spirit, just like George Washington crossing the Delaware, they took the gamble.

The stakes were raised even higher on April 18, 1942 when the carrier bearing Doolittle's sixteen B-25B bombers was spotted by a Japanese ship. One day and 200 miles away from their scheduled launching point, Doolittle decided to launch the attack. Flying 650 miles in single-file formation at wave top altitude, the American bombers reached the Japanese coast. In broad daylight, Americans were able to bomb the Japanese cities of Yokohama, Kobe, Osaka, Nagoya and the imperial city of Tokyo.

To any other country, such a raid would have been seen as foolish, unnecessarily risky and a likely failure. But as American bombs rained down on the Japanese that day, just weeks after suffering a stinging defeat at Pearl Harbor, America was delivering an unmistakable message to its enemies: we will bring the war home to you. That’s the American way.

Bombing Tokyo wasn’t a symbolic victory for America; it was a foretaste for the Japanese people of the fury that was to follow. Jimmy Doolittle and his raiders weren’t out to inflict revenge; they came as harbingers of reckoning. Taking the battle to our enemies is what Americans do. While the French national motto since the time of Napoleon has been, “Je me rends” (I surrender), the American national motto since our struggle for first freedom and independence has been, “Don’t Tread On Me!” The Japanese Empire learned first-hand that attacking America has fatal consequences. Strike us and we will apply our greatest minds to find ways to unlock even nature’s deepest secrets, as we did with the atomic bomb, to rain fire and death upon you.

The Doolittle Raid is a consummate example of the second element of the American spirit. Yes, Americans can take the worse blows that our enemies have to offer, just like we did at Fort McHenry. It is something we remember and celebrate. But our enemies who dare to tread on us should remember that in the end, we will bring the battle home to you.

And Americans never forget their blood-debt. Yamamoto found this out himself on April 18, 1943, one year after Doolittle’s Raid, when a squadron of American P-38s flew 430 miles under radio silence and caught up with his aircraft, shooting it down and killing Yamamoto.

This was the message we delivered to the world after 9/11 when we forcibly deposed the Taliban Islamic theocracy in Afghanistan and Saddam’s Baathist thugocracy in Iraq. Our enemies should recall that what the Soviet Union was not able to accomplish in ten years in Afghanistan, the United States of America pulled off in the matter of weeks. In Iraq, our military strategists developed and our soldiers executed a plan that left the largest Arab army in the world no other option than to go home rather than fight the invading American foe in open battle. It seems they learned from our American military’s last visit to the region. For that reason alone it was appropriate for President Bush and the entire country to greet the returning sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln and the soldiers who fought their way to Baghdad with the words, “Mission Accomplished!”

Yes, some of America’s fighting men and women lost their lives in the rush to Baghdad and Kabul. Some are still the targets and victims of terrorists and cowardly murderers today. Flag-draped coffins are the awful price we pay for our freedoms, but it has always been a price that Americans have been willing to pay. Each one of our war dead is an irreplaceable loss; but they are not irreplaceable because they were young or left families behind. They were irreplaceable because they were Americans willing to fight America’s battles. What better memorial to the American spirit do we have than these men and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice to take the battle to our enemies?

As we are in a period of doubt regarding the progress of the Global War on Terror, we would do well to remember that America has always been plagued by cranks and cowards – those faithless souls whose iniquity in not losing faith in America, but losing faith in themselves as Americans. Regardless, we should never lose our faith. Even when Congress was considering the recognition of The Star-Spangled Banner in the early 20th Century, there were voices calling our great national anthem a “hymn of hate”. The summer soldiers and the sunshine patriots are always with us, whether they are retired armchair generals or craven moonbat politicians, singing their siren songs enticing us to crash upon the rocks of self-doubt, retreat and inaction. For our own sake, we should stay the course and steer clear of those waters.

America’s enemies should not take any comfort at what the cranks and cowards have to say. Islamists should remember the fate of their predecessors, the Fascists and the Communists, who were swept up into the waste bin of history by Americans. The sunshine patriots could be heard back then, too. And Iranians should remember that no matter how far they develop their nuclear capability that we have some old scores to settle with them as well. Jimmy Carter is no longer President and Iran has a blood debt still left to pay from attacks on Americans from Beirut to the Khobar Towers – and America has every intention of collecting on that debt. We always remember the wounds inflicted by our enemies and will repay at the hour of our own choosing.

The American spirit resides deep within our national soul: moral reckoning is our inspiration and war is in our life-blood. Americans should not ever doubt that the rest of the world marvels at our restraint, even though our enemies mistake our restraint for weakness – a mistake they make at their own peril. It is an everlasting testament to the rightness of America’s cause that at the height of our military power at the end of World War Two in sole possession of the most awesome weapon of destruction ever created by mankind that Americans didn’t blink when we disbanded our armies and sent the American legions home to live and work in peace. As former Secretary of State Colin Powell has said, when America has fought its wars on foreign soil, all America has ever asked for is enough land to bury our dead. The long list of countries that have had their freedom secured through American military might over the past two centuries should shame our loudest international critics and quiet our domestic sunshine patriots. Honest historians will never chronicle the story of an American Empire.

We must keep in our hearts daily the American soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen living in harm’s way all over the world. They fly the skies in Afghanistan; they patrol the deadly streets of Iraq; they keep in the peace in the Balkans; they sail the Taiwan Straits; they man the line along the 38th Parallel on the Korean Peninsula. America doesn’t have the largest army in the world or the largest navy. From the beginning America has known that it is not strength of arms alone that will secure victory; the America warrior and the heart that beats within him is why we will win the war against terror. And the American warrior is guided by the American national spirit. In war, America is protecting of the innocent; generous to our friends and allies; and merciless to our enemies, yet magnanimous in victory.

For two-hundred and thirty years, this has been the essence of the American national spirit and the heart of American war policy: we will take your best shot and we will bring the battle home to you. And America never forgets its blood-debt. As long as there are Americans left to fight our battles, our enemies should tremble in fear. I thank Victor Davis Hanson for reminding me of it. In this time of uncertainty and doubt about the progress of the Global War on Terror, it is something that both we and our enemies would do well to remember.

Terror from the North

2006-06-14T04:39:00.000-05:00

(Perfect timing alert: With all the heat I've been taking today from the Canucks for my FPM article (discussed below), I thought the announcement today that Iraqi Shiite Ayatollah Sistani has issued a fatwa telling Muslims not to attack Canada to be very timely. Do you believe he did this because the Canadians are more friendly, or less friendly, to America's cause? Needless to say, I think it's the latter. )

My new article, Terror from the North, headlines today at FrontPageMag.com. It describes the Canadian complicity in the al-Qaeda Millennium plot to blow up LAX. I also had another Canadian-related terrorism article published last week I never mentioned here, Canadian Blindness to Terror. It discusses the connection between the men arrested two weeks ago in the Toronto area who had purchased three tons of ammonium nitrate (more than three times that used in the Oklahoma City bombing) to wage jihad, and the Khadr family, described by some experts as the "First Family of Canadian Terrorism".

UPDATE: Thanks to the National Terror Alert Resource Center for the plug.

Rome Getting It Right on Islam, Part 2

2006-06-13T02:35:00.000-05:00

Back in April I posted a note, Rome Getting It Right on Islam, regarding Pope Benedict's efforts to raise awareness about the growing Islamist threat. Then in May, there were several reports about comments made by the Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal George Pell, in a speech he delivered to a group in Naples, Florida, challenging the supposed tolerance in Islam, saying that "In my own reading of the Koran, I began to note down the invocations to violence. There are so many of them, however, that I abandoned this exercise after 50 or 60 or 70 pages." Of course, the obligatory charges of "Islamophobia" and accusations of inciting "fear and hatred" were immediately forthcoming, but his comments even received the backing of Australian Prime Minister John Howard.

But now Archbishop Pell has upset the apple cart yet again in an interview he gave two weeks ago to the National Catholic Reporter (the whole interview is worth the read). Pell is not only restating his charge that the Koran incites violence against unbelievers, but he is also questioning whether so-called "moderate" Muslims can be faithful to the Koran and challenging one of the chief doctrines of the "Golden Age of Islam" myth by claiming that "[i]t's difficult to find periods of tolerance in Islam. I'm not saying they're not there, but a good deal of what is asserted is mythical."

To the priests of multiculturalism, this is heresy. To Muslims, it is inflammatory and makes Pell deserving of death. But Archbishop Pell is telling the truth. God bless him for it. And those who know me would testify that I am one of the last persons on the planet to be heaping praise on the Church of Rome.

That said, I am curious about the silence of US Roman Catholic officials. Why has there been no American Catholic cardinal willing to speak so bluntly about one of the primary global issues of our day? And throwing a few stones at my own glass house, why since Franklin Graham received a presidential rebuke after his "insensitive" comments about Islam after 9/11, saying that it is "wicked" and "violent", have Evangelical leaders been just as silent? Are they more concerned about currying favor with the White House and Congressional leaders, or speaking the truth to a world awash in confusion?

To his credit, Graham has been unwilling to back off his previous statements. But it seems these other so-called Evangelical leaders are willing to blather on about just any other topic than delivering the message about Islam that the world desperately needs to hear. The example of Pope Benedict and Archbishop Pell should be an example to them all.

The "Golden Age of Islam" Myth

2006-06-04T19:33:00.000-05:00

You probably first heard it in school: Islamic civilization was flourishing when Christendom was in the Dark Ages. Most of the innovations enjoyed by Westerners today were really the developments from Muslims scientists, mathematicians, astronomers, physicians, poets and philosophers. The great works of Greek philosophy destroyed by the book-burning zeolots of the early Christian Church returned to the European world through Arabic translations. Muslims invented the scientific method, birthing the Renaissance. Islamic scholars invented the numerical concept of "zero", giving rise to the digital age. Etc.

At best, these are all half-truths. More accurately, they are nothing more than fairy tales, but very popular ones defended by top scholars today.

I got thinking about the myth of the "Golden Age of Islam" after reading an article at The American Thinker by Dr. Jonathan David Carson published this past Friday, Islam, Christianity, Classical Civilization, and Modernity. The article is short, but he does make a good point about the ability of Christianity to adapt their thinking while Islam has intellectually "frozen".

But digging a bit further, I came across two additional articles by Carson:

Hyping Islam's role in the History of Science (07/29/05)

The not-so-golden age of Islamic Philosophy (08/19/05)

In the first of these articles, he offers this important quote by Bernard Lewis, the recognized dean of Islamic studies, from his book, The Muslim Discovery of Europe:

We know of no Muslim scholar or man of letters before the eighteenth century who sought to learn a western language, still less of any attempt to produce grammars, dictionaries, or other language tools. Translations are few and far between. Those that are known are works chosen for practical purposes [philosophy being considered a practical discipline] and the translations are made by converts [who knew western languages before conversion] or non-Muslims.

Carson notes that not a single translation of Aristotle from Arabic to Latin was performed by a Muslim. Instead, they were prepared by Christian and Jewish scholars. However, most of Aristotle's corpus in Latin did not come through Arabic, rather, they were translated directly from the Greek. And for Plato, the only work of his to be translated into Arabic (The Republic), was never translated back into Latin from that source.

In the second cited article, he says:

Access “for western scholars to the great classics of Greece and Rome by their translation into Arabic, from which they were rendered into European languages” almost always means access to a Latin translation of an Arabic translation of a Syriac translation of a Greek text. Sometimes it means access to a Latin translation of an Arabic translation of a Hebrew translation of a Greek text. It can even mean access to a Latin translation of a Hebrew translation of an Arabic translation of a Syriac translation of a Greek text. Only on rare occasions does it mean access to a Latin translation of an Arabic translation of a Greek text.

This is an important discussion. Carson provides detailed evidence that refutes the post-modern scholars who are attempting to rewrite history in an effort to discredit medieval (and thus, current) Christianity.

One modern Muslim scholar, Yasser Latif Hamdani, has written a short article, Myths about the Golden Age of Islam, directed at other Muslims who are hoping to revive a supposed "Golden Age of the Caliphs" - one of the ideological selling-points of radical Islamist groups, like al-Qaeda and Hizb-e-Tahrir. This addresses some of their revisionist history as well.

More on this issue later.

Hometown Jihad: Blowback

2006-05-24T02:47:00.000-05:00

UPDATE: Thanks to JihadWatch and LGF for the added coverage.

An article following up on my original Hometown Jihad article appears today again as the lead item at FrontPageMag.com, Hometown Jihad: Blowback.

Among the items covered:

1) The interview of Salah Sultan (the individual that was the focus of my original article) that appeared last week on Al-Risala TV (link to video here, thanks to MEMRI), where he stated that the 9/11 attacks were planned by the US "to enable the U.S. to control and terrorize the entire world, and to get American society to agree to the war declared on terrorism,” and defending Yemeni al-Qaeda cleric Abd Al-Majid Al-Zindani, who has been listed by the US government as a “Specially Designated Global Terrorist”.

2) The recent whitewash of Sultan's record by the Columbus Dispatch (our local paper) just days before his interview of Saudi TV: Muslim Milestone: Islamic school marks 10 years of progress, but suspicions endure.

3) Defending my original article from counterattacks made by our local Muslim school, Sunrise Academy, and the Interfaith Association of Central Ohio, who had challenged several of the claims made there.

As I say at the end of my article, FrontPageMag.com is one of the few places where individuals such as myself can get a hearing and respond to the outrageous mendacity of the mainstream media. FrontPage and its parent organization, the Center for the Study of Popular Culture (CSPC), are worthy of your support.

You heard it here first: Feds cracking down on Hezbollah

2006-05-22T23:21:00.000-05:00

Being right is an old habit of mine, just like being humble, but it seems LTC Joe Myers and I hit the nail on the head with our article last month, Hezbollah, Illegal Immigration and the Next 9/11.

According to an article in yesterday's NY Post, the Feds are cracking down on Hezbollah operations in the U.S. in anticipation of a show-down with Iran: N.Y. Hezbollah Hunt.
N.Y. HEZBOLLAH HUNT
By NILES LATHEM Post Correspondent

May 22, 2006 -- WASHINGTON - The Hezbollah terror group - one of the most dangerous in the world - may be planning to activate sleeper cells in New York and other big cities to stage an attack as the nuclear showdown with Iran heats up, sources told The Post.

The FBI and Justice Department have launched urgent new probes in New York and other cities targeting members of the Lebanese terror group.

Law-enforcement and intelligence officials told The Post that about a dozen hard-core supporters of Hezbollah have been identified in recent weeks as operating in the New York area.

Sources said the activities of these New York-based operatives are being monitored by FBI counterterrorism agents as part of a nationwide effort to prevent a possible terror strike if the confrontation with Iran over its nuclear program spins out of control.

Additional law-enforcement attention is being centered on the Iranian Mission to the United Nations, where there have already been three episodes in the last four years in which diplomats and security guards have been expelled for casing and photographing New York City subways and other potential targets.

The nationwide effort to neutralize Hezbollah sleepers in the United States, being spearheaded by the FBI and Justice Department's counterterrorism divisions, was triggered in January in response to alarming reports that Iran's fanatical president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, met with leaders of Hezbollah and other terror groups during a visit to Syria.

Among those attending the meetings, according to reliable reports, was Hezbollah's chief operational planner, Imad Mugniyah - considered one of the most dangerous terrorists in the world - who is responsible for the bombings of the 1983 U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut and who, more recently, provided Iraqi guerrillas with sophisticated explosive devices.

U.S. officials stressed there is no intelligence information pointing to an imminent attack by Hezbollah.

But officials said they have detected increased activity by Hezbollah operatives - including more heated rhetoric by its leaders and in Internet chat rooms as the U.S.-Iran diplomatic showdown heats up.

"Hezbollah is a group that the U.S. has to be concerned about in the current climate. Hezbollah is already coming under heavy pressure by the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, and Ahmadinejad is under pressure on the nuclear issue," said Walid Phares, an outside terror expert who has briefed law-enforcement officials on Hezbollah in recent weeks.

"They are well funded, very well organized, and we assume that their penetration of the U.S. is deeper than al Qaeda's. It is only rational for the U.S. to think in pre-emptive ways. An attack here is clearly in the realm of the possible," Phares added.

A U.S. counterterrorism official called the latest effort a "major undertaking," with separate probes also under way in Los Angeles, Boston and Detroit.

Hezbollah has so far limited its activities in the United States to fund-raising and criminal enterprises. The FBI has already taken down two major rings, one in Charlotte, N.C., and one in Detroit, in which members were smuggling cigarettes, Viagra and baby formula, and kicking profits back to Hezbollah.

This is one I'm not glad to be right about.

Hometown Jihad, Part 3

2006-05-22T00:25:00.000-05:00

Well, my old friend and neighbor Salah Sultan is back in the news. You might remember that he was the subject of my Hometown Jihad article back in April. And just a few weeks ago he was defended by the Columbus Dispatch, who tried to airbrush Sultan's extensive record of terrorist collaboration and anti-Semitic tirades and who likened me and FrontPageMag.com (where my article was published) to neo-Nazis for daring to make Sultan's record public. That was the subject of Hometown Jihad, Part 2 blog post.

Last week Salah Sultan appeared on Al-Risala TV in Saudi Arabia, where he enlightened the world by claiming that the 9/11 attacks were organized "to enable the U.S. to control and terrorize the entire world, and to get American society to agree to the war declared on terrorism" and defending al-Qaeda cleric and fellow 9/11 conspiracy-monger, Abd Al-Majid Al-Zindani, who has been listed by the US as a "Specially Designated Global Terrorist" and was the subject of a 2003 National Review report, Yemeni Sheikh of Hate.

Yes, the US is terrorizing the world, not Islamic jihadis.

MEMRI has provided a translation of Sultan's Al-Risala interview, and also offers a full video clip of the interview on their MEMRI TV site. Here's what Sultan had to say:

"The film 'The Siege,' starring Denzel Washington, portrayed the Muslims in a very bad light. They are shown calling for prayer, performing the ablution, praying, and then planning multiple bombings - a government building, a security agency, the FBI, a bus carrying young men and women, adults and children. They bombed shops.
"The film came out in April 1999. It paved the way for 9/11, since it was filmed in Brooklyn, New York. The truth is that immediately after 9/11, I said people should view these events in the context of 'The Siege,' because these events were identical.
"This scenario... I still believe to this day... This scenario still baffles me. I share the view of many Americans, French, and Europeans, who say that 9/11 could not have been carried out entirely from outside [the U.S.] - by Muslims or others. The confessions by some people could have been edited. But even if they were not edited, I believe that these people were used in a marginal role. The entire thing was of a large scale and was planned within the U.S., in order to enable the U.S. to control and terrorize the entire world, and to get American society to agree to the war declared on terrorism - the definition of which has not yet been determined.
"The U.S. remains the only country to determine who is a terrorist, and what is the definition for terrorism, and it can pin it on anyone. The most recent instance is the case of Dr. Al-Zindani, who has been accused of terrorism, even though he is known worldwide for his refinement, virtue, and broad horizons."

Yep, that Salah Sultan is a real moderate if I've ever seen one. I'm sure the Columbus Dispatch is going to be thrilled that the man they took to defend has been caught going off the deep end not even two weeks after their whitewash appeared.

Couldn't happen to nicer people.

Thanks to Jihadwatch.org for making me aware of the MEMRI report.

"The Project" of the Muslim Brotherhood

2006-05-11T03:25:00.000-05:00

Update (5/14/06): Thanks to LGF for plugging my article.

Back in December I posted on a document, called "The Project", recovered by Western intelligence authorities in 2001 in a raid in Switzerland. This "master plan" of the Muslim Brotherhood - the oldest Islamist organization and with one of the largest terror networks in the world - drafted by Muslim Brotherhood scholars details how Islam would culturally invade the West through immigration, escalating confrontation, terrorism, and eventual domination. What should concern every freedom-loving Westerner is that this "master plan" has been executed, and is being executed, flawlessly. More than two decades have proved the success of this plan.

Today I have another article on the topic headlining today's edition of FrontPageMag.com, The Muslim Brotherhood "Project", that also includes the entire text of "The Project", which has only appeared in English serially at The Daily Ablution. The translation accompanying my article was prepared by Scott Burgess, an American researcher and journalist who lives in London. I cited Scott's groundbreaking work in my first post and he greatly assisted me in my research for today's article.

If you want to understand the future and the escalating threat posed by the rising tide of Islam in the West, take the time to read my article, Scott's translation of "The Project", and follow the links to The Daily Ablution to read his additional insights and research on the topic (Parts I, II, III, IV, V, Conclusion). This is an issue that you ignore to the peril of your children, grand-children and great grand-children.

Hometown Jihad, Part 2: Blowback

2006-05-08T02:36:00.000-05:00

(Update: Thanks to Lawrence Auster and truepeers for their added coverage of this issue.)

In a review of my Hometown Jihad article published last month by FrontPage Magazine, the Columbus Dispatch, our hometown liberal fish-wrapper, this past Friday (Muslim Milestone: Islamic school marks 10 years of progress, but suspicions endure) likened me to a Neo-Nazi and devoted significant space on the front page of its weekly "Faith and Values" section to promote an open house sponsored by the local Muslim school I identified in that article, Sunrise Academy, which has direct ties to Islamic terrorism, and defending them from the points I raised in that article.

The Dispatch goes out of its way to infer that I'm a Neo-Nazi. Rather than go to the trouble of actually finding something I said that could be construed as racist hate speech, the reporter, Felix Hoover, cherry-picked a quote from an unrelated article published elsewhere on the FrontPage site and authored by someone I've never met or communicated to level the charge.

Here's what the Dispatch article said:

FrontPageMag.com is edited by conservative activist David Horowitz, known for his campaign against perceived liberal bias on college campuses. Another article in the April 3 edition said U.S. immigration policy should be shaped by the nation's "overwhelmingly Christian" and "overwhelmingly white"' heritage.

Did you read that? "Christian" "white" "heritage"? What else could he mean but that FrontPage Magazine is a White-Power front, and that I am, by implication, a Neo-Nazi?

But is that what the article he cites actually says? In fact, it doesn't. Here's what Lawrence Auster wrote in his April 3rd article, "Are We Really a Nation of Immigrants ":

It is also blatantly unfair to make the factoid that "we are all descended from immigrants" our sole guide to national policy, when there are so many other important and true facts about America that could also serve as guides. For example, throughout its history the United States has been a member of Western civilization—in religion overwhelmingly Christian (and mainly Protestant Christian), in race (until the post-1965 immigration) overwhelmingly white, in language English. Why shouldn't those little historical facts be at least as important in determining our immigration policy as the pseudo-fact that we're all "descended from immigrants?"

Auster never claims that "U.S. immigration policy should be shaped by the nation's 'overwhelmingly Christian' and 'overwhelmingly white' heritage," as Hoover alleges, but I guess that doesn't matter when you're manufacturing bias or making me the object of a game of "Six Degrees of Adolf Hitler". It was close enough to make it seem like he was saying something suspicious enough to tie it to me and to discredit my article. Admittedly, that was a lot easier than dealing with the substance of my article.

But who said that the mainstream media was biased?

After the Dispatch article was published I emailed Mr. Hoover and asked him how he arrived at his interpretation of Auster's comments, and what if anything they actually had to do with my article, but as of yet, no word. Should I be surprised?

I should note that when Hometown Jihad was first published, I contacted the Local News desk at the Dispatch to see if they had any interest in a follow-up. I was told categorically that they were not. And yet, when Sunrise Academy contacted the paper two weeks later, the matter was put on the front-burner, though Mr. Hoover did withhold his article for several weeks until the day before Sunrise Academy's open house, which his article vigorously promoted as if his article was intended as a public service announcement. Might this all just be just coincidence?

As I mentioned in Hometown Jihad, each month at Sunrise Academy a local resident, international terror apologist and raging anti-Semite, Salah Sultan, delivers lectures at the school. Even according to the Dispatch, he previously served as the religious director there. Sultan is a close associate of Muslim Brotherhood cleric and notorious terror apologist Youssef Qaradawi, who the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith recently identified as a "Theologian of Terror" (note: Salah Sultan is one of the few individuals apart from Qaradawi named in the ADL report). His terror connections notwithstanding, Sultan hired him as faculty for the Islamic-American University, which Sultan founded, despite the fact that Qaradawi has been banned from entering the US because of his outspoken advocacy of Islamist terrorism.

Sultan sits on Qaradawi's European Council for Fatwa and Research, which has issued rulings justifying suicide bombings against Israel, and he issues "live fatwas" for Qaradawi's Islamonline.net website. As I note in Hometown Jihad, in 2003 Qaradawi issued a fatwa authorizing suicide bombings, declaring such acts as "martyrdom", and that they did not fall under the Qur'anic prohibition against suicide. In 2004, Qaradawi and 92 other extremist leaders authorized the killing and abduction of American civilians working in Iraq, identifying them as "invaders".

According to Sunrise Academy, they have no active connection with Salah Sultan. This despite the fact that:

1) Sultan delivers lectures at the Sunrise Academy facility once a month;

2) Sultan directs the Islamic Education & Fatwa Center, which is sponsored by the same parent organization as Sunrise Academy, the Islamic Society of Greater Columbus;

3) Sultan spoke in conjunction Sunrise Academy's annual Iftar fundraiser last October;

4) Sultan's website is promoted and linked to on Sunrise Academy's own website.

I think I can be forgiven for confusing these as "active connections" between Sunrise Academy and Sultan.

In a follow-up email to Mr. Hoover after our face-to-face interview, I provided him with information and source documentation that Salah Sultan shared the podium at a 2003 Muslim American Society (the US front group for the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood) event in Philadelphia with notorious Neo-Nazi William Baker, the once-chairman of the Populist Party, which under his tenure pushed for the revival of segregation-era laws and later would nominate David Duke for President. None of this was addressed in the Dispatch article. Of course, if I had any of these open connections to Neo-Nazis it would have been mentioned in the first line of this story (Wait! Didn't they make the inference anyways?), but the Columbus Dispatch gave Salah Sultan a pass.

The real kicker never mentioned in the Dispatch article is that a local group of liberal usual suspects, the Interfaith Alliance of Central Ohio, began circulating emails (one of which was sent to FrontPage managing editor, Jamie Glazov) alleging that my Hometown Jihad article was "inciting violence against the children of the school" and that I was engaging in "hate speech". In the email, which included an open letter from one of the teachers at Sunrise Academy, the school denied any association with the Muslim American Society, as I alleged in my article. And yet just last month MAS held a youth conference here in Central Ohio. And who was listed among the sponsors of the event? That's right: Sunrise Academy. They were even listed as sponsors on the official flier for the event. Would you think that the Dispatch pointed out this flagrant misrepresentation in their article? I didn't think so.

In their vigorous defense of Salah Sultan and Sunrise Academy, no mention was made by the Interfaith Alliance of what these "interfaith" leaders thought of Sultan's recorded anti-Semitic tirades, quotes of which I provided in Hometown Jihad. Or how about his "interfaith" fatwa published on his own website, which prohibits Palestinians from selling land to Jews in Israel:

...There is no doubt about the fact that the Jews usurped the Holy Lands of Palestine and it is not permitted to bargain with them over anything except the means of their departure from the lands that they usurped by means of violent force and through the killing of hundreds of thousands of people.

How much "interfaith" can you get than that? Salah Sultan - bridge-builder between Muslims and the Jewish community in Israel. I mentioned this to Mr. Hoover of the Dispatch, but it was apparently not worth following up on.

I also wonder how the members of the Interfaith Alliance, a number of members of whom are women clergy in mainstream Protestant denominations, would respond to Sultan's statements on marriage, family and women's rights, like his recent fatwa ruling that women are not allowed to go to the store without the husband's permission (4th fatwa), or his ruling telling an American woman who married a Muslim man who later got married to a second wife that if she objects to the second marriage and wants to keep her marriage she better get pregnant soon (3rd fatwa)?

Yes, that Salah Sultan is a real feminist on top of being an "interfaith" activist.

As I said in my previous article, what concerns me most about Salah Sultan is that he is my neighbor; and as a result of his well-known terror ties, he poses a standing threat to the community I was raised in and recently moved back to. He not only resides here, but freely spreads his message of hate and violence in our community. Just is troubling is that a local Islamic school, Sunrise Academy, while claiming to be run by peace-loving, moderate Muslims, unapologetically hosts an individual like Salah Sultan. I must admit that I wasn't surprised that the mainstream media in Columbus and the liberal interfaith "usual suspects" were so eager to serve as useful idiots and rose to the occasion to help defend Sultan and Sunrise Academy from the negative publicity that resulted from my article.

If anything, my experience should serve as a warning to America, because there are probably hundreds or possibly thousands of communities across the country just like Hilliard, Ohio, which unbeknownst to most residents harbor would-be jihadists. At present, these individuals and groups plead moderation and sign statements opposing terrorism, but they nurture hatred for America and defend hatred and violence when they think no one is looking. This faux moderation is a deliberate part of their strategy, as Salah Sultan made clear in a speech he gave in April 2004 for the New York chapter of MAS, where he said:
"Da'wah [conversion] work can never succeed unless Muslims embed themselves within the very marrow of American society"
Salah Sultan has embedded himself into American society here in Hilliard, Ohio, making good on his threat and serving as an example for those like him. If the blackening of my name by the Columbus Dispatch by likening me to a Neo-Nazi is the price I have to pay to warn my community about who is living amongst us and the potential threat they pose, I will gladly pay it.

Hezbollah, Illegal Immigration and the Next 9/11

2006-04-29T19:09:00.000-05:00

Be sure to check out the article I co-authored with Army LTC Joe Myers that was published yesterday by FrontPage Magazine, Hezbollah, Illegal Immigration and the Next 9/11. The article was also picked up by JihadWatch. I'm considering republishing it here as a PDF document with footnotes, etc. for citation purposes. Honestly, this is a critical issue in the present discussion in Congress about illegal immigration and border security. As we note in the article, the most recent National Security Strategy never mentions border security of the United States, but does discuss border security in other countries. We shouldn't kid ourselves; it is more than likely that the next 9/11 (which is inevitable, according to FBI Director Louis Freeh) is going to come from across our border. It's time for America and our politicians to wake up!

Update (05/02/06): James Lewis at The American Thinker comments on our FPM article and offers his own insights, Hezbollah from Sea to Shining Sea.