5:30PM Guest: Dale Robertson
01/03/2010: Andrews and Kafer
5PM Show Open John Andrews, Krista Kafer
Hear the Show: 01/03/2010
5PM Show Open John Andrews, Krista Kafer 5:30PM Guest: Dle Robertson
6PM Guest: Greg Brophy
6:30PM Guests: Matt Spaulding
7PM Guest: Don Fulsom
7:30PM Guest: Mike Littwin
Christmas bomber: BHO still doesn't get it
When the President vows to “get to the bottom of all this and bring these violent extremists to justice”, he is telegraphing the following: 1. He is NOT connecting the violence to Islamic Jihad, which IS the main ideological threat to the United States. Islamic Jihadists generate markers that fit the facts on the ground. With these markers, we can proceed to watch the Mosques where Jihadist groups are formed, we can read their literature and understand their doctrine, we can listen to the Imams and anticipate their actions. But “violent extremists” generate nothing! How do you define one? You can’t! The media continues their apologist approach, describing the million and first “disturbed young man”, and of course Islam has nothing to do with it. They also strive for “balance” and are sure to mention “right wing extremists” in the same breath, even though there has been a weekly Islamic Jihad incident since July of this year, and nothing from “right wing extremists” since Oklahoma City.
2. The President, by avoiding the mention of Islam, is also letting us know he buys into the false narrative about Islam perpetrated by the Muslim Brotherhood and its front organizations such as CAIR, ISNA, MPAC, MAS, and all the rest. This false narrative would have us believe that Islam is the “religion of peace”, that all Muslims are moderate, and only a “fringe” are violent, owing to our policies. The reality is, Jihad is built into the faith. Jihad is the solemn duty of ALL believers. Jihad can be waged four ways: with the mouth, the pen, the money and the sword. Note that our misdirected “War on Terror” only deals with Jihad by the sword, leaving the other three modes unattended!
3. Also, to “bring violent extremists to justice” reveals a view that the war with Islamic Jihad is a police problem. A question: how to you deter suicide attacks with the threat of fines and imprisonment? The legal straitjacket we have put ourselves in is this: everything is legal until a crime has been committed. What happens when this “crime” is the detonation of nuclear weapons in a half dozen cities? Also, we see Jamaa’t al-Fukra training thousands of soldiers for Jihad in the United States. A steady stream of young men are going to the Middle East to the battlefields of jihad and are gaining combat experience. They are returning to the United States as seasoned combat veterans and trained killers. They are becoming the training cadre and the backbone of a Muslim Jihad Army being built before our eyes right here in the United States! And we are turning a legalistic blind eye lest we “offend the Muslims”?
“Zero Hour” arrives, (and this is their term, not mine), and these thousands of combatants rise up in armed insurrection, what will the government do then? Threaten to file suit? Threaten to pull their 503c status?
When will we wise up?
I was first inspired to start blogging back in the summer of 2005 in the wake of the July 7 terror attack in London. I had lived in London during the late 1980s, and I was concerned then that Britain's penchant towards "multiculturalism" was creating an environment that was all too accommodating of radical Islam. Indeed, the mosques and Imams in Finsbury -- not far from where I lived -- were the source of the radical students who set off the bombs on the London transport system. Britain has sown the seeds of its radicalism by allowing the hate mongers to preach their venom without fear of retribution, and indeed with many legal protections. In the interest of being "open" the Brits have actually enabled an enemy to thrive inside its borders. It seems that at least some in the UK have gotten the message. From the Telegraph UK comes this piece entitled Detroit Terror Attack: A murderous ideology tolerated for too long. Its primary thesis is that the murderous ideology of radical Islam is tolerated in a way that other radical beliefs are not -- and that we do so at our own peril. The most pertinent passage is as follows:
Is it time for a fundamental rethink of Britain's attitude towards domestic Islamism? Consider this analogy. Suppose that, in several London universities, Right‑wing student societies were allowed to invite neo-Nazi speakers to address teenagers. Meanwhile, churches in poor white neighbourhoods handed over their pulpits to Jew-hating admirers of Adolf Hitler, called for the execution of homosexuals, preached the intellectual inferiority of women, and blessed the murder of civilians. What would the Government do? It would bring the full might of the criminal law against activists indoctrinating young Britons with an inhuman Nazi ideology – and the authorities that let them. Any public servants complicit in this evil would be hounded from their jobs.
So, somehow preaching the murder of innocents is tolerated when it is done by Muslims, but not when it is being done by Nazis. Why? Because of the fear of being labled a racist. It is why so many things go unsaid in our culture today: it is too dangerous for people to speak the truth. It is more important to be sensitive and tolerant than it is to be right. We have dumbed ourselves down to the lowest possible common denominator.
Hear no evil. See no evil. Speak no evil.
The radical Imams who preach this hatred to young, middle class students in British university understand this all too well. They are gaming us -- and preying on our desire to be politically perfect in our sensibilities. It is a weakness from within that they are exploiting mercilessly.
By the way, lest you think this only happens in Europe: This is exactly what happened at Fort Hood, when Major Hasan was tolerated by his peers and promoted by his superiors even though he was openly preaching hatred. He wasn't stopped because even in the military we've been chilled by political correctness and a desire to be open.
When will we wake up and start to understand that our tolerance is being used against us? When will we conclude that profiling and proactive security measures is needed to keep air travel safe?
When will we wise up?