Counterculture Con HQ

December 6, 2010

Paki Christian Sentenced to Death by Blasphemy Laws Obama Supports

Mainstream Islam is not "moderate".

Talk about blinders.  A very educated, thoughtful and well-travelled Liberal christian I know SCOFFED at the idea that Christians were being persecuted in the Muslim world.  This was just Rightwing propaganda and fear mongering, he insisted (this state of denial arises from a fear that acknowledging such evil would bolster U.S. hawks and “Zionists” in their crusades throughout the Middle East).   So they remain willfully ignorant.  They have Phds on “gay marriage”, mind you, and will carry on at length about it.  But this kind of stuff?  Clueless.  Secular leftists, on the other hand, get straight to the point and simply condemn “all religion”, and in this way avoid the “bigot” tag.  The fact is there is no such thing as “moderate” Islam.  Wherever that religion is dominant, it is extremist.  It’s only a question of degrees.  The proof?  We have already covered the burning alive of one Paki Christian last March. Now this Christian woman has been sentenced to death in Pakistan under blasphemy laws that MUSLIM DELEGATES AND AMBASSADORS TO THE U.N. (not wackos living in caves) have pushed the United Nations to enact globally.  And get this, our politically correct and multiculturally sensitive president BARACK OBAMA– who craves nothing as much as he does Muslim approval– supports them.

In Pakistan, Christianity Earns a Death Sentence

It all began a year and a half ago, with a quarrel over a bowl of water. A group of women farm workers were suffering in the heat near a village in Pakistan’s Punjab province. Aasia Noreen, an illiterate 45-year-old mother of five, offered them water, but was rebuffed. Noreen was a Christian, they said, and therefore her water was unclean – sadly, a common taunt hurled at Pakistan’s beleaguered Christians. But rather than swallowing the indignity, she mounted a stout defense of her faith.

Word of the exchange swiftly filtered through the village of Ittan Wali, in Sheikhupura district. The local mullah took to his mosque’s loudspeakers, exhorting his followers to take action against Noreen. In a depressingly familiar pattern, her defense of her faith was twisted into an accusation of blasphemy, according to her family and legal observers familiar with the case. As a frenzied mob pursued her, the police intervened, taking her into custody. But far from protecting her, they arrested and charged Noreen with insulting Islam and its prophet. And on Nov. 8, after enduring 18 months in prison, she was sentenced to death by a district court, making her the first woman to suffer that fate.

In the ensuing weeks, the case of Noreen, popularly known as Aasia Bibi, has sparked a national furor. Human rights campaigners and lawyers have denounced the sentence. Religious fundamentalist groups, usually at odds with one another, have suddenly coalesced around a campaign to defend the blasphemy law and attack its critics. One politician who called for Noreen to be pardoned now faces a fatwa for alleged apostasy. Another politician, who is trying to have the blasphemy laws amended, has been warned that she will be besieged. On television, religious scholars have disagreed among themselves over the law’s merits. Divisions are also being seen within the government, with powerful figures taking opposing sides. And there has even been global outrage, with Pope Benedict XVI last week calling for Noreen’s freedom.

No conclusive evidence has been presented against Noreen, say people familiar with the case. The district judge relied on the testimonies of three other women, all of whom bore animus toward her. Noreen had long been under pressure by fellow farmworkers to convert to Islam, her family says. And the district judge ruled out any possibility of her innocence or mitigating circumstances.Christians are subject to vicious prejudice in Pakistan, where their beliefs are said to make them “unclean.” Municipalities routinely advertise jobs for cleaners with a note saying they would prefer Christian applicants. And defending their rights is not popular. When Salmaan Taseer, the governor of Punjab, visited Noreen in prison and urged her release, he was branded an apostate by fundamentalist groups. And in the fundamentalist view, apostasy, like blasphemy, is punishable by death.

The Lahore High Court has taken the controversial step of saying that it won’t allow President Asif Ali Zardari to issue a pardon, a move that legal experts have said is unconstitutional.  Her family is now hoping that the higher courts will strike down the death sentence, or that she will eventually secure a pardon.  And the fear doesn’t end there. While no one has been executed for blasphemy yet, 32 people – including two judges – have been slain by vigilantes. At Friday prayers this week, Yousef Qureshi, a hardline cleric from the Mohabat Khan mosque in Peshawar, offered a reward of 500,000 rupees ($5,800) to “those who kill Aasia Bibi.” Even if pardoned, Rehman notes grimply, Noreen will no longer be able to to live in her community. For her own safety, she will have to be moved – simply for defending her right to choose her own faith.

Read the Rest.

November 29, 2010

British Schools, Islamic rules

Leftism is deadly.  By 2050 Great Britain will be over 50% Muslim, and by the latter years of this century historians will wonder how Europe was lost.  They currently have mass Islamic immigration which serves as a replacement population for their own dwindling native European one which has been gutted by secular progressivism. In addition, they have Islamic schools/madrasas to inculcate this new Muslim population in the ways of the Caliphate, rather than assimilating them into their host countries.  Leftism couldn’t have engineered our destruction more successfully had it done so on purpose.


Muslim: “Profile Me”

Asra Nomani

In the wake of yet another Muslim terrorist plot, we can no longer ignore the religious/ethnic profiling option.  Or at least that’s what this Muslim patriot believes.  You want to live in a multi-ethnic society?  Well, don’t you?  Then religious and racial profiling COMES WITH THE TERRITORY.  Or at least it should in a sane society not warped by the mental illness we call PC.  It’s the price I myself am willing to pay as a young hispanic male living close to the border.  It’s the price I have paid –on several occassions– to live in a multi-ethnic society that is ORDERLY AND SAFE.  That’s because I don’t carry a racial chip on my shoulder, and I am a patriot.  So get over it, lily white Libturds.  Your hyper-sensitivity is pathetic, and I don’t need your lily white selves to protect me from the screaming racists in your head.

Airport Security: Let’s Profile Muslims

As an American Muslim, I’ve come to recognize, sadly, that there is one common denominator defining those who’ve got their eyes trained on U.S. targets: MANY of them are Muslim—like the Somali-born teenager arrested Friday night for a reported plot to detonate a car bomb at a packed Christmas tree-lighting ceremony in downtown Portland, Oregon.

We have to talk about the taboo topic of profiling because terrorism experts are increasingly recognizing that religious ideology makes terrorist organizations and terrorists more likely to commit heinous crimes against civilians, such as blowing an airliner out of the sky. Certainly, it’s not an easy or comfortable conversation but it’s one, I believe, we must have.

I realize that in recent years, profiling has become a dirty word, synonymous with prejudice, racism, and bigotry. But while I believe our risk assessment should not end with religion, race and ethnicity, I believe that it should include these important elements, as part of a “triage” strategy that my debate partner, former CIA case officer Robert Baer, says airports and airliners already do.

This past week, as part of a debate series sponsored by the New York-based group Intelligence Squared, I argued that U.S. airports should use racial and religious profiling. (Taking the opposite stand was a “debating team” that included the former director of the Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff; Columbia University scholar of Pakistan, Hassan Abbas; and Debra Burlingame, a former flight attendant whose brother was a pilot of one of the planes hijacked on 9/11.)

And more Americans, it seems, are willing to choose racial and religious profiling as one part of keeping our skies safe. At the beginning of the debate, 37 percent of the audience was for religious and racial profiling, while 33 percent were against and 30 percent were undecided. By the end of the debate, 49 percent of the audience was for religious and racial profiling, 40 percent were against and the rest were undecided, meaning that that the motion carried. Of course, this “victory” in a scholarly debate doesn’t mean that the motion would necessarily win any broader popularity contests.

Read the rest.

November 28, 2010

Backlash!!! Arsonist Sets Fire To Oregon Mosque Frequented By Terrorist

The Salman Al-Farisi Center in Corvallis, Oregon

CORVALLIS, Ore. — Arson caused a fire on Sunday at an Islamic center that was the occasional place of worship for a Somali-born teen who two days ago was arrested on charges of plotting a terror attack in Portland, authorities said.

The fire at the Salman Al-Farisi Islamic Center was set early Sunday morning, said Carla Pusateri, a fire prevention officer for the Corvallis Fire Department.  She said “quite a bit of evidence” was left at the scene, which led her to believe the fire was intentionally set. No injuries have been reported.

The Islamic center was frequented by Mohamed Osman Mohamud, a 19-year-old held on charges of plotting to carry out a terror attack at a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Portland on Friday.  Yosof Wanly, imam at the Salman Alfarisi Islamic Center, said Mohamud was a normal student who went to athletic events, drank the occasional beer and was into rap music and culture.

Wanly said Mohamud was religious but didn’t come to the mosque consistently.  The fire on Sunday was contained to one room, burning 80 percent of the center’s office, Wanly said. The worship areas were untouched.

Wanly has been advised by friends to take his family out of their home, and to “another person’s house due to the possibility of hate crimes,” he said. “I’m going to look into it, especially because my face has been on the news a lot.”

Wanly said the local populace has always been accepting of Muslims.


CCHQ denounces this firebombing.  Though note it was committed in the dead of night, so injury or death wasn’t the goal.

The local (Liberal) populace has always been accepting of Muslims, and yet this jihadi was ready to give his own life to see this loving, Liberal local populace blown to smithereens.  Do you really think you will be spared, Libs?  His target wasn’t a U.S. marine or an Army tank on Muslim soil, it was the very same community that had lovingly embraced him as their neighbor.  Monster.  And while he doesn’t represent the Muslim population at large, everybody knows violent kook arsonists represent all Reichwingers.

ps., note to Muslim houses of worship.  This may be unfair, but there are kooks out there holding you accountable for the terrorists in your midst.  If you don’t take action, apparently somebody will.

November 26, 2010

The Nothing People

The Islamization of the West is not the cause of our civilizational decline, it is a symptom.  The West suffers from a terminal disease we call Secular Humanism/Progressivism.  It is a culture-destroying HIV/AIDS which has rendered the West unable to resist the opportunistic cultural infection that is Islamization which takes full advantage of the West’s weakened immune system.  This interview with Kent Ekeroth of the Sweden Democrats explains why it is happening.

When Sweden Surrendered

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Kent Ekeroth, the international secretary for the political party, Sweden Democrats (SD) and a candidate for the Swedish parliament in the elections in September 2010.

FP: Kent Ekeroth, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

I would like to talk to you today about the Islamization of Sweden.

Let’s begin by you telling us a bit about the political climate in your country. To what extent have political correctness and multiculturalism infiltrated the society and what destruction are they wreaking?

Ekeroth: Thanks Jamie.

We’ll a friend of mine once described Sweden as a “politically correct dictatorship,” which is a rather good description on how far things have gone in Sweden. I can give you a few examples of exactly how far we are talking about. Our prime minister, Fredrik Reinfeldt, said the following soon after he was elected in 2006:

The core Swedish is only barbarism. The rest of the development has come from outside.

Mona Sahlin, now the party leader of the Social Democrats, which is the largest party in Sweden with about 35% of the votes, said in 2002:

“I think that what makes so many Swedes envious of immigrant groups is, you have a culture, an identity, a history, something that binds you. And what do we have? Mid-summers’ eve and such ridiculous things.”

The party leader of the Center Party, who is in the current government coalition, said the following:

“It is really not the Swedes that built Sweden. It was people that came from abroad.”

These three quotes are a pretty clear indicator that things have gone very wrong in Sweden. The Swedish media is censoring the fact that the perpetrators of violent crimes are foreigners. One example of this is when a major Swedish newspaper, Expressen, printed a picture of a criminal that they pixeled to avoid identification. Moreover, they whitened the pixels so that the readers would not see that he was a non-white.

Our courts have even started taking the cultures of perpetrators into account when sentencing. Recently a father got a lower sentence for beating his child with the motivation from the court that “the use of corporal punishment of children is accepted and allowed” in the home country of the father.

Read the rest.

The Secular Progressive Swedes– as is the rest of Europe– are on the path to certain destruction because they have shed their judeo-christian heritage in favor of the modern and enlightened worldview of Secular Humanism/Progressivism.  In effect, in favor of nothing.  Secular Progressivism is not a culture/heritage/history, but rather a worldview that has declared open season on Western culture.  In the words of these Sec Prog politicians cited above, Secular Progressivism has rendered Sweden a self-hating cultural wasteland.  It has rendered the Swedes a nothing people with no identity or sense of self.  And into this vacuum is rushing the cultural super bug that is Islam.

Demographer: Islam to dominate Britain in 50 years

Does CCHQ give a RAT’S @SS about anybody’s skin color?  No.  (This is about CULTURE, not race.)  But the weight of a thoroughly Islamized Europe IN THIS CENTURY brings me to my knees.  This is what the fall of the West looks like, and it is a direct and proximate result of the ideology of decline we know as Leftism and it’s vile doctrine of multiculturalism.

White British people will be in a MINORITY in their own country by 2066

David Coleman, professor of demography at Oxford University, said they will make up less than HALF the population in just over 50 years.  And soaring immigrant birthrates mean white British kids will be in a minority of youngsters in the UK even sooner. The dramatic decline will be fuelled by record-breaking levels of immigration, coupled with the departure of thousands of Brits for a better life abroad, the population analyst said.

Prof Coleman’s controversial claim will raise fresh questions about whether Britain can sustain the influx of hundreds of thousands of immigrants every year.  It comes as Home Secretary Theresa May today gets a report from the Migration Advisory Committee on what cap she should impose on migrant workers next year.

Writing in Prospect magazine, Prof Coleman warned the huge numbers of foreigners landing on our shores will “transform” the UK. He said official projections estimate the UK’s population will rocket to 77 million by 2051 – and 85 million by 2083.

The expert went on: “On those assumptions the ‘white British’ population would decline to 45 million (59 per cent of the total) by 2051.  “Were the assumptions to hold, the ‘white British’ population of Britain would become the minority after about 2066. It’s a milestone that would be passed much earlier in younger age-groups.”

He added: “The US, by comparison, is now about 65 per cent white (non-Hispanic) and that group is projected to fall to 50 per cent by 2045.”  Even if the number of immigrants was cut so that new arrivals matched the number of Brits leaving, the “white British” population would still fall below 50 per cent by the end of the century.

Prof Coleman said this would “represent an enormous change to national identity – cultural, political, economic and religious”.


November 23, 2010

Leading UK Lib Warns of Overpopulation and Muslim Takeover, But Mostly Muslim Takeover

Lord Carey: Favors bias towards christian immigrants

More clarion calls from the good Bishop.


Former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey has said immigrants to the UK should have an understanding the country’s Christian heritage.

He is among a group of MPs and peers warning that the population should not be allowed to go beyond 70 million.  Lord Carey said immigration angered many people and could lead to violence, and that the system had to focus more on maintaining “values”.

You must understand, gentle reader, everything is cloaked in euphemism because of the harsh PC speech codes of secular progressive Europe.  Notice the scare quotes the reporter places on “values”– a way of casting doubt, and even aspersion, on the very notion.  But why should immigrants understand our christian heritage, when our own secular progressives are making every effort to extinguish it?  Notice Lord Carey says immigrants should “have an understanding” of christian heritage.  That is euphemism also.  What he is really saying is that we should import our immigrants from other parts of christian Europe, not the Muslim world.

Labour says the system works, but the Tories want caps on incoming workers. All the main parties are sceptical about setting population targets which they believe is unrealistic and counter-productive.

Notice the typical Left/Right sanity divide holds true across the Pond as well.  Leftism is a trans-national movement, so a Lefty here and in Europe are pretty much on the same page about everything.  That does not hold nearly as true of American conservatism vs European conservatism.

Last year the Office for National Statistics said, if current trends continued, the UK population would rise by 10 million to more than 71.6 million by 2033 – the fastest rise in a century.  Two-thirds of that increase would be caused, directly or indirectly, by migration to the UK, it suggested.

“What I think I’m concerned about is not saying we must put a limit on people who are non-Christian populations. That’s not the point. We welcome everybody and that’s always been the generous spirit of the United Kingdom.”

Poor guy.  The insincerity oozing through his every pore.

But, he said, immigrants must “understand” the UK’s culture, including parliamentary democracy “which is built upon Christian heritage”, “our commitment to the English language” and an understanding of the country’s history.

There it is.  In a secular progressive utopia such as the UK, telling the truth is as agonizing as having your teeth pulled.

The system should not “give preference to any particular group”, he said, but added that points-based immigration could take these cultural aspects into consideration.

And again.  In Europe, “cultural aspects” = Islam.

Lord Carey added: “If there’s going to be an implementation of that points system, it must focus much more on values rather than religions…

“If there are competing groups wanting to come in, some groups which may have a greater understanding, an espousal to that, may be given preference under a points system, but that’s not what I’m arguing and certainly not what the cross-party group is arguing.”

Lord Carey told BBC Radio 5 live: “We’ve got to be more outspoken. What I’m calling for is a debate, a debate without any rancour.”

Ask yourself, why would this issue cause rancour?  And rancour from whom?  Answer: It is rancorous to the muslim community who wants to see Europe islamized, and the secular progressives who are enabling this cultural genocide in the name of diversity and multiculturalism.

He added that immigration was an issue that mattered to “ordinary working-class people” and that it was important to tackle “that kind of resentment which could build and is building up already”.

Working class people– unlike the “educated class”– will yet be the salvation of the West.

Lord Carey said too much population growth in the UK could foster “dangerous social conditions”, with some minority ethnic groups, such as young Muslim men, suffering “disproportionate” unemployment.

Here he is saying the UK doesn’t need the massive muslim slums found in every city in France that have become no-go zones for cops because they are so violent.  The French call them “quartiers sensibles” — sensitive neighborhoods. Lord Carey is warning against this.

Labour MP Field and Tory MP Nicholas Soames, the co-chairmen of the migration group, said: “Poll after poll shows the public to be deeply concerned about immigration and its impact on our population.

Meanwhile the “educated class” is obsessed with extinguishing every last vestige of christianity from our society.

Net migration – the number of people who come to live in Britain minus those who leave – fell by more than a third in 2008 but critics say this was driven by eastern Europeans returning home and immigration levels must fall to levels of the early 1990s.

Net migration decreasing, but of eastern Europeans, not Muslims.  The rest here.

November 21, 2010

TSA: Political Correctness Comes Home to Roost

PC and bureaucratic pig-headedness demand we continue to ignore time-tested and common sense solutions to airport security already used by the Israelis:

Airport “Israelification”

“It is mindboggling for us Israelis to look at what happens in North America, because we went through this 50 years ago,” said Rafi Sela, the president of AR Challenges, a global transportation security consultancy. He’s worked with the RCMP, the U.S. Navy Seals and airports around the world.

“Israelis, unlike Canadians and Americans, don’t take s— from anybody. When the security agency in Israel (the ISA) started to tighten security and we had to wait in line for — not for hours — but 30 or 40 minutes, all hell broke loose here. We said, ‘We’re not going to do this. You’re going to find a way that will take care of security without touching the efficiency of the airport.”

That, in a nutshell is “Israelification” – a system that protects life and limb without annoying you to death.

You don’t have to replace anything. You have to add just a little bit — technology, training. But you have to completely change the way you go about doing airport security. And that is something that the bureaucrats have a problem with. They are very well enclosed in their own concept.”


Instead, Mohamedanism and the Left once again converge in this perfect storm of political correctness where EVERYBODY is frisked, patted, probed and scanned so that those most likely to bomb a plane (guess who) not be profiled.  Here passengers are body slammed– yes, body slammed– to the ground if they don’t remove their nipple rings and prosthetic limbs, or are covered in urine when their colostomy bags are torn.  Just another reason why Islam and the Left are such a scourge on Western civilization.

Meanwhile, even though we are more than two years into the Age of Obama, the loonie commenters at the Huffington Post are still blaming “Booosh” for this madness.  You see, Bush “invented” the terrorist threat, and Obama is just falling for it. Unreal.

UPDATE: Here, the longest line you have ever seen at an airport.

November 20, 2010

Islam Kills Free Speech in Europe

The West trembles in fear of Islam.  In Europe, sliming Jews is just fine, but criticizing Mohamedanism can land you in jail– literally.  The difference between “free speech” and “hate speech” is now dictated solely by Political Correctness.

November 19, 2010

Multiculturalism a Huge Hit In Nigeria

Villagers buried hundreds of bodies in mass graves after the massacre.

If diversity is strength, the country of Nigeria is a veritable superpower.


DOGO NAHAWA, Nigeria – Villagers in central Nigeria buried dozens of bodies, including those of women and children, in a mass grave on Monday after attacks in which several hundred people were feared to have been killed.

Residents of the small village and two other predominantly Christian settlements said Muslim herders from surrounding hills attacked in the early hours of Sunday, opening fire to force them out of their homes before slashing them with machetes.

Witnesses said Sunday’s attack appeared to be a reprisal for unrest around Jos — the capital of Plateau state — in January, when clashes between Christian and Muslim mobs killed several hundred people. The latest violence in the centre of Africa’s most populous nation comes at a difficult time for Jonathan, who is trying to assert his authority while ailing President Umaru Yar’Adua remains too sick to govern.

Full article, here.

Ain’t multiculturalism just grand!  Here a christian priest describes the massacre:

DOGO NAHAWA, Nigeria – The killers showed no mercy: They didn’t spare women and children, or even a 4-day-old baby, from their machetes. On Monday, Nigerian women wailed in the streets as a dump truck carried dozens of bodies past burned-out homes toward a mass grave.

The horrific violence comes after sectarian killings in this region in January left more than 300 dead, most of them Muslim. Some victims were shoved into sewer pits and communal wells.  Sunday’s bloodshed in three mostly Christian villages appeared to be reprisal attacks, said Red Cross spokesman Robin Waubo.

The Rev. Pandang Yamsat, the president of a local Christian group, said he has urged his congregation not to respond violently to Muslims. However, he said he believes Muslims in the area want to control the region and that any peace talks would only give Muslims “time to conquer territory with swords.”

“We have done our best to tell our members, ‘don’t go and attack Muslims, they are your brother,'” Yamsat said. However, “‘if they come to dislodge you in your place, stand to defend yourself.'”

Barely controlled rage spilled over in the village as those gathered for the mass burial attacked a Muslim journalist covering the event. The journalist escaped, but others made threats against reporters.  The Rev. Federico Lombardi, a Vatican spokesman, condemned the violence and said Monday that the conflict must be interpreted in the light of social, economic, ethnic and cultural factors rather than religious hatred.

The killings add to the tally of thousands who have already perished in Africa’s most populous country in the last decade due to religious and political frictions. Rioting in September 2001 killed more than 1,000 people. Muslim-Christian battles killed up to 700 people in 2004. More than 300 residents died during a similar uprising in 2008.

He recalled climbing into a tree and watching as villagers were killed and the attackers set homes alight over the course of 90 minutes.  The attackers asked people “Who are you?” in Fulani, a language used mostly by Muslims, and killed those who did not answer back in Fulani, he said.

Full article.

This is our future if we allow the SecProgs their way.  The Balkans on a continental scale.  So the next time a Libturd tries to tell you diversity is strength, ask him what kind of diversity– race or culture?  There’s a huge difference.  Racial diversity is not a problem, but cultural diversity can be positively DEADLY.  While there are no differences between the races, some cultures may as well come from another planet.  The differences are not illusory, they are very real.  Also, a minority culture will act one way when it’s the minority, and quite another way when it becomes the majority.  In the former case, a foreign culture is quaint and charming.  But when it dominates, that same qaint culture becomes the source of unending friction, and eventually oppression.  Your muslim neighbor down the street may be a remarkable human being, but he can teach you little to nothing about what the new Caliphate will look like because his culture is still in the minority.  To know the Caliphate, look to those countries where Islam dominates.

UPDATE: Warning, graphic:

Is your passion for ethnic foods really worth all this?

November 15, 2010

Michael Coren and Melanie Phillips On Islamization, Multiculturalism, and Leftwing PC

Conservative champions Michael Coren and Melanie Phillips come together in one awesome blog post of goodness.  It’s hard to believe this woman actually wrote for The Guardian once upon a time, but here she basically deconstructs the Left of which she was once a member.  Also, how Islam isn’t playing by the rules all other minority cultures have played by in the West.  This is a CCHQ must see.

Melanie Phillips:  “I’ve spent my entire career stating the obvious, and observing world war breaking out around me.”

“If you are on the Leftwing, you believe your point of view is the embodiment of Virtue because your point of view is all about creating the perfect society (utopia).  And because you axiomatically stand for Virtue, then it follows that anyone who dissents from your view is basically evil (not just wrong).”

The really good stuff starts here though.

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

November 12, 2010

FBI: More hate crimes against Jews, Christians than against Muslims

This one deserves CCHQ’s front page again given the hits it’s been getting.  After 20 years spent driving Christianity out of the public square, Progressives finally found a religion they can stand behind.  According to Time magazine, America is an Islamophobic country.  The article makes every effort to prove its case against the American people, but doesn’t lift a finger to understand the reasons why you might be afraid of Islam.  That kind of empathetic “nuance” they reserve only for our enemies and for their precious “the other”, especially when it can be used to further their Leftwing agenda.

But this time they may have a point.  Certainly in my own case, Islam scares the daylights out of me.  I canna tell a lie.  Islam is an expansionist, imperialist, totalitarian ideology, and history attests to this fact.  So there’s a real reason why folks are scared.  It’s not just “racism.”  That doesn’t mean I hate Muslims or treat them any differently than I would somebody else– any more than I would have treated a Russian less humanely during the Cold War.  In fact, I believe Islam should be viewed as we did Communism during the Cold War– as an existential threat to Western civilization.  The Constitution prevents us from discriminating on the basis of religion, so our response to this threat will be severely limited.  But that shouldn’t blind us to the threat Islam poses to the West either.

Yet despite our fear of Islamization, it doesn’t follow that we are going to chase Muslims down in the street and lynch them on sight.  They are as safe in our cities as your average Russian was during the Cold War.  And FBI statistics bear that out.

This morning there was a report that a cab driver in New York was stabbed because he was Muslim. While the facts are still emerging, all reasonable people can agree this is a shameful and un-American act if this proves to be true.

This incident will undoubtedly be used by the media to further push the narrative that the controversy over the Mosque near Ground Zero in New York shows how Americans are bigoted against Muslims. So here’s some clarifying info from the FBI. According to the latest hate crime statistics available, there were 1,606 hate crime offenses motivated by religious bias in 2008.  A closer look shows 65.7 percent of them were committed against Jews. Against Muslims? 7.7 percent.

Depending on which population estimates you accept for Muslims (anywhere between 4 and 7 million), hate crimes are committed against Jews at a rate three to eight times greater than against Muslims. Yet something tells me that despite all these hard numbers — as opposed to Time’sanecdotal evidence” –  that magazine is not going to run a cover anytime soon asking, “Is America Anti-Semitic?

After 9/11, there was a quick spike in anti-Muslim hate crimes — there were 28 in 2000, then 155 in 2002. In 2008, there were 123.  Even one hate crime is too many, but consider: Between 2 and 4 of every 100,000 Muslims was a hate crime victim in 2008. The murder rate in D.C. last year was about 24 for every 100,000 residents.

Another interesting data point: 4.7 percent of hate crimes in 2008 were motivated by anti-Catholic bias. Another 3.7 percent were anti-Protestant. So from a raw numbers perspective, there were more hate crimes against Christians in America in 2008 than there were against Muslims. Given our large Christian population, it’s true that each Christian is far less likely to be victimized, but the numbers still show that religious haters have not been singling out Muslims.

November 5, 2010

Michael Coren and Mark Steyn

My two favorite Canadians, Michael Coren and Mark Steyn, chat about political correctness, freedom of speech, multiculturalism, Islam and the Left.

“If you’re effective, they really want to shut you up.  They don’t want to have the conversation.  They don’t want to win the argument as much as they don’t want the argument to take place.”

November 3, 2010

The secret plot to destroy Britain’s identity

It’s hard to redact anything from a Melanie Phillips column because everything she says is on point and packs a punch.  Today new information is emerging about Britain’s Labour Party’s conspiracy to open the doors wide to mass immigration in order to change the social/cultural makeup of that country.

BY MELANIE PHILLIPS — Of all the issues of concern to the public, immigration is possibly the most explosive — and the one about which the most lies are continuing to be told. During the period that Labour has been in office, mass immigration has simply changed the face of Britain. The total number of immigrants since 1997 is pushing three million.

Ministers claim that immigration policy has been driven principally to help the economy.  They have always denied that they actually set out deliberately to change the ethnic composition of the country.  Well, now we know for a certainty that this is not true. The Government embarked on a policy of mass immigration to change Britain into a multicultural society — and they kept this momentous aim secret from the people whose votes they sought.

Worse still, they did this knowing that it ran directly counter to the wishes of those voters, whose concerns about immigration they dismissed as racist; and they further concealed official warnings that large-scale immigration would bring about significant increases in crime.

The truth about this scandal was first blurted out last October by Andrew Neather, a former Labour Party speechwriter.  He wrote that until the new points-based system limiting foreign workers was introduced in 2008 — in response to increasing public uproar — government policy for the previous eight years had been aimed at promoting mass immigration.

The ‘driving political purpose’ of this policy, wrote Neather, was ‘to make the UK truly multicultural’ — and one subsidiary motivation was ‘to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date’. Misters, however, went to great lengths to keep their real intentions secret from the public — with, said Neather, a ‘paranoia’ that these would reach the media — since they knew their core white working-class voters would react very badly.

Accordingly, a report about immigration by a government advisory unit, which formed the core of a landmark speech in 2000 announcing the loosening of border controls, went through several drafts before it was finally published — and the Government’s true intentions about changing Britain into a multicultural society were removed from the final version.

Now we know, however, that they were indeed the truth. We know this only because details of the advisory unit’s report which were excised from the final published version — just as Neather said — have been emerging into the public domain through Freedom of Information requests.

The pressure group MigrationWatch obtained an early draft which revealed that the Government’s intention was to encourage mass immigration for ’social objectives’ — in other words, to produce a more ethnically diverse society — but that on no fewer than six occasions this phrase was excised from the final version, published some three months later.

Now we further discover, from what was removed from seemingly another early draft, that the aim was not just to implement this policy of mass immigration without the knowledge or consent of the British people.  It was done in the full knowledge that the people [of Britain] actually wanted immigration reduced.

And we also discover that those who expressed such concerns were dismissed with utter contempt as racists and it was further suggested that ministers should manipulate public opinion in an attempt to change people’s attitudes. Well, they have certainly tried to do that by hanging the disgusting label of ‘racism’ round the neck of anyone who dares voice such concerns.  Thus the eminent and decent Labour MP Frank Field found himself smeared as a racist for daring to suggest that the rate of immigration should be reduced.

What bullying arrogance. The real prejudice is surely to believe that opposition to mass migration can never be based on any reasonable objection.  The implications of this covert policy are quite staggering. Ministers deliberately set out to change the cultural and ethnic identity of this country in secret.

They did this mainly because they hated what Britain was, a largely homogeneous society rooted in 1,000 years of history. They therefore set out to replace it by a totally new kind of multicultural society — and one in which the vast majority of newcomers could be expected to vote Labour.

They set out to destroy the right of the British people to live in a society defined by a common history, religion, law, language and traditions. They set out to destroy for ever what it means to be culturally British and to put another ‘multicultural’ identity in its place.

And they then had the gall to declare that to have love for or pride in that authentic British identity, and to want to protect and uphold it, was racist. So the very deepest feelings of people for their country were damned as bigotry, for which crime they were to have their noses rubbed in mass immigration until they changed their attitudes.

The truth is that these early drafts of the advisory unit’s report have blown open one of the greatest political scandals of the Labour years. At no stage did Labour’s election manifestos make any reference to a policy of mass immigration nor the party’s aim of creating a multicultural society.

There could scarcely be a more profound abuse of the democratic process than to set out to destroy a nation’s demographic and cultural identity through a conscious deception of the people of that nation. It is an act of collective national treachery.

Now we face imminently another General Election. And now we know that in their hearts, Labour politicians hold the great mass of the public, many of them their own voters, in total contempt as racist bigots — all for wanting to live in a country whose identity they share.

There could hardly be a more worthy issue for the Conservative Party to leap upon. Yet their response is muted through their own visceral terror of appearing racist. The resulting despair over the refusal of the mainstream parties to address this issue threatens to drive many into the arms of the truly racist British National Party.

The depressing rest, here.

Short of nuking the place, I can think of no greater crime against a nation than to destroy their culture.  Can you?  The key here is WITHOUT THE PEOPLE’S KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT.  Now give me one reason, gentle readers, why these culture destroyers shouldn’t all be brought up on charges.  And then hung for treason from the nearest lamp post for crimes against the people.  Jail terms just don’t seem adequate to the task here.  But neither will happen, and that’s a world that just seems surreal to me.  It’s a world in which the people have lost control of their institutions and their society to a small culture-destroying gramsciist elite.  In a democracy, when you disagree with your elites, you toss them out.  That’s the democratic compact.  But when they intentionally conceal their deeds and keep you in the dark, that cancels the deal.  It’s pitchfork time.

October 31, 2010

Bill Maher Alarmed Islam taking over the West

Of course, the threat posed to the West by Islamization can only be discussed in a “comedy” setting, complete with comedians, jokes and clapping seals to break the tension and then move onto the next topic lite.  It’s all in good fun!  Lighten up, PC police.  It’s not like this is a real news show we’re expected to take seriously.

In the UK, the most popular name for babies this year was Mohammed.  Am I a racist to feel I’m alarmed by that?  Because I am.

I don’t have to apologize, do I, for not wanting the Western world to be taken over by Islam.

October 30, 2010

White Guilt Meets Contempt for the Familiar: Brit Women Converting to Islam

Contempt for the familiar: Brit women converting to Islam

More fruits of the culture-destroying, civilization-declining ideology we call modern Liberalism.  As secular progressivism evicerates the Christian soul of the West, Islam rushes in to fill the void.  Here white guilt meets contempt for the familiar where spiritually rootless secular progressives starved for spiritual truth deny the faith of their forefathers and turn to more socially acceptable and politically correct religious outlets.

Why ARE so many modern British career women converting to Islam?

Tony Blair’s sister-in-law announced her conversion to Islam last weekend. Journalist Lauren Booth embraced the faith after what she describes as a ‘holy experience’ in Iran.  She is just one of a growing number of modern British career women to do so.

Broadcaster and journalist Booth, 43, says she now wears a hijab head covering whenever she leaves home, prays five times a day and visits her local mosque ‘when I can’.  She decided to become a Muslim six weeks ago after visiting the shrine of Fatima al-Masumeh in the city of Qom, and says: ‘It was a Tuesday evening, and I sat down and felt this shot of spiritual morphine, just absolute bliss and joy.’

Before her awakening in Iran, she had been ‘sympathetic’ to Islam and has spent considerable time working in Palestine. ‘I was always impressed with the strength and comfort it gave,’ she says.  How, I wondered, could women be drawn to a religion which I felt had kept me in such a lowly, submissive place? How could their experiences of Islam be so very different to mine?

According to Kevin Brice from ­Swansea University, who has specialised in studying white conversion to Islam, these women are part of an intriguing trend.

He explains: ‘They seek spirituality, a higher meaning, and tend to be deep thinkers. The other type of women who turn to Islam are what I call “converts of convenience”. They’ll assume the trappings of the religion to please their Muslim husband and his family, but won’t necessarily attend mosque, pray or fast.’

I spoke to a diverse selection of white Western converts in a bid to re-examine the faith I had rejected.

Women like Kristiane Backer, 43, a London-based former MTV presenter who had led the kind of liberal Western-style life that I yearned for as a teenager, yet who turned her back on it and embraced Islam instead. Her reason? The ‘anything goes’ permissive society that I coveted had proved to be a superficial void.

Read the rest.

Who’s Afraid of Mohammed

Leftist slip showing: Maher afraid of Islam

Is Bill Maher’s show still called “Politically Incorrect?”  (Or was that his previous one)  Because I can’t say I’ve ever heard him say anything particularly un-PC until now.  Here he pulls a “Juan Williams”  and finally says something that’s, you know, politically incorrect (as opposed to his usual atheism and Christianity-bashing, which couldn’t be more mainstream and socially acceptable in this day and age).

Those who accuse the once libertarian Bill Maher of becoming too much of a liberal apologist might want to clean their ears. Maher made a Juan Williams-esque confession on his program when he apprehensively noted that Mohammed has just become the most popular baby name in Britain. “Am I a racist to feel alarmed by that?” Maher asked his panel. “Because I am. And it’s not because of the race, it’s because of the religion. I don’t have to apologize, do I, for not wanting the Western world to be taken over by Islam in 300 years?”

Notice he makes the distinction between race and religion, giving himself the benefit of the doubt he’d never grant to somebody on the Right.  But poor fellow, he thinks it’ll take Islam 300 years.  lol.  If only…

His normally boisterous crowd fell silent as the panel responded to Maher’s admission.

“If you’re with NPR,” the conservative Margaret Hoover chimed, “You’d be fired.”

“It’s worse,” Lawrence O’Donnell told Maher. “It’s way worse than what Juan Williams said.” Hoover seemed to agree with this sentiment.

Reihan Salam, a conservative analyst with a Muslim name, also seemed irked by Maher’s comments, noting that he “has some uncles named Mohammed” that are “pretty decent guys.”

Of course, it’s not the name that Maher fears, but the religion. (Any of them, in fact — Maher’s qualms with religion of any sort, Islam or not, are long-standing and well-documented.) Hoover further stoked Maher by claiming that the U.K is saddled with a “far bigger problem” than baby names: Sharia Law, which she said is creeping into England.

“Then I’m right,” Maher said, taking her for her word. “I should be alarmed. And I don’t apologize for it.”


Wonderful!  Reihan Salam knows a dude whose sisters-in-law are married to some Muslims who are pretty decent guys.  Well, that settles it!  Islamize away then!  The classic red herring non-sequitor, reducing the argument to individuals instead of culture, and then imputing to the general from the specific.  Who buys this kind of crap?  It’s not about “Muslims”, Mr. Salam, it’s about ISLAM.  And I don’t apologize for it.

October 24, 2010

Driving Fox to the Right

Juan and Mara consort with the enemy.

NPR says they fired Juan Williams because he engaged in commentary and opinion, as opposed to “analysis”.  That is a laughable claim, as I grew up listening to the likes of Daniel Schorr and Nina Totenberg give me their personal opinions in the guise of analysis (the “fine line” between the two is a journalistic fiction) for 20 years at NPR.  But what if the firing of Juan Williams wasn’t just about his comments regarding Muslims at airports?  What if there is more to this than just a simple case of PC run amok?  Yes, I know his comments served to trigger his firing, but what if the rabbit hole goes a little deeper?  There are so many insidious levels to this scandal.

A Witch Hunt for Bigots Singes American Media

“Political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis, where you don’t address reality,” Juan Williams observed rather prophetically on Bill O’Reilly’s show Monday night, before he made the comments that got him fired from his assignment as senior news analyst for National Public Radio.

This is what Williams said: “I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.  “Now, I remember also that when the Times Square bomber was at court, I think this was just last week. He said the war with Muslims, America’s war, is just beginning, first drop of blood. I don’t think there’s any way to get away from these facts.”

Williams tempered those remarks with the caveat that President George W. Bush clearly stated that America is not at war with Islam. And: “Wait a second though, wait, hold on, because if you said Timothy McVeigh, the Atlanta bomber, these people who are protesting against homosexuality at military funerals, very obnoxious, you don’t say first and foremost, we got a problem with Christians. That’s crazy.”

Too late. Williams already had handed ammo to the Council on American-Islamic Relations. CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad called on NPR to investigate Williams on Wednesday. In a statement Awad charged, “NPR should address the fact that one of its news analysts seems to believe that all airline passengers who are perceived to be Muslim can legitimately be viewed as security threats.”

CAIR is an identity-politics organization that trolls for opportunities to take offense. Whenever anyone acknowledges the nexus between terrorism and radical Islam — not Islam, but radical Islam — CAIR cries foul. Wednesday afternoon within hours of the CAIR complaint, NPR rewarded CAIR’s campaign of intimidation with a scalp.

On Thursday, NPR President Vivian Schiller denied that the firing was about Fox News. I don’t buy that. As Politico reported last year, NPR tried to pressure political correspondent Mara Liasson to sever her ties as a commentator on “Fox News Sunday” and its “Special Report.” In 2009, NPR asked Williams to not use his NPR identification when appearing on “The O’Reilly Factor.” (Monday night, O’Reilly no doubt tweaked NPR management when he said to Williams, “You actually work for NPR, OK?”)Indeed, NPR ombudsman Alicia Shepard told “Talk of the Nation” Thursday that the network should have given Williams an ultimatum — NPR or Fox News.

Eric Boehlert of the left-wing MediaMatters used Williams’ firing to call on NPR to sever its association with Liasson, as well. Wrote Boehlert, “I’m not suggesting Liasson has said anything as offensive as Williams, or that she has that kind of track record while appearing on Fox. I’m just saying that if you look at NPR’s code of ethics, there’s simply no way Liasson should be making appearances on Fox.”

What an insidious pursuit. MediaMatters lives to pillory Fox News for being too conservative — at the same time, it tries to drive moderate commentators off Fox programming.

MediaMatters doesn’t want balance on Fox News. MediaMatters doesn’t want an exchange of ideas. MediaMatters wants to push Fox further to the right.  Its toxic tactics are designed to widen the left-right divide in America by marginalizing not only conservatives, but anyone who associates with conservatives.

Read the rest.

I said essentially the same thing months ago in defense of Fox News when NPR attacked them for being too partisan, while simultaneously criticizing Mara Laissan for appearing on Fox News to cover the leftwing flank on the issues.  It seems the insular bubbleheads at tax-payer funded NPR see no irony whatsoever in accusing Fox of being biased—even as they tried to prevent Fox News from including Mara Liasson and Juan Williams on their panels.  No irony whatsoever!  Or maybe they do see the irony, but in their intellectual elitism expect the American public won’t.  After Juan William’s firing, you better believe Mara will now be walking on eggshells at Fox.  You better believe that other moderates and Liberals will think twice before accepting an invitation to appear with Chris Wallace, Bret Baier and Bill O’reilly lest the Fox News “taint” rub off on them.  And I suppose that was precisely the desired effect.

“Culture Jihad”: A Muslim Sees the Light

“Culture jihad” or stealth jihad. Call it what you want, it’s real. CCHQ isn’t a faith blog, but I am a Christian and this one is just too good to ignore (good enough to get me fired from NPR).

Vodpod videos no longer available.

October 16, 2010

“Multikulti is Dead”

Merkel: "Multiculturalism is a disaster."

This is HUGE.  The West is waking from it’s Leftwing multicultural slumber.  Angela Merkel isn’t some obscure member of parliament from a small and insignificant European country speaking here.  As prime minister of Germany, she is essentially leader of the European Union.  We’ve been ahead of the curve by almost a decade on this one, gentle readers.  We called it.  And now the elites are beginning to come around, and for that I believe Geert Wilders takes the credit.  But is it too late?

Merkel says German multicultural society has failed

Attempts to build a multicultural society in Germany have “utterly failed”, Chancellor Angela Merkel says.  In a speech in Potsdam, she said the so-called “multikulti” concept – where people would “live side-by-side” happily – did not work. Mrs Merkel’s comments come amid recent outpourings of strong anti-immigrant feeling from mainstream politicians. A recent survey showed that more than 30% of Germans believed Germany was “overrun by foreigners”.

The study – by the Friedrich Ebert Foundation think-tank – also showed that roughly the same number thought that some 16 million of Germany’s immigrants or people with foreign origins had come to the country for the social benefits.

Mrs Merkel told a gathering of younger members of her conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party on Saturday that at “the beginning of the 60s our country called the foreign workers to come to Germany and now they live in our country… We kidded ourselves a while, we said: ‘They won’t stay, sometime they will be gone’, but this isn’t reality.

“And of course, the approach [to build] a multicultural [society] and to live side-by-side and to enjoy each other… has failed, utterly failed.” In her speech, the chancellor specifically referred to recent comments by German President Christian Wulff who said that Islam was “part of Germany” like Christianity and Judaism.  While acknowledging that this was the case, Mrs Merkel stressed that immigrants living in Germany needed to do more to integrate, including learning to speak German.  “Anyone who does not immediately speak German”, she said, “is not welcome”.

By speaking now, Mrs Merkel has now joined the increasingly hot debate on multiculturalism, coming down on the side of those who are uneasy about immigration, says the BBC’s correspondent in Berlin, Stephen Evans.  Her comments come a week after she held talks with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, in which the two leaders pledged to do more to improve the often poor integration record of Germany’s estimated 2.5 million-strong Turkish community.

Earlier this week, Horst Seehofer, the leader of the CDU’s Bavarian sister party, CSU, said about integration that it was “obvious that immigrants from different cultures like Turkey and Arab countries, all in all, find it harder”.  “‘Multikulti’ is dead,” Mr Seehofer said.


Borders, language, culture (but not race).  But is it too late?  Can the inevitable be averted?  Even if immigration from Muslim countries grinds to a standstill that would only slow the rate of Islamization because we still have Muslim fertility rates to deal with.  What to do, what to do?  The answer is integration and assimilation.  No more apologizing for our traditions, culture and history.  Embrace the familiar. No more multiculturalism.  No more Leftist relativism.  To immigrants– Westernize, or pack your bags and leave.

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »