A couple of years ago a friend of mine recommended one of my articles to his daughter, who replied, “Oh Dad, I don’t have time to read something by an old white guy.”
I wasn’t offended in the least. We all make quick judgements like that. We categorize people to save time and effort. There are probably very few old white guys who have anything interesting to say, and quite a few people think that includes me.
But in this case, I think it also reflects something more basic. This gal, who’s in her 40s, is a liberal who has been told all her life that white guys are evil, especially dead white guys, a group I will someday join. Surprisingly, this is NOT a recent phenomenon.
“The demonizing of white men” reads the headline from an article in U.S News & World Report dated April 26, 1993. It was for John Leo’s column, “On Society” which he wrote for 17 years and syndicated to 140 newspapers. Here’s the first paragraph, which could have been written 30 minutes ago, not 30 years ago:
“Attention, men of the Caucasoid persuasion. Have you made a terrible mistake by being born white males? Consider these recent items from the press: A New York weekly newspaper fired a columnist because a higher-up decreed that the paper “should began getting rid of these middle-aged white men.” (Sexism, ageism and racism.) A group called Women, Men and Media honored a black female columnist for her assaults on “the male and pale” media powers. (Casual racism, melanistic feminism.) The catalog for the biennial art show at New York’s Whitney Museum suggests that whiteness is a “notion” or “fallacy.” (Logically stupefying artistic racism.) And Newsweek published a strange and jeering cover story on white males. (Sexism, racism, institutional sophomoricism.)”
Did you catch “melanistic feminism?” John Leo was good!
Not all of his article reads as if it could have been written 30 minutes ago. He didn’t foresee that white women would soon be demonized along with white men, and while there was “no grand alliance of non-whites against white men” back then, there is such an alliance today against all whites and, incredibly, some of that alliance includes whites!
In the recent Rasmussen poll that got cartoonist Scott Adams in such big trouble, only 81 percent of white people thought it was okay to be white, meaning that 19% didn’t think it was okay to be white or had some reservations about it. If this degree of self-loathing had been apparent among whites back in 1993, I think John Leo would have mentioned it.
Most of the other points he made back then are still right on the money. For instance, here’s Leo’s number one objection to the demonizing of white men:
“It’s wrong to attack or fire people because of race and gender, even if they happen to be white guys. And no one who is serious about social justice in America thinks it’s a good idea to divide up teams by skin color or gender and set them against one another.”
Here’s another of Leo’s still apt observations, just change “white male” to “white people”:
“The race and gender people are basically using a Marxist analysis of society, with the role of capitalist suppressor now played by the white male. This is a weird distortion that forces believers to argue that all white males are privileged, even ones who clearly aren’t. I would hate to be the race-and-gender special agent dispatched to Appalachia to explain how socially powerful white males are —.”
Here’s Leo’s last paragraph, which I’ve edited and paraphrased somewhat to bring it up to date:
“The current wave of attacks on whites are expressions of a hard-edged race and gender ideology now seeping into the general media. We are getting into the ugly phase of attacks on whites. The race-and-gender folk will bear watching.”
That was 1993 and guess what folks? We weren’t watching. Today, the 1619 Project and the vile Critical Race Theory are legitimizing hatred of whites, and transgenders and cross dressers are being paraded in front of grade schoolers. In case you missed it, First Lady Jill Biden just celebrated International Women’s Day by presenting the International Woman of Courage award to a biological male.
Thirty years ago, not only would this have been unimaginable, it would also have been unbelievable, and yet here we are today with this reality staring us in the face.
How did this happen? I blame our media. Journalism today is a far cry from being society’s objective watchdog, It used to be called the “fourth estate,” which recognized the importance of a free press to monitor Congress, the Judiciary, and the Executive branches of government. Today, unfortunately, it is more accurately a “fourth branch” of big government.
This is because journalists are all products of a dumbed-down and indoctrinated educational system that has been dominated by progressives for the last 30 years or so. Progressives view government as a force for good, especially big government, because it takes the power of big government to right the injustices of a cruel and unfair world.
A prime example is Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society and War on Poverty programs started back in the 1960s which ushered in affirmative action, quotas and an era of BLACK privilege, all of which was going to right the wrongs committed by racist whites. Today, black privilege is stronger than ever yet it is completely ignored by the press, which continues to push non-existent white privilege.
Also ignored is the utter failure of LBJ’s policies and the enormous harm done to blacks by “black privilege,” aka affirmative action, and all its nuances.
More on that in Part 2
p.s. I like to provide links to my sources, but I couldn’t find this article by John Leo on the internet. If anybody would like a hard copy of the article, it will cost you a cup of coffee at The Buzz.
Scott Adams, creator of Dilbert, is being called a racist when I think he’s just being a realist. Watch this for five and a half minutes from 13:25 and make up your own mind.
I also think he’s being petulant. Plenty of GOOD blacks to side with, eg guys like Alan West, Bob Woodson, Glen Loury, Tom Sowell and ladies like Star Parker, Candace Owens, Carol Swain, Winsome Sears, Amala Ekpunobi (!) etc. etc.
Piss on the rest.
Adams has the wherewithal to move away from black neighborhoods. What about all the other good, law-abiding people who can’t afford that luxury?
My advice to the good people who live where black punks roam the streets, car-jack, home-invade, shop-lift and shoot people, all without any effective law enforcement because that would be racist, is to buy a handgun and carry it with you at all times.
Be prepared to use it. The politicians won’t let the cops clean up our cities, so it’s up to you.
There are 26 constitutional-carry states where a permit to carry a concealed handgun is not required. If you live in a state that does require a permit, you may want to make like the hoodlums and punks and go ahead and carry without a permit. That’s a risk-benefit analysis you’ll have to make.
Here in New Mexico, the progressive legislature refused to increase the penalties for drug dealers who carry a gun considering how dangerous their occupation is, so maybe you want to buy a little fentanyl to put it in your pocket next to your gun.
That’s all the proof you need to realize that white liberals are NOT serious about gun control or crime. Piss on them, too.
Last Monday, two Democrats joined four Republicans to table a bill that would have increased the minimum wage in New Mexico. The House Commerce and Economic Development Committee voted 6-4 to table House Bill 28 which would have raised the minimum wage based on the consumer price index.
This is something I never would have predicted. Furthermore, one of the Democrats, Rep. Linda Serrato, D-Santa Fe, stated that: “Minimum wages shouldn’t be determined by a legislative body.”
She’s a Democrat I could vote for!
Minimum wage laws suffer from two problems: The first is that they put the economic cart before the horse. Minimum wage laws say that for every hour worked, a worker should be able to consume “X” dollars’ worth of goods and services. For example, a $15 an hour minimum wage says that for every hour worked a worker will be able to consume $15 worth of goods and services.
If the worker doesn’t produce $15 worth of goods and services, under most circumstances, the job can’t exist. To quote Russian dictator Leonide Brezhnev, “It is an elementary fact that a society cannot consume what isn’t first produced.”
What this means is, if we want people to earn more, we have to increase their productivity. The first place to start is with education. New Mexico is 50th in the nation when it comes to educational outcomes. That’s the place to start, not with the government mandating wage levels workers can’t earn.
Which illustrates the second problem of minimum wage laws, something I call the Camelot effect, or the “Government is God” syndrome. To quote the lyrics from Camelot, paraphrased slightly:
A law was made a distant moon ago: July and August cannot be too hot.
And there’s a legal limit to the snow here In Camelot.
The winter is forbidden till December And exits March the second on the dot. By order, summer lingers through September in Camelot.
I know it gives a person pause, But in Camelot Those are the legal laws.
“How can you use the term radical without first identifying the norm? Normative Islam is based on the unabrogated commands of Allah in the Koran, and the examples and teachings of Muhammad (the Sunnah). If the Koran and the Sunnah support a Muslim’s actions, that Muslim is not radical, he is devout.” Stephen M. Kirby – From his website, Investigating Islam: https://islamseries.org/
“If you’re moderate, you’re not Muslim.” George Julian, telephone interview, 10/13/22
All of the Islamic scholars I admire, such as Robert Spencer or David Wood, when citing some heinous act committed in the name of Islam, are quick to say that not all Muslims would do such a thing, or approve of such a thing, etc., etc. The clear message is that we shouldn’t blame all Muslims for the acts of a radical few, which promotes the dangerous idea that we don’t need to worry about most Muslims.
But we do. As the above quotes from Dr. Kirby and President Erdogan imply, what we think of as a “radical” Muslim is in reality a plain vanilla devout Muslim, one who is acting on his beliefs. Those beliefs are based on the “unabrogated commands of Allah in the Koran, and the examples and teachings of Muhammad (the Sunnah).”
This means all of Islam stems from a sadistic, egomaniacal Seventh Century warlord; what he “revealed,” what he said, and what he did. And what Allah/Muhammad “revealed” in the Koran is either what Muhammad believed or wanted his followers to believe. And please, let’s don’t pretend that the Koran is “Allah’s Word:” It is obviously Muhammad’s word.
As befits the times and Muhammad’s ambitions, the Koran and the Sunnah are full of barbaric commands, such as cutting off the hands of thieves, stoning to death adulterers, and killing unbelievers, especially on the battlefield. Since it is impossible to know just when or if a devout Muslim will act on those beliefs, it’s impossible to know if a Muslim will kill you if circumstances permit. They certainly aren’t going to tell you.
In Albuquerque recently, a Sunni Muslim refugee from Afghanistan ingratiated himself with a number of Shia Muslims before killing two, and probably four, of them. Sunnis consider Shias to be apostates (and Shias return the favor), so the Sunni considered it his religious duty to kill the Shias. That’s the penalty for apostasy.
The murderer was, by all accounts, mild-mannered and likable. If Muslims can’t tell when another Muslim is dangerous, how can we non-Muslims? We can’t, and we shouldn’t try. This may sound a little over the top, but if you work with a Muslim, it might be a good idea to figure out a way to have quick access to a firearm, especially during the holiday season.
I mention that because at a San Bernadino Public Health Department Christmas party a few years ago, an American-born Muslim employee and his Pakistani-born Muslim wife killed 14 of his co-workers and wounded 22. They were killed in a shoot-out with police shortly thereafter, leaving a six-month old baby for his mother to raise.
Who could possibly have predicted that a young Muslim couple with a baby would go on such a murderous rampage? Certainly not his coworkers, who probably thought he was a “moderate”, aka harmless, Muslim. Furthermore, unlike the Albuquerque killer, he was not an immigrant but was born in America. The only thing the two killers had in common was that they are both Muslims.
Gee, do you think there’s a clue in there somewhere?
While Christmas is especially offensive to devout Muslims, so is homosexuality. Muhammad said to kill the sodomizers and a devout Muslim did just that at a gay nightclub on June 12, 2016, in Orlando, FL. In the deadliest attack on the LGBTQ community in American history, American-born Muslim Omar Mateen killed 49 people and wounded 53 during a shooting rampage at the Pulse nightclub.
To make sure the world knew why he was doing that, he called 911 while he was killing people and identified himself as an “Islamic soldier,” a “Soldier of God,” and a “Mujahadeen,” which means all-of-the-above. He also pledged allegiance to the leader of ISIL, the new Islamic state that was going to conquer the world for Islam. His explanations weren’t enough, though. After the massacre, authorities were looking for a motive. Sigh.
Mateen, 29, was born in New York to Afghan immigrants and was described by one family friend as loving, close-knit and “very respectful” of America. He was a college graduate with a degree in criminal justice technology and worked as a private security guard. He was married and the father of a 3-year-old boy. The only obvious clue that he might be dangerous was that he was a Muslim.
Another American-born Muslim killer was U.S. Army psychiatrist Major Nidal Hasan. At Fort Hood on November 5, 2009, Hasan murdered 13 soldiers and support personnel and wounded 40 others. Hasan was a devout Muslim who gave lectures on Islamic fundamentals to his fellow officers, lectures that should have raised BIG alarms, but didn’t. Hasan is the rare exception to the rule that Muslim violence is always a surprise.
Hasan is still awaiting execution, unlike the Saudi pilot trainee at Pensacola Naval Station, who on December 6, 2019, was shot dead after killing three and injuring eight in a classroom. Other Saudi pilot trainees took videos while he was shooting. They were probably “moderate” Muslims. Of course.
In the above two cases, we have devout Muslims killing people on military bases. How much of a chance do you think you’ll have in your office or home? While it’s probable that most Muslims don’t have the stomach to engage in such acts of violence, they’re quick to hold the coats of those who do – or make videos of them in action.
They sure as Hell aren’t going to help you, the non-Muslim. Every day I check two web sites that cover the daily atrocities committed by Muslims around the world. Thousands of Islamic-inspired atrocities occur every year, and not once have I read where a Muslim tried to stop any of this mayhem. Not once have I read of a Muslim warning authorities of an impending attack. Not once have I read of a Muslim testifying against Muslims who committed any of these thousands of crimes against non-Muslims.
Muslims protecting non-Muslims from other Muslims may occur now and then, but it’s damned rare. Helping non-Muslims in such cases can be proof of apostasy, which puts the Muslim’s life in danger. The Koran has numerous warnings against befriending non-Muslims, and to disagree with any verse in the Koran is to be an apostate.
Apologists frequently claim that many Muslims should get a pass because they are ignorant about what is in the Koran or the Sunnah, but their ignorance is almost impossible to prove. A Muslim who claims ignorance simply can’t be believed because Islam requires – requires — Muslims to lie if that’s what is necessary to deceive us unbelievers. That complicates things a touch, don’t you think?
Perhaps the most common lie is claiming Muslims are free to disagree with anything in the Koran or the Sunnah. That’s an apostasy, and I doubt if there is a Muslim in the world who doesn’t know that. They also know that apostasy is punishable by death, and if they don’t know that, a devout Muslim is sure to inform them, and perhaps with more than just words.
In such a case, the accused Muslim can simply claim to be fulfilling the religious obligation to deceive the unbelievers. That’s the escape hatch for your Muslim friends, who are violating Verse 5:51 of the Koran if you are a Christian or a Jew, and also Verse 3:28 because you are an “unbeliever.”
Ask them about that and they may say they don’t believe in those verses, as if they had a choice, or that those verses are no longer relevant, at which point you should ask them if those verses have been abrogated. (They haven’t.) Then ask them what kind of person would follow a religion that sanctions the killing of dogs and sex with prepubescent girls?
That could end your friendship, but it may lead your Muslim friend to take a hard look at what Islam is, and therefore what it means to be a Muslim. No decent human being can be a devout Muslim, period. You should beware of all Muslims, but especially “ignorant” Muslims who remain Muslims after learning about Islam, and those who defend Islam in spite of what Islam teaches.
To be fair, apostates put their lives at risk, and apostasy doesn’t require an open break with Islam. Simply not being a devout Muslim suffices, and this judgement is often in the eye of the beholder. A Muslim with a pet dog, or a Muslim who listens to music, are Muslims at risk.
Again, while most Muslims wouldn’t murder a Muslim, or anybody else, for having a dog or listening to Renee Fleming, the small percentage who are psychopaths will, and some of those will do so even if they are captured or killed in the process. Even in America, apostates are in danger, as witness the brutal public attack on Salmon Rushdie by an American-born Muslim. Rushdie, a Muslim apostate, has been under a death threat for over 30 years because of a novel he wrote that disparaged Muhammad.
He was attacked last August on a stage just before he was to give a speech at the Chautauqua Institution in New York. Nothing subtle about that. HIs attacker was 24-year-old, US-born Muslim, Hadi Matar, whose parents immigrated from Lebanon. He has pleaded not guilty because, after all, he was obeying God’s law, not some silly man-made law, and, of course: “Authorities are investigating what motivated the stabbing.” Double sigh.
Matar has no criminal history and was described by an acquaintance as “a very quiet kid.” HIs arrest photos show a smiling, presentable young man, not at all threatening, just another “moderate” Muslim, proud of what he did for Allah.
As is obvious from the above examples, being an American-born Muslim doesn’t make the Muslim any less dangerous, but we should be especially careful around the immigrant Muslim, who may be in our country not to escape Islam, but to spread it.
In Texas recently, a Muslim immigrant was convicted of killing his two daughters because they were dating non-Muslims and becoming Westernized. He was a cabdriver at the time, and he shot his two daughters multiple times and left their bodies in his cab. Another not too subtle display of Islamic justice.
He was a fugitive for 12 years – 12 years –before his arrest, which was the result of a tip from a non-Muslim. His son and brother have also been arrested for helping him avoid arrest all those years, and I’d be very surprised if there weren’t many other Muslims involved in hiding him from the infidel authorities.
In fact, the Muslim community, the ummah, as they call themselves, can be expected to shield Muslim fathers who kill their daughters because the ummah recognizes the moral authority of those fathers. Moral authority? Yes, because in Islam, you see, there is NO penalty for a father who kills his daughters. You didn’t know that? Welcome to Sharia law. Unsurprisingly, the father has pleaded not guilty.
Thus, the ummah can be considered an accessory both before and after the fact. This is to be expected from a religious community that puts Allah’s laws above all “man-made” laws. In 2011, the California chapter of the Council for American Islamic Relations, CAIR, concerned about FBI investigations into terrorism, (Gosh, I wonder why?) released a poster with the stark message to all Muslims: Build a wall of resistance; Don’t talk to the FBI.
They pulled the poster after the national media picked it up, with CAIR officials professing their fealty to the law, blah blah blah, lie lie lie. These days, CAIR doesn’t have to protest police investigations into Muslims because the ACLU does it for them. This is the sort of virtue-signaling ignorance that gets people killed.
The bottom line, folks, is that as long as Muslims are allowed to practice their religion in this country, non-Muslims are at risk of being killed by them. If what has occurred here doesn’t convince you of that elementary truth, just look at what’s going on in Europe with their Muslim immigrants. It’s getting disastrous, and one wonders if the Europeans will ever wake up.
The same could be said here: that even after 9-11, we protect Muslims and their barbaric religion. This is insanity and you don’t have to play. When Muslims are around, keep your gun handy and your dogs and daughters out of sight. Recognize that no Muslim can be your friend, and that every Muslim will lie to you about Islam. Remember, no decent human being can be a Muslim.
Wake up and smell the hate, infidels, before the hate turns on you, and it will.
In an attempt to make the above more readable, I’ve omitted footnotes. People knowledgeable about Islam won’t need to fact check anything I’ve written, but this article isn’t meant for them. For those who want to “kick the tires,” see below.
– “Unabrogated commands” refers to Verse 2:106 in the Koran, which says that Allah-Muhammad can change his mind, abrogating previous verses. This gave Muhammad the freedom to improvise as circumstances dictated. The Sunnah, the life of Muhammad, what he said and did, is sanctified by verses in the Koran that say to obey Muhammad is to obey Allah, and that what Muhammad did is a good example for Muslims to follow, i.e., his actions, as well as his words, were approved by Allah. What a con man!! Verses 4:80 and 33:21 are applicable.
– Cut off hands, V 5:38; flog fornicators, stone adulterers, V 24.2 (Kahn translation); kill unbelievers, V9:5, 9:29, 9:123, 8:12, 8:39, 2:216 and many, many more.
-Attacks by Muslims re: Albuquerque, San Bernadino, Orlando, Fort Hood, Pensacola, New York, Dallas:
Reliance of the Traveller(sic) is “A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law.” The obligation to lie to promote Islam or protect Muslims is on pgs. 745-746; the non-penalty for killing one’s children is on pg. 584; to deny any verse in the Koran is apostasy, pg. 597; no penalty for killing an apostate is on pg. 596; obligation to wage war against unbelievers pgs. 599 – 602; it is forbidden to aid the police if they “are going to commit injustice,” e.g., arrest a Muslim for obeying Islamic law, pg. 744 and explains CAIR’s warning to Muslims not to help the FBI; Muhammad’s command to kill sodomizers pg. 665.
Letter to the editor about NMSU and Muslims article of Friday Aug 26. Posted 8/26/22
Friday’s Grant County Beat had a story headlined: “NMSU pledges solidarity with Muslim community following shooting deaths.” The deaths referred to were four Muslim men murdered in Albuquerque since last November. A suspect has been arrested for at least two of the killings, and is probably responsible for all four.
This arrest was not mentioned in the NMSU article, which was all about how various groups and college officials at NMSU are wonderful people eager “to show a genuine act of kindness to respectfully serve and support the Muslim community in New Mexico,” in the words of Yoshi Iwasaki, Dean of NMSU’s College of Health, Education and Social Transformation. (Social Transformation?)
In fact, any mention of the suspect arrested for the killings would have detracted from all the virtue posturing at NMSU. The suspect, you see, is another Muslim, a refugee from Afghanistan. His motive for the killings is that the victims were all Shiite Muslims and he is a Sunni Muslim. The Sunnis and the Shiites have been killing each other for 1400 years. The Battle of Karbala in 680 AD marked the beginning of a never-ending Sunni-Shia civil war.
It is never-ending because each sect considers the other to be apostates or hypocrites, and the eternal command of Allah is to wage war against such unbelievers until they are subdued. An analogy would be if the Troubles of Northern Ireland in the late Twentieth Century represented a permanent condition of Protestant-Catholic Christians everywhere on earth.
Shia Muslims are the majority in only a few Muslim nations, Iran, Iraq, Azerbaijan, and Bahrain. Shias are only between 10 and 20 percent In Afghanistan, where they have been routinely terrorized by the majority Sunnis. A recent report from Human Rights Watch concerning Afghanistan cited “— suicide bombings that killed at least 72 people at the Sayed Abad mosque in Kunduz on October 8, and a bombing that killed at least 63 people at the Bibi Fatima mosque in Kandahar on October 15. After the Kandahar attack, ISIS issued a statement saying it would target Shia in their homes and centers “in every way, from slaughtering their necks to scattering their limbs… and the news of [ISIS’s] attacks…in the temples of the [Shia] and their gatherings is not hidden from anyone, from Baghdad to Khorasan.”(1)
Note the warning that Shias would be attacked “in their homes and centers” i.e., mosques. This means that there is no place in Afghanistan where Shias can be safe from the Sunnis. But it’s not just Afghanistan: it’s everywhere. That includes the streets of Albuquerque and the campus at NMSU. Oh, you say, Muslim refugees won’t bring their cultural baggage with them when they come to America? They would be the first group who didn’t. We shouldn’t be surprised that a Sunni refugee from Afghanistan killed four Shias in Albuquerque — or anywhere else in America.
The good people at NMSU, and I mean that sincerely, invited Sureyya Husain of the Southern New Mexico Islamic Center to participate in their solidarity show. The Southern New Mexico Islamic Center is a SUNNI Mosque in Las Cruces. Was Sureya Husain there to be questioned about a Sunni killing Shias in Albuquerque? I’m afraid not.
Thus, the NMSU staff and faculty, by inviting Sunnis to participate, could be seen as supporting the Sunni killing of Shias. This was not their intention, but in a Sunni vs. Shia situation, you either take sides or condemn both. Knowledgeable people condemn both.
Muhammad, may he rot in Hell, once said the angel Gabriel wouldn’t deliver a revelation to him because there was a dog in the house. Dogs thus became forbidden in Islam unless they were working dogs. In my unsubstantiated opinion, Muhammad was a petty little narcissist who resented the attention and affection given to a dog when he, Muhammad, was supposed to be the center of the universe.
Muhammad expressed his displeasure with dogs, and since he spoke for the eternal Allah, dogs suffer Muslim cruelty to this day. Recently, Robert Spencer reported in his Jihad Watch that Iranian officials raided a privately run dog shelter and killed 1700 dogs, much to the displeasure of the decent people running the shelter.(1) No matter, Muhammad rules now and forever. In fact, I’m surprised the people running the shelter weren’t killed, too.
Just as Muhammad’s dislike of dogs some 1400 years ago is a problem for dogs today, so his pedophilia back then a problem for little girls today. You see, Muhammad married a six-year-old when he was 53, and until she was big enough to have intercourse with, which he started when she was nine, he would put his penis between her thighs and, apparently, ejaculate when they took baths together.
This is called “thighing” (2) and is something you’ve probably never heard of until now. Multiculturalism is so mind expanding, don’t you think? While some Muslims question the “thighing” narrative, none question that Muhammad bathed and fondled his young bride. This disgusting conduct is not only accepted today but REVERED because the eternal Koran blessed everything Muhammad did. Here is what Allah revealed in Verse 33:21:
“Surely there was a good example for you in the messenger of Allah, for all those who look forward to Allah and the last day and remember Allah much.” (3)
The only people looking “forward to Allah” on the Day of Resurrection are devout Muslims who are guaranteed heaven. Everybody else will go to Hell. Consequently, one way to ensure Allah’s favor is to emulate the “good example” of Muhammad. Tragically, the example of Muhammad, contrary to what Muslims might claim, cannot be rationalized by the context of the times. Here’s Mawdudi’s footnote to Verse 33:21:
It can also be translated as follows: “Surely there is (rather than there was) a good example for you in the Messenger of Allah ….” (4)
To repeat, Muhammad IS a good example, which means TODAY and FOREVER. Something that is forever is not limited by temporal context. Any Muslim who disagrees is disagreeing with Mawdudi’s opinion, and Mawdudi was a consensus Islamic scholar and NO dissent from such consensus is allowed. This is what Sharia law says on the matter:
“Never explain a verse of the Holy Quran by your own opinion, but check on as to how it has been understood by the scholars of sacred law who came before you. If you comprehend something else by it and what you have understood contradicts the sacred law, forsake your wretched opinion and fling it against the wall.” (5)
Since “scholars of sacred law” reject any contextual interpretation of Islam, it shouldn’t be surprising that efforts to raise the age of marriage in Islamic nations have frequently met fierce resistance. (6) Any such laws are considered un-Islamic and a criticism of the Prophet, which would be an apostasy. Nonetheless, the legal age of marriage has been raised in most Islamic nations to 16 or 18. The degree to which these laws are enforced is another matter, as is the very real possibility that some of these laws are passed to convince non-Muslims that Islam can change with the times.
But it can’t, and that, in a nutshell, is one of the problems with Islam: it’s frozen in time, Muhammad’s time. Fourteen hundred years ago, child brides were common, as was capital punishment by stoning. Slavery was considered normal and women were second class citizens, if that. All of this is still the case today where Islam rules.
Admittedly, the customs of 1400 years ago weren’t confined to Arabia, or to just Muslims. After all, it was only a little over one hundred years ago (1920) that women were allowed to vote in the United States, and while there are no women preaching in mosques today, neither are there any women preaching in Catholic churches. The big difference is that nowhere in Judeo-Christian canonical literature is it decreed that every detail set forth is from God and therefore possesses eternal verity to be obeyed in all aspects of life, including government.
Not so with Islam. In the forward to Sayyid Mawdudi’s Twentieth Century translation of the Koran, a devout, highly educated Muslim described the Koran as the “Last Book” from Allah which “was meant to serve as a beacon light for the guidance of humanity till the end of time.” (7)
Thus, Muslims believe the Koran is the eternal word of God to be obeyed forever, and the Koran extends this to include whatever Muhammad said or did. Allah makes this quite clear in Revelation/Verse 4:59: “Believers obey Allah and obey the Messenger, and those invested with authority among you; and then if you were to dispute among yourselves about anything refer it to Allah and the Messenger —.” (8)
Mawdudi’s explanatory footnote puts Muhammad on virtually equal footing with Allah: “In an Islamic order the injunctions of God and the way of the Prophet (peace be on him) constitute the basic law and paramount authority in all matters.” (9)
An “Islamic order” is an Islamic theocracy and “the way of the prophet” is whatever Muhammad said or did. Since Muhammad had sex with a child, even though that was 1400 years ago, it is allowed today with some restrictions. The Reliance of the Traveller (sic), which is a book of Sunni law, recognizes the legality of prepubescent marriage, husband or wife,(10) as does the Koran for wives.(11)
Furthermore, the Reliance has a specific penalty that men must pay if having intercourse with a prepubescent girl causes physical damage to her: “A full indemnity is paid — for injuring the peritioneal (sic – should be peritoneal) wall between vagina and rectum so they become one aperture –.”(12)
This is called a recto-vaginal fistula (13) and it is a serious, painful and life-threatening condition. A full indemnity that a man must pay for doing this is 100 camels or their equivalent value.(14) Now, If I were Allah, the monetary penalty would be far, far greater and the Muslim man would be rendered physically incapable of ever again hurting another little girl — or a big girl, either.
The Reliance is a book of Sunni law and Shiite law is more onerous, though still far short of what Allah Burro would impose. The late Ayatollah Khomeini, a Shiite Muslim of unquestioned authority, had this to say on the matter:
“A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate vaginally, but sodomising the child is acceptable. If a man does penetrate and damage the child, then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl will not count as one of his four permanent wives and the man will not be eligible to marry the girl’s sister… “(15)
The key line from the above is: “he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life.” This penalty seems more apt than 100 camels, but it probably places the little girl’s life in danger. One must ask if sodomizing doesn’t also risk serious damage even though it is “acceptable.” Also, how does the Muslim man obtain children “as young as a baby?” Are they his children, his “brides,” or his slaves — or all three?
Since Khomeini said it is lawful for a man to “have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby,” it is apparent that pedophilia is legal under Shiite law as well as Sunni law. This is to be expected since all sects of Islam honor the “way of the Prophet” who was obviously a pedophile. That, of course, is a verdict based on today’s norms as practiced virtually anywhere in the non-Muslim world.
Not, however, where Islam rules. The fact that Islam has explicit penalties for physically damaging a young girl via intercourse or attempted intercourse is strongly indicative of the commonality of such practices, and the light penalties are further evidence of the second-class status of females in Islamic societies.
When the Ayatollah Khomeini became ruler of Iran, he lowered the marriage age for brides to nine. He also opined that it was “better for a girl to marry at such a time when she would begin menstruation at her husband’s house, rather than her father’s home. Any father marrying his daughter so young will have a permanent place in heaven.”(16)
Let’s repeat that last bit just for the sake of multicultural enlightenment: “Any father marrying his daughter so young will have a permanent place in heaven.” Hmmm. Not exactly where Allah Burro would send such pedophile-pimp fathers, but Allah Burro is very closed-minded about such things.
Since Muhammad also owned slaves, another widespread custom of his time, it shouldn’t be surprising that Muslims today will practice slavery. The recent attempt of ISIS to reestablish a caliphate provides a case study on how slavery and pedophilia interact where The Way of the Prophet rules. This is from a question-answer manual instructing ISIS soldiers on how to treat prepubescent slave girls:
Q 13: Is it permissible to have intercourse with a female slave who has not reached puberty? (A) It is permissible to have intercourse with the female slave who hasn’t reached puberty if she is fit for intercourse. However, if she is not fit for intercourse then it is enough to enjoy her without intercourse. (17)
I assume that means sodomy, acceptable according to Khomeini, which raises a fundamental question: How can any normal man “enjoy” that? Maybe you have to be raised a Muslim. That would explain that when ISIS had slave auctions, the female slaves in the 1 to 9 age group commanded prices as much as four times that of the 20 to 30 group. (18) Another question: if intercourse with a slave girl causes a fistula, does the slave girl get 100 camels or sustenance for life?
To repeat, I find it difficult to believe a man could be raised to “have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby.” I don’t count, though. It’s the Muslim man who counts, and I don’t want him in my country. Since there is no way to screen the good Muslim man from the bad Muslim man, that would mean no Muslim men allowed. Period. For those Muslim men already here, it should be made clear that our man-made laws supersede the “laws” of Allah. It should also be made clear that men sent to prison for pedophilia often receive the penalty Allah Burro would impose.
If you have been a defender of Islam and Muslims, for whatever reason, you have condoned cruelty to dogs and the sexual molestation and mutilation of young girls, even babies. The probability that a majority of Muslims don’t support such behavior is immaterial. They don’t actively oppose it either, and that is unacceptable.
Note: This article was motivated by a 32-minute YouTube: PfanderFilms Lloyd #13 Since Muhamma married Aisha, so can others!: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjZ71Lg8i0c&t=1488s:
“Amir al-Mu’minin is the leader of the believers, in this case, Muhammad.”
There are numerous references in Sunni hadiths, e.g. – Narrated Salim’s father: Once Gabriel promised to visit the Prophet (ﷺ) but he delayed and the Prophet (ﷺ) got worried about that. At last he came out and found Gabriel and complained to him of his grief (for his delay). Gabriel said to him, “We do not enter a place in which there is a picture or a dog.” Sahih al-Bukhari 5960 Book 77 Hadith 176 (USC_MSA web (English) reference Vol. 7, Book 72 Hadith 843.)
“The Prophet, peace be upon him, said: ‘Whoever keeps a dog, his good deeds will decrease every day by one qeeraat [a unit of measurement], unless it is a dog for farming or herding.’ In another report, it is said: ‘ …unless it is a dog for herding sheep, farming or hunting.'”—Bukhari Sharif
Muslims base the prohibition against having a dog in one’s home, except for working or service dogs, on these traditions.
(2) https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Thighing – Question: What’s the ruling on thighing minors? Answer: If the question refers to the thighing of a minor wife by her man then this is permissible. But if the question refers to the thighing of a non-wife then it’s forbidden whether it’s the thighing of a minor or an adult, a male or a female.
(3) Sayyid Abdul a’la Mawdudi, Towards Understanding the Qur’an, abridged, hardcover version of Tafhim al-Qur’an. Translated and edited (from Urdu to English) by Zafar Ishaq Ansari, The Islamic Foundation, Leicester, UK, 2015, Verse 33:21, pg. 866. This is an abridged, English language version of Mawdudi’s six-volume translation of the Koran from Arabic to Urdu. (Thirteen volumes in English.) While none of Mawdudi’s extensive footnotes are referenced, we can be sure that all of his interpretations are well-grounded in Islamic traditional theology. Otherwise, it could not have been published.
(5) Ahmed ibn Naqib al-Misra, Reliance of the Traveller (‘Umdat al-Salik): A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, Amana Publications, 1999, section t3.9 pg. 804
(7) Towards Understanding the Qur’an, forward by Khurshid Ahmad, pg. x. (Wikipedia: Khurshīd Ahmad (3/23/32 —) PhD, DSc, NI, is a Pakistani economist, philosopher, politician, and an Islamic activist who helped to develop Islamic economic jurisprudence as an academic discipline and one of the co-founders of The Islamic Foundation in Leicester, UK.)
(8) ibid, pg. 171 The Koran has numerus verses in which Muhammad had “Allah” tout Muhammad’s virtues, etc.
(10) Reliance of the Traveller, section n9.2, pg. 567: “A waiting period Is obligatory for a woman divorced after intercourse, whether the husband and wife are prepubescent, have reached puberty, or one has in the other has not.”
(11) In addition to V 33:21 which approves of everything Muhammad did, which would include his marriage to a six-year-old, there is Verse 65:4: “The waiting period of those of your women who have lost all expectation of menstruation shall be 3 months in case you entertain any doubt; and the same shall apply to those who have not yet menstruated.”
This refers to the period before a divorce becomes final, and Mawdudi’s footnote explains, “Those women may not have experienced menstruation either because they are too young or because their menstrual cycle was delayed or because —-etc.” From Towards Understanding the Qur’an, pg. 1183.
(12) Reliance of the Traveller, section 4.13 pg. 592 (13)
(13) Fistula Definition: A fistula is an abnormal connection or passageway that connects two organs or vessels that do not usually connect. They can develop anywhere between an intestine and the skin, between the vagina and the rectum, and other places. The most common location for a fistula is around the anus. (From Google search. Emphasis in original.)
(14) Reliance of the Traveller, section o4.2 pg. 588
Never trust a Muslim. They will lie to you and pass a polygraph while doing it. This is because Muhammad, who spoke for Allah, said it was not a sin to lie during war, and Muslims are always at war with non-Muslims, in one form or another:
Al-Jihad, (holy fighting) in Allah’s cause (with full force of numbers and weaponry) is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars (on which it stands). By Jihad Islam is established, Allah’s Word is made superior (which means none has the right to be worshiped but Allah), and his religion, Islam, is propagated. – – Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. (1)
Since jihad against unbelievers is an “obligatory duty,” it is also obligatory to lie to the unbelievers if that helps the jihad. Here is what The Reliance of the Traveller (sic), “A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law,” says: When it is possible to achieve (a praiseworthy) aim by lying but not by telling the truth it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory. (My emphasis.)(2)
Most importantly, making “Allah’s Word” superior, “which means none has the right to be worshiped but Allah,” is an inherently POLITICAL as well as religious goal. In fact, Islam is a theocracy first and foremost:
“The purpose for which the Muslims are required to fight is not, as one might think, to compel the unbelievers into embracing Islam. Rather, it’s purpose is to put an end to the suzerainty of the unbelievers so that the latter are unable to rule over people. The authority to rule should only be vested in those who follow the True Faith (Islam).” (3)
The above quote is from a Twentieth Century tafsir, Tafhim al-Qur’an, written by the renowned Islamic scholar and Pakistani political figure, Sayyid Abdul A’la Mawdudi, sometimes spelled Maududi. A Tafsir is a scholarly exegesis of the Koran, and in the religion of Islam, there is NO dissent from scholarly consensus.
Mawdudi goes on to write that non-Muslims have “absolutely no right to seize the reins of power in any part of God’s earth nor to direct the collective affairs of human beings according to their own misconceived doctrines.” Anywhere non-Muslims rule Muslims, “the believers would be under an obligation to do their utmost to dislodge them from political power and to make them live in subservience to the Islamic way of life.” (4)
In a different forum, Mawdudi explained what this means in unequivocal language: “Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam –. Towards this end, Islam wishes to press into service all forces which can bring about a revolution and a composite term for the use of all these forces is ‘Jihad’. To change the outlook of the people and initiate a mental revolution among them through speech or writing is a form of ‘Jihad’. To alter the old tyrannical social system and establish a new just order of life by the power of sword is also ‘Jihad’ and to expend goods and exert physically for this cause is ‘Jihad’ too.” (My emphasis.) (5)
“Jihad” thus means not just using the sword to spread Islam, but also proselytizing “through speech or writing” which, as noted, is not obligated to be truthful but just the opposite if necessary. “To expend goods” includes contributing financial support to the cause, which is helped by mandated giving to charity, called Zakat, or Zakah. This is usually set at a percentage of one’s ASSETS, not income, which is a good way to keep the zakat from fluctuating very much.
The Koran designates eight categories of zakat recipients, all of whom must be Muslims: “The alms are meant only for the poor and the needy and those who are in charge thereof, those whose hearts are to be reconciled; and to free those in bondage, and to help those burdened with debt, and for expenditure in the way of Allah and for the wayfarer. This is an obligation from Allah.” (6)
In the above, does “expenditure in the way of Allah” ring an alarm? It should. Mawdudi says it specifically means “jihad in the way of Allah,” and such funds can be used in either “persuading people to embrace (Islam) or in its later stages when the struggle assumes a combative dimension.” (7)
Note Mawdudi’s matter-of-fact acknowledgement that a “combative dimension” will eventually be needed, which is consistent with the history of the spread of Islam.
Since zakat is “an obligation from Allah,” anywhere there is a mosque in America there is a stream of funding dedicated to the destruction of our Constitutional Republic and the establishment of an Islamic theocracy, by persuasion or by force. Furthermore, Muslims who immigrate here, unless they do so to escape Islam, are not here to enjoy the freedoms we have; they are here to DESTROY those freedoms. Mawdudi, my go-to Muslim scholar when it comes to the theocratic side of Islam, had this definitive guidance for “He who emigrates in the Way of Allah:”
“It should be understood clearly that it is only permissible for a person who believes in (Islam) to live under the dominance of an un-Islamic system on one of the following conditions. First, that the believer strives to put an end to the hegemony of the un-Islamic system and to have it replaced by the Islamic system of life —. Second that he stays in a land where an un-Islamic system prevails because of his inability to depart from that land but he is utterly unhappy at living under such a system.” (8)
That the “Islamic system of life” has met with resistance since the beginning of Islam is hinted at in Verse 9:33 in the Koran, which tells us that Allah has sent Muhammad “with the guidance and the true religion that He (Allah) may make it prevail over all religions howsoever those who associate others with Allah in His divinity might detest it.” (9)
It is easy to understand why someone might “detest” living under an Islamic theocracy, where only Muslims would have political power. They would implement Islamic law, sharia, codified centuries ago, which still stones to death adulterers, amongst other niceties. If Muslims were up front about all this, it would make it extraordinarily difficult to achieve their obligatory goal: to make the rest of us “live in subservience to the Islamic way of life.”
Consequently, it is not surprising that Muslims have developed elaborate doctrines of deception for jihad in its “early stages,” which is where America is today. Muslims are only about one percent of the population and as their numbers increase, so will their militancy. On that, my friend, you can bet the rent money. (Go to religionofpeace.com for a current look at jihad in the rest of the world.)
The deceptions Muslims use fall into four general categories, and the following is a brief summary of each. The oldest form of Islamic deception is called “taqiyya,” and is defined as “prudent concealment of faith to save one’s life.” (10). It originated as a way for Shi’a Muslims to protect themselves from Sunni Muslims, but has evolved into a general term meaning “lying for the sake of Islam” or “deception when penetrating the enemy camp.” (11) As such, “taqiyya” has become the term to describe all forms of deception, including the categories described below.
A second, very common, deception is called “kitman,” which means telling only a partial truth. For example, calling zakat a charitable, and praiseworthy, requirement of Islam is kitman in two ways: one, we’re not told the funds are for Muslims only, and two, we’re not told the funds can be used in decidedly uncharitable ways, such as supporting a suicide bomber.
A third deception is called “tawriya,” and means “to employ words that give a misleading impression, meaning to intend by one’s words something that is literally true, in respect to which one is not lying” while deceiving the hearer. (12) Using words that have one meaning for Muslims but another for non-Muslims is the most common form of tawriya, and it’s almost unbelievable the extent to which it’s used without challenge.
For example, “terrorism” is defined in sharia law as the ‘killing of a Muslim without right.” (13) Consequently, for Muslims, “jihad is not terrorism.” (14) So, when Muslims denounce terrorism after an atrocity committed by a Muslim, they are engaging in tawriya.
Finally, there is “muruna,” which is when Muslims engage in non-Muslim behavior to blend in with the non-Muslim enemy. Drink, smoke, shave, have a ham sandwich, pick up ladies at the bar, etc. If done in Allah’s cause, all is forgiven. The 9/11 hijackers did just that as they prepared their attack, although I doubt they needed to.
About now, you are probably wondering if a Muslim can ever be believed, and the only time is when they are being truthful about Islam. My favorite example is Iran’s late ruler, the Ayatollah Khomeini, who declared: “Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam councils against war.” He added, “I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim!” (15)
Strong letter to follow, and stay upwind of that old boy!
The problem is that there are so many of “those who know nothing of Islam.” Muslims and their mosques have no place in any nation not already an Islamic theocracy, yet their deceptions have allowed them to gain footholds in countries around the world. The only nation fighting this trend is China. (16) It appears China will soon be one of the few nations unburdened by either renewable energy or by Muslims.
The biggest deception the Muslims employ is hiding their draconian political dogma under the guise of “religion.” There is no way Islam should enjoy the protection of the Constitution’s First Amendment, but until enough of us learn what Islam stands for, Muslims will enjoy helping us commit suicide.
Note to readers: This video came out as I was completing the article. It covers the same material and confirms the above, although the commentator thinks “hiyal” is a better term than “taqiyya.” Whatever it’s called, BS is BS.
(1) “Interpretation of the Meaning of The Noble Qur’an in the English Language: A Summarized Version of At Tabari; Al-Qurtubi, and Ibn Kathir with Comments from Sahih Al-Bukhari, trans. and commentary by Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali, and Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, Darussalam, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 1999, Verse 2:190, fn (1) pg. 50, edited for brevity. The parentheses are in the original and represent scholarly clarifications.
(2) Ahmed ibn Naqib al-Misra, Reliance of the Traveller (‘Umdat al-Salik): A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller (Amana Publications, 1999), section r8.2 pg. 745
(3) Towards Understanding the Qur’an, Vol. III Surahs 7-9, English version of Tafhim al-Qur’an, trans. Sayyid Abdul A’la Mawdudi, translated (from Urdu) and edited by Zafar Ishaq Ansari, The Islamic Foundation, Leicester, UK, 1990, pg. 202, fn 28 re Verse 9:29.
(6) Towards Understanding the Qur’an, Vol. III, Verse 9:60, pg. 221
(7) ibid pgs. 224-225
(8) Towards understanding the Qur’an, Abridged version of Tafhim al-Qur’an, Mawdudi, paperback edition in English, 2011, UK Islamic Mission, Dawah Centre, Birmingham, UK., pg.131, fn 71 to V 4:100
(9) Towards Understanding the Qur’an, Vol. III, Verse 9:33 pg. 204
(10) Towards understanding the Qur’an, Abridged version of Tafhim al-Qur’an, fn 6 Verse 3:28, pg. 72.
(11) Stephen Coughlin, Catastrophic Failure – Blindfolding America In the Face of Jihad, Center for Security Policy Press, Washington, D.C., 2015, pg. 178.
(12) Reliance of the Traveller, r8.2, pgs. 745-746 (Note: the passage describes “tawriya” without naming it as such.)
(13) Coughlin, Catastrophic Failure, pg. 231.
(14) ibid, pg. 236 (Coughlin details how the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the OIC, in their 1990 Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, later submitted to the UN in 1993, expressly declared that ”human rights,” as they used the words, were defined by Sharia Law, and by nothing else. pg 226-239.)
(15) Robert Spencer, Islam Unveiled, Encounter Books, San Fransisco, CA, 2002, pg. 35. (Re: Amir Taheri, Holy Terror: Inside the World of Islamic Terrorism, Adler & Adler, 1987, pp. 241-43.)
Gas pump reality by Peter Burrows 6/22/22 email@example.com
I just took a quick look at Exxon Mobil’s second quarter earnings. While Bernie Sanders and other morons rail on about the huge profits earned by the evil-dirty-bastard oil companies, the numbers show that America’s biggest investor-owned oil company is about as profitable as the average electric utility.
Here we must distinguish between profits and profitability, a very important distinction that the average person should have some awareness of lest they be fooled by the Bernie Sanders of the world. Profits are in dollars; profitability is in percentages. For example, Exxon Mobile’s 2Q profits were $8.8 billion, which is a helluva lot of money, but the annualized return on assets was only 10 percent.
That’s about what Public Service of New Mexico, a regulated public utility, earns on assets.
Sometimes the profits/profitability distinction can result in a seemingly paradoxical situation where a company earning a large dollar profit is called “unprofitable.” For example, if a company earns a billion dollars but has assets of 100 billion, the return on investment is only one percent and pundits will describe it as “very unprofitable,” the “relative to assets” part being implied.
I also took a look at Exxon’s profit per gallon of petroleum product sold. I didn’t separate out profits from non-petroleum operations, such as chemical operations. That’s too much work. I just threw all the profits into the petroleum sector, which may overstate the profit per-gallon a touch. I came up with 4.05 cents per gallon.
The Federal per gallon tax at the pump is 18.3 cents, and the New Mexico tax is 22 cents. That means we are paying ten times as much in tax per gallon as Exxon makes in profit per gallon.
My analysis was pretty quick, so if anybody would like to check my numbers, here is the URL:
Cold facts about coal – by Peter Burrows 6/10/22 elburropete@gmailcom
Back in 2012, New Mexico had four operating coal mines that produced 22.92 million tons of coal, most of it used to generate electricity. By 2020, that number had dropped to 10.25 million tons and by 2045, if not sooner, it will drop to zero.
Burning coal, you see, creates carbon dioxide, and carbon dioxide creates climate change, and climate change is an existential threat to all of humanity. New Mexico, doing its part to prevent such a calamity, passed a law in 2019, The Energy Transition Act (ETA), phasing out the use of coal, or any fossil fuel, to generate electricity in the state.
Electricity instead is to be generated by renewable energy, which in New Mexico means photovoltaic solar panels and wind turbines, backed up by batteries: 50% by 2030, 80% by 2040 and 100% by 2045. New Mexico’s political and environmental leaders were ecstatic:
“New Mexico’s Energy Transition Act is the strongest package of its kind in the country,” said Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department Secretary Sarah Cottrell Propst.
“The ETA cements New Mexico’s place as a national leader in the transition to a new, renewable energy economy,” said sponsor Sen. Jacob Candelaria.
“The ETA protects consumers and reduces electricity costs as New Mexico moves away from coal.” – 350 New Mexico.
And on and on it went. WOW! Little New Mexico leading the country (world?) toward a future of renewable energy, free from electricity produced by evil, dirty, deadly coal.
There’s only one tiny problem: The rest of the world isn’t following our lead. China, the world’s number one producer and consumer of coal, is planning on INCREASING coal production by 300 million metric tons this year on top of an increase of 220 million tons last year. That’s 520 million tons MORE COAL in two years.
Since those are metric tons, 10% larger than the short-ton measure used in the US, that equals about 570 million tons in New Mexico. BTW, China’s total coal production this year will be 4.4 BILLION metric tons.
And then there’s India, the world’s number three coal producer/consumer: The government there estimates that thermal coal demand will increase to 1,500 million metric tons by 2040, up from current levels of 955 million tons.
If China merely holds production flat, which is highly unlikely, the two countries will be producing a total of 5.9 billion metric tons by 2040, an increase of over 900 million short tons from 2020-2021. This is 90 times the amount of coal tiny New Mexico, “a national leader” is going to eliminate by 2045.
If California and Germany are examples, this will increase our electric bills by at least 50% and make blackouts a regular occurrence. And will this have any meaningful effect on climate change? Of course not. The only thing it will do is make Public Service of New Mexico more profitable and reveal New Mexico’s politicians and environmentalists to be a bunch of virtue signaling, narcissistic morons.
Islam and the American Civil Liberties Union 4/2/22
The ACLU has a proud history. It was formed in 1920 from groups that had opposed Woodrow Wilson’s extensive violations of the constitution during WW I. Anybody who thinks an Adolf Hitler couldn’t happen here doesn’t know how close we came with Woodrow Wilson. (1)
In the Scopes “Monkey Trial” of 1925, the new ACLU established its First Amendment, free speech bona fides by supporting Clarence Darrow in his defense of the school teacher who taught evolution, a hot issue back then. The ACLU backed the NAACP in another hot issue in 1954 when the Supreme Court found school segregation unconstitutional in Brown v Board of Education. Perhaps the ACLU’s most famous case was in 1977 when a Nazi organization requested their help to get a permit to parade in the heavily Jewish city of Skokie, IL. A Jewish lawyer at the ACLU took the case and prevailed!
Those cases, and many others, are a legacy ALL of us can be proud of. Unfortunately, as the saying goes, that was then. Today, the ACLU has essentially become “another Dem super Pac,” as Allen Dershowitz put it. He added, “Everything the ACLU does today seems to be a function of its fundraising. To be sure, it must occasionally defend a Nazi, a white supremacist, or even a mainstream conservative. But that is not its priority these days, either financially or emotionally. Its heart and soul are in its wallet and checkbook. It is getting rich while civil liberties are suffering.” (2)
Dershowitz was a member of the ACLU National Board back when it was relatively poor:
“The ACLU used to be cash poor but principle-rich. Now, ironically, after Trump taking office, the ACLU has never become so cash-rich, yet principle-poor. — Today it is flush with cash, with net assets of over $450 million dollars. (In) 2017, it received “unprecedented donations” after President Trump’s election. Unprecedented it truly has been: the ACLU received $120 million dollars from online donations alone (up from $3-5 million during the Obama years).”
(By 3/31/21, revenues had grown to $422 million and net assets to $748 million. I’m betting they would LOVE it if Trump ran again in 2024!)
Ironically, some of those donations were and are in support of the ACLU’s defense of Muslims, a group that couldn’t be more opposed to our civil liberties. It started when Trump criticized Muslims and put restrictions on travel from six Muslim nations. This was immediately branded a “Muslim ban,” which it wasn’t, and “racist,” as if Islam is a race, which it isn’t.
No matter. The ACLU is big on “racial justice.” From their web site, excerpted for brevity: “The ACLU Racial Justice Program actively supports affirmative action – Affirmative action is one of the most effective tools for redressing the injustices caused by our nation’s historic discrimination against people of color and women – A centuries-long legacy of racism and sexism has not been eradicated – We need affirmative action now more than ever.” (3)
Now more than ever? Affirmative action was never needed and certainly not now. Obviously, the ACLU has run out of things to do to justify their fat income statement and huge balance sheet.
MUSLIMS TO THE RESCUE!!
Sadly, if recent history is any guide, the ACLU will protect Muslims at the expense of others. Just like affirmative action has harmed those forced to make room for “people of color and women,” putting Muslims first will do harm to others, and the ACLU won’t see it.
Dershowitz nails it: “The questions being asked today by ACLU board members is: is it good or bad for the left, is it good or bad for Democrats, is it good or bad for women, is it good or bad for people of color, is it good or bad for gays? These are reasonable questions to be asked by groups dedicated to the welfare of these groups but not by a group purportedly dedicated to civil liberties for all.” (My emphasis.)
For example, Muslims could have – and probably did – write this entry on the ACLU website:
“PROTECTING THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OF MUSLIMS – Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech — First Amendment, US Constitution. — From religiously motivated discrimination and attacks on existing and proposed Islamic centers to vicious rhetoric from presidential candidates, Muslims in America are being unfairly targeted simply for exercising their basic constitutional right to religious liberty. We must always — especially in times of controversy — vigilantly uphold our core values.”
The problem the ACLU doesn’t realize is that Islam doesn’t share our core values, something all too apparent in Islamic nations. Ironically, the only religion Islam allows is Islam, which means the ACLU shouldn’t cite the First Amendment to protect Islam, but should cite the First Amendment to BAN Islam. Here’s Islam’s mission statement, from Allah Himself Verse 9:33 in the Koran, my clarifications in parentheses:
He (Allah) it is Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad) with the guidance and the True Religion (Islam) that He (Allah) may make it prevail over all religions, howsoever (followers of those religions) might detest it.
A Twentieth Century Islamic authority had this explanation of that verse: “— a Prophet is the representative of the Lord of the universe, he seeks to make the Right Way (Islam) prevail. If any other way of life continues to exist, it should be satisfied with the concessions made to it by Islam.” (4)
In short, Allah decrees that Islam must rule. To that end, Muhammad declared, “I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah — If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me.” (My emphasis.) (5)
Commanded to fight people? Saved their blood? This is Islam, the religion the ACLU defends and if you think those threats were only a problem when Muhammad was around, you are wrong. Numerous verses in the Koran make it clear that Muslims must wage war until Islam rules the world. Here is a footnote to Verse 2:190 from a contemporary translation published in Saudi Arabia:
“Al-Jihad (holy fighting) In Allah’s Cause (with full force of numbers and weaponry) is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars on which it stands. By Jihad Islam is established, Allah’s Word is made superior and (Islam) is propagated. — Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim – -.” (6)
Jihad can take many forms, both violent and non-violent. Non-violent is the early stage that uses persuasion to advance Islam. It is “in its later stages when the struggle assumes a combative dimension.” (7) America is still for the most part in the non-violent stage, characterized by political activism that supports Muslim organizations, such as the Muslims Student Association, and encourages Muslims to run for political office, e.g., there are three Muslims in Congress.
Less benignly, Muslims also push for censorship of any criticism of Islam, such as this article, and brand critics as “Islamophobes” and “racists.” Muslims would love to have laws passed criminalizing such criticism as “hate speech.” Islamic law, sharia, defines slander as anything that offends a Muslim, whether true or not. That would effectively shut down factual discussion of what Islam really is, as opposed to what so many Muslims want us to believe it is.
(I wonder how today’s ACLU would come down on that? They are already defending Islam’s “right” to violate the First Amendment’s religion clause, so maybe they would defend their “right” to violate the free speech clause, too.)
America is also no stranger to Islamic violence, the most destructive being the Twin Towers attack, which killed 2,977. The next most lethal was the 2016 Pulse Night Club attack, a gay bar where a Muslim killed 49. (I wrote about this in “The FBI and me,” 7/17/16.) There have been numerous other deadly attacks, but none of them, including 9/11, has ever been blamed on devout Muslims simply doing what Islam demands.
It’s always extremists and radicals, never plain vanilla Muslims. We should listen to what the honest Muslims tell us. Recep Erdogan, the president of Turkey, once said, “‘These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.”
To get the ACLU to wake up to that fact, I think victims of violent jihad should sue their socks off. On their web site, the ACLU cites cases where they have legally challenged the “Infiltration and surveillance of Mosques and Muslim communities.” In 2013, for example, they sued the New York Police Department for “discriminatory surveillance” of Muslims:
“The NYPD’s program, dedicated to the total surveillance of Muslims in the greater New York City area, operated under the unconstitutional premise that Muslim beliefs and practices are a basis for law enforcement scrutiny.”
(I’m not sure if that’s an “unconstitutional premise” given that it is a factual reality.)
“The final settlement approved by the court in March 2017 established a number of reforms designed to protect New York Muslims and others from discriminatory and unjustified surveillance. — The reforms include the following: Prohibiting investigations in which race, religion, or ethnicity is a substantial or motivating factor;”
Thus, the ACLU won a court order preventing any surveillance if religion was a “motivating factor,” yet Islam preaches violence in its literature and its mosques. The assumption that surveillance of Muslims and mosques is “unjustified” is completely wrong. I don’t think there should be any mosques, but that isn’t going to happen until the “clear and present danger” of Islam is finally recognized.
To expedite that long overdue realization, victims of Muslim violence should sue the ACLU for aiding and abetting, or something like that. For example, the Muslim immigrant who drove a rented truck down a bike path in New York in 2017, killing 8 and injuring 12, had this to say when arraigned: “The judgments that are made here are not important for me,” he said through an interpreter. “They are not Allah’s judgments.” (9)
This is Islam straight, no chaser. I wonder what a good lawyer would do with that. If it was me, I’d try to hire a lawyer working for the ACLU or who was once affiliated with the ACLU. Hmmmm. Two names come to mind: Allen and Dershowitz.
(Hat tip to Morgan Freeman. When cast to play Nelson Mandela in the movie, Invictus, he was asked if he had any ideas for a director. He said, “I have two names: Clint and Eastwood.”)
Footnotes/Guide to Sources:
(!) See Jonah Goldberg, Liberal Fascism, 2007, Chapter 3, “Woodrow Wilson and the Birth of Liberal Fascism,” pgs. 78 – 121.