Women who do not wear headscarves are being threatened with violence and even death by Islamic extremists intent on imposing sharia law on parts of Britain...

UK DAILY MAIL: 'Wear a headscarf or we will kill you': How the 'London Taliban' is targeting women and gays in bid to impose sharia law

Coming soon to a neighborhood near you...unless Americans wake up!

How much longer will our world today tolerate the threats of Iran, Hamas and the Islamist agenda which targets the Jewish people and against the only democracy in the Middle East?

My Personal Experience on a Delegation to Holocaust Sites

Christian clergy and lay people have been kidnapped, murdered, and raped by Muslim terrorists and criminal gangs in Iraq, sparking the exodus of Christians from the country

...and Iraq's Jews, who had lived in the region since the time of Abraham and during their Babylonian Captivity, were expelled in the 1940s and 1950s following the infamous pogrom known as The Farhud.

So why do people keep falling for the fake empathy crap from the Left? They do nothing but blame all the people on the Right for what Islamic radicals really actually do every single day because they are married to a deformed and warped political ideology that is using them like the useful idiots they are.

Muslim Scum to Build Mosque Steps Away from the 9/11 Site

In a stunning insult to the families of the 9/11 victims Muslim scum are planning the construction of the Cordoba House, a mosque and cultural center. It will be built just steps from the 9/11 site where 3000 people lost their lives when jihadists flew planes into the Twin Towers.

Imam Feisel Abdul Rauf, who helped found the Cordoba Initiative following the 9/11 attacks, said the project is intended to foster better relations between the West and Muslims. We at Neville feel safer already

For those not in the know, Cordoba was the capital of the Islamic Emirate of Al-Andalus (Andalusia) in Spain, seized by Muslim invaders from Africa in 711 and recaptured by Spanish Christians under Ferdinand III of Castille in 1236. What better indication could there be of the Islamic intent to make America a Moslem Al-Andalus Emirate?

And in an amazing display of "dhimmitude" the 12 enablers (not one of them a Muslim) at the New York City Municipal Authority voted unanimously to approve the Cordoba mosque.

"I think it will be a wonderful asset to the community," said committee Chairman and chief idiot Ro Sheffe. No doubt that the mosque will be used to stockpile weapons.

Again for those not in the know, religious and cultural imperialism is what Muslims do, who believe they are under the command of Allah to conduct jihad upon infidels. The cowards among the infidels who submit to Muslims are called dhimmis, roughly translated from the Arabic as "useful idiots."

Read more...and watch the video which has footage you have never seen before of 9/11...

Join Pamela Geller (Atlas Shrugs), Robert Spencer, Nonie Darwish, Anders Gravers, James Lafferty, 911 families, SIOA, SIOE, Tea parties, and thousands of Americans at Ground Zero to

PROTEST THE 911 MONSTER
MOSQUE
Join SIOA
SIOAFacebook.com

Obama and Iran: It was a year of spectacularly squandered opportunity

2009: The Year of Living Fecklessly

Owner of TheReligionOfPeace.com threatened with beheading...by members of 'the religion of peace'

Evil can never abide Truth...

Dick McDonald: Only Super-Religious Muslims Kill Innocent People

From Dick McDonald: I sent this out earlier today before the AP article hit. There now is no question that this was a mainstream Muslim paying his dues to get into Islam’s heaven by killing innocent people while shouting “Allahu Akbar”.

Ft. Hood suspect reportedly shouted `Allahu Akbar'
AP - Soldiers who witnessed the shooting rampage at Fort Hood that left 13 people dead reported that the gunman shouted "Allahu Akbar!" — an Arabic phrase for "God is great!" — before opening fire, the base commander said Friday.

Dick's earlier article:

Only Super-Religious Muslims Kill Innocent People

Dick McDonald

The NYT this morning did not draw attention to the fact that the Fort Hood mass murderer was a Muslim – obviously one who believes in killing “infidels.” No matter what trumped-up rationale the media uses to blind Americans of the threat Islam poses to the world, the fact remains the media rather than scolding and “spanking” the Muslim faith for not reforming their religious fanatics and texts has embolden them to believe that the West’s culture and resolve is weak and ripe for a takeover. As in everything important the media weakens America rather than strengthens it by using the art of omission. To wit, buried in the far reaches of their lead story the Paper of Record had this to say:

The Muslim Public Affairs Council, speaking for many American Muslims, condemned the shootings as a “heinous incident” and said, “We share the sentiment of our president.”

Excuse me! They “share the sentiments of our president” which leaves a big question in an American’s mind. America’s current president was (or is) a Muslim. He has spent $1.4 million on lawyers closing every record of his past from grammar school through law school from review by the American public. We have no idea who Barack Obama really is other than the fact he wants to redistribute wealth and enjoy the good life power conveys on a super successful politician.

The only religious text that sends the believer to heaven if he kills non-believing innocent men, women and children is Islam’s Koran. It is time for Muslims to reform it and join the human race. They need to discipline their own. The Fort Hood killer could only believe as radical Muslims do that an act of violence that kills husbands, brothers and children of non-believers was religiously justified.

This mass murder was the result of Islam’s failure and the failure of our media to make the offenders of society accountable for their actions. Islam’s refusal to reform and its continuing offensive to return their “caliphate” to Earth is the fault of Americans who believe all religions are equal – they are not. There is one which believes that the end justifies the means and delivered the Fort Hood massacre – there are no other reasons – just trumped up excuses.

About 9/11 (this is important)

Two men, one idea:

Two kinds of peoples lose wars. Those who lack the physical resources to defeat their enemies and those who lack the cultural resources to defeat them. We do not lack the physical resources, but our culture is the culture of the ostrich, a head stuck inside a television set and a body left vulnerable to whoever will have it. We have come to believe that compassion is more important than justice, sensitivity is more important than truth, and that if we fight for ourselves, then we are always wrong. Our moral high ground has becoming a sinking island topped by a white flag.

There is one thing and only one thing alone that we can do to survive. Turn the corner. For G-d's sake, turn the corner. The ostrich is an endangered bird in the Middle East where sticking your head in the sand is no defense against those who would chop it off. Soon it will be an endangered bird everywhere else. There is no escape from those who would kill us, but that we kill them first. The failure to understand that is the failure to survive.

It is now 8:46 AM on September 11, 2009. Eight years to the minute when the inescapable choice was put before every single American. Turn the corner before it is too late.

9/11, Just Another Day

And the father of Daniel Pearl who wrote an open letter to the Attorney General (too bad Eric Holder is corrupt)

By crafting the Geneva Conventions at the end of World War II, the international community demonstrated the necessity of creating new legal frameworks to deal with new realities. That same need should now compel the international community to embrace a legal category to deal with the new phenomena of a war with no foreseen ending; an army with no honor and no respect for human life; an army with no uniform, no country and no government; and an army that does not reciprocate agreements...Our son was murdered—and his beheading videotaped—to satisfy this craving for publicity. Your recommendations must make it clear to every would-be terrorist that, if captured, he will go down the path of total oblivion to the extent allowed by law.

We Need a New Legal Regime to Fight the War on Terror

U.S. appeasement of Iran is making war inevitable: The Case for Preemptive Nuclear Strikes on Iran

Absent a miracle, such as a democratic revolution in Iran, or a maritime blockade that will bring the nuclear-arming, Islamist regime to its knees, the Israeli government will soon have to choose between two horrible alternatives: mass death in Israel or mass death in Iran.

Israeli leaders know this to be true. But they dare not express it for fear of antagonizing the Obama administraion, which is bent on appeasing Islamist Iran--and Islamism in general.

The situation boils down to this:

VIDEO: Child being tortured by terrorists...then beheaded

Where is Nancy Pelosi? Or any of the other obscene, vile liberal/progressives who call George W. Bush and all of us evil???

****GRAPHIC GRAPHIC GRAPHIC GRAPHIC****
This video caught a child being tortured by terrorists. Torture by definition is the infliction of pain, as seen on this video, and not a sensation, as it is in the case of waterboarding.

The child was later beheaded.

Lead anchor on national news program thoroughly uneducated and uniformed about Islam

UPDATE: From a friend who travels a lot in the Middle East:

...you might want to add that:

• Women can not travel without their husband or father’s permission.
  
  
• Women can not seek medical treatment without their husband or father’s permission.
  
  
• Women do not have the right of inheritance.
  
  
• Women can not work at the few jobs that are open to women without their husband or father’s permission.
  
  
• Women can not attend school without their husband or father’s permission.
  
  
• A woman, no matter what her age, must live with her parents or other relatives until she is married.
  
  
• A woman can not be alone in a room (including a doctor’s office, a job interview, an elevator, etc.) with a man she is not related to.
  
  
• And, the one Sharia law/custom that I fully endorse [wink]: It is considered unseemly for a woman to give out cash tips to workers, drivers, maids, etc.

The Threat of Islam’s Fanatics

by Dick McDonald

I spent the better part of W’s first term researching and writing about Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabi Sect of Islam and the Jihadist threat it posed to the World. His second term I spent promoting the privatization of Social Security and Medicare. In the last 24 hours I have had reason to revisit the threat that Islam poses to humanity. Of course I write this under the threat that this article is hate speech because the First Amendment is being rewritten by the liberal appeasers as we speak.

Last night I listened to Katie Couric on Dave Letterman’s show appear utterly amazed at what she discovered in Saudi Arabia on her recent visit on a multi-country interview with our Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates. She breathlessly informed the audience that Saudi men don’t let their women drive cars, go out unescorted or shop on the same mall floor. When questioned she discovered the men allowed that if women shopped on the same floor it would be considered discriminatory towards men. Her shock only revealed her ignorance.

Now here is a lead anchor on a national news program so thoroughly uneducated and uniformed about Islam’s absolutely barbarian and primitive practices she was aghast at the fact that the shopping center she visited was the “Chop–Chop” center. Chop-chop signifying the place where they still hold public executions and dismemberment of limbs for offenses against the religion. You could viscerally feel the chills running down her spine.

This is one dim bulb – posing as a paragon of intelligent informed dialogue with the American people every week night at 6. This blindness is why the American people are being misled as to the goal of Islam to “caliphate” the world.

Then on television I see that crooked-spine leader of the free world do his third 360 this week and call for the very “military tribunals” of the Guantanamo detainees that he had promised the American people he would abolish. Obama is doing so much spinning he is giving the dreadle competition. Between him and the consummate liar Pelosi the American people should be convinced by now that the Zerocrats can never keep them safe.

To bolster that belief I talked to an ex- intelligence officer today who confided to me that the CIA has had its hands full of Islamic extremists but remains publicly silent to prevent panic and retribution. In his short stint in a major American city he counted over 400 Islamic terrorist incidences the agency thwarted during a one-year period he worked there.

Little has changed in the last four years since I last visited Islam’s Wahhabi sect. The threat they pose is worse than ever with air heads like Couric and a CIA keeping the threat a secret from ordinary Americans so they never get the message.

The Muslim Mafia rides again

A Christian minister who has had heated arguments with Muslims on his TV Gospel show has been brutally attacked by three men who ripped off his cross and warned: ‘If you go back to the studio, we’ll break your legs.’

Pamela tells it like it is...as usual

Sultan Knish nails why libs can't and won't defend us against our enemies!

Excerpt from the EXCELLENT "Fear of Power vs Fear of Powerlessness"

Where traditionally people were afraid being powerless, today the citizens of the civilized world are taught to be afraid of having power.

The havoc this has wreaked on the ability of civilized countries to defend themselves can be seen everywhere. Traditionally a country defends itself against internal or external attack. Today however a civilized country is the first to be blamed for an attack, and then blamed for defending itself excessively, and finally is blamed for provoking the attack. The only solution offered is appeasement, which never actually deals with the threat, and empowers the enemy.

The core of the problem lies in the intellectual and cultural dominance of liberalism and the various left wing political strains, which have as their common denominator the idea that the country and its social system are oppressive and must be reformed.

As self-identified reformers, liberals identify attempts to conserve the system which they have identified as oppressive, as inherently oppressive. Therefore they identify conservatism with oppression and personally identify far more with "outsiders", including enemies, than with "insiders" who are their fellow citizens.

The monochromatic progressive worldview causes them to presume that power in the hands of someone equally progressive, or more progressive than them, is never being abused, since it is in the hands of a "reformer". While power in the hands of someone more conservative is naturally being abused, because it is in the hands of a "reactionary" which enables the current oppressive system.

Liberals do not define oppression in terms of prison camps, political repression or mass executions. They define it by how far a country is along the Conservative-Progressive axis. The more progressive a country is, to a liberal it is by definition less oppressive. By contrast a more conservative country is by liberal definitions more oppressive.

This explains why liberals can claim that Castro's Cuba is an oasis of freedom, while Bush's America was a brutal tyranny. Liberal definitions of tyranny have nothing to do with freedom of speech or not being put in front of a firing squad for criticizing the government. The only honest liberal barometer of tyranny is how conservative is the government.

Liberals then do not fear power, they fear power in someone else's hands. While liberals preach the gospel of non-violence, and warn against the use of power, they rarely ever mean it. Liberals willingly accept the use and abuse of power by a leader equally or more progressive than themselves.I

Democrats did not have a problem with Clinton bombing the hell out of Serbia. The press which went stark raving mad at the Abu Ghaib detainees wearing women's underwear on their heads, had nothing to say when a commuter train and the Chinese Embassy were bombed.

Liberals protested any US action against Nazi Germany, up until the USSR went to war with Nazi Germany. Then the protests turned into denunciations of the US for not joining the fight. Trotskyist labor unions that attempted to go on strike during the war were suppressed in the US by Liberals and Communists.

Of course if it was this simple, then Western countries with liberal governments could defend themselves against Islamic terrorism. But there are complications.

Read the whole thing!

Why Liberals Support Islamic Terrorism and Oppose Self-Defense Against It

This is an important article. The excerpt below reminds me of some comments I read yesterday about Polish geologist Piotr Stanczak whose beheading by Pakistani Islamic terrorists was so horrific that many news outlets refused to provide the video. Several people defended these monsters by saying they were just responding to actions of the West (i.e. the bombings--now by the Obama administration--that injured civilians...as if that was the intended goal of the military). So, believe it when you read the following because, if you read a lot of comments, you will see this attitude over and over again:

Why then do liberals prefer “Grievance based violence” to the right of self-defense?

The right of self-defense presumes a right inherent to the individual and the nation. Liberals routinely reject both individual and national rights in favor of group and class rights. Liberals are also biased against acts of rational self-interest, in favor of emotional expressions of outrage.

Where self-defense is often defined by liberals as a form of entitlement and class privilege. “Grievance based violence” by contrast is treated as a response to intolerable oppression, and an expression of the underclass rising up. Since in the liberal worldview, violence is divided into oppressive and revolutionary violence. Oppressive violence is a function of class privilege, where revolutionary violence is a form of revolutionary justice. So that in the liberal calculus, the middle class homeowner protecting his house from a mob, is practicing “oppressive violence”, while the mob is practicing “revolutionary justice”.

Understanding this is the most vital part of understanding liberal morality, or lack thereof. Class or group status, defines whether violence is legitimate or not, in the eyes of the liberal.

Please read more.

The end of the world as you thought you knew it

textbook example of blaming the victim

It's getting harder and harder to find Geert Wilders' film which is at the crux of this issue (it is a MUST SEE, especially to understand the import of what is going on the world today) but you can still watch it HERE

Suicide you can believe in

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

100,000 Iranian Students Sign Up for Suicide Operations

Iranian Regime All Fired Up With Hope & Change (not)

Beware...we are coming

This message of world domination has been broadcast by Islamic radicals before George W. Bush became President of the United States and will continue to be broadcast afterwards (although the True Believers won't get it until after Obama has had tea 5 times with them and then gets screwed by them). But, this is their mission and their duty no matter who is President.

We will establish Islamic rule from Alaska and Chile to South Africa, and from Japan to Russia. Beware, we are coming."

The Talking Trap: Afghan Follies

Posted: 4:11 am
November 13, 2008

NEGOTIATIONS are the heroin of the chattering classes, blinding them to every reality except the next fix they can inject into our foreign policy. The pushers - our delighted enemies - pile up strategic profits.

Certainly, there are situations in which negotiations make sense, such as structuring trade terms or defining alliance contributions. But the notion that, if only we can sit down with our enemies, we'll inevitably persuade them to love us is a deadly self-delusion.

There's a looming danger that President-elect Obama's naive and profoundly anti-military cadres will misinterpret Gen. David Petraeus' tactic of opening communications with Taliban elements and seek to make talks the centerpiece of the new administration's Afghan policy. If so, we might as well pack up and leave now.

No American soldier should die just so diplomats can rack up frequent-flyer miles.

Read more

Bin Laden warns: Convert to Islam or you will be nuked into the Stone Age

Bin Laden Planning Hiroshima-Type Destruction?

Thursday, July 17, 2008 10:26 AM
By: Paul M. Weyrich

Does Osama bin Laden possess nuclear weapons? Has he smuggled these weapons into the United States? Does he have a plan to detonate these weapons in multiple American cities if Israel attacks Iran’s nuclear facilities? Dr. Hugh Cort, president of the American Foundation for Counter-Terrorism Policy and Research, believes the answer to all of these questions is yes.

Cort has assembled a body of evidence which he claims supports the view that bin Laden has a plan for an “American Hiroshima” which will be implemented in the near future. He has sent this material to various U.S. officials, including Robert S. Mueller III, director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Cort believes that the government is not doing enough to prevent an attack.

Much of his evidence centers around one Hamid Mir, a Pakistani journalist who has conducted the only interview of bin Laden after 9/11. Bin Laden told Mir that he had acquired 20 suitcase nuclear bombs from the former Soviet Union. Mir told Cort that bin Laden’s men have smuggled these bombs into the United States.

His men supposedly are waiting for bin Laden to give them the signal, then seven to ten American cities will be struck. If true it is little wonder that Iran’s leader confidently predicts that the United States will be bombed back to the Stone Age.

Bin Laden supposedly has fulfilled Islamic law by warning the United States that an attack is coming and offering a truce — convert to Islam and you will not be attacked. Refusal to convert to Islam means that an attack against America is justified. Three weeks prior to 9/11 bin Laden warned that the United States would be attacked in an unprecedented way for its support of Israel.

Already bin Laden has called for all Muslims in the United States to leave. Instead of a mass exodus of Muslims from this country, new mosques are opening every few weeks. Muslim schools also are being established, which suggests that families plan to stay here for the foreseeable future. But Yossef Bodansky, director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism from 1988 to 1998, has testified that bin Laden has obtained nuclear weapons.

He told Congress that “Osama has recruited former Soviet Special Forces (SPETSNAZ) soldiers to teach al-Qaida how to maintain and operate the bombs.”

Mir, by the way, has suggested that most of the nuclear weapons have been smuggled across the border from Mexico. Opponents of illegal immigration long have argued that they want the border monitored and closed for national security purposes.

Proponents of illegal immigration have maintained that opposition to it is “racist.” Clearly, opponents of illegal immigration have the better case; although if Mir is correct, the door may have been open too long.

Ronald Kessler, chief Washington correspondent for Newsmax.com, interviewed Mueller, who said that he is very concerned about bin Laden having nuclear weapons in the United States, so concerned that the FBI has surrounded mosques in 10 American cities with nuclear radiation detectors. Cort quotes Steve Coll, president of New America Foundation, as stating that these detectors cannot sense enriched uranium when it is shielded in lead. If Islamists have such bombs, no doubt they are wrapped in lead.

Cort says that Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff does not have a plan in the event that these bombs are detonated. In such a scenario real deaths will come from radiation. If people know how to avoid radiation prior to an attack, there may be many survivors.

If people can devise a radiation-proof shelter in their own homes to survive a detonation, two days later radiation is one, one-hundredth the strength of the initial blast. If people can spend three days in the shelter and then only make brief trips outside once a day, they can defeat radiation. But what credible source has warned people of the potential threat and how they can meet it?

Is all of this just alarmist talk? Has Cort missed something important which would nullify his answers? I have no idea.

It seems more than reasonable that we proceed as if it is true. If it proves to be a false alarm, what have we lost? But if Cort’s research has merit and we are prepared to handle such a situation, we could minimize its terrible impact.

When I asked some U.S. officials why no one in the government is warning people, I was told “we don’t want to unduly alarm people.” Nonsense.

I have great faith that the American people will do the right thing if properly informed. We did in the mid-1950s when told that the Soviet Union could start a nuclear war. We can do so again, but someone with credibility must tell Americans the truth.

Paul M. Weyrich is chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation.

© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Islamists have the West just where they want us

By Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com


Try a little thought experiment. What would have happened in this country during the Cold War if the Soviet Union successfully neutralized anti-communists opposed to the Kremlin's plans for world domination?


Of course, Moscow strove to discredit those in America and elsewhere who opposed its totalitarian agenda — especially after Sen. Joseph McCarthy's excesses made it fashionable to vilify patriots by accusing them of believing communists were "under every bed."


But what if the USSR and its ideological soul-mates in places like China, North Korea, Cuba, Eastern Europe and parts of Africa had been able to criminalize efforts to oppose their quest for the triumph of world communism? What if it had been an internationally prosecutable offense even to talk about the dangers inherent in communist rule and the need to resist it?


The short answer is that history might very well have come out differently. Had courageous anti-communists been unable accurately and forcefully to describe the nature of that time's enemy — and to work against the danger posed by its repressive, seditious program, the Cold War might well have been lost.


Flash forward to today. At the moment, another totalitarian ideology characterized by techniques and global ambitions strikingly similar to those of yesteryear's communists is on the march. It goes by varying names: "Islamofascism," "Islamism," "jihadism" or "radical," "extremist" or "political Islam." Unlike the communists, however, adherents to this ideology are making extraordinary strides in Western societies toward criminalizing those who dare oppose the Islamist end-state — the imposition of brutal Shariah Law on Muslims and non-Muslims alike.


Consider but a few indicators of this ominous progress:

• In March, the 57 Muslim-state Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) prevailed upon the United Nations Human Rights Council to adopt a resolution requiring the effective evisceration of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Henceforth, the guaranteed right of free expression will not extend to any criticism of Islam, on the grounds that it amounts to an abusive act of religious discrimination. A UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression has been charged with documenting instances in which individuals and media organizations engage in what the Islamists call "Islamophobia." Not to be outdone, the OIC has its own "ten-year program of action" which will monitor closely all Islamophobic incidents and defamatory statements around the world.

• Monitoring is just the first step. Jordan's Prosecutor General has recently brought charges against Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders. According to a lawsuit, "Fitna" — Wilders' short documentary film that ties certain Koranic passages to Islamist terrorism — is said to have slandered and insulted the Prophet Mohammed, demeaned Islam and offended the feelings of Muslims in violation of the Jordanian penal code. Mr. Wilders has been summoned to Amman to stand trial and, if he fails to appear voluntarily, international warrants for his arrest will be issued.


Zakaria Al-Sheikh, head of the "Messenger of Allah Unites Us Campaign" which is the plaintiff in the Jordanian suit, reportedly has "confirmed that the [prosecutor's action] is the first step towards setting in place an international law criminalizing anyone who insults Islam and the Prophet Mohammed." In the meantime, his campaign is trying to penalize the nations that have spawned "Islamophobes" like Wilders and the Danish cartoonists by boycotting their exports — unless the producers publicly denounce the perpetrators both in Jordan and in their home media.

• Unfortunately, it is not just some companies that are submitting to this sort of coercion — a status known in Islam as "dhimmitude." Western officials and governmental entities appear increasingly disposed to go along with such efforts to mutate warnings about Shariah law and its adherents from "politically incorrect" to "criminally punishable" activity.


For example, in Britain, Canada and even the United States, the authorities are declining to describe the true threat posed by Shariah Law and are using various techniques to discourage — and in some cases, prosecute — those who do. We are witnessing the spectacle of authors' books being burned, ministers prosecuted, documentary film-makers investigated and journalists hauled before so-called "Human Rights Councils" on charges of offending Muslims, slandering Islam or other "Islamophobic" conduct. Jurists on both sides of the Atlantic are acceding to the insinuation of Shariah law in their courts. And Wall Street is increasingly joining other Western capital markets in succumbing to the seductive Trojan Horse of "Shariah-Compliant Finance."


Let's be clear: The Islamists are trying to establish a kind of Catch-22: If you point out that they seek to impose a barbaric, repressive and seditious Shariah Law, you are insulting their faith and engaging in unwarranted, racist and bigoted fear-mongering.


On the other hand, pursuant to Shariah, you must submit to that theo-political-legal program. If you don't, you can legitimately be killed. It is not an irrational fear to find that prospect unappealing. And it is not racist or bigoted to decry and oppose Islamist efforts to bring it about — ask the anti-Islamist Muslims who are frequently accused of being Islamophobes!


If we go along with our enemies' demands to criminalize Islamophobia, we will mutate Western laws, traditions, values and societies beyond recognition. Ultimately, today's totalitarian ideologues will triumph where their predecessors were defeated.


To avoid such a fate, those who love freedom must oppose the seditious program the Islamists call Shariah — and all efforts to impose its 1st Amendment-violating blasphemy, slander and libel laws on us in the guise of preventing Western Islamophobia.