I Am A Proud Member of Vets For Freedom

For up to date progress in the War In Iraq, please visit Vets For Freedom, an organization I am proud to be a member in good standing of.

Veteran's Suicide Hot Line Number!

1-800-273-TALK (8255) Call this number if you need help!!

A Vast Collection Of Buzzings At Memeorandum

If you wish to catch a buzz without the usual after affects, CLICK TO MEMEORANDUM. (It will not disturb the current page) That will be all. We now return to regular programming.

This Blog Is Moving

Greetings. After this weekend, this Take Our Country Back Blog will be moving to the new web site. Too many conservatives are getting zapped by the intolerant dweebs of the Obama Goons and seeing that this editing platform is a free site, Blogger can do pretty much what it feels like doing. Hence, I now have a paid site and will be migrating the last 1400+ posts shortly.

So, one day, you just may click this page somewhere and it will show up as "private". It has been fun but the intolerant Czarbie Goon Squads are brain dead idiots. They can come play at the new site which I OWN outright.

Saturday, November 20, 2010

Melt the Construction Freeze and Flush It!

Yahoo News carried an AP story claiming that the U.S. put our pledge not to demand further construction freezes in writing. No mention was made of the other elements of the incentive package being reduced to writing.  We already know from experience that a vocal promise is not worth the paper it is not written on.  I would not put stock in a written promise from President Obama.

    It turns out that the advanced jet deal is a sale, not a donation and the delivery date is not fixed. That sort of open promise has no value because the Congress may scrap the program before the aircraft are built.

    The one year limit on the veto promise reduces its value to zero. Abbas  & co. need only refuse to negotiate and delay for a year before going to the Security Council.

    Lets get down to the critical false premises in the article.

resumed settlement construction in the West Bank.

They are constructing homes, additions and apartments, not building new settlements. Jews lived on that land for thousands of years prior to caliph Umar's conquest; and prior to Jordan's illegal seizure in 1948; there is no good reason why they should not live there now.  There is no good reason why Judea & Samaria should be judenrein.

east Jerusalem, where Palestinians envision their future capital.

They do not specify east Jerusalem, they demand Jerusalem as their capital. There is no legal, moral or historical basis for that demand. Only the Jews have mxsade that city  their capital.  From Umar's conquest to 1948, the Muslims never gave a damn about Jerusalem; they never made it a capital.  Why now?

    Recall Arafat's slogan: "One million martyrs marching to Jerusalem." ?  Why is that city worth a million lives to them?  It ain't Moe's nightmare.  Their interest is proscriptive.  Islamic conquest is meant to be permanent.  Israel's recovery of the city proves that Allah is an impotent idol.

Israel and the Palestinians are supposed to try to and work out a deal on their future borders

    Recall Arafat's slogan: "From the River to the sea."?  Those are the borders of Falestine, Israel is to be eliminated.  They don't want a state besides Israel, they want a vilayet in a restored caliphate, not a state. 

    Muslims will not negotiate peace with Israel because Muslims want conquest, not peace.

47:35. So be not weak and ask not for peace (from the enemies of Islâm), while you are having the upper hand. Allâh is with you, and will never decrease the reward of your good deeds.

o9.16 [...] Interests that justify making a truce are such things as Muslim weakness because of lack of members or materiel, or the hope of an enemy becoming Muslim, for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) made a truce in the year Mecca was liberated with Safwan ibn Umayya for four months in hope that he would become Muslim, and he entered Islam before its time was up. If the Muslims are weak, a truce may be made for ten years if necessary, for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) made a truce with Quraysh for that long, as is related by Abu Dawud. It is not permissible to stipulate longer than that, save by means of new truces, each of which does not exceed ten years. [...]

Jer 6:14 They have healed also the hurt [of the daughter] of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when [there is] no peace. [KJ.V.  Emphasis added.]

If there are any men left in Israel who are not deracinated, let them rise up as one, shouting with a loud voice: "NO!".

Friday, November 19, 2010

Solving the Islam Problem: Slave Revolt

I am a Muslim But I don't Hate the Great America   By King Nazir Muhammad comes to us through News Blaze.

One Muslim who loves America because of its freedom & prosperity is not proof that all Muslims love America. Implying that it does involves over generalization.

Muslims that live in the middle-east cannot enjoy financial freedom the way it is enjoyed here.

    There is a reason why Muslims in Arabia can not enjoy liberty and prosperity: Islam and tyranny. If enough Muslims emigrate here, they will bring those troubles with them as they are doing in Europe.  The solution to their problem is not emigration, it is revolution.  In 1776, our founders did something unprecedented, they removed the ancient regime and replaced it with a representative republic with enumerated powers specified by a written constitution.  They outlawed theocracy and installed liberty. In doing so, they pledged their lives, fortunes and honors; many lost everything.  They planted the tree of liberty and watered it with their blood.

    If Muslims want liberty and prosperity, they must first shed the shackles of slavery. Allah's slaves are not free, they wear Allah's yoke and are compelled to follow his rules in every aspect of life.  The first prerequisite is apostasy. 

    The second prerequisite is no less life shaking or risky. They can not remain enslaved to patriarchal, military or feudal regimes and be free and prosperous.  In most cases,  violent revolution will fail.  Genuine regime opponents, seeking to remove, not supplant the regimes, need to  unify, multiply, and work within the political system to reform it. Change will be incremental, slow, and not immune to reversals.

    Indigenous Muslims need to begin studying economics, political science and comparative government.  To be successful, they must adopt what works in other systems and carefully reject that which leads to failure.  The horrific errors made by Afghanistan & Iraq should provide negative guidance.

I know that 9/11 slandered the reputation of Muslims in the eyes of Americans. But terrorists don't represent all Muslims.I am not one of them.

    Islam had a negative image in the perception of John Q. Adams and other American founders.  Our navy developed as a result of attacks by the Barbary Pirates.  It is reality, not image or reputation that is important.  While terrorists may not represent all Muslims, they represent Islam, obeying Allah and emulating Muhammad. Open your Qur'an and read Surah Al-Anfal 12, 57 & 60. Then turn to Surah Al-Ahzab 26-27. Turn next to Sahih Bukhari Volume 4,  Book 52, Number 220.   The problem is that Islam is an inseverable, take it or leave it package; refer to Surah Ar-Ra'd 36.  If you loathe terrorism, you must disassociate from Islam to avoid being a part of it.

Yes Islam is a radical religion and needs to be reformed.

    Islam is not radical, it is a violent predator, by design. If reformed, it would cease to be Islam.  Unfortunately, it can not be reformed. How do you reform perfection?  How do you reform a scripture and system that is fixed and immutable?  Reformers would like to strip conquest, genocide & terrorism from the Qur'an.  But Muhammad said that those who try it will be far, far from mercy .  He also said that if you abandon jihad as a way of life, that you will be cursed until you return to it.

If I have the power to ban Islam, I would change our radical beliefs.

    Unfortunately, you can do neither. You don't have the power to ban Islam, and you can change only your own beliefs. Can you, as a confirmed lover of freedom, inspire other Muslims with that same love, and convince them of the existential conflict between Islam and freedom?  If you can do that, perhaps you can ignite the spark of liberty and send it burning through the Ummah.

Al-taqiyya about Shari'ah Must Be Refuted!

The S-Word

Fearmongering about Sharia law in America needs to stop

    I did not find the article to be rich in substance, but a few points need to be raised.

The proposal was bolstered by a case in New Jersey in which the court considered Sharia law in its decision to deny a Muslim woman a restraining order against her sexually abusive ex-husband. That decision, thankfully, was overturned on appeal.

What if?  Suppose there was a technical error in the appeal, causing the original verdict to be upheld?  What if the appeals court failed to recognize the lower court's error?  An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

    After the negligence comes the sarcasm.

But it was enough to drive seven out of ten Oklahoma voters toward the “Save Our State” Amendment,” to “save” Oklahoma from, in the words of the bill’s main author, Muslims who desire nothing more than to take away “liberties and freedom from our children.”

A student, occupied with learning and passing exams, can be forgiven for being ignorant of Islamic doctrines & practices, but not for assuming that he knows everything about the subject. I was ignorant of Islam when I was a student, but I have learned a great deal in the last ten years.  Islam's strategic objective is total world domination: making the entire human race slaves of Allah. Islam does not recognize man made legislation, it demands the imposition of Shari'ah, derived from the Qur'an & Sunnah.

But the law exemplifies something far more insidious than bad public policy. Quite simply, there is a dangerous amount of ignorance in the United States about what Sharia law actually is. And until this misconception is corrected, as another concerned columnist so eloquently put it, the war on global Islamist terror will also continue be a war on American Muslims.

Basing American court decisions on the American Constitution, legislation & case law is not "bad public policy", it is common sense.  There is a dangerous level of ignorance about Shari'ah. That ignorance can be corrected by reading Reliance of the Traveller, Noah Ha Mim Keller's translation of Umdat Al-Salik, the Shafi'ite school's handbook of Fiqh.  The text includes certificates of authenticity and accuracy from scholars at Al-Azhar. 

In England, Shari'ah courts deal mainly with family law. Safe, sane and simple; no threat there, right?  Wrong!!!  Book m treats of the laws of marriage. Lets examine a sample.

m3.13: Guardians Who May Marry a Virgin to a Man Without Her Consent

Guardians are of two types, those who may compel their female charges to marry someone, and those who may not.

-1- The only guardians who may compel their charge to marry are a virgin bride's father or father's father, compel meaning to marry her to a suitable match (def: m4) without her consent.

-2- Those who may not compel her are not entitled to marry her to someone unless she accepts and gives her permission.

Whenever the bride is a virgin, the father or father's father may marry her to someone without her permission, though it is recommended to ask her permission if she has reached puberty. A virgin's silence is considered as permission.

As for the nonvirgin of sound mind, no one may marry her to another after she has reached puberty without her express permission, no matter whether the guardian is the father, father's father, or someone else.

So much for the minimum legal age. So much for choosing your own lifetime mate.  Book n treats of divorce.  Who can do it?
Divorce is valid from anyDivorce is valid from any


Divorce is valid from any:

(a) husband;

(b) who is sane;

(c) has reached puberty;

(d) and who voluntarily effects it.

A divorce is not valid from:

-1- (non-(c) above) a child;

-2- (non-(b) ) someone insane;

-3- or (non-(d) ) someone who is wrongfully coerced to do it, as when one is threatened with death, dismemberment, being severely beaten, or even mere verbal abuse or a slight beating if the person being coerced is someone whose public image is important and would thereby suffer. (O: Someone being forced should use words that give a misleading impression (def: r10.2) for his ostensible "divorce.'')


A free man has three pronouncements of divorce (O: because of the word of Allah Most High,

"Divorce is two times, then retain with kindness or graciously release'' (Koran 2:229),

and when the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) was asked about the third time, he said.

"It is Allah's having said, or graciously release''').


The words that effect a divorce may be plain or allusive. Plain words effect the divorce whether one intends divorce by them or not, while allusive words do not effect it unless one intends divorce by them.

n3.2 Using plain words to effect a divorce means expressly pronouncing the word divorce (O: or words

derived from it).  When the husband says' "I divorce you,'' or "You are divorced,'' the wife is divorced

whether he has made the intention or not.

(A: Here and in the rulings below, expressions such as "The wife is divorced,'' or "The divorce is effected,'' mean just one of the three times (def: n9.0(N:) ) necessary to finalize it, unless the husband thereby intends a two-or threefold divorce (dis: n3.5) or repeats the words three times.)



Let divorce cases be handled by Shari'ah courts; great idea, ladies?   How about honoricide?  Book o treats of "justice". o.1 details retaliation for death or injury. There are certain cases in which no retaliation is due. Here they are.


The following are not subject to retaliation:

-1- a child or insane person, under any circumstances (O: whether Muslim or non-Muslim.

The ruling for a person intermitently insane is that he is considered as a sane person when in his right mind, and as if someone continously insane when in an interval of insanity. If someone against whom retaliation is obligatory subsequently becomes insane, the full penalty is nevertheless exacted. A homicide committed by someone who is drunk is (A: considered the same as that of a sane person,) like his pronouncing divorce (dis: n1.2) );

-2- a Muslim for killing a non-Muslim;

-3- a Jewish or Christian subject of the Islamic state for killing an apostate from Islam (O: because a subject of the state is under its protection, while killing an apostate from Islam is without consequences);

-4- a father or mother (or their fathers of mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring;

-5- nor is retaliation permissible to a descendant for (A: his ancestor's) killing someone whose death would otherwise entitle the descendant to retaliate, such as when his father kills his mother.

You can not execute a Muslim for killing a kuffar, an apostate or his own offspring. That's the law. It should be enforced, of course. It is so much superior to our man made laws.   How about the blood money to be paid for murder? 


(A: For the rulings below, one multiplies the fraction named by the indemnity appropriate to the death or injury's type of intentionality and other relevant circumstances that determine the amount of a male Muslim's indemnity (def: o4.2-6 and o4.13). )

The indemnity for the death or injury of a woman is one-half the indemnity paid for a man.

The indemnity paid for a Jew or Christian is one-third of the indemnity paid for a Muslim. The indemnity paid of a Zoroastrian is one-fifteenth of that a Muslim.

A Muslim woman is worth only one half of her Muslim husband. A Christian is worth only one third as much as a Muslim. What a great system, lets implement it!  

    Then there is the matter of eligibility to give testimony in court.


Legal testimony is only acceptable from a witness who:

(a) is free;

(b) is fully legally responsible (mukallaf, def: c8.1) (O: as testimony is not accepted from a child or insane person, even when the child's testimony regards injuries among children that occurred at play);

(c) is able to speak;

(d) it mentally awake;

(e) is religious (O: meaning upright (o24.4) (A: and Muslim), for Allah Most High says,

"Let those of rectitude among you testify" (Koran 65:2),

and unbelief is the vilest form of corruption, as goes without saying);

(f) and who is outwardly respectable (O: respectability (muru'a) meaning to have the positive traits which one's peers possess in one's particular time and place. Sheikh al-Islam (A: Zakariyya Ansari) says, "Respectability is refraining from conduct that is unseemly according to standards commonly acknowledged among those who observe the precepts and rules of the Sacred Law." It is according to standards commonly acknowledged (def: f4.5) because there are no absolute standards for it, but rather it varies with different persons, conditions, and places, Such things as eating and drinking (A: in the marketplace or wearing nothing on one's head may vitiate it (A: though the latter is of no consequence in our times), as may a religious scholar's wearing a robe or cap in places where it is not customary for him to do so).


The testimony of the following is legally acceptable when it concerns cases involving property, or transactions dealing with property, such as sales:

-1- two men;

-2- two women and a man;

-3- or a male witness together with the oath of the plaintiff.


If testimony does not concern property, such as a marriage or prescribed legal penalties, then only two male witnesses may testify (A: though the Hanafi school holds that two women and a man may testify for marriage).


Christians can't testify, nor can menial laborers and it takes two women to give evidence. What a great system! Other schools of Islamic jurisprudence are not exact matches, but are objectionable, none the less.  For example, the Maliki's Risala. Marry off your virgin daughter, unequal blood wit, female testimony, infidel testimony. Is that warm glow of Ivy League superiority holding still holding up?

   One senator had words of wisdom about basing rulings on foreign law.

I did want  to mention it in that connection. But lf me U.S. Supreme Court. ls not going to look to the laws of the Uunited States, including  the fundamental law of tho Unted Status, which In tho Constitution, but lnterpreting what is and is not constltutlonal under tha U.S. Constitution by looking at what foreign governments and foreign Iaws have to my about that same issue. I fear that bit by bit and case by case the Amerlcan people are slowly losing control over the meaning of our laws and the Constitution itself. It this trend continues, foreign governments may have a say in what our laws and
our Constitution mean and what our policies  ln America. should be.

Senator John Cornyn, March 20,2005, Congressional Record, Vol. 151, Pt. 4, pg. 5516

    International and Foreign Law Sources: Siren Song for U.S. Judges? By Chimène I. Keitner on page ten, cites legislation proposed in 2005 that would limit federal judges to domestic sources except for British common law at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Justices cited as favoring consideration of foreign law, cited by Chimène I. Keitner. include William Rehnquist, Sandra Day O’Connor,Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Anthony Kennedy.  Shari'ah is not mentioned in that article, but the same principle applies.

    For the grand finale, lets glance at the temporary injunction.

Munir Awad vs. Oklahoma  State Board of Elections;  Case No. CIV-10-1186-M

State Question No. 755, which was on Oklahoma’s November 2, 2010 ballot, provides: This measure amends the State Constitution. It changes a section that deals with the courts of this state. It would amend Article 7, Section 1. It makes courts rely on federal and state law when deciding cases.
It forbids courts from considering or using international law. It forbids courts from considering or using Sharia Law....

"Specifically, plaintiff asserts that the ban on the state courts’ use and consideration of Sharia Law violates the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution."

Three elements are listed:

  1. by Oklahoma’s official condemnation of his religion/faith as reflected through the amendment to Oklahoma’s constitution banning state courts’ use or consideration of Sharia Law,
  2. by the invalidation of his last will and testament which incorporates various teachings of Mohammed, and
  3. by the excessive entanglement of the state courts with religion that would result from the amendment as the state courts in implementing the amendment would have to determine what is and is not encompassed in Sharia Law.
Constitutional elements:
  1. must have a secular legislative purpose,
  2. its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and
  3. it must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.

    The amendment specifies the local sources of law and proscribes use of foreign law and Shari'ah. It is unreasonable to equate rejecting Shari'ah as an input to judical decisions with rejection of Islam. 

    Does any reasonable person believe that the amendment rejects or invalidates the plaintiff's last will and testament?  If his will is probated, it will be subject to state law, regardless of Shari'ah. Book l treats of inheritance. Only one third of the estate can be bequeathed, the rest is divided according to a complex formula. If you are crazy enough to want to figure it out, go to Book l.1.

    Entanglement?  All the courts need to do under the amendment is perform  their duties as they do now, considering the facts, law and constitutions but not Shari'ah.  There is no need for the courts to read Reliance, Risala or Hedaya, they just need to do their job. The complaint is obviously unfounded.

    The amendment has a constitutional purpose: preserving the primacy of the federal and state constitutions.  It neither advances nor inhibits religion, it prevents entanglement the court system with Shari'ah.  It does not foster government entanglement with religion, it prevents entanglement. 

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Melt the Freeze

"Settlements" and construction are not obstacles to peace. Islam is the  obstacle to peace.  The Jews of the Hijaz rejected Moe's war cult, so he hated them and made them his first victims after graduating from raiding camel caravans to raiding villages.

    The Qur'an & hadith are not silent about Islam's unending war against Jews.

  • 7:167. And (remember) when your Lord declared that He would certainly keep on sending against them (i.e. the Jews), till the Day of Resurrection, those who would afflict them with a humiliating torment. Verily, your Lord is Quick in Retribution (for the disobedient, wicked) and certainly He is Oft­Forgiving, Most Merciful (for the obedient and those who beg Allâh's Forgiveness). 

Who would Allah send to torture and humiliate the Jews?

  • Sunan Abu Dawud 14.2477
    Narrated Ibn Hawalah:

        The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: It will turn out that you will be armed troops, one is Syria, one in the Yemen and one in Iraq. Ibn Hawalah said: Choose for me, Apostle of Allah, if I reach that time. He replied: Go to Syria, for it is Allah's chosen land, to which his best servants will be gathered but if you are unwilling, go to your Yemen, and draw water from your tanks, for Allah has on my account taken special charge of Syria and its people.

Allah took a special charge of the people of the Levant on Moe's account. Yeah, right. Moe hated Jews and wanted to attack them.

  • 9:29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Muslims must fight Jews until they are subjugated and extorted.   

  • Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177:
        Narrated Abu Huraira:

        Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

They'll be killing Jews until Judgment Day.

  • 13:41. See they not that We gradually reduce the land (of disbelievers, by giving it to the believers, in war victories) from its outlying borders. And Allâh judges, there is none to put back His Judgement and He is Swift at reckoning.

When caliph Umar conquered the Levant in 638, that conquest was permanent and irreversible according to Allah. But the Jews recovered a tiny fragment their patrimony, and another ayat applies.

  • 2:191. And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing. And fight not with them at Al-Masjid-al-Harâm (the sanctuary at Makkah), unless they (first) fight you there. But if they attack you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.

Muslims can't leave Israel as it is, they must drive the Jews out and reconquer the land. Arafat never negotiated in good faith. Arafat never kept his commitments What makes any fool think that Abbas will?

    Shrub made a verbal commitment to Israel; Obama refused to honor it. Obama can not be trusted. Will he put his promises in writing? What happens when that one year veto offer expires?  Will those jets be free or will Israel be billed for them?  Will they ever be delivered?  Obama won't demand another extension; yeah, right.

    Netanyahu made a commitment that there would be no more freezes. He is breaking his word. This means that he can not be trusted.  The Security Cabinet should vote the deal down.  The Knesset should vote no confidence.  At minimum, conditions for holding a cabinet vote should be set:

  1. The incentive package must be in writing, free of weasel words, strings and escape clauses.
  2. Abbas and the Arab League members must sign on.
  3. A date certain for the next negotiating session and follow up schedule should be agreed upon in advance.

    Islamic doctrine and past performance indicate that the whole thing is a sham; peace is impossible.  if peace was possible; if the negotiations had any intrinsic merit, there would be no need for incentive plans.  The fact that incentives are offered proves that the whole process is meretricious. The demand for a construction moritorium must be rejected.

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Scanning & Frisking or Common Sense?

Who wants to be strip searched or frisked?  Very few I'm sure. Who wants to go down in flames or have flaming debris fall on their house?  Fewer still, I am sure. The time is ripe to throw political correctness to the winds and adopt a more reasonable policy. 

    We know who wants to hijack and crash aircraft.  We know who has done it in the recent past. Lets just ban them from all mass transit. Problem solved. No need for long lines and intrusive searches. Millions of dollars and hours saved. Dignity preserved.

    The solution is simple: exclude members of the death cult from all mass transit.

Get honest about Islam Yeah, Right

While I generally agree with Jordan Sekulow, I have some issues to dissect with his Washington Post OpEd of Nov. 8. If you want to read it all in context, click that link, because I will excerpt and blast what I consider to be the most important points.

Get honest about Islam

That is a great headline, with which I am 100% in agreement. There is nothing more lacking than honesty & candor concerning the doctrines of Islam and the real, proximate & persistent danger it poses to Western Civilization.

The more Obama reaches out to Muslims, the more his critics are likely to slander him, implying that he is not a Christian.

It is true that President Obama's pandering to Islam increases doubts about his own belief system. His bona fides as a Christian are not proven.


    Will someone please explain to me how "fighting negative stereotypes about Islam" can be one of President Obama's official duties?  If President Obama converted to Christianity, why does he continue to praise Islam and misrepresent it?  Why does he not expose and condemn it as real converts do?


The United States is at war with Iranian-backed Shiite insurgents in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Our ally Israel fights Hezbollah, a Shiite terrorist organization, and Hamas, a Sunni terrorist organization. Globally, we are at war with al Qaeda, a group with its own version of Islam.

    The difference between Joe Camel and al-Qaeda is zealotry, not ideology. Islam is Islam; defined by the Qur'an and exemplified by Muhammad's extra-Qur'anic words and actions. The Muslim Brotherhood is a subset of Islam and al-Qaeda is a subset of the Muslim Brotherhood.  Islam is permanent war.

    Allah obligates his slaves to fight in his cause, killing others and being killed, in return for which he promises them eternity in his celestial bordello. Doubters and dissenters are directed to  Surah At-Taubah 111. Allah commands them to fight pagans until resistance ceases and only Allah is worshiped on a global scale. The command is recorded in Surah Al-Anfal 39.  Allah commands them to wage war against Jews & Christians until we are subjugated and submit to extortion. The command is recorded in Surah At-Taubah 29.

    Those commands are confirmed by Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387, 9.92.388, 4.52.196, 4.53.386 and Sunan Abu Dawud 14.2635,  They are codified into Islamic law in Reliance of the Traveller, Book o, 9.8 & 9.9.

    Those are not anachronisms; Moe said: "jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal." He also said: "Some people from my followers will continue to be victorious over others till Allah's Order (The Hour) is established." 

    Alllah promises Muslims the celestial bordello if they go to war and threatens them will Hell if they refuse. "...If you march not forth, He will punish you with a painful torment...  ..."O You who believe! Shall I guide you to a commerce that will save you from a painful torment. " So long as Muslims believe those threats & promises, they will continue to be a threat to our life & liberty.

Radical Islamic groups declared war on America a long time ago and, after a number of attacks, we responded.

    Muhammad bin Abdullah was not an extremist or radical, he was the founder of Islam. He said "fight them until"; "fight those who... until". He said it in Allah's name.  Get a clue!!!  There are no "radical Islamic groups"; there is only Islam.  As the wise man wrote, "Its Islam, stupid.". Nothing exceptional, radical, extreme, perverted or distorted, just Allah's Gd'd words and Moe's accursed example.

    When we broke away from England, the Barbary Pirates attacked our shipping. Adams & Jefferson asked why. The answer they received from Tripoli's Ambassador should give you a clue.

The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet (Mohammed), that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman (or Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to heaven. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War

Only Muslims can solve Islam's worldwide dilemma.

    Islam is Islam. It is what it is: a war machine. It can not be anything else; it must be eliminated.  They can quit being Muslims or they can go to Hell; easy choice, simple solution.  Emancipate yourself; don't be enslaved to Allah anymore. There is no better solution!

Muslims tell us that terrorists are perverting the Islamic faith when they carryout atrocities in the name of Allah. Many of the same Muslims refuse to condemn Hezbollah and Hamas. It is easy to condemn terrorism generally when no groups fit your definition.

The terrorist group is: ISLAM.Allah is not silent about terrorism. He sanctified and commanded it.  "We shall cast terror", "I will cast terror", "Allah cast terror",  " so that they may learn a lesson.", "Then take admonition, O you with eyes",  "to strike terror" .    Moe is not silent about terrorism. He bragged about it.  "Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month's journey. "I have been made victorious with terror ".

Our accommodation of Islamic ideology has proved to be futile. It is time to fix the blame on Muslim leaders around the world.

    Muslim leaders are not to blame. Islam is to blame. The evil is intrinsic to Islam, by design. It is what it is: a war machine.  Since 623, the fruit of Islam has been war. Get a clue.

Internationally, Muslim political leaders have forfeited their seat at the discussion table. Until Muslim leaders get their own followers under control, they should stop criticizing those who do not share their faith, politics, and world view. Strong disagreement with American foreign policy and Israel's right to exist is no excuse for strapping on a bomb and blowing up innocent civilians or providing money to insurgents who target civilians.

    This is a doctrinal issue, not a leadership issue.  What did Allah say?  What did Moe do?  Allah said "fight them"; Moe sent out extortion letters and followed up with military force.  "Its Islam, stupid."

The Islamic faith is infected and only Muslims can provide the cure.

    Islam is the disease, it is not infected. What is the cure for vampirism?  What is the cure for rabies?  What is the cure for a demonic mandate to conquer, rape, pillage & plunder the entire world?

    Before you can speak the truth about Islam, you must learn it. In this blog post, I have provided links to translations of the Noble Qur'an by Hilali & Khan and Abdullah Yusuf Ali.  Those links will give you access to the entire Qur'an, read it. If you have some doubt about the translations, go to http://www.quranbrowser.com/ and examine several parallel translations. If you think that is not what it means, visit http://qtafsir.com/ and look up the verses in Tafsir Ibn Kathir.  I gave you links to Sahih Bukhari and Sunan Abu Dawud. Navigation links at the top of those pages give you access to two other hadith collections and three translations of the Qur'an.  I gave you a link to Reliance of the Traveller, Book o9.8.  You can scroll up a few pages and read the legal definition of jihad and the obligation to perform it in every year.  If you choose to remain ignorant, don't blame me when you are enslaved or killed.  If we do not eliminate Islam from the world, you will eventually be killed or enslaved.  The conflict is existential. Us or them. You choose.  I made my choice, and I did what I can to wake you up and wise you up. The rest is up to you.