'76 Blog

(CCU Faculty) Yesterday while picking up my son and his buddies from a local shopping center, I ran into a student of mine who is preparing to be a missionary to the Muslim world.  We briefly spoke about his experiences on a recent trip to the Middle East and his plans for the future.  While driving the teenage boys back to their respective homes, one of them asked why someone would want to convert Muslims into Christians.  My son’s buddies were not raised in Christian homes, but attend public high school, as does my son.  We try to use opportunities like this to share Christ with our kids’ non-Christian friends.  My response was that if Christianity was the true religion and one which promoted peace rather than violence, wouldn’t it be a good thing to convince others to believe in it.  My son’s friend told me that all religions were really the same, and that it wasn’t important which religion one believed in.  I then asked, if he had ever heard of a Methodist terrorist or a Presbyterian suicide bomber.  He answered that there must be some of them out there, which reminded me what they are teaching our children in their “politically correct” public schools. Are all religions really the same?  Are the teachings of Mohammad morally equivalent to that of Jesus?  Jesus said to turn the other cheek, while Mohammad taught retribution.  Jesus went peacefully to the cross, while Mohammad led jihads and conquered most of the Arabian Peninsula.  Christianity was spread peacefully by preaching, while Muslim armies conquered the Middle East, North Africa, Spain, central and south Asia.  Christian martyrs were thrown to the lions or burnt at the stake for their faith, while Muslim martyrs died in jihads against the infidel or blew themselves up in cafes and at weddings.  Hollywood can make movies like "The Last Temptation of Christ" and "The Life of Brian," Broadway can produce a play depicting a gay Jesus, an “Artist” can put a crucifix in urine, yet Christians respond with peaceful protests.  However Salman Rushdie wrote a few words in a book and got fatwas issued by Muslims world-wide, death threats forced him to live the rest of his life in hiding.  Why don’t these movie producers and “artists” treat Mohammad the same as they have Jesus?   In the wake of Rushdie’s words about Mohammad numerous bookstores were firebombed, as was a newspaper which supported Rushie’s freedom of expression.  The result was that few bookstores even carried the Rushdie book.  Even several British nationals in the Middle East were kidnapped, until the British government handed over the blasphemer. A press release from the Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran declared “Even if Salman Rushdie repents and become the most pious man of all time, it is incumbent on every Muslim to employ everything he has got, his life and wealth, to send him to Hell.”  Throughout the late 80s and early 90s hundreds died in Muslim violence against Rushie’s book.  The current Ayatollah and Supreme Leader of Iran recently reaffirmed to the world that the fatwa against Rushdie was still in force. When Danish cartoonists drew images of Mohammad in 2005, Muslims throughout the Middle East rioted and burnt down Danish embassies and western cultural centers, resulting in the deaths of over 100 people.  Many of the cartoonists now live in hiding.  Last month a Muslim assassin was captured by Danish police in the home of one of the cartoonists, attempting to break into the “panic room”, installed by the cartoonist for his own safety.  Theo van Gogh produced a documentary on the treatment of women in the Muslim world.  In response the imam of the largest mosque in The Hague declared him a ‘criminal bastard’ and called for divine retribution.  Shortly thereafter, while bicycling through the streets of Amsterdam, he was shot dead and beheaded by a Muslim man. Why is it that most Muslim countries have blasphemy laws, some even calling for the death penalty for defaming Islam, the Koran, or Mohammad?  Why is it that Muslims now demand blasphemy laws in Western countries?  Why have many of these formerly tolerant Western nations complied and now limit freedom of speech to their citizens, prosecuting them for “defaming Islam”?  Why is it that I will come under great criticism (not only by Muslims but also by Christians) for even writing this?  I have been told over the years by several of my foreign students, that my life would be in danger if I continued to teach about Islam the way I do. Even Muslims recognize the difference.  Several times I have heard Muslims say, “I am not a Christian who would turn the other cheek.”  One of my former students went into Military Intelligence and was assigned to interrogate Muslims incarcerated in the “War on Terror”.  He told me that several of his Muslim prisoners told him, that if he were a true Christian, he wouldn’t be in the army.  Several times I have been told by Muslims, that Christians are taught peace and submission while Muslims are taught war and conquest.  This was because Allah intended Muslims to rule over Christians.  Scholars often point to the different roles of the founders of these two religions.  Jesus led a small band of Jews, who were subdued by the mighty Roman Empire and put their hope in a spiritual kingdom.  Mohammad was the sheik of Medina, who raided caravans for their booty and became the ruler of a vast earthly domain, imposing his religion on its populace.  Those who continue to insist that there is no difference between these two religions are either deluded or attempting to delude others.

David Petteys of Act for America, Denver chapter, and Michael Del Rosso of the Claremont Institute recently compared notes on the strange reluctance of Republicans running for office to identify our jihadist enemy in plain language.  Here is their exchange: PETTEYS: Our friend Michael Del Rosso recommended that the following question be asked of every candidate: “In your opinion, what is the greatest threat to our country and what would you do about it?”   Recently I had the opportunity to actually ask this question of Jane Norton, the front running GOP Senatorial candidate here in Colorado.  I am happy to say her response was this: “Islamic Terrorism, and we need to get over this idea that the rights of terrorists have priority over the lives of American citizens.”   Although I would prefer the term “Islamic Jihad” as opposed to Terrorism, it is a step forward.    Certainly preferable to the answer you’d get from most Democrats who would talking needing to "save the planet from climate catastrophe by cracking down on the evil oil companies”. I’m also happy to report my Congressman Mike Coffman’s office notified me today that he was joining Sue Myrick of North Carolina’s “Counter Terrorism Caucus” as a result of my suggestion. DEL ROSSO: Dave, I would NOT accept Terrorism as an answer from this candidate. A couple of weeks ago I put the following query to three of the seven Republican candidates attempting to reclaim Virginia's 5th District US House of Representatives seat for the GOP: "America has been in a shooting war for over 8 years with over 5,000 KIA, tens of thousands wounded, and a trillion dollars spent, with no end in sight. Who is our Enemy, what is their Doctrine, and what is their Objective?"  Each time the exchange went generally this way: Candidate: “We’re fighting Terrorists.” Me: That makes as much sense as saying “Our Enemy is Tanks.” Terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy. Candidate: “We’re fighting Muslim Extremists.” Me: “How do you know their Extremists? How do you know they are not actual Mainstream Muslims?” Encountering a bewildered look and no response I further asked “Have you ever read the Quran? Any book on Islamic jurisprudence and doctrines? Have you read the 9-11 Report?” Every time, the candidate's answers to all three were “No.” So I informed each of them: “You just admitted that you have no basis in fact, you have no knowledge, in making any claim about who are enemies are. How can you presume to ask me to vote for you to be my Representative when you have not even taken the trouble to identify our enemy 8 years into a war?”

What does Burj Khalifa, the world’s new tallest building dedicated this week in Dubai, have to do with the Twin Towers destroyed eight years ago?  In Islamic Law non-Muslim buildings are not allowed to be higher than Muslim ones, especially mosques.  According to Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri’s Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, non-Muslims “may not build higher than or as high as the Muslim’s buildings” o11.4(5). In a statement released from prison by Khalid Sheik Mohammad, mastermind of the 9/11 terrorist attacks soon to be tried as a common criminal in New York, boasted, “Your end is very near and your fall will be just as the fall of the towers on the blessed 9/11 day.” (CNN Online, 3/10/09)   What is most disturbing, however, is when the American Left celebrates the felling of the Twin Towers.  Norman Mailer responded to the 9/11 attacks by saying, that "Everything wrong with America led to the point where the country built that Tower of Babel, which consequently had to be destroyed." (Interview, 2001) Ayn Rand’s disciple Harry Binswanger noticed, “First, observe the target: the World Trade Center. What does the World Trade Center symbolize? It is the core of Wall Street, which is the base of New York City. New York is the dynamo powering America—the so-called Great Satan.” Juxtapose this with “the images of Osama bin Laden and his primitive, bearded barbarians squatting in the dirt around their campfires in Afghanistan.” America stands for “individual freedom, the freedom to use one’s independent mind to produce material prosperity, a rising standard of living, and individual happiness on this earth. Freedom, Wealth, Happiness.” (Columbia University Lecture, 10/2/2001) The World Trade Center towers were 1368 and 1362 feet, the tallest buildings in the world from 1973 to 1998, when Malaysia constructed their 1482 foot tall twin towers in Kuala Lampur.  That record held until the other day when Dubai surpassed it at 2717 feet.  It is also worth noting, that an Islamic Investment Group has bought the tallest building in London, the Pinnacle, a 945 foot building in the financial district.  By the way, there is a mosque on the 158th floor of that new tower in Dubai, which hopefully will satisfy the Shar’ia injunction that infidel buildings may not be higher than those of Muslims, presumably making it unnecessary for Al-Qaida to knock down any more of our buildings. --------------------Additional Recommended Reading: Raymond Ibrahim, ed.; The Al-Qaida Reader (Broadway,2007), and Lawrence Wright; The Looming Tower: Al-Qaida and the Road to 9/11 (Vintage,2006)

('76 Contributor) When the President solemnly vows to “get to the bottom of all this and bring these violent extremists to justice”, he is telegraphing the following: 1.      He is NOT connecting the violence to Islamic Jihad, which IS the main ideological threat to the United States.  Islamic Jihadists generate markers that fit the facts on the ground. With these markers, we can proceed to watch the Mosques where Jihadist groups are formed, we can read their literature and understand their doctrine, we can listen to the Imams and anticipate their actions.  But “violent extremists” generate nothing! How do you define one? You can’t!  The media continues their apologist approach, describing  the million and first “disturbed young man”, and of course Islam has nothing to do with it.  They also strive for “balance” and are sure to mention “right wing extremists” in the same breath, even though there has been a weekly Islamic Jihad incident since July of this year, and nothing from “right wing extremists” since Oklahoma City. 2.      The President, by avoiding the mention of Islam, is also letting us know he buys into the false narrative about Islam perpetrated by the Muslim Brotherhood and its front organizations such as CAIR, ISNA, MPAC, MAS, and all the rest.  This false narrative would have us believe that Islam is the “religion of peace”, that all Muslims are moderate, and only a “fringe” are violent, owing to our policies.  The reality is, Jihad is built into the faith.  Jihad is the solemn duty of ALL believers. Jihad can be waged four ways: with the mouth, the pen, the money and the sword.  Note that our misdirected “War on Terror” only deals with Jihad by the sword, leaving the other three modes unattended! 3.      Also, to “bring violent extremists to justice” reveals a view that the war with Islamic Jihad is a police problem.  A question: how to you deter suicide attacks with the threat of fines and imprisonment?  The legal straitjacket we have put ourselves in is this: everything is legal until a crime has been committed.   What happens when this “crime” is the detonation of nuclear weapons in a half dozen cities?  Also, we see Jamaa’t al-Fukra training thousands of soldiers for Jihad in the United States.  A steady stream of young men are going to the Middle East to the battlefields of jihad and are gaining combat experience. They are returning to the United States as seasoned combat veterans and trained killers.  They are becoming the training cadre and the backbone of a Muslim Jihad Army being built before our eyes right here in the United States! And we are turning a legalistic blind eye lest we “offend the Muslims”?  When   “Zero Hour” arrives, (and this is their term, not mine), and these thousands of combatants rise up in armed insurrection, what will the government do then? Threaten to file suit? Threaten to pull their 503c status?

Less than two hours after the worst act of terrorism on U.S. soil since 9/11 FBI Director Robert Mueller announced that his investigators were “definitely not discussing  terrorism”.  Soon after President Obama urged Americans “not to jump to conclusions”.  When reporters asked what the President meant by that White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs had no coherent answer. The initial stories by both the New York Times and the Associated Press gave great prominence to reports that the killer had been “harassed because he was a Muslim”, that he was “dismayed” by U.S. Policies in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that he was “upset” about the “terrible things” he heard from soldiers returning from the war zone. On the afternoon of the tragedy Americans channel surfing for updates on the massacre found an odd mix of reportage.  Chris Matthews of MSNBC offered an impassioned monologue on the “horrible costs of war”.  Other commentators amplified this theme of “the soldier as victim”. Shepherd Smith of the much reviled Fox News obtained a live interview with Army Colonial Terry Lee who knew the killer from his time at Walter Reed Hospital in Washington.  Colonel Lee related how the killer “seemed pleased” when a Muslim had shot and killed a U.S. Soldier in front of an Army recruiting office in Arkansas, and had also likened Muslim suicide bombers to those soldiers who throw themselves on a grenade to save their buddies.  Colonel Lee also stated that any harassment the killer experienced was not because of his Muslim faith but due to expressing these kind of view in the presence of men who had seen friends and fellow soldiers killed in combat. Apparently no other news outlet had been able to find Colonel Lee or any similar purveyors of “an inconvenient truth”. On Friday when it was confirmed that before commencing his slaughter, the killer jumped on a table and shouted “Allah Akbar” (God is Great) the media story line began to shift, but not too much. As soon as they learned that the killer was still alive various commentators  began to pose the following weighty questions: “Why was the killer moved from a civilian to a military hospital?” or “Would wide spread prejudice make it difficult for the killer to obtain a fair trial or adequate legal counsel”? or “In light of Guantanamo, should the killer be tried in a civilian or military court? “ or“could a possible death sentence create a martyr and inflame the Muslim world” or “ does the fact that the killer purchased his handguns legally mean we need tougher gun control?” or “Was the Army culpable in failing to prevent this” Perhaps the most bizarre line of inquiry was the assertion that if the killer acted alone and not as part of a conspiracy then the massacre cannot be viewed as an act of terrorism (See, Director Mueller was right!) but rather a case of a “stressed” or “demented” individaul who just “snapped”. This rampant political correctness and willful blindness too facts is not just coming from the loony left like the Huffington Post  which initially denied the killer was a Muslim or The Nationwhich denounced any mention of his religion or ethnicity as “Homophobia”, but from mainstream media and public officials who are responsible for the nation's safety. Days after the massacre the N.Y. Times   and the Washington Post   still insisted the killers“ motives were unclear”.  Even when it was known that the killer had praised suicide bombers, declared himself a Palestinian, sought to proselytize his patients, and carefully prepared for his atrocity- even giving away his possession- a  Denver Post  heading read “Clues Elusive in Killing”, and not a single public official from President Obama on down uttered the word “terrorist” or traitor or made the obvious connection to jihadist fanaticism- the preferred terms offered  being “shooter” and “act of violence”. In keeping with the summons and prediction of Obama bin Laden a Muslim fanatic perpetrated the worst act of domestic terrorism since 9/11 but our political leaders abetted by a craven media don't want you to know it, say it or even think it, and if you do “jump to conclusions”-however obvious- you will be called ignorant and bigoted. If the next home grown jihadist gets hold of a chemical, biological, or nuclear weapon, and kills thousands, will the reaction or story line be any different?  How many Americans must die before our people in their righteous anger decide its time for a new story line and new leaders to honestly pursue it. William Moloney is a Centennial Fellow and former Colorado Education Commissioner.  His columns have appeared in the Wall St. Journal, U.S.A. Today, Washington Post, Washington Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, Baltimore Sun , Rocky Mountain News and the Denver Post.    

(Centennial Fellow) Here's a sampling from the major news outlets this morning and how they are covering this story.  Note these key points: 1) Most barely touch on the fact that Hasan was Muslim, despite the fact he shouted "Allahu Akbar" before killing 13 people at Fort Hood. 2) The commander of the base and the investigators are still "stumped" as to the motive of the shooter.  3) Nearly all reports contain a portion of the press release from the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR - known Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas entity).   4) The New York Times and CNN make no mention of the facts that Hasan is Muslim, went to Mosque, or attended the Muslim Community Center, Silver Spring, MD.  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/06/army-suspect-said-allahu-akbar-shooting/          Remark: They say Hasan shouted “Allahu Akbar” before shooting, yet investigators are still stumped as to the motive.] http://www.southbendtribune.com/article/20091106/News01/911060342/-1/XML  http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20091106/NEWS08/911060368?source=rss_localnews               Their angle... Still unexplained last night was the motive for Hasan's attack. Asked if it could be considered a terrorist attack, Cone replied, "I couldn't rule  that out" but said the evidence does not point to that  http://hamptonroads.com/node/529768            Their angle... Hasan's motive remains unclear, although various sources said he is a devout Muslim who is opposed to U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq and was upset about an imminent deployment. He also had expressed some anger about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,572448,00.html           Their angle.... Before Thursday's shooting, Hasan reportedly gave away all of his furniture along with copies of the Koran to neighbors, KXXV-TV reported… Authorities have not ruled out that Hasan was acting on behalf of some unidentified radical group, a senior U.S. official in Washington said. He would not say whether any evidence had come to light to support that theory….The motive for the shooting wasn't clear, but Hasan was apparently set to deploy soon, and had expressed some anger about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, said generals at Fort Hood told her that Hasan was about to deploy overseas http://edition.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/06/texas.fort.hood.shootings/index.html          Remark: No mention he is Muslim, attended mosque or Muslim Community Center http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-fort-hood-shootings6-2009nov06,0,4341651.story          Their angle... A senior U.S counter-terrorism official said Thursday night that the Army and FBI were looking into whether Hasan, who is Muslim, had previously come to the attention of federal law enforcement officials as the suspected author of inflammatory Internet comments likening suicide bombers to heroic soldiers who give their lives to save others.

Sympathy and warmth toward US Muslims is up in the past two years, while concern for Islam's tendency to violence is down, according to a Pew survey reported in USA Today on this, the eighth anniversary of 9/11.  Bush's "religion of peace" mantra, combined with his refusal to speak bluntly about jihad or radical Islam, set the stage for Obama's truly Orwellian purge of America's vocabulary for thinking about those sworn to destroy us.  And voila, today's poll findings are the result.  Here is part of the USA Today story: According to the Pew survey, belief among Americans that Islam encourages violence has fluctuated since the Sept. 11 attacks, and was at its lowest level — a quarter of those surveyed — in March after the terror strikes. By 2007, 45% of Americans believed Islam was more likely than other faiths to encourage violence. This year, that number fell to 38%. The group most likely to say Islam encourages violence this year was conservative Republicans, at 55%. But that dropped 13% from two years ago, making them the group with the biggest change of opinion since 2007. The survey, conducted by telephone, also indicated that Americans have grown steadily more knowledgeable about Islam: 41% knew that the Muslim name for God is Allah and the Quran is the Islamic sacred text, compared to 33% in March 2002. The "small and gradual, but noticeable" change has an affect, Smith said. Those most familiar with Islam were least likely to link the religion with violence. Fifty-seven percent of people who knew the names Muslims use to refer to God and their sacred text, and were also acquainted with a Muslim, said Islam did not encourage violence more than other faiths. The same percentage of that group said their overall opinion of Muslims was favorable and 70% of that group said there's discrimination against Muslims.