Daily Catch Video for November 30, 2010 EDL and allah

allah is mohammud's imaginary friend.

Taxes and punishment: why attacking achievement hurts everyone

If you are not familiar with Paul Ibbetson then here is your chance to for an introduction. Mr. Ibbetson really nails down the tax cuts that set to expire at the end of this year. I strongly think the tax cuts should be extended, made permanent for ALL income levels. Many of those 'well off income earners($250,00 and up)are the ones that keep small business starting, growing and are an integral part of the American economic machine. The looming battle over these tax cuts will be one of the first battles obama is forced to 'work with'. I hope obama is cut off at the knees very early into the game. His arrogance and ignorance, coupled with that of Pelosi and Reid are one of the main reasons we are in the horrible shape that we are in.

Taxes and punishment: why attacking achievement hurts everyone
By Paul A. Ibbetson

The political wrangling over what to do with the Bush-era tax cuts that are set to expire has created another opportunity to observe the ideological difference in perspectives between liberals and conservatives on the issue of taxes. Most importantly, it highlights differences that go beyond differing blueprints for the economic future of the country and more to the contrasting viewpoints in how taxes should be used in modern America.

Out of the gate, liberals in the Democratic Party were resistant to extending the tax cuts in general. After the first rounds of debate it appeared that Democrats were willing to appease Americans with tax cut extensions for all but the wickedly rich. The problem with that plan was that the wickedly rich, which were deemed by the Obama administration as those with an income exceeding $250,000 also included arguably as much as half of all small-business owners. Despite the extensive political quibbling over what percent of small businesses will be negatively affected with higher taxes in a weak economy, there is an equally important question which is seldom addressed: What about the rich?

While many conservatives bring forth consumption tax proposals, these ideas receive quick and absolute rejection from the Democratic Party. Yes, liberals love the current system and pursue leveling taxes on the living and the dead with equal vigor. However, the left places their taxation efforts most forcefully on those who have achieved the highest economic levels in the nation. Why? If you listen to liberals such as Barack Obama, you will hear the argument that the rich can simply absorb additional taxes without any adverse effects. Under the surface of these arguments is a not-so-subtle hostility towards the rich. It is as if high income earners have dodged doing their fair bit in the tax department and liberals are just balancing the scales a little more in these hard times. Are they right? Are the rich deserving of a little less cash? Can the government do a few more wonderful things with a little bit more of their money? Let's look at the economic facts.

In 2007 economist Stephen Moore addressed the same general set of questions and found that the top 1 percent of income earners pay 37 percent of the income taxes collected by the government. The top 10 percent of wage earners — that's the filthy rich if you are wondering — pay almost 70% of total income taxes. The bottom 50 percent of wage earners pay only 3 percent of the taxes. Yes, in case the point has been overlooked, the rich pay the lion's share of taxes in America and in doing so, received more money back from the Bush tax cuts than middle-class Americans who paid less in taxes, and the poor who don't pay taxes at all. What is not talked about is what Moore observed as the final outcome of tax cuts regarding the rich. That is, when the wealthy got tax breaks they hired more employees as they expanded their businesses and in the end, they paid more taxes. More taxes to the tune of $100 billion recorded by the IRS in 2005. The number of tax filers who made a taxable income of more than $1 million went up from 180,000 in 2003 to over 300,000 in 2005. Yes, you guessed it, more people improving their financial income led to an increase in tax collections.

So, if tax cuts throughout history have created economic prosperity when enacted by presidents from John F. Kennedy to Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush, why do liberals still oppose them with all their might? The answer most likely has some complexity. It may be in part that liberals do not grasp the unintended consequences of economically strangling high wage earners that employ hundreds, if not thousands. It may be that liberals are inflicted with a form of economic nearsightedness that denies them the vision to see that in attempting to help the less fortunate at the expense of the wealthy, they are prolonging the economic misfortune for those that wish to find jobs in this country. Remember, a poor man or woman has never given anybody a job.

Unfortunately, with these possible explanations we must also entertain the conclusion that much of the aversion to tax cuts for high wage earners in America stems from a liberal hatred of economic achievement, the achievement our capitalistic society is founded on. Why else would liberals block programs that in the end would bring in more taxes? With economic prosperity come additional freedoms to buy what you want, to live as you wish, and to steadily turn away from a reliance of government intervention. This is not the Democratic way; in fact, it appears that they see taxes as a way to punish success, a billy club to beat down those that they see as having too much of the American dream. Small-business owners making over $250,000 a year may find themselves to be collateral damage as liberals attempt to attack the achievement of higher income earners. In the end, we all suffer.

© Paul A. Ibbetson

Original article is here.

Daily catch: Videos for 11/29/2010, Vlad Tepes, Wikileaks, abusing non-muslim women's breasts is OK with mohammud

Here are three videos for today. First is one making fun of Geert Wilders at the hands of the dutch media. The next video is an excellent snapshot of the latest Wikileaks that is worst that the first ones. The last video is on a rather nasty topic that is in the qur'an and is about breast feeding or abusing the breasts of non-muslim women. So someone explain to me how this show how islam values and honors women, especially kaffir women? Women are chattel or worse in islam.

CTV Wiki Leaks

I am posting this as I just received it. Complete with Vlad's comments and he hits it spot on; this jackass should be tried as a traitor for treason. The blood of who knows how many from our military and the West in general, will be on this jerk's hands.

CTV Wiki Leaks

Commentary by Vlad Tepes

"Wikileaks founder claims to be a peace activist. I suspect like most self proclaimed peace activists, he is very much for war but on the ‘other side’. Certainly this batch of leaks promises to do much more to accelerate a war than it does to help build good relations. I also can’t help but notice that there are no leaks from North Korea, Iran, The KSA-Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan, although I’m quite certain that revelations from Pakistan will be released if they have not been already.

In any case, this man should be tried for treason with a capitol punishment if found guilty in my humble opinion. What he has done will cost the lives of allies of the west, of freedom and of liberal democracy. Perhaps not a perfect system, but the best ever managed in the history of the world so far. Even so, it is interesting that so many Mid East leaders are calling for the elimination of the Iranian regime. It seems they are not squeamish about attacking, but most certainly are of Iran getting the bomb."

The excuses, and apologists have started defending Portland terrorist Mohamed Mohamud

As predicted, the excuses and taqiyya have started flying in defense of mohamed mohamud. The imam of course and stated he has no idea what might have caused this rat from Somalia to act out in this way. Then we have it was because his parents got a divorce. Well so did mine and I have no desire to fly to mecca and blow up a bunch of muslims. So brace yourself for the excuses, the crybaby muslim syndrome and the apologists like John Esposito to come to poor mohamed mohamud's defense. Make sure to take note that it is never islam or the accused's fault, many times even after they found guilty and sentenced.

"Of course, many more terrorist attacks have been committed by Islamic jihadists who read and took seriously the Qur'an's commands to wage war against infidels than by children traumatized by their parents' divorce, but never mind: when it comes to exonerating Islam of any responsibility for motivating violent jihadists, government, law enforcement and media officials join Islamic spokesmen in grabbing hold of any alternative explanation, no matter how implausible."(Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch). From the New York Daily News.

Neighbors say wannabe Christmas bomber Mohamed Mohamud embraced extremism after parents split

By Lukas I. Alpert
Daily News Staff Writer

Arsonists set fire Sunday to the Oregon Islamic center that the wannabe Christmas-tree bomber had attended, authorities said.

The fire was reported about 2:25 a.m. at the Salman Alfarisi Islamic Center in Corvallis where Mohamed Osman Mohamud periodically attended services.

The blaze consumed much of a back office but was put out before it spread to the worship area, officials said.

"It was discovered much sooner than it could have been," Corvallis Fire Department spokeswoman Carla Pusateri told The Oregonian newspaper.

Imam Yosof Wanly said Mohamud did not regularly attend the mosque, but had visited once or twice a month since moving to Corvallis to attend Oregon State University. Wanly condemned Mohamud's effort to detonate a bomb at a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Portland Friday.

"I know people here know the true reality of the Muslim community here," he said. "It's a sad situation."

Neighbors say Mohamud was doted on by his family but embraced militant Islam not long after his parents split up.

"He was a quiet kid, but with his folks splitting up, who knows?" Adam Napier, who lived next door to Mohamed Osman Mohamud for years told the newspaper.

Mohamud's family moved to the U.S. when he was just 5 and were described as friendly and modern.

Mariam Barre did not wear a hijab and her husband, Osman Barre, reportedly worked as an engineer for Intel. Mohamud appeared to be particularly close to his mother, neighbors said.

"She always talked so good about him. He was just a good kid," said Adam Napier's mother, Stephanie.

In 2009, Mohamud parents split up, not long after he turned 18, the paper said.

Omar Jamal, first secretary to the Somali Mission to the United Nations, told KPTV that Mohamud's father had remarried a woman in Minneapolis, which has a large Somali population and has been a hotbed for jihadist recruitment.

Later in 2009, Mohamud began communicating with jihadists abroad, and wrote articles for a website called "Jihad Recollections," authorities said.

Earlier this year, Mohamud came to the attention of federal agents who set up an elaborate sting, posing as like-minded terrorists.

The plot ended Friday when Mohamud, 19, a naturalized U.S. citizen, tried to set off a dummy bomb and was arrested, kicking and screaming, "Allahu akbar!"

Many who knew Mohamud said he seemed like a normal kid who did well in school and loved basketball.

"He was a really smart kid. He always got good grades. He was a part of a lot of good things, so it's amazing he would do that," elementary school pal Gavin Lipscomb told The Oregonian.

"It never seemed like he had any hatred," Lipscomb said.

But Mohamud told agents that he began thinking about holy war at age 15, when he prayed for guidance "about whether I should ... go, you know, and make jihad in a different country or to make like an operation here."

Hat tip: Jihad Watch

Original article is here.

Daily Catch of Videos for November 28, 2010: Baron Text and Benny Morris interview

Here are two of the latest from Vladtepes. First one is one the pending approval of the Baron text in Switzerland, which is an excellent move. The second video is of an interview with a former leftist, Benny Morris. A very interesting and insightful video if you can spare the time.

Remember that mysterious vapor trail off California?

I am sure you all recall that vapor trail off the California coast that the government could not explain and later dismissed as a vapor or contrails from an airplane in the area? I, and many, many others did not buy this for one second. I thought missile launch right away and so did a lot of other people. Below are some comments from military personnel who are familiar and actively work with OUR missiles and weaponry. All names have been removed from the following post just to play it safe.

Remember that mysterious vapor trail off the coast of California about 2 weeks ago

Here are some comments about the missile launch...... November 11, 2010

Finally there is something that has occurred, in which I am actually an expert and qualified to give a real answer about. I am a retired U.S. Navy FireControl Technician, who is platform certified in the gun and missile systems on board Adams class guided missile destroyers, I have also worked with the Navy's Harpoon, Tomahawk and ASROC missile systems. (FireControl Techs operate, maintain and repair the computer, radar and periphial systems used to launch and guide the various naval weapon systems, we are the guys who "PUSH THE BUTTON") Anyway, what I saw in the recent video concerning the object 30 miles off the coast of CA. Is blatently a foreign made, Large Cruise or ICBM missile, being launched by a sub-surfac aquatic platform. First I know its a large missile because it did not exhibit the typical "corkscrewing" trajectory of a beam riding missile as it trys to acquire the targeting beam. This tells me its a Big Boy with a complete guidance system installed in it, what is nicknamed a "fire and forget" missile, as once its launched its internal guidance system takes over and there is no real need for external guidance. Secondly, I'm fairly confident its not one of ours, as the vapor trail appears "dirty" it looks brownish. I have personally been involved in (5) SM2 missile launches, and (2) ASROC missile launches, and have been on safety observation for at least 15 more launches of Harpoons, Tomahawks and other missiles. We put a lot of sweat and money into our "birds" and part of that is the fuel cells, they burn very clean, a whitish-blue infact, not a dirty blackish brown. That missile had rather crude fuel cells, which tells me its not one of ours. I bet the brass i Washington is freaked out big time, because of what I know of our "defenses" they should really have had a pretty good idea this thing was sitting there, and they should have been watching it, not only that the moment it broke the surface of the water and ignited our early warning dopplar should have picked it up, and relayed the info to NORAD, and the CAP units flying patrol over the country... Any high ranking expert who believes this is a condensation trail off of a commercial airliner is lying or stupid. I hope you hear from other Fire Control Techs who saw the same thing I did! I forgot something, as any Firecontrol Tech or Gunnersmate will verify, the protocals to launch a missile are so complex, there is no way this was an "accidental" launch. I do not want to share too much info, but there is no "one red button" to launch a missile, that's all hollywood B.S. Yes two keys are turned to arm the system, but it takes at least three other things to occur in proper sequence to launch a bird, so that's at least 5 people all doing something at the right time. Its impossible to accidentally lauch a missile!


To All--having flown extensively in the Northern and Central California area from the mid-60's to the mid 80's I had the chance opportunity at times especially in the early dawn and early evening hours to see the missile launches from Vandenburg Air Force Base--they were always striking and definitive for sure--when I saw the video of the other day of the mystery trail, etc. of the unknown thing, etc. I immediately said to myself that was a missile--it looks like I was "dead on" right! See below the info and to me it is scary! When I left China in the summer of 2005 after a 19 day visit--my one and to be only visit I will have done and ever do to the Communist China world I had great concerns of the future of our United States and our relationship with China--looks like my intuition was and is correct. Let me know it any of you get further info on this event."


Near miss in another terrorist attack in Portland, Oregon

One more time this country has dodged the bullet or bomb as another terrorist attempt fizzles due to the muslim terrorist having a dude bomb, courtesy of the law enforcement agencies. I am just three hours away from Portland and though I loathe the city with all its diversity, multiculturalism and political correctness, I would never want to see this happen in any American city.

I was going to use local sources and reports for this post but checked Gates Of Vienna first and I am glad I did. Baron Bodissey has put together an excellent accounting of this and please be sure to note how politically correct this post is in regard to using the proper 'language and words' as to not upset the muslims in the area or our country. This was not done by the Baron!  Except for the word JIHAD which slipped in there a few times. Whitewashing muslim fueled terrorism will only result in more attacks as it shows cowardice, a dhimmi attitude, posture and appeasement to islam. This is a long post so there will only be one more for tonight.

Mohammed Coefficient: 200%
By Baron Bodissey/Gates Of Vienna

The city of Portland, Oregon escaped disaster last night when a young mujahid failed in his attempt to detonate a car bomb during a crowded tree-lighting ceremony in a downtown square.

The culturally enriched teenage terrorist intended to make a “spectacular show”, and didn’t mind if he killed children and babies. He thought his cell phone would set off the bomb, but didn’t realize that he had bought his bogus “explosives” from FBI operatives. This was a smoothly-executed sting, and the Portland FBI office is to be commended for its deft handling of the case.

At least three people have emailed me to point out an interesting aspect of this incident: it has the first known Mohammed Coefficient of over 100%. The alleged would-be Portland Christmas Tree Bomber is a 19-year-old Somali-American named Mohamed Osman Mohamud, which gives this incident a Mohammed Coefficient of 200%.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

When I first started collecting material for this post, I downloaded the news article and the FBI press release into a document, and searched the combined text for certain keywords to determine whether it complied with anti-Islamophobic Muslim Brotherhood guidelines.

1. “Islam”. Incidence: 0. Check.
2. “Muslim”. Incidence: 0. Check.
3. “Allah”. Incidence: 0. Check.
4. “Mohammed”. Incidence: 0. (except for the name of the perp) Check.
5. “Jihad”. Incidence: 7. FAIL!

What’s this? How could it be?? The word “jihad” appears four times in the FBI’s own press release!

This violates specific directives issued at the highest levels of the Justice Department: the word “jihad” is not to be used by employees of the department, because it is subject to varying interpretations. The most frequently used definition, according to the guidelines, is “inner struggle”, and agents are instructed not to antagonize their Muslim fellow citizens by using it in a way that implies a reference to violence and holy war.

So what’s it doing in the press release, then?

Well, the FBI had a slight problem: young Mohamud involved himself with an online outfit called “Jihad Recollections”. I suppose it would have been possible to write the name as “J***d Recollections” instead, but that would have been a bit too much. Besides, Mr. Mohamud larded his talk generously with the word “jihad”, and meant it to have the sense of “killing unbelievers in the name of Allah”. He was obviously one of the tiny minority of Muslims who have mistakenly misconstrued the meaning of the word.

Yes, the unfortunate fact is that virtually one hundred percent of the terrorists who are trying to kill us — especially the ones with “Mohammed” in their names — believe that they are waging jihad against the infidel for the sake of Allah as written in the Koran and revealed to his messenger Mohammed. If only we could engage these confused kids, and help them understand the mistake they are making!

This problem will obviously require a much larger federal expenditure for education and outreach within the Muslim community.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Below are some excerpts from the news report and the press release. First, from Oregon Live:

FBI thwarts terrorist bombing attempt at Portland holiday tree lighting, authorities say

The FBI thwarted an attempted terrorist bombing in Portland’s Pioneer Courthouse Square before the city’s annual tree-lighting Friday night, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Oregon.

A Corvallis man, thinking he was going to ignite a bomb, drove a van to the corner of the square at Southwest Yamhill Street and Sixth Avenue and attempted to detonate it.

However, the supposed explosive was a dummy that FBI operatives supplied to him, according to an affidavit in support of a criminal complaint signed Friday night by U.S. Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta.

Mohamed Osman Mohamud, 19, a Somali-born U.S. citizen, was arrested at 5:42 p.m., 18 minutes before the tree lighting was to occur, on an accusation of attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction. The felony charge carries a maximum sentence of life in prison and a $250,000 fine.

The arrest was the culmination of a long-term undercover operation, during which Mohamud had been monitored for months as his alleged bomb plot developed.

“The device was in fact inert, and the public was never in danger,” according to a news release from the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

The investigation involved the FBI, Oregon State Police, Portland Police Bureau, Corvallis Police Department and Lincoln County Sheriff’s Office.

Mohamud will appear in U.S. District Court in Portland on Monday.


According to the FBI affidavit, the case began in August 2009 when Mohamud was in e-mail contact with an unindicted associate overseas who was believed to be involved in terrorist activities. In December 2009, while the unindicted associate was in a frontier province of Pakistan, Mohamud and the associate discussed the possibility of Mohamud traveling to Pakistan to participate in violent jihad.

The associate allegedly referred Mohamud to a second associate overseas and provided him with a name and e-mail address. In the months that followed, Mohamud made several unsuccessful attempts to contact the second associate.

Ultimately, an FBI undercover operative contacted Mohamud in a June 2010 e-mail under the guise of being an associate of the first unindicted associate.

Mohamud and the FBI operative agreed to meet in Portland a month later. Mohamud allegedly told the FBI operative that he had written articles that were published in Jihad Recollections, an online magazine that advocated holy war.

Mohamud also indicated he intended to become “operational,” meaning he wanted to put an explosion together but needed help. The two met again in August 2010 in a Portland hotel.

“During this meeting, Mohamud explained how he had been thinking of committing some form of violent jihad since the age of 15,” the affidavit says. “Mohamud then told (the FBI operatives) that he had identified a potential target for a bomb: the Christmas tree-lighting ceremony in Portland’s Pioneer Courthouse Square on Nov. 26, 2010.”

The FBI operatives cautioned Mohamud several times about the seriousness of his plan, noting that there would be many people, including children, at the event, and that Mohamud could abandon his plans at any time with no shame.

“You know there’s going to be a lot of children there?” an FBI operative asked Mohamud. “You know there are gonna be a lot of children there?”

Mohamud allegedly responded he was looking for a “huge mass that will … be attacked in their own element with their families celebrating the holidays.”

Mohamud dismissed concerns about law enforcement, explaining that, “ … It’s in Oregon; and Oregon, like, you know, nobody ever thinks about,” according to the affidavit.


On Nov. 18, FBI operatives picked up Mohamud to travel to Portland, where they would finalize details of the attack.

David S. Kris, assistant U.S. attorney general for national security, said, “The complaint alleges that Mohamud attempted to detonate what he believes to be a vehicle bomb at a crowded holiday event in downtown Portland, but a coordinated undercover law enforcement action was able to thwart his efforts and ensure no one was harmed.”

See the rest of the article for details on the planning of the operation, the testing of the explosives, and the preparations for the day of the attack.

Here’s the full text of the press release from the Portland field office of the FBI:

Oregon Resident Arrested in Plot to Bomb Christmas Tree Lighting Ceremony in Portland
Vehicle Bomb Left at Scene Was Inert and Posed No Danger to Public

PORTLAND, OR—Mohamed Osman Mohamud, 19, a naturalized U.S. citizen from Somalia and resident of Corvallis, Ore., has been arrested on charges of attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction (explosives) in connection with a plot to detonate a vehicle bomb at an annual Christmas tree lighting ceremony earlier this evening in Portland, Ore., the Justice Department announced.

According to a criminal complaint signed in the District of Oregon, Mohamud was arrested by the FBI and Portland Police Bureau at approximately 5:40 p.m. (PST) Nov. 26, 2010 after he attempted to detonate what he believed to be an explosives-laden van that was parked near the tree lighting ceremony in Portland’s Pioneer Courthouse Square. The arrest was the culmination of a long-term undercover operation, during which Mohamud had been monitored closely for months as his alleged bomb plot developed. The device was in fact inert; and the public was never in danger from the device.

Mohamud is expected to make his initial appearance in federal court in Portland on Monday. He faces a maximum statutory sentence of life in prison and a $250,000 fine if convicted of the charge of attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction.

Dwight C. Holton, U.S. Attorney for the District of Oregon, said, “This defendant’s chilling determination is a stark reminder that there are people—even here in Oregon—who are determined to kill Americans. The good work of law enforcement protected Oregonians in this case—and we have no reason to believe there is any continuing threat arising from this case.”

“The complaint alleges that Mohamud attempted to detonate what he believed to be a vehicle bomb at a crowded holiday event in downtown Portland, but a coordinated undercover law enforcement action was able to thwart his efforts and ensure no one was harmed,” said David Kris, Assistant Attorney General for National Security. “While the public was never in danger from the device, this case serves as yet another reminder of the need for continued vigilance both at home and abroad.”

“The threat was very real. Our investigation shows that Mohamud was absolutely committed to carrying out an attack on a very grand scale,” said Arthur Balizan, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI in Oregon. “At the same time, I want to reassure the people of this community that, at every turn, we denied him the ability to actually carry out the attack.”

According to the affidavit filed in support of the criminal complaint, in August 2009, Mohamud was in e-mail contact with an unindicted associate (UA1) overseas who is believed to be involved in terrorist activities. In December 2009, while UA1 was located in the northwest frontier province of Pakistan, Mohamud and UA1 discussed the possibility of Mohamud traveling to Pakistan to engage in violent jihad. UAI allegedly referred Mohamud to a second unindicted associate (UA2) overseas and provided Mohamud with a name and email address to facilitate the process.

In the months that followed, Mohamud allegedly made several unsuccessful attempts to contact UA2. Ultimately, an FBI undercover operative contacted Mohamud via e-mail in June 2010 under the guise of being an associate of UA1. Mohamud and the FBI undercover operative then agreed to meet in Portland in July 2010. At this meeting, Mohamud allegedly told the FBI undercover operative that he had written articles that were published in Jihad Recollections, an online magazine that advocated violent jihad. Mohamud also indicated that he wanted to become “operational.” Asked what he meant by “operational,” Mohamud stated that he wanted to put an “explosion” together, but needed help.

At a second meeting in August 2010, Mohamud allegedly told undercover FBI operatives he had been thinking of committing violent jihad since the age of 15. According to the affidavit, Mohamud then told the undercover FBI operatives that he had identified a potential target for a bomb: the annual Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Portland’s Pioneer Courthouse Square on Nov. 26, 2010.

According to the affidavit, the undercover FBI operatives cautioned Mohamud several times about the seriousness of this plan, noting there would be many people at the event, including many children, and emphasized that Mohamud could abandon his attack plans at any time with no shame. “You know there’s gonna be a lot of children there?” an undercover FBI operative asked Mohamud. According to the affidavit, Mohamud responded that he was looking for a “huge mass that will...be attacked in their own element with their families celebrating the holidays.” Further discussing the attack, Mohamud allegedly stated, “...it’s in Oregon; and Oregon like you know, nobody ever thinks about it.”

The affidavit alleges that in subsequent months, Mohamud continued to express his interest in carrying out the attack and worked on logistics. He allegedly identified a location to place the bomb and mailed bomb components to the undercover FBI operatives, who he believed were assembling the device. He also mailed them passport photos, as part of a plan to help him sneak out of the country after the attack. In addition, Mohamud provided the undercover FBI operatives with a thumb drive that contained detailed directions to the bomb location and operational instructions for the attack.

According to the affidavit, on November 4, 2010, Mohamud and the undercover FBI operatives traveled to a remote location in Lincoln County, Ore., where they detonated a bomb concealed in a backpack as a trial run for the upcoming attack. Afterwards, on the drive back to Corvallis, undercover FBI operatives questioned Mohamud as to whether he was capable of looking at the bodies of those who would be killed in the upcoming attack in Portland. According to the affidavit, Mohamud responded, “I want whoever is attending that event to leave, to leave either dead or injured.”

Upon returning to Corvallis that same day, the affidavit alleges that Mohamud recorded a video of himself with the undercover FBI operatives in which he read a written statement that offered a rationale for his bomb attack. On Nov. 18, 2010, undercover FBI operatives picked up Mohamud to travel to Portland in order to finalize the details of the attack.

Earlier this evening, Mohamud was arrested after he attempted to remotely detonate what he believed to be explosives in a van that was parked near the Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Portland, the affidavit alleges.

This case was investigated by the FBI, with assistance from the Oregon State Police, the Corvallis Police Department, the Lincoln County Sheriff’s Office, and the Portland Police Bureau. The prosecution is being handled by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Ethan D. Knight and Jeffrey Sweet from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Oregon. Trial Attorneys Jolie F. Zimmerman and David Cora, from the Counterterrorism Section of the Justice Department’s National Security Division, are assisting.

The charges and allegations contained in the criminal complaint are merely allegations, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

Hat tips: Nilk, LP, and M. Servetus.

Thanks to Baron Bodissey, Gates of Vienna. One of the best sites out there for excellent reports and writing.

Original article is here.

Daily catch video for 11-27-2010

Another well assimilated muslim that has integrated into the United States, who just wants to introduce islam and allah to the people ofPortland, Oregon. Way too close to home. From Vladtepes.

Elizabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff Speech in Copenhagen

Gary Fouse

Elizabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff is an Austrian journalist who is being criminally charged in her native Austria for defamatory speech (against Islam). She gave a speech on the topic of free speech at a conference in Copenhagen. I am cross-posting this from Vlad Tepes blog.


So now the EU is drafting legislation to crack down on free speech. As Ms Sabaditsch-Wolff points out, Europeans do not have a First Amendment. Thus, anything they say which could be construed as criticism of Islam would be subject to criminal prosecution. Is it any wonder Europeans are afraid to even mention the words, "Muslim" or "Islam"? Here is the wording of the EU Framework Decision on Combating Racism and Xenophobia. Read it carefully. It may seem good on the surface, but it is dangerously broad.


Of course, one must make a distinction between hate speech-still protected under US laws- and an open and honest discussion of what Islamization and shariah law mean for Europeans. That discussion of Islam should not take the form of incriminating an entire people and should not be an incitement to violence or discrimination. However, it is a legitimate issue of public interest both here and in Europe. There must be a way for Europeans to express their concern about what is happening in their countries without being subjected to prosecution-not only in their own nations, but in any other member nation that takes exception to their speech.

Man in Pakistan freed from prison after 25 years for touching a qur'an

This is so sad and we should be very thankful this man has finally been released from prison. His crime? Touching a qur'an with unwashed hands. This usually carries a life in prison sentence in Pakistan, our ally? From Pakistan Christian Post.

Pakistan: Christian woman sentenced to 25 years on defiling Koran waiting appeal, husband bailed out

Lahore: November 25, 2010. A court in Pakistan has freed a Christian man who was wrongly jailed for 25 years for blasphemy after he allegedly defiled the Koran, the Muslim holy book, by touching it with unwashed hands.

Munir Masih, had consistently denied the allegations against him, arguing that they were false and made maliciously by a Muslim neighbour whose child had been involved in a quarrel with his 10-year-old son.

He has been freed on bail but his wife, Ruqqiya Bibbi,who was also given a 25-year sentence for the offence, is still in jail awaiting the outcome of her application for bail.

They are both appealing against sentence and conviction after Muhammad Nawaz, the man who accused them, admitted they were innocent and indicated that was willing to submit an affidavit to confirm this.

CLAAS (Centre for Legal Aid Assistance and Settlement), a London and Lahore-based group fighting for the rights of Christians persecuted in Pakistan, said the case demonstrated how the country’s severe blasphemy laws continue to be misused.

“We are very delighted by the success of this case and pray for Ruqqiya to be freed next week,” said CLAAS directors Nasir Saeed and Joseph Francis in a joint statement.

“But we are still concerned about the many other innocent victims of this law who are being jailed, and suffering immensely, because of their faith,” they said.

“CLAAS continues to campaign for the repeal of the blasphemy law and urge the government of Pakistan to amend the law,” they added.

“We are helping the victims but we appeal to all societies to offer their support and help in collaborating against this ongoing injustice against Pakistani Christians.”

Munir, a labourer, will be released on Saturday November 27 after a decision on Tuesday November 23 by Mr Justice Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry at the High Court in Lahore to grant him bail with a surety bond of 100,000 rupees (£733).

His wife’s application will be heard at the High Court next week.

The pair had previously lived together at Karmawali Mustifabad Tehsil in the Kasur district of the country with their six children – Sonia, Amna, Ameer, Akash, Muqadass and Shabir.

Their ordeal began on 8 December 2008 when a Muslim boy slapped Muqadass, then aged five, across the face, prompting his elder brother, Ameer, 10, to defend his brother by striking the boy back.

That evening the boys’ parents turned up at the family’s home with their relatives and began abusing Ruqqiya.

Shortly afterwards the couple were accused by their neighbours of defiling the Koran and they were arrested. The offence carries a life sentence under the Pakistani Penal Code.

In January 2009 the pair were released on bail only to be reported by same neighbours the following February of insulting Muhammad, the founder of Islam, an offence which carries the death penalty under Section 295-C of the code.

During a bail application in May 2009 about 50 radical Muslim clerics tried to storm the courtroom while others promised to kill Ruqqiya and Munir whatever the outcome of their trial.

They were released from custody in October 2009 after CLAAS filed a third application for bail and went into hiding.

In February this year a jury in Kasur cleared them of defaming Muhammad but convicted them of the lesser offence. They were sentenced to life on March 2.

CLAAS filed their recent appeal for bail with the High Court, through its lawyers Tahir Gul Sadiq, Nasir Anjum and Tanvir Gill.

The organisation hopes that the family will be reunited for Christmas.

Original article is here.

English Defense League is out in force today in England

Twelve Tactics of Taqiyya: Via Trencherbone

This is another post from Trencherbone, one of the most complete sources on islam. I have mentioned TB before and will in the future. This is one of TB's original posts and it is superb. If you are not clear on the islamic tactic called taqiyya then please, by all means read on. You will notice that using taqiyya and what I call the 'Crybaby muslim syndrome' are very closely intertwined and used at the same time.

Twelve Tactics of Taqiyya - lying and deception for the benefit of Islam
By Trencherbone

Allah is "the best of deceivers" (Quran 3.54), and since the prime directive is to spread Islam by any means whatsoever, it should not be surprising that deceiving unbelievers is acceptable behavior if carried out for the benefit of Islam.

This "sacred deception" is known as taqiyya. It can take many forms, including outright lies, feigned moderation, and condemnations of terrorist attacks to the non-Muslims while celebrating the attacks with fellow Muslims.

Here are some of the ploys, arguments, logical fallacies and diversionary tactics used by taqiyya tacticians:

1. Taqiyya about taqiyya. Muslims deny that taqiyya exists, or that it is used to deceive infidels. "There is no such thing as Taqiyya." Or "Taqiyya is something I never heard of and I had to go and look it up." See here and here for refutations.

2. Playing the race card and guilt by association. An accusation of racism is such a trump card that jihadists will play it whenever they can. Despite Islam not being a race, any criticism of Islam immediately gets the knee-jerk retaliation of "racism." For example, "You are expressing the same views about Islam as racists, therefore you are a racist." This is similar logic, "Communists believe two and two make four. You believe two and two make four. Therefore you are a Communist." Read more about why criticizing Islam is not a racist activity.

3. Godwin's Law. A special (and inevitable) version of guilt by association with racism used in online discussions, whereby the first person to invoke Hitler or the Nazis wins the argument. The "logic" is something like this:


Therefore, if you criticise Islam you are a Nazi.

4. Circular reasoning. The Quran says it is the word of God. So whatever it says must be true. Therefore it is true that the Quran is the word of God because it says so.

5. The infidels' quotes from the Quran are always taken out of context. For example, "Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them" is taken out of context, and really means "Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them setting fire to your house" — or something similar. Read more about this objection. And also here.

6. Infidels can't understand the original Arabic of the Quran. So "Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them" is actually a Medieval Arabic expression meaning "Help old ladies across busy streets and remember to feed the birds in winter."

7. Tu Quoque (you also). "We blow people up and behead them but you do the same." Normally this is used in attempts to refute arguments that Islam is intrinsically violent. Often people refer back to the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc. Also "There are equally nasty parts in the Bible." Yes, there are violent episodes in the Bible, but the Bible is descriptive of battles and massacres long ago, whereas the Quran is prescriptive of battles and massacres yet to come. Read more about this here. And here.

8. "Abrahamic and monotheistic faith" false kin argument. This scam usually takes the form of "Islam is just a further development of Christianity, a brother Abrahamic or monotheist faith." Of course it isn't. Islam is a travesty and perversion of Christianity in many respects, and Jesus would probably have advised the pedophile Mohammed to tie a millstone round his neck and jump into the sea (Mark 9:42). In Islam, stoning of women is still a major spectator sport, whereas Jesus forbade it (John 8:7). Human sacrifice is an abomination in Judaism and Christianity, but is encouraged in Islam. Read more about the differences in basic doctrine here.

9. Quoting abrogated verses from the Quran in order to appear moderate. A favorite one is "Let there be no compulsion in religion." This verse and many like it are actually null and void and disregarded by all Muslims (though not by gullible infidels). They are peaceful Meccan verses which are completely cancelled by later and much more violent Medinan verses. Read more about abrogation here. And here.

10. "You owe us a debt of gratitude because Islam is the basis of Western civilization." This sort of statement is usually backed up by revisionist arguments that Muslims invented everything and were responsible for the Renaissance. In some ways this is a rather pathetic quest for significance. Muslim culture has been moribund for the past 600 years, whereas the West has forged ahead. Muslims now want a stake in the success story by claiming they were somehow responsible for the West's development.

11. "A third of the world's population believe in Islam, so it deserves respect." But not so long ago a third of the world's population believed the earth was flat. Numbers don't mean anything, especially when the Islamic population is the most backward and illiterate on earth. Muslims are very keen on "respect," but someone should tell them that respect needs to be earned.

12. "We are victims of Islamophobia." Muslims are always playing the victim, if not of racism then of the even more heinous thought-crime of Islamophobia. Of course there is no such thing as Islamophobia, since a phobia is an irrational fear, whereas fear of Islam as a clear and present danger is a totally rational reaction from any infidel.

Learn more about taqiyya and how it is used here.

Original article is here.

Daily catch: Video for 11/27/2010

During the question and answer period at the "Peace Forum" event arranged by the Hakunila organization at the University of Helsinkni, 25.11.2010, the following exchanges took place between one of the panel, Azzam Tamimi, a long time member of the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB) and recently switched allegiance to the British Muslim Initiative (BMI), both organizations being part of the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.K. He is the director of the Institute of Islamic Political Thought (IPT), whose Advisory board has included global Muslim Brotherhood leader Youssef Qaradawi as well as long-time Brotherhood supporter Professor John Esposito of Georgetown University.

Radical islam and moderate muslims

In my last article on the topic of moderates, I've established that the term 'moderate' is defined by its relativity to what is considered 'extreme', which by itself is a notion quite open to interpretation, and that both of them are used in today's political climate to label people, much like 'bigot', 'racist' and all the other terms used to silence opposition.

The second part of these series will delve deeper into the mentality of islam and muslims, in an attempt to explain why islam itself is a belief system that creates extreme mindsets, and rewards extreme actions. To think otherwise of it is an incorrect assumption at best, and a dangerous wishful thinking at worst.
To a first-world person unaquainted with the islamic world and its scripture, it is natural to assume that muslims are people just like him, who wear different clothes. Decades of relativism have instilled the false notion that 'all religions are the same'; that there are no deep, unbridgeable gaps between different cultures, beliefs, and values. That is why many Hindu girls naively marry muslims, thinking they are 'moderate', only to wake up in a nightmare.
But the quran is nothing like the Bible and the Torah, save for the early verses that were stolen directly from them. It is not a collection of stories about different people from different times, mixed with moral fables and ancient mythology. The Torah commands men to believe in God alone, not his messengers, or the book; nor does it claim to be holy and unchangeable - these are all Rabbinical teachings from later centuries, that came as result of the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem.
In harsh contrast to that, the quran reads more like a series of direct commands, in which one man - mohammed, gives explicit orders to his followers on how to expand and enforce islam. Commands such as "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." (Quran 9:29) are not vague metaphores open to interpratation. Moreover, most of the verses of violence in the Quran are open-ended, meaning that the historical context is not embedded within the surrounding text. They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of allah.
Not only is more than 60% of the quran about the kafir (unbeliever), but conflicting verses are solved by the rule of abbrogation, which means that if something in a later part of the quran contradicts a passage appearing earlier in it, the later part takes precedence. Historically, as mohammed became more militarily successful and power hungry, so did the quran become more violent and hateful, since he saw no more need to seek co-existance with the defeated kuffar.
To someone who isn't particularly religious, it may seem funny to take these commands seriously, but to a muslim these are the words of allah, and he has no right to doubt them - because to doubt allah is to become an apostate, to whom hell awaits, and who lives in fear of being murdered by devout muslims. Therefore, verses like "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement" (Quran 5:33) should worry us all.
These words were not written just so mohammed can vent his anger and frustration - there is a purpose, and a strong, primordial element behind them.
The purpose was given in the most plain sense by Caliph Abu Bakr, mohammed's successor, when at the Battle of Qadisiyya, in the year 636, he sent a message saying:
"Convert to Islam, and then you will be safe, for if you don't, you should know that I have come to you with an army of men that love death, as you love life."
The goal of islam to create a warring supernation, whose members are either prepared to die in battle, or give birth to those who do.
For a true muslim, jihad is inseparable from islam, because islam was spread through warfare. That is its only merit, and the only 'proof' of its supremacy. Personal enlightenment, such as in Buddhism, is not a factor at all in islam, but killing non-muslims is, because a nation of wise meditation-practitioners is not a good base for a death-seeking army that hungers for conquest. I repeat, the only proof muslims have of their warlord being a 'prophet', and that the quran is a holy book, is islam's ability to conquer and infest vast parts of this globe.
The muslim supernation (ummah), therefore, must constantly fight enemies - real or imaginary, from within or without, because islam is actually about only one thing, and that thing is - domination.
Understanding this one notion is key to understanding both islam, and its followers.

The mentality of a bully is based upon the notion that "I am better because I can dominate someone else", and Islamic societies are based upon domination: the leaders dominate the people; men dominate women (and camels, and sheep... and goats); muslims as a whole dominate minority groups (just ask these Egyptian Copts).
Notions like honesty and truth are foreign to them, because they do not assist in dominating others, which is why the local merchant in a Moroccan or Turkish bazaar will take as much money from a tourist as he can get away with, unless being forced to lower the price through barter; why they have no problem criticizing the 'decadent west' and plot its destruction, through the same tools it has shared with them, like the internet, television, radio, and comercial airliners. Barter, diplomacy, propaganda, bribery, humiliation, murder and warfare - everything serves only to dominate others, muslim or kuffar.
This is not merely the tradition of desert nomads, but a deliberate design: young men are not allowed to have sex, or drink alcohol, while mosques fill their minds with hateful beliefs, in order to turn them to frustrated human beings, willing to vent on anyone they are allowed to.

The last basic islamic belief I would like to bring here is that of allah being the direct cause of everything, which leads to a lack of personal responsibility: if something goes bad, it is allah's will, and if something goes well, even more so; victory in war is a sign of allah's favor, and defeat is the opposite; a bullet or an arrow do not hit their target because you have aimed well, but because allah wanted your target to be hit; and if you happen to hit someone over the head and kill him, it is not your fault, because it was allah who made your hand move and land the blow.
Some more examples are given to us by Bill O'reilly, author of The Closing of the Muslim Mind:
"For instance, former British Islamist Ed Husain relates that “Hizb ut-Tahrir [an organization dedicated to the restoration of the caliphate] believed that all natural events were acts of God (though in some actions man could exercise free will), hence insurance polices were haram . . . Hizb members could not insure their cars.” Likewise, the use of seatbelts is considered presumptuous. If one’s allotted time has arrived, the seatbelt is superfluous. If it has not, it is unnecessary."

So, what do we get when we combine all these factors - the holy duty of jihad, the culture of dominance, and the belief that allah is the direct cause of everything - together?

First of all, they create a closed circle that cannot be reformed from inside. Any reforms to Islam only made it more extreme (Wahhabism is only 200 and some years old), and whenever a 'moderate' islamic sect is willing to negotiate with non-muslims, even when these negotiations are extremely demanding and one-sided, it is being seen by other muslims as weak.
In accordance with the belief that allah controls everything, leaders who cannot dominate the enemy by warfare, are necessarily not favored by him - that is why yasser arafat and abu-abbas say one thing in English to westerners in peace conferences, but convey an entirely different message to their Arab supporters; why a clever snake like Anuar Sadat, who managed to deprive Israel of Sinai and its oil fields, was still assassinated shortly thereafer; and why Al Zarqawi was betrayed soon after losing the support of local chieftains in Iraq
In fact, the very search for a 'moderate' islamic group to negotiate with, in order to sign papers with, pushes it to radicalize, in order not to lose support from the people it rules over, and at the same time creates even more extreme factions, who see themselves as 'true muslims'.
That is why when the PLO negotiated with Israel, even though its goal remained the destruction of the Jewish state, the Arab settlers still drifted towards the more extreme Hamas, which even now enjoys so much support that the US and Israeli governments won't dare allow its men into Judea and Samaria, knowing full well they will take control from Fatah, whose only real difference is, as put by Daniel Greenfield, "that the extremist wants to cut our head off without talking to us, while the moderate wants to tell us exactly why he wants to cut our head off, and how many heads we can give him to satisfy his bloodlust".
Which is their only choice, really. Because domination is so important for the self-esteem of muslims, both as individuals and as a group, any treaty or compromise are seen as a humiliation by the kuffar - which is why the population of Egypt and Jordan are more hostile to Israel than ever.
Where is moderation in a society that has no middle grounds? Where the only options are to dominate, or be dominated?

And as for the possibilities of islam turning more extreme, Daniel nails it again: "While the term 'Islamic Extremism' is commonly bandied about, the fact of the matter is that Islam possess an endless reservoir of 'extremism', simply because it's always possible for a cleric to dig up more stringencies, and denounce those who don't keep them as heretics. Somalia and Afghanistan, where Islamists beheaded Muslims for watching soccer games, teaching girls to cut hair, men for not having beards or for playing music-- demonstrate just how boundless the reserve of extremism is. With historical bans on everything from playing chess to owning a dog to playing a musical instrument-- there is always a new extreme to push toward."

But I hear you say - "they're not all like that! What about moderate muslims, like my neighbor who prays to mecca five times a day but didn't yet cut my throat?"
This last group of people is who I'll devote the rest of this article to.
As put in Citizen Warrior:
"The majority of Muslims ignore the Qur'an's instructions to subjugate infidels. People are people, and in many places in the world, Muslims did not choose to be Muslims. Somewhere along the line, they lived in a place that was converted to Islam by whatever means, and now they are Muslims, but may have never read the Qur'an in their own language, don't really know what's in it, and don't follow most of the things prescribed in it.
They are casual Muslims. They're just living their lives, going about their business, raising their families, and are not interested in taking over the world."

These casual muslims would gladly deny everything you've just read, say you misinterpreted the quran, that islamic nations are havens of tolerance and puppies, and laugh at your face for ever thinking otherwise. It is their only defense, because, like I mentioned earlier, culturally muslims are not keen on telling a truth that doesn't suit them, or at taking responsibility.
And what does the quran say about such nominal (or casual) muslims?
"O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination." Quran (9:73)
The 'hypocrites' mentioned above, who get lumped together with unbelievers, are those muslims who do not follow the quran correcly, and as you've seen, to follow it correctly one must take part in the global jihad, one way or another.

In their defense, some nominal muslims are truly making their claims out of ignorance, unknowingly helping the devout muslims mislead us, but just because they're uncomfortable with facing the truth, doesn't mean any of us should indulge them. In fact, it is better to confront them about it sooner, rather than later, because at any point in life, these people may become radicalized, either by their own study of islam, through a charismatic imam, or (in the case of women) by marrying a more devout muslim man.
Here is one such story, which proves that the sons 'liberal muslims' are not immune to going that route.
While they may be nice enough people, not taking any stance against devout islam at this time, is simply not enough. Calling us names without denouncing other muslims is as good as agreeing with the countless crimes these brutes commit on a daily basis, and then there's always the tendency of such amiable 'moderates' to go with the flow, when there are dominant muslims around. The two unfortunate, unarmed Israeli soldiers that accidentally drove to Ramallah 10 years ago (video) might have been tortured and murdered by a few brave jihadis, but it was the whole crowd that cheered in an orgy of bloodlust, before lynching their bodies.
Even if the nominals aren't personally interested in bloodshed, 'radical' elements happily murder 'hypocrites' who don't measure up to their standards of islam, and under threat of murder, humans tend to become very obedient. Not all Germans were hardcore Nazis, but many decided to play it safe. Likewise, don't expect the nominals to take a risky stand.

Others are less innocent, and practice taqiyya - that is, telling you an outright lie, because it serves the higher purpose of islam (conquering and dominating all other cultures).
Frankly, there's no sure way to tell one from the other, because muslims have no rules-of-conduct when it comes to debate. You cannot guilt them into telling the truth, because they have no concept of personal guilt, and you cannot trust their display of emotions, because muslims, and arabs in particular, love putting on a show: their leaders are in love with grandiose displays of wealth (like golden hummers, or the tower of Dubai - which, by the way, is the result of muslims insisting on having the tallest building in the world to 'prove' their superiority [despite being unable to design, or engineer such a construct]); their films feature absurdly exaggarated acting; their imams carry fiery speeches that send whole crowds into fits of rage; their common women cry and scream on camera when describing imaginary war-crimes; and their men gather like locust for ceremonial public funeral of fallen shahids.
The situation becomes much worse when cameras are involved. In this video, notice the circus revolving the kid, and how he's being forced into the 'evacuation' van, despite not suffering any noticeable injury.

Therefore, the only muslims you can actually trust are ex muslims, who constantly live in fear of reprisal from the 'peaceful communities' they once resided within.

So, hopefully you can see by now that Islam was not hijacked by terrorrists - they are merely the armed wing of islam, which is complemented by its cultural, political, and financial onslaught on all non-muslim nations, as mandated by the quran and the hadith. We may say that some of their methods are moderate, but they all serve to achieve one extreme goal.

I would like to conclude with the immortal words of a great American patriot, Alexander Hamilton, who said:
"Let us recollect that peace or war will not always be left to our option;
that however moderate or unambitious we may be, we cannot count upon the moderation, or hope to extinguish the ambition of others. ...
The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."

Oh, and a happy thanksgiving!   

For more on the subject of moderate islam and muslims, check Exposing the Myth of Moderate Islam, Praying for a Moderate Terrorist, and How the Western Pursuit of Muslim Moderates Actually Promotes Extremism.

A piece of Palywood

In case anyone has missed this the first time, here's a video describing in detail the propaganda/terror attack conducted by Muslims, using children as cannon fodder (as usual), in order to film a staged encounter with a Jewish driver in Arab-occupied eastern Jerusalem.

Supposedly the TV station behind this ambush is Al-Jazeera, though without any semblance of real Israeli authority over this part Jerusalem, there's no investigation, and therefore no way to know for sure.
Al-Jazeera, of course, is the station that brings infidels the eternal message of peace: 'Death to America'.

Mad TV - Death To America, Skit

It is quite simple, follow the rules or leave. Cry baby muslim syndrome strikes again

Cry baby muslim syndrome strikes again.If they do not like the rules then they are FREE to leave our country. Here is one more example of muslims trying to force their customs and will upon us. As this happened in libtarded Conneticut, the muslim complaint will most likely get quite a bit of traction. The rules of the roller rink are quite clear and apply to all who enter equally. This muslima could have put on a helmet but no, she had to scream foul and discrimination. Is it any wonder so many Americans are sick and tired of muslims and islam? How much more proof do we need that the majority of muslims have no desire to assimilate or integrate into our country? The rules are there to protect the skaters and the roller rink owners. This stupid muslima is too ignorant to understand this. Now the terrorist group CAIR has jumped into the fray is is fanning the flames of discrimination and islamophobia. Typical behavior. From The New York Post.

Muslim woman says roller-skating rink discriminated against her

Muslim woman claims that a Connecticut roller-skating rink discriminated against her because it wouldn't allow her to skate in her headscarf.

Marisol Rodriguez-Colon, 40, said she was "mortified" when she and another female relative showed up for a niece's birthday party at the Ron-A-Roll rink in Vernon and were barred at the door.

The venue's rules, posted at the entrance, read: "No Hats. No Headwear. No Exceptions."

Colon said her religious hijab shouldn't count under that policy -- and tried to appeal to a rink manager.

"We wear this for religious reasons," Colon said. "But they didn't want to hear that."

The manager, Colon said, gave the women two choices: take off the headscarves, or wear a helmet over them.

Taking off the hijabs was "not an option," Colon told WTIC-TV in Hartford.

She said she has worn the traditional headscarf for 16 years and has it on "wherever I go."

She and the other relative went back to their car and missed the party.

"I wear this with pride," Colon said. "I was mortified -- by asking someone to wear a helmet you are actually ostracizing us.

"You are singling us out and showing everyone there is an issue -- that something is wrong with these two women."

Ron-A-Roll management issued a statement spelling out its "no headwear" policy. It said helmets are offered for safety purposes.

"You are not allowed -- you are not welcome here. That is what that says to me," Colon said of the statement.

She said she was insulted that the rink would deny entrance to people "because of what they believe and what they are wearing because of those beliefs."

The Council on American-Islamic Relations said yesterday it filed a complaint with Connecticut's Human Rights Commission.

Several years ago, University of Albany student Zahra Shah was barred from wearing her headscarf at an upstate New York roller rink.

That arena, citing insurance reasons, also banned headwear.

An employee at the time told Shah that other skaters could trip and get hurt if the hijab fell off.

When Shah explained that she wore the scarf for religious reasons, one rink employee told her it was like a cowboy "religiously" wearing a cowboy hat.

After a barrage of phone calls from activist groups and others, the rink management apologized and said Shah could skate with her headscarf.

Tags: CAIR, failure of Muslims to assimilate Global Islamic Subversion To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the Patriot's Corner. Thanks!