Category Archives: Uncategorized

Muslim Duplicity

Muslim Duplicity by Peter Burrows 7/29/22

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 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. 

(4) ibid   

(5) JIHĀD IN ISLAM In the Name of Allah, the Merciful and the Most Beneficent (An Address delivered on Iqbal Day, April 13, 1939, at the Town Hall, Lahore) 

(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.)  

(16) Peter Burrows, China’s Muslims: A different Perspective October 10, 2020 – 

Gas pump reality

Gas pump reality by Peter Burrows 6/22/22 

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

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

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.  


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. 

(2) Dershowitz, all quotes: 

(3) ACLU web site, all quotes: 

(4) Sayyid Mawdudi, Towards Understanding the Qur’an, English version of “Tafhim al-Qur’an, 1993, Vol III, pg. 205.  

(5) The Reliance of the Traveller (sic), “A Classic Manual of Islamic Scared law,” pg. 599 

(6) Interpretation of the Meanings of The Noble Qur’an, Khan, Al-Hilali translation, 

            Darussalam, Riyadh,   Saudi Arabia, 1999 pg. 50,

(7) Mawdudi,  ibid pg. 225 


(9) // v

Revised 3/22/22: Monsters from the Id – 2/25/14

Monsters From the Id  2/25/14 (Note to readers: This was written when we first began negotiating with the Iranians to prevent, or at least delay, their development of nuclear weapons. As this pamphlet is being printed in 2022, a new round of nuclear negotiations is underway and Iran is still ruled by Shias.  Unfortunately, our leaders are still unaware of the inherent threat nuclear-armed Mahdis pose.)   

I read recently that scientists in England are having success improving some peoples’ mathematical abilities by using mild electrical stimulation to their brains.  This reminded me of a classic sci-fi film from 1956, “Forbidden Planet.” 

The plot, in brief, has a space ship landing on a planet inhabited by only two people who arrived there sometime in the past, a mad scientist and his really ugly daughter. (Sure.)  He tells the new arrivals that the planet was once occupied by an advanced species that totally and mysteriously disappeared. 

Still intact is a vast system of power generation and a device that, when strapped to the head, either measures intelligence or, at the flip of a switch, gives the brain an intelligence boosting electrical shock.  The mad scientist had given himself the shock treatment and had barely survived, though with a newly enhanced intelligence far higher than he had prior to the shock, and far higher than any of the newcomers. 

Since mini-skirts were the craze throughout the galaxy, you don’t need to press a AA battery to your forehead to know that the inevitable soon begins to happen between daughter and Captain astronaut.  This, Papa doesn’t like, but even he doesn‘t know how much he doesn’t like it. 

As the romance blossoms, the astronauts come under ever more ferocious attacks by invisible beings.  Just when the end looks near, one of the astronauts puts on the headset, gives himself an intelligence shock, and, sure enough, it does him in.  Before dying, he whispers that the jolt gave him the insight on their dilemma, namely, that they were being attacked by “monsters from the Id.” 

Back in those days, Freudian psychology had captured the public imagination, so many in the audience were probably familiar with the mad scientist’s explanation when asked what the Id was:  “It’s an obsolete term once used to describe the elementary basis of the subconscious mind.” 

Think of the Id as the source of the survival instinct, the kill-or-be-killed reaction, the unreasoning source of hate, lust, and fear.  This, of course, is immediately understood by our hero-lover-astronaut, who sees the source of all their troubles in the subconscious of the mad scientist father, who fears losing his daughter. Of more importance, the father has the intelligence to command the vast power of the forbidden planet through telekinetic abilities he doesn’t know he has, can‘t control, and which will lead to their total destruction. 

I won’t bother you with the ending, other than to say it is an apt metaphor for our times.  The technology to destroy ourselves, as happened to the original inhabitants of the Forbidden Planet, is spreading rapidly, and we remain little more than intelligent apes, prone to primitive, tribal emotions that may not have been so dangerous in the past, though disastrous enough. 

Who would deny that Hitler was a monster from the Id?  Furthermore, he Pied- Pipered the whole nation to follow him.  Up until they started losing the war, the German people adored Adolph Hitler, the Id monster. Just look at the young ladies in the crowds from 1930’s documentaries.  Elvis never had such “love.“ 

Furthermore, and this is the really scary part, a disinterested Martian paying us a visit in 1910, if asked to pick the most advanced, civilized, prosperous society on earth, would probably have picked Germany. Fast forward 25-30 years: Behold! German monsters from the Id run rampant. What if Hitler had possessed nuclear weapons? 

There are three facts of life I wish were not true, but are: 

1) Monsters from the Id will always be with us. 

2) The spread of WMD means we cannot afford the luxury of a Neville “Peace in our time” Chamberlain. 

3) Neville Chamberlains will always be with us. 

In a MAD age, an age of mutually assured destruction, there is hope that the monsters from the Id will be held in check by angels from the superego and reason from the ego — to exhaust my Freud —but, and this is very relevant, what if a nuclear armed monster from the Id is suicidal?   

I am thinking of the Muslim sect known as Mahdaviats, Shia Muslims who believe the world will be saved by the Twelfth Imam, also known as the Mahdi, who disappeared in the ninth century and will return to save a world descended into chaos and destruction.  Shia Muslims rule Iran and Iran is developing nuclear weapons.  

President Obama once said we needn’t worry about Musim’s using nuclear weapons because that would be “against their religion.”  He couldn’t have been more mistaken. In fact, some Mahdaviats believe it is their religious duty to hasten the Imam’s return by creating the chaos required.  In such a world, MAD is not a deterrent but an encouragement. Monsters from the Id, indeed. 

Iranian President Mahmoud Amadinejad ordered the widening of a boulevard in Tehran to accommodate the triumphal return of the Twelfth Imam.  Why would he do such a thing? He is no longer president, but the new Iranian President, Hasan Rouhani, in a speech last May, said: “Saying ‘Death to America’ is easy. We need to express ’Death to America’ with action.”  

The Iranians say they are not trying to build nuclear weapons, and even if true for now, their long-range intentions are very suspect. They’ve been waiting for the Mahdi for over 11 centuries. A few more years, or decades, to gather the means to start the final confrontation with the Satanic West is of little import. 

The number one question: if they obtain nuclear weapons, will they then think they have a religious imperative to use them?  If so, preemptive war is the only rational course of action. 

Question number two, maybe it’s really number one: Do we have the moral courage for such a course of action? 

Slandering the Prophet, revised from 4/26/15

Slandering The Prophet  4/26/15 (Revised posting 3/22/22. Note: The original was NOT posted in the Grant County Beat because the editor/owner feared physical retaliation from Muslims!) 

SLANDER: Verb: 1. Make false and damaging statements about (someone).   Synonyms: defame (someone’s character), blacken someone’s name, tell lies about, speak ill/evil of, sully someone’s reputation, libel, smear, cast aspersions on, spread scandal about, besmirch, tarnish, taint, malign, traduce, vilify, disparage, denigrate – 

President Obama is not shy about displaying his ignorance of Islam.  My favorite is his assertion that Iran wouldn’t obtain nuclear weapon because “it would be contrary to their faith,”(1) which couldn’t be more wrong. (See: Monsters from the Id.) A close second is when he addressed the UN and said: “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”(2) 

I’ve been thinking about how one could slander Muhammad given Muhammad’s well documented history of atrocities. The fact that he has inspired, quite literally, billions of people to think he was following God’s commands makes him, in my opinion, the worst human being who ever lived. His documented life and his opus magnum, The Koran, are my proofs. 

One of his most egregious atrocities was his raid against the Jewish village of Banu Qurayza. After 25 days of siege, those who did not convert to Islam were persuaded to surrender in the belief their fate would be determined by a person Muhammad had chosen to pronounce judgement, someone they thought was an ally. 

This “ally” then ruled that “the men should be killed, the property divided, and the women and children taken as captives.”  The prisoners were brough to Medina where Muhammad had trenches dug. “Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches.  — There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900.” (3) 

The above example, and hundreds more, are why knowledgeable, decent people fervently hoping the future will not belong to those who PRAISE the prophet of Islam.  Unfortunately, the Koran commands all Muslims to do just that: “You have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the praise of Allah.” (4) 

That means “struck off their heads” is not just Seventh Century butchery but is a “beautiful pattern of conduct” for Muslims forever. When ISIS posts beheadings on the Internet, they’re not being fanatical or radical: they are being devout.  

I’ve thought of a few “slanderous” things to say about the Prophet of Islam, but first, I need to make an important distinction: In Islamic law slander is anything that offends a Muslim, regardless if true or not. That’s how Muhammad defined slander, so it is therefore true forever. If you tell a falsehood about someone, Muhammad said then “you have calumniated him.” (5)    

“Calumniated?” Maybe Muhammad wasn’t quite as illiterate as he wanted his followers to believe. Ooops! I may have just slandered Muslims. Below is a list of slanders by our definition, calumnies if you are a Muslim. These are off the top of my head. I’m sure there are more, but these should be enough to ensure that I don’t suffer ownership of the future. 

Muhammad: -loved Jews -loved music -loved dogs  -loved homosexuals -opposed slavery -believed women should have equal rights with men -taught tolerance toward all religions -believed in monogamy -counseled peace with unbelievers, not war -believed in the separation of church and state -was humble and modest -treated prisoners with compassion and mercy -tolerated criticism of himself or his teachings  


(1) White House speech during conference on violent extremism. 

(2) Address to the U.N. General Assembly, September 25, 2012. 

(3) Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, A. Guillaume translation, Oxford University Press, 1967, pg. 461 – 464. 

(4) The Qur’an, Yusif Ali translation, verse 33.21 

(5) Reliance of the Traveller, A classic Manual of Islamic Law, pg. 732. 

Would the world be better off with no Jews or no Muslims?

Would the world be better off with no Jews, or with no Muslims? By Peter Burrows 3/8/22 

In the Koran, which is the eternal and infallible word of God, we are told that Jews and Christians are “the worst of creatures.” God then tells us that Muslims are the “best of creatures.” Elsewhere in the Koran, God clarifies that Muslims are not just the best relative to Jews and Christians, but that Muslims are “the best of people ever raised up for mankind.” 

God also tells us that between Jews and Christians, it is the Jews who are “the most hostile” to Muslims while Christians “are closest to feeling affection” for Muslims. Thus, of the two “worst of creatures,” God leaves no doubt that the worst of the worst are the Jews. 

These revelations, some 1400 years ago, came at the beginning of Islam while Judaism had been around for hundreds of years.  The Jews obviously far outnumbered the Muslims then, but Muslims are fierce proselytizers, and in only a decade or two they outnumbered the Jews, who are anything but fierce proselytizers.  Today, the world population of Muslims is about 1.8 billion and the Jews only about 15.2 million, a ratio of over 100 to one.  

The Koran, however, does not say that Muslims were destined to be the MOST people, but that they are, and always will be, the BEST people. Since the Allah of Islam is all-knowing, all-wise, omniscient and omnipotent, surely after 1400 years He has enabled His Muslims to achieve a stunning array of achievements.   

At the very least, we should see these achievements reflected in the number of Nobel Prizes received by Muslims.  The Nobel Prize has been awarded since 1901 for accomplishments in physics, chemistry, and medicine. Economics was added in 1968. These are what I call the objective prizes. The two subjective prizes are for literature and peace.  

Since 1901, 609 Nobel Prizes have been awarded to 975 people (prizes are frequently awarded to joint efforts) and Muslims have received – Drum Roll Please – THIRTEEN!! Of those, only three were in the sciences, seven were Peace Prizes, three for literature. None of those were awarded to Saudi Arabians, who have preserved the holy cities of Mecca and Medina for 1400 years and could be considered the best of the best. In fact, not one Saudi has even been nominated for a Nobel.  

How does that compare to the Nobels received by the worst of the worst, the Jews? Wikipedia estimates that Jewish recipients were at least 20 percent of “over 900” recipients, and a Jewish organization estimates the number is “at least” 210. To be conservative, and to simplify the math, let’s assume that the number is 195, or 20 percent of the 975 recipients.  

That would mean that Jews, who are outnumbered by Muslims over one hundred to one, receive 15 times as many Noble Prizes. If my math is correct, that makes Jews FIFTEEN HUNDRED TIMES better than Muslims. If we just count the Nobels won in the sciences since 2000, which doesn’t count literature or peace prizes, the Jews outnumber the Muslims by 52 to one. (Fifty-two hundred times better?)  

Nobel Prizes are only one criterion to judge “best” people. Music, for example, is an area where the Jewish contribution to America, and the world, is endless, from Gershwin to Billy Joel to Itzhak Perlman. Very few know that both “White Christmas” and “God Bless America were written by a Jew, Russian-born Israel Isidore Beilin, aka Irving Berlin.  Since Muhammad declared music to be sinful, the Muslim contribution to music has been zero.  

On the other side of the coin, how do the two religions compare in crimes against humanity as opposed to contributions to humanity? Here, there is no question that Muslims are far ahead of Jews. No group of people have been more murderous than the followers of Islam. While it is true that the followers of Karl Marx have caused an impressive amount of mayhem, they were not fellow Jews. The Torah and the Talmud do not command Jews to forever wage war against unbelievers, as the Koran does for Muslims.  

I use the word “forever” even though the Muslim holy war, jihad, will cease when Muslims make Islam “prevail over all religions, howsoever those who associate others with Allah in His Divinity might detest it.”  After 1400 years, Muslims are still only about 23 percent of the world’s population, so they continue to soldier on. Last month, February of 2022, Muslims carried out 86 attacks in 20 countries that killed 369 people, at least four of whom were Muslims conducting suicide bombings. 

Since the spectacular jihad attack on the Twin Towers in 2001, there have been over 41,000 such attacks. Last year, 2021, “there were 2266 Islamic attacks in 53 countries, in which 11197 people were killed and 9591 injured.”  I couldn’t find the totals since 9/11/2001 on The Religion of Peace website, but those numbers would just reinforce the overwhelming evidence that the only thing Muslims are good at is killing innocent people.  

So, let us return to the question: would the world be better off with no Jews or no Muslims? I think the evidence is overwhelming that the Koran got it exactly backwards. It is the Muslims who are the worst of people and the Jews who are the best of people. I think it’s time the world recognized those facts.  

p.s. A note on my personal bias. When I was a kid, I wanted to play the clarinet like Benny Goodman and had a crush on opera star Roberta Peters, both Jews.  Seventy years later, I still want to play like Benny but I’ve ditched Roberta in favor of Julie Budd. She’s Jewish, too. 


Toward Understanding the Qur’an, Sayyid Mawdudi translation, verses 98:6, 98:7, 3:110, 5:82, 9:33. 

Reliance of the Traveller, f40.0, Music, Song, and Dance, pgs. 774-776 

White math and the NFL

White math and the NFL by Peter Burrows 2/21/22 

My wife and I stopped watching professional football when they began playing a “black” national anthem before the games. That didn’t last long. Having spent many years in Wisconsin, we both suffer from Packerism, which is incurable, and we were soon watching the games again. 

I’m glad we did. The playoffs were terrific and an added bonus was seeing all those Covid-conscious fans wearing one or even two Fauci mandated masks. (Sarcasm libs, sarcasm.)  Also, the NFL is proof that all the rhetoric about “white privilege” and “systemic racism” against black Americans is just nonsense.  

I’m excluding the systemic reverse racism inherent in programs such as affirmative action and, especially, the dumbing down of academics so that more black kids can get “passing” grades. All the kids, black and white, know just what that means, and if that would have been tried in my high school, the black kids would have kicked your honkey ass. Of course, back then I don’t think ‘honkey’ was a word. It would have been your “white trash” ass that would have been kicked. 

Unfortunately, the current dumbing down efforts, e.g., teaching that the correct answer to a math problem is a “white” thing, are misguided attempts to address a real problem, one that didn’t exist when I graduated from high school in 1957. Back then, the black kids did just as well, on average, as the white kids. Now they don’t. What has changed? 

The black intellectuals I respect, e.g., Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Star Parker and others, lay much of the lame on the welfare programs that started in the mid 1960s which led to the destruction of the two-parent black family. The rise of the single parent, teen-mom ‘family’ was NOT a good way to raise a child, and many of those children did poorly in school.  

I would add that affirmative action also set up black kids who DIDN’T do poorly in secondary school to fail in colleges. When Thomas Sowell taught at Cornell back in the late 1960s, he saw black kids in his class who scored, on average, at the 75th percentile of SAT scores vs. Cornell’s white kids who averaged in the 99th percentile. The 75th percentile, by the way, is pretty damn good, way above the median score (50th.) Still, most of those black kids flunked out, and many were embittered, blamed racism etc. And they were RIGHT to blame racism, only it was reverse racism that did them in! 

This happened all over America as the elite schools sought to fill self-imposed quotas of black students, often at the expense of qualified Asian students. Most of those black kids didn’t have a chance. They paid the price for white liberal virtue signaling.  Most of them would have done very well with white kids like me at Michigan State. (Harvard, Yale, Duke, Princeton, Cornell, MIT etc., and ME? You’ve got to be kidding.)   

One of the tragic consequences of this reverse racism was the resegregation of college campuses, a resegregation imposed by the BLACK students. What an irony. When I went to MSU, black kids didn’t sit by themselves, nor was there a separate black graduation ceremony or any other such BS. Affirmative action changed all that. (At the end of this article, I’ve appended an excerpt from a Thomas Sowell interview back in 1990 in which he describes this phenomenon. It’s a good read.)  

The tragedy of the welfare system soon corrupted the high schools. As more and more black kids found that they couldn’t compete academically, those that COULD compete found themselves under peer pressure to NOT compete, which was denigrated as “acting white.” Of course, acting white by doing homework, etc., would make the struggling black kids look even worse. What a mess. 

 A key part of this understandable defense mechanism was the flip side of “acting white,” which was acting black, aka being a “bad ass MF”er.” This added to the mess. Glen Loury and John Mcwhorter talk about this in a 10 minute You Tube video I’ve linked at the end.   

About now, some of you are thinking, “OK, Burro, this is all very boring, but what does it have to do with the NFL?” Elementary, my dear Lombardi: To excel in the NFL you can’t just be a big, tough bad ass MFer, you have to be able to THINK. NFL playbooks, for both defense and offense, are complex and require hours of study.  

It’s sort of a chess match, the quarterback and/or the offensive staff call plays that vary with the circumstances, e.g., score, time on the clock, etc., etc.  Ditto the defense. It’s fun to watch as offense and defense dance around each other. Having knowledgeable announcers in the booth helps.  

On more than one occasion, I have watched games where every player on the defense was a black player. The opposing quarterback, who is sometimes also black, looks them over and tries to outsmart them; sometimes he does, and sometimes they outsmart him. Hours of preparation and study are being put to test, and mental screwups are going to be noticed, especially by the players themselves.  

Now here’s my question: If black players were, on average, dumber than white players, don’t you think we would know about that after 60+ years of professional football? Of course we would, and we wouldn’t be hearing about it from the white players. It would be the black players who would be weeding out the blacks who couldn’t hack it. I can hear it now: “Learn the playbook, n—–, or get out of my locker room.” 

These guys want to WIN. No room for kiss-ass racism in a meritocracy. The black football player must meet the high expectations and standards of both his coaches and his peers. Many blacks would also do well if they were in secondary schools with the same sort of high ACADEMIC expectations.   

Here’s where school choice would be a big help. Many parents want to send their children to that sort of school, which is rarely the public school. Ironically, the traditional opposition to school choice from liberals may change in the face of growing parental opposition to gender studies and critical race theory.   

Parents who want their kids to learn about gender fluidity, CRT, or any other topics that are (hopefully) being removed from public schools, should have the option to send their kids to private schools. So, too, should parents who have learned from the covid school closings that their kids can get a better education with home schooling.  

Last year, 22 states expanded or established school choice initiatives such as vouchers, tax-credit scholarships, and education savings accounts. Very few Democrats supported those efforts. Wouldn’t it be ironic if the woke crowd began to push for vouchers? Stranger things have happened. Stay tuned.       


Playbook complexity/necessity:                                                   

Sowell at Cornell: 

Bad ass MFers:                                                                                                         

Two blogs from El Burro:                                                                           

Thomas Sowell, from a 1990 interview, Money Magazine, URL above: Sowell at Cornell.  

Sowell: Racial relations on the nation’s campuses today are worse than they have been at any time in the past 30 years. 

MONEY: What do you think accounts for that? 

Sowell: If you’re going to have double standards for admission, grading, behavior and faculty hiring and, on top of that, engage in a great hypocritical pretense that this isn’t going on, it will only be a matter of time before the people who are not getting special treatment become resentful. Moreover, when you bring minority students in under a double standard, they themselves have a serious problem. They can accept the standards of the institution and lose all self-respect when they fail to meet them. Or they can seek to regain their self-respect through political activity — by putting pressure on the school administration to change the standards. When you give people those choices — meeting tough standards or lobbying to have the standards lowered — it’s not surprising they choose the second option. When you have the racial polarization created by this political uproar, blacks and whites are likely to be more hostile. 

MONEY: How do you detect racial tension on campus before you enroll? 

Sowell: In places where race relations are really bad, it doesn’t take long to find out. A campus visit will tell you. I always suggest you go to the dining room at lunchtime and see whether all the blacks are congregated over here, all the Hispanics over there or whether people are mixed around the room.                                                                                                                                                                                                  ### 

Addendum: Here in New Mexico, it was only last year that our lawmakers finally got around to making sure our black kids would also suffer from being helped by liberal educators. The Black Education Act was unanimously passed by the NM Legislature in March of 2021 and went into effect last July 1.  One of the bill’s sponsors said the act will, among other things, “recommend methods and practices that will improve education outcomes for Black students.” 

Why single out black students? Won’t that be terribly humiliating for the black kids? Do you think the recommended “methods and practices” will entail extra homework, after hours or weekend tutoring, getting parents to turn off the TV, and maybe special summer classes, or will standards just be lowered?   

Flat tax musings

Flat-tax musings by Peter Burrows 1/29/22 

This is the time of year when the income tax gets peoples’ attention, big time. Most of us have no idea how progressive our income tax is, and we always hear that ‘the rich’ don’t pay their ‘fair share’, whatever that is.  

In fact, under our progressive tax system, in 2019 the top one percent of income earners earned about 20 percent of the taxable income and paid about 39 percent of total income taxes. By contrast, the bottom fifty percent of earners paid only 3 percent of the income taxes collected. Incredibly, the top one percent paid more than all of the bottom 90 percent.  

Whether this is fair or not is debatable, but one advantage of a flat tax is that it would put an end to all the “fair” nonsense. That’s a big reason why it will probably never happen. Politicians have so much fun with what’s “fair” and what isn’t. A more knowledgeable electorate would put an end to those politicians, but that probably isn’t going to happen, either.  

In the face of that daunting reality, let’s talk about the flat-tax anyway. First, a caveat: this is about the Federal income tax that is paid, not total Federal taxes paid, which would include Social Security taxes. In theory, SS payments are not taxes but retirement savings that go into the Old-Age & Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and will be paid back to the individual. The reality is different, but that’s a separate can of snakes.   

As mentioned, in 2019 the top 1 percent of income earners paid 39 percent of the income taxes and the bottom 50 percent paid only 3 percent, and all issues of fairness aside, this creates incentives for the high-income payers to find ways to avoid taxes, both legal and illegal, that have nothing to do with economic merit.  

For the low-income cohort, they have no incentive to be against increases in the income tax because they don’t pay it. Since they also don’t know anything about how the income tax works, demagogues go after their vote by railing about the rich not paying “their fair share.” It happens all the time and nobody ever calls them out on it. Republicans? Ha! 

As an aside, I think people who don’t pay, on balance, any Federal taxes should not vote in national elections, and before you call me an evil-dirty-bastard-racist-plutocrat, you should know that this would mean that I couldn’t vote in Congressional or Presidential elections. My Social Security benefits far outweigh any Federal income taxes I owe, which makes me a net tax consumer.  

As it is, since most of us oldies actually vote, the politicians have thoughtfully increased the standard deduction for those over 65. I bet most of you whippersnappers didn’t know that. It’s a small example of how our current income tax structure encourages politicians to buy the votes of some tax payers voters at the expense of other tax payers. If most of us oldies couldn’t vote, I doubt the politicians would have been so thoughtful.  

A flat–tax would work something like the example below. The deductible amounts and the flat-tax rate can be changed to achieve different tax totals.   

1) A standard deduction of $10,000 for an individual, $20,000 for a couple, and $5000 for each dependent. All income over that would be subject to the same rate, for example, 30%.  

2) NO other deductions would be allowed. This means no deduction for state and local taxes, no deduction for interest paid, none for charitable contributions, etc., etc.   

3) Capital gains would be taxed at the same rate.  

This would send whole bunches of people into a huge tizzy: realtors, charities, and 501(c) (3)’s, who receive taxable deductions and whose ranks include such disparate entities as Planned Parenthood and Prager U. By far, though, the biggest objectors would be tax lawyers, tax preparation services and IRS employees.   

Who needs all those people if income taxes can be calculated on a post card? A flat-tax would put most of them out of work and greatly reduce the cost of compliance, which has been estimated to be over $400 billion.  That’s BILLION. 

Some will object by saying progressive rates are a good thing, i.e., higher incomes should have higher rates of taxation. In fact, flat-tax results ARE progressive. Using the above example, a couple with two dependents and $40,000 of income would have $10,000 of taxable income and pay $3000 in taxes, which is 7.5 percent of total income (3000/40000). The same couple with twice as much income, $80,000 would pay five times as much tax, $15,000, which is 18.5 percent of their income. If they had three times the income, $120,000, they would pay nine times as much, $27,000, which is 22.5 percent of their income.   

Even with this flat tax idea, high incomes would still pay most of the income taxes and low incomes, those below the standard reduction, would still pay no taxes. I have no idea what the exact percentages would be across the spectrum of tax payers, only that the tax base would be considerably broadened and that the number of voters with ‘skin’ in the income tax game would be increased.  

As it is, “tax game” is an all-too accurate description of our income tax, and it is a “game” open to all sorts of political manipulation. If the Republicans take control of Congress in the midterms, I hope that they will propose a flat tax. Sadly, I’m afraid that’s not going to happen.  


Voting for Muslims

Voting for Muslims by Peter Burrows 1/22/22 –

This is an election year, and Muslims are running for office all over the country. Most are doing so without a whisper of protest. People don’t realize that Islam is an uncompromising theocracy that demands total obedience from its followers, and that includes Muslims seeking public office. Ironically, they are using the protection of the Constitution’s First Amendment to destroy the First Amendment. 

I would bet that at least 90 percent of the voters in America would honestly say that a person’s religion, or lack of religion, is not an important consideration.  Unfortunately, this is one of those cases where what you don’t know CAN hurt you. Islam is extremely dangerous and totally incompatible with our Constitution.    

In fact, Muslims see our Constitution as a man-made abhorrence, an evil that needs to be replaced with Allah’s law, which is based on Allah’s book, the Koran, and Allah’s prophet, Muhammad. Islam requires Muslims who live in non-Muslim countries to work towards that goal, otherwise they are living a life of “continuous sin.” (Verse 4:100 in The Koran, as explained by Tafsir Ibn Kathir. See also Sayyid Mawdudi’s ‘Toward Understanding the Quran,’ pg. 131, footnote 71 to Verse 4:100)   

Muslim office seekers will, of course, deny this, and here is where things get very, very interesting, because you can seldom believe a Muslim. Islam REQUIRES Muslims to lie if necessary to achieve what Allah has commanded, and Allah has commanded that Islam rule the world, whether you or I like it or not. (Verse 9:33)  

In such a world, only Muslims would rule. The Koran would replace the Constitution and the Supreme Court would be replaced by religious authorities who would settle any dispute by referring to “the Qur’an and the Sunnah (Muhammad’s life and sayings) and all concerned should faithfully accept the judgement that is arrived at.” (Mawdudi pg. 121) 

No church bells would ring, nine-year-old girls would become brides, recalcitrant wives would be beaten, fornicators would publicly receive 100 lashes, slaves could be owned and thieves would have their hands amputated, starting with the right hand.  The latter is from Verse 5:38 and is “a punishment by way of example from Allah.” 

I detail most of this, and much more, in my little pamphlet, “How to read the Koran (and understand Islam).” It’s a pretty quick read, 20 minutes, max, Introduction to Conclusion. There are a number of appendixes which flesh things out, but 20 minutes is all you need to get the essence of Islam.  

All of this should be common knowledge but it isn’t. Islam is protected from critical scrutiny by the mainstream media and defended by “Islam is peace” politicians. Add the Pope, many other religious leaders, and everyone who wants to undo a world order which they see as hopelessly unequal, unfair, racist, etc., and that’s where we are today. 

The useful idiots who ally with Islam had better beware of getting what they wish for. With Islam, they are riding a tiger that has been devouring the foolish for over 1400 years.    

So, if you think America should remain a Constitutional Republic, you should never vote for a Muslim. Never. Ex-Muslims are OK, but not mosque-goers. Ayan Hirsi Ali, for example, is an ex –Muslim I’d vote for in a second, regardless of her party.  

(Those who think that not voting for a Muslim is racist, but not if that same person is an ex-Muslim, are deeply intellectual progressives who embrace racial fluidity along with gender fluidity. You should never vote for them, either. Never.)       


Towards Understanding the Qur’an: English/Arabic Edition (with commentary in English) by Sayyid Abul A’la Mawdudi (Author), Zafar Ishaq Ansari (Translator)