Al Jazeera English Bans Words Like Terrorist

Gary Fouse

Hat tip Creeping Sharia

The appropriately named Carlos van Meek, editor of Al Jazeera English, has sent out a memo cautioning his writers not to use words like "terrorist", "extremist", "militant", or "jihad" when writing about militant, extremist terrorists when they are on their mission of jihad.


 "One person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter."

ISIS Freedom fighters 

Boko Haram freedom fighters with captive soldiers

Boston freedom fighters

Freedom fighter air force

At any rate, I commend Mr van Meek for sending out the memo in English so all of Al Jazeera's Western writers will adhere to the new policy.

Why the Washington State Gun Rights Fight is YOUR Fight-PHS

This is right from the Patrick Henry Society.

It is all of ours to fight for, down to the last gun, the last bullet and to the our entire worth of freedom. It is all of ours to fight for, the Second Amendment and our rights as FREE men and women.

Alan Gottlieb, Adina Hicks SAF, and WAFLAG are NOT our friends. They are the enemy of EVERY responsible gun owner in America. Most gun owners are responsible and stay within the reasonable and common sense laws that we already have.

Understand that laws will be followed until they are changed and start taking our freedoms away. This regime is the most anti-gun administration that we have seen in many, many years. Some may disagree on this last statement and make your case in the comments. There will be other links in the post that follows and I ask that you spend some time and read these articles or opinions. 

Hat tip: WRSA.


Why the Washington State Gun Rights Fight is YOUR Fight

By Anthony Bosworth and Kit Lange

Readers of PHS lately have seen a lot of articles about the ongoing gun rights fight here in WA.  You might think it doesn’t apply to you because you don’t live here in the Pacific Northwest.  You would be so very wrong; what we are fighting here in our state is coming to yours.  For some of you, it’s already there. You might think that us fighting over taking open carry firearms into the state legislature viewing galleries is a stupid argument and one that you don’t care about. Again, you’d be wrong. If you’re an American who values freedom, you should care very much about what’s going on here in Washington…regardless of where you live.

One of the questions we keep hearing here about the ban on open carry in the legislative galleries is “What’s the big deal?  So you can’t bring your rifle into the gallery.  Why do you even NEED to?”  Even those who claim to support the Second Amendment say these things; almost as if we need to ensure that the exercise of our rights is only done 1) in areas where no one can possibly see and be afraid of us, and 2) if we demonstrate that we have a “need” to exercise it there, at that time and in that fashion.

The problem with this school of thought is inherent, and shows a basic misunderstanding of what rights are.  Rights can be exercised at any time, for any reason, without first having to prove a “need” or justification for their exercise.  In fact, as I’ve discussed here before, the second that you allow the infringement of your rights because of someone else’s fear or offense, you’ve handed them the key to take ALL of your rights.

In the case of the State House and Senate, they are “reinterpreting” existing rules about ‘props’, such as signs, buttons, or other things generally used in a demonstration being banned from the gallery.  They have decided that firearms are now props.  Make no mistake—firearms are not props.

One person, while explaining to me why these rules should be enforced, said that “The galleries are a place to observe government, not protest government.”  The Declaration of Independence disagrees.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. [emphasis added]
The Washington State Constitution also weighs in with its first sentence:
All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.
At no time in either document does it say that the government grants these rights; they are inherent.  It is the government’s job to protect and maintain these rights, not infringe upon them or find creative ways to strip them away.  If the government only derives its power from the consent of the governed, in whom all political power resides, and if the entire purpose of government’s existence is to protect and maintain those inherent rights, then the only possible course of action is for the government and its agents to stand down in this matter.  In short, they have absolutely no right to tell the citizens they cannot view the proceedings of their own government while armed. They have no power to dictate the exercise of the citizens’ rights…period.

Legislators have decided that openly carried firearms are not arms, protected by the Second Amendment.  Instead, they have been reclassified as props—which, by the way, are also protected, just under the First Amendment instead. Seemingly, it does not matter if the firearm in question is loaded or not; according to their rules, a loaded and holstered handgun carried on a man’s hip is still a prop.  At what point, pray tell, does the legislature consider it arms, protected by the Second Amendment?  This is another example of “Yes, but.”  Yes, the Second Amendment of the Constitution protects your right to bear arms, and so does the Washington State Constitution, but… we’ve decided that you can’t exercise that right here in the Capitol while viewing the proceedings of your own government, which exists to protect that exact right you’re trying to exercise.

The real irony comes when you do go ahead and load that firearm.  It is still considered a prop, but now you’re also looked at as a threat.  It’s supposedly still not protected under the Second Amendment, according to these people, but it’s a threat.  They are afraid of you, because you are openly carrying a firearm, I mean, a prop.

We understand that the House and Senate in the State of Washington have a longstanding tradition regarding the display or allowance of certain items in the galleries for the sake of decorum and order.  Those traditions, however, cannot violate the Supreme Law of the Land, which are the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Washington.  Any and all traditions must fall within the confines of government as defined by the founding documents of our state and our nation, and they must honor our unalienable rights.  If they do not, then they are null and void and must be defied.
Instead of asking questions like “Why do you need to carry a firearm into the gallery,” you should be asking an even bigger question, with a much more disturbing answer:

Why does the legislature fear citizens who are armed?  Why do they want us to leave our guns outside the place where they make the laws that govern us?

Not all WA State legislators are afraid of people watching them while wearing guns.  Some stand and applaud when citizens walk into the gallery with them.  Some take photos with these citizens holding guns.  Some meet with them in their offices later, gladly welcoming them and their guns, offering their own chairs to sit in and treating their citizen visitors like they themselves truly do serve only by consent of the governed.  Do you know why these legislators do that?  Because they have nothing to hide.  They vote in line with the people’s rights, and the Constitution that limits their powers.  They act in accordance with their role as public servants, elected to protect the rights of the populace.  They know that they, too, are citizens, and they work to protect the rights of all of us.

Other legislators, however, are afraid of guns in the gallery because they know they are not acting in line with their role or their limited powers.  In fact, some of them are actively working behind the scenes, sneaking in secret to usurp their powers and take away the rights of the people.  They work in cliques and gangs to effect more control and more power for themselves.  They purposely keep bills from moving forward in the legislative process.  The last thing they want is to be reminded by citizens sitting in the gallery holding rifles that they are accountable to the people, and that we can and will remove them from office if they don’t do their job.  It has already been done in Colorado, and it can be done here as well.

The bottom line is this: It is the duty and the birthright of the American people to hold their government accountable.  We will not be told by the government that we cannot hold them accountable for the decisions they make on our behalf.  We demand that they recognize the limits of their power as outlined in the United States Constitution and that of the State of Washington.  We also give notice that even if they continue to refuse to recognize our rights and their role in maintaining them, we will still exercise them.  We will not comply with any attempts to infringe upon them.  We will stand, and we will hold our representatives accountable for their actions. Remember Colorado.

This fight may be happening in Washington State, but it is not our fight.  It is yours.  We fight for Connecticut, for Arizona, for New Mexico and New York and California, and every other state currently targeted by gun grabbers and unconstitutional legislation.  This is the fight of the American people.  Michael Bloomberg and his ilk laid their foundation here in Washington, thinking that we were weak.  I-594 may have passed here due to the apathy and misinformation of voters (including some gun owners), but the patriots here are not weak.  If he and his friends—and the Washington State Legislators—think that we will lie down and accept our rights being taken from us…they are wrong.  American patriots are armed…and we will remain armed.

We will stand.

Source is here

For further Reading and the second link is really a MUST READ:

An Open Letter to the Washington State Patrol

The Myth of WA Gun Rights Groups: Adina Hicks and Alan Gottlieb

For extra credit:

The SPLC is a Hate Group


Tags: Washington State, I-594, I-591, Adina Hicks, Alan Gottlieb, SAF, Safe Act, Colorado, New York State, Oregon, Nevada, Second Amendment, First Amendment, U.S. Constitution, Tyranny, Communism, Socialism, Bloomberg, EverytownUSA, Freedumb, Stupid moms against guns, Code Pink, Freedom. To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the Patriot's Corner. Thank

Mark LeVine on Charlie Hebdo: Blame Capitalism and the West

Gary Fouse

Mark LeVine

"Decades of the combined onslaught of extreme capitalism and extreme religion have shaped a necropolitics of the oppressed that is the mirror image of the necropolitics of local and western governments, and the oppression and violence they've imposed."

UC Irvine professor and Al Jazeera contributor Mark LeVine has put together his usual blame the West gibberish on Al Jazeera. In this piece, the attacks in Paris are all attributable to colonization, capitalism and the West.


That's right. If you want to blame someone, blame France. Blame the US. Blame the West. Blame capitalism and colonialism. LeVine thinks he has found the Missing Connection when he brings out the fact that the Paris killers were of Algerian and Senegalese extraction-both ex-French colonies.

Of course! Why didn't we think of that before? Elementary my dear Watson.

Nonsense. Just how long does it take for a former colony to get its act together? The US was once a colony of England. It seems our Founding Fathers did a pretty good job of putting a functioning democracy together. No, it wasn't perfect because it didn't immediately abolish slavery, but it eventually did. In fact, it was the West that led the way in the 19th century in abolishing slavery.

But as to the question at hand, it is time that the blame be placed squarely on the backs of the murderers and the ideology that drives them to do it. After all, they tell us in their own words why they do what they do. Should we not take them at their word instead of engaging in self-flagellation?

Girls in the Military: RAH, Rah, rah.........

This is a guest post via Gates of Vienna. 

Written by Dymphna who I consider a very good friend.

Gates of Vienna is finishing up their winter fund raising week or bleg fest as this is sometimes referred to. Please help them out if you can and I send something in whenever I can which has been every quarter. A couple of times there was less food in the larder here at the ranch but I would do it all the same way. Friends just help friends out and I have known Baron and Dymphna for a few years now. They have not had an easy walk of it and I am quite fond of them.

The post below is on women in the military. My opinion is as such and has been stated here before. Women want to serve in the military, then let them. Keep them out of front line combat roles, keep them out and off of serving on submarines or in any role of extended times under the ocean, in the air or on the front lines. Serving in the military can be extremely stressful. Putting women in close proximity with men has and WILL continue to become problematic. DO NOT lower the standards nor make up 'gender specific' standards so women can pass or become more 'acceptable' for certain positions or assignments. Let women earn their rights here, next to men on the same playing field. Nothing needs to be changed or done to the playing field of requirements. The dumbing down of our military standards just to placate the feminazis, the progressives, most whom have never served in the military themselves is shooting ourselves in the foot and then some.. Yet they never miss a chance to squeal how unfair the standards are for women. Know what? When it puts national security at risk or when it places other in your unit at risk, just shut the hell up.

Obama has screwed up the military and is nothing but a useless traitor to our military and once fine Republic. He is hated and loathed by most of our military and RIGHTFULLY so.

Obama hates America. He hates the U.S. military and he really hates American Exceptionalism.


Girls in the Military: RAH, Rah, rah, r…

Someone sent us this brief clip demonstrating the wow of a woman’s throwing arm. Or is that the POW? Or the OMG?

The new wave of Feminism isn’t a kindly one; dogmatists aren’t known for their benignity. In this case, the New Fem march to Total Equality steps on the face of Reality rather too frequently for the comfort of those of us committed to Reason…and survival. But hey — these little missteps are a small price to pay for victory, no? No.

Lord, no.

Let’s not even mention their garroting of Truth or their vituperative scornful and loud dismissal of classical Beauty and the men who dare to admire it in all its forms. In a word, the Dogma Dogs are tedious. In a second word, they’re tiresome. Let’s make it a hat trick to set the brooms aquivering: those girls are on a trivial dead-end mission as far as the ongoing transmission of favorable DNA is concerned. But not to worry: they’re busy figuring out a work-around which cuts out the need for men.
One way to reduce the ranks of men in the military is to make them realize their vulnerability if women are embedded in combat positions in equal numbers with the XY faction. I heard that ISIS is even now making a novena for the feminists’ success in eliminating men from combat.

I would love to see/hear what Israeli women think of this. They all serve because they have to for survival reasons. In the U.S., too many women serve to make a political point and then poke the rest of us with it. In what ways does the IDF gear its training of Israeli women to take into account the reality of gender differences? I want to know, since we’re not permitted to talk about G.D. in the U.S.

In my search for material to show the video above was wrong, I came across this site: Chicks On The Right

Oh dear. They didn’t confirm my hopes at all. It turns out that women aren’t doing so well in Real Life:
According to this [see the link to The Free Beacon in original], “two female Marine officers who volunteered to attempt the Corps’ challenging Infantry Officer Course did not proceed beyond the first day of the course.”

This makes 29 attempts and 29 fails by women for that course.

One female officer has tried to do it more than once. And she, too, failed. Only four female officers have made it past day one of the “grueling evaluation known as the Combat Endurance Test, or CET.” And listen — it’s not like dudes don’t fail, either. They do. Fifteen male officers didn’t make it. “Of the 118 officers who began the course, 101” made it to the second day. In a nutshell, it’s freaking HARD. Like, REALLY HARD.

It’s just obviously harder for the chicks. A LOT harder. (I’m going on data here.)
DATA?? What’s data got to do with it? We’re talking Dogma, girl. And Dogma trumps Data in the Dark World of the Left.

See below the fold for more rationalizations Reality.
Back in 2014, one of the women who failed the course, Second Lt. Sage Santangelo, provided her theories as to why so many women fail. She attributed it to “inferior training that women marines receive compared to men, rather than an inherent weakness in women.” Additionally, she said that women face a “double standard during their entire time in the Marine Corps.”
Awww… Women face a “double standard” in the Marine Corps? Heck, they face that in many areas where they excel. So what’s the point? A non-trivial point, please. Smart people work with what they have, not what they think they ought to have. Perhaps some devoted drill sergeant could train his baby girl from the crib onwards to be a buffed out dudette, but she’d have to work much harder, longer, and exert far more effort than, say, her twin brother would have to extend to make it. And that’s not fair, right? I repeat, what’s the non-trivial point here? Is there one?

Women athletes have long since proved the point of excellence in many fields. Especially ones that require flexibility and endurance. So it turns out they have an advantage in gymnastics. When was the last time you saw little boys doing gymnastics?

Now I ask you, is that fair?

It in Shadow World of the Cave where dwell the Leftists, this is a simple equation: First kill all the men. THEN go to war. Yep, that’ll do it.

Meanwhile, ISIS is working on expanding that Novena to Allah…

How do you say “You Go, Girl!” in Arabic? Or can you say it? Probably not out loud.

Source is here.

Tags: Cultural Marxism, War on women, Obama, Feminizing the U.S. Military, Political correctness, Cultural stupidity,  To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the Patriot's Corner. Thanks!

UCLA's Call to Prayer

Gary Fouse

Hat tip Creeping Sharia

In the wake of the Duke University controversy over the Muslim call to prayer, Creeping Sharia has posted a video of a similar call to prayer at UCLA last Friday.


There is even more to this story. Over the past weekend the Western chapter of the Muslim Student Association (MSA) held their annual conference at UCLA. The following day of the above event, a similar public prayer was held at UCLA on the same location as part of this conference,  The person who filmed the Saturday (January 17) event was challenged by the MSA as to his right to film the prayer, which was taking place outdoors. You can see this confrontation in the video.

Just for the record, this was an outdoor display in public view on a public university campus. The right of the cameraman to videotape this is absolute.

There will be more to this story to follow. Stay tuned.

Against overwhelming odds: An example for what is to come

Re-posting this from Free North Carolina.

FNC is well worth your time. 

Thanks to BT for allowing me to nick this one.

I am from Texas, native Texan and I so thankful for this. Even as young child I was loved the Confederacy, what it stood for, against and no, it was not all about slavery. If you really believe that then please leave and do not bother coming back. I am not going to waste my time arguing with you.

This was about protecting home, family, country against TYRANNY and INVASION. Let the last two words sink in.




NC: Remembering What Fort Fisher’s Patriotic Defenders Fought to Prevent

As we observe the Sesquicentennial of the final defense of Fort Fisher and Wilmington in 1865, we should deeply reflect upon the “what and why” of these historic events and view them all in a proper light.

Like the North Carolina patriots of the Revolution who resisted British invasion of the Cape Fear as they fought for independence, Wilmington’s Committee of Safety in 1861 quickly took control of area defenses to protect their homes, families and country. Wilmington’s patriots of ’61 fought for independence as well and would construct the ironclads CSS North Carolina and Raleigh for the same reasons their Revolutionary fathers built the brigs George Washington and Eclipse -- to defend the Cape Fear River from invasion.

The Northern troops aboard the immense fleet in 1865 were there for the sole purpose of overpowering defenses designed to protect the Cape Fear and North Carolina.  Once ashore and in control of the forts, enemy intentions were to capture and subjugate Wilmington and place the city under martial law.  Afterward, the enemy army would move inland to seize transportation and industrial facilities, deny North Carolinians the ability to defend themselves, plus loot farms and homes at will.  They would then capture and occupy the State capital of Raleigh, overthrow the government of North Carolina and imprison its elected governor.

And this sad result was followed by 10 years of political corruption, despotism and racial turmoil incited by Northern political adventurers and carpetbaggers. This is what Fort Fisher’s patriotic garrison of North Carolinians fought to prevent.

And a word about Fort Fisher’s defenders.

We often hear that “Confederates” garrisoned Fort Fisher, though it should be trumpeted loudly that these were men from New Hanover, Brunswick, Bladen, Edgecombe, Carteret, Columbus, Sampson, Cumberland, Wayne, Duplin, Wake, Green, Beaufort, Lenoir and Craven Counties.  More than just “Confederates,” these were North Carolina patriots defending their homes and country.

Some of the unit names were Sutton’s Battery, Bladen Stars, Powell’s Artillery, the Clarendon Guards, Brunswick Artillery, Bladen Artillery Guards, Lenoir Braves, Northampton Artillery, Cape Fear River Guards, Scotch Greys, Braddy’s Battery, Edenton Bell Battery, Southerland’s Battery and Capt. Abner Moseley’s Sampson Artillery.  Clark’s Artillery was led by Wilmington businessman, Maj. Robert G. Rankin, a man whose body would be pierced by eight enemy minie balls at Bentonville.

These and other North Carolina patriots garrisoned Forts Holmes, Caswell, Johnston, Campbell, Fisher and Anderson – all there for the protection of the Cape Fear from enemy invasion. At Wilmington were stationed Companies A through G of the Fayetteville Armory Guards under Col. Frederick L. Childs.  They were there to help repel the enemy.

Mound Battery-Fort Fisher

Though not battle-hardened veterans, Fort Fisher’s garrison fought a desperate battle from traverse to traverse and forced the enemy to pay very dearly for what they conquered. Both the fort commander Col. William Lamb and Gen. W.H.C. Whiting were severely wounded, only Lamb survived. This is a testament to the bravery of men who performed their duty heroically, and with their families and homes at their backs -- no finer patriots and soldiers could be found.

Remember too, the worried families of those within the forts, watching from the western bank of the Cape Fear with trepidation as enemy projectiles exploded within the forts their loved ones were defending. Think of what these women and children experienced that winter of 1864-65 – food scarcity, and a humiliating occupation by enemy troops should the defenders of the Cape Fear be overwhelmed.  And worse, would they ever see their brothers, fathers and sons again – dead or sent into captivity.

These should be our foremost thoughts during this Fort Fisher Sesquicentennial Observance. Let us keep in mind what was lost, what those North Carolinians were defending against, and how we today might honor and emulate their legacy of duty. 

Bernhard Thuersam, Chairman

North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission
"Unsurpassed Valor, Courage and Devotion to Liberty"
"The Official Website of the North Carolina WBTS Sesquicentennial"

Tags: North Carolina, U.S. Civil War, 1865, Fort Fisher, The South, Against Tyranny, Martial law, Home defense, Family, Freedom, Carpetbaggers, Enslaved by Reconstruction of the North  To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the Patriot's Corner. Thanks!

Appeasement and diplomacy: Epic fail when dealing with Islam

The harsh reality of being a counterjihadist, against Islam, sharia law and supposedly suffering from Islamophobia (I am accused of this almost daily among other nasty labels such racist, bigot, white supremacist, etc. you catch my drift) is coming to this conclusion; either kill your enemy or they will kill you. The enemy in this case IS Islam and has been for the last 1400 plus years. The Middle East, parts of Asia, Europe have battled Islam and the campaign to establish a global Islamic caliphate since roughly 622- 632. While there have been interludes of relative quiet, there has never been 'peace' as we know it in the west because peace does not exist within the frame of Islam or sharia law. The best one can do is a hudna, which just so happens to work insidiously well with taqiyya. Hudna is a tactical truce that only benefits Islam and Muslims. Taqiyya has been mentioned many times here in past posts. It is the Islamic rationale for lying and deceit to the kafir. In others words, me and you.

In our politically correct, gone stray world, moderate Muslims will save the day and usher in a new era of peace, love,and tranquility with the entire world and Islam. Might as well go reload your hookah with Opium and keep on smoking away if you think that is really going to happen. While moderate Muslims do exist, the vast majority are already dead or are hiding. I have said this before and will state it again; Jihad is jihad and Islam is jihad. This is waged in many forms. You cannot explain away over 270 million innocent victims murdered by Islam with warm and fuzzy politically correct words, speeches nor can we keep bending over to Islam and Muslims. It helps to keep into perspective the Islam is NOT a religion. Islam is a cradle to grave political ideology. If you doubt me on this last statement the please spend some time at Bill Warner's excellent site, Political Islam.

I wish it was a different truth and reality about Islam but if you are on the fence, ask yourself this: How does the last 1400 plus years of Islamic jihad, murder, persecution, subjugation and taxation work or co-exist with the rest of the non-Muslim world? It is NOT lone wolf radicals, it is not just a few radical Islamists. It is ALL of Islam and what is contained in the Qur'an or Koran.

Some will like what follows and others will not.

Read the post below from Velociman. Read every word.

There is no peace with Islam and with Islam, there will NEVER be peace. PatriotUSA
Hat tip: WRSA


What Is To Be Done 

The title of this missive is disquietingly reminiscent of Lenin's 1902 pamphlet of the same name, itself inspired by Chernyshevsky's 1863 social-utopian novel, again of the same title. Lenin's work, however, was an interrogatory, a philosophical pleading written almost two decades before the Revolution. The West is too far advanced in existential struggle against militant Islam for philosophical tracts exhorting the common man to overthrow his tormentors. We are all the common man now, and our tormentors arise not from our own one-percenters (lucky though they be), but from foreign nihilists aspiring to worldwide medieval blood lust. 

No, the wretched fact is, and remains, that the West has been at war with militant Islam, off and on, for 1,400 years. As has the Caucasus, the Subcontinent, and Saharan and sub-Saharan Africa. It was not until the defenestration of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the Great War, in fact, that Balkan peoples could sleep without a weapon by the bedside and a weather eye turned south. Indeed, 1.5 million Armenians were slaughtered by the Turks in the very midst of that Great War. Fully half their population destroyed in a genocide many still refuse to name. Islamic aggression has surged and ebbed over the centuries as necessity dictated, but every opportunity for conquest has historically been exploited; it is a thirst that continues to this day.

The greater history of medieval to modern Europe is painted upon a canvas of Islamic aggression, interspersed by internicine quarrels, and ultimately two world wars. We can not put that away, therefore it must be dealt with, and in the larger context of Western civilization as a whole, including the Western Hemisphere. From The Crusades to Charles Martel at Tours in 732 to the Fall of Granada in 1492 to the Siege of Vienna in 1683 the West's interaction with militant Islam was all of a defensive nature. Islam was a savage interloper. A brutish scourge to be repelled.

A brief reflection on anti-Semitism: a vile and ancient fault, it appears to have accompanied the arrival of diaspora Jews as they fled the Saracen blade. Just as Muslim rage erupts metronomically in Europe, so does anti-Semitism. It is as if the superstitious Europeans have always cast a jaundiced eye upon Jewry as the cause of their Islamic problems. As if, perhaps, the Jews had brought ancient Near East rivalries to the heart of Europe itself. The clamoring Musselmen surely could not want to attack the Europeans for no good reason. They must loathe us because we harbor their ancient foes the Jews.
So much for the pop history lesson. That was mere table-setting, and uncontroversial stuff. Facts are not prejudiced, history is not a bigot. And I do have point, which I shall address directly, but first one more point: the "moderate" Muslim.

I for one have no doubt that the majority of Muslims are not allied to terror. They are as most humans have been since the beginning of time: hunkered souls trying to keep roof above head, food upon table. That has been man's lot forever, and it shall not change in our lifetimes. Having said that, the average Muslim must be assessing his/her situation, and prospects. I'm sure they generally despise radical Islamism, however what are their options? The vaunted saviors of the West are far beyond the horizon, no aid to kith and kin, and exhibit traits of fear, self-loathing, and impotence. In bin Laden's assessment they seek the strong horse, or at least do little to incite the strong horse. The Islamists, after all, are in their countries. In their provinces. In their neighborhoods. Who would assail that on a bet from a feckless and confused and self-doubting Western nation?

If ISIS is running your neighborhood you are likely a mute soul. Even if the Palestinian Authority runs your neighborhood, or Hamas, you are likely a mute soul. It's a tough slog from self-preservation to courage. We all cannot make that trip. Self-preservation is hard-wired into our DNA. Courage is a learned aspiration, ephemerally floated upon the air of a tribal fire. The pen might be mightier than the sword to essayists, but the scimitar always beats paper and scissors. There is no need to demand all of Islam to decry the Islamists, however it would be wise if they got out of the way.

Which brings us to the nub: What is to be done. No question mark adorns this phrase. What is to be done must be done. And there is no soft way to say this:

First we kill the clerics.

Western apologists insist that Islamic terrorism does not represent Islam. Yet all of the radicalized Muslims, be they "lone wolves" or ISIS or AQAP, were radicalized by some of the most powerful religious leaders in Islam. The imams preach the hate, run the madrassas, and foment violence on a daily basis. If terrorism is not a central tenet of Islam why do the most prominent imams preach it, while the other imams remain silent?

Islamic nations that observe sharia law have no real civic institutions. The clerics rule all, and the warrior caste are their enforcers. Rule of law, property rights, due process, and social behavior are all administered by the imams and ayatollahs. The mufti determine what is Islam, who are blasphemers and apostates, and what punishment is ordained. The clerics incite the warrior caste, creating shock troops that enforce prescribed behavior among the population, and wage terror against the rest of the world. The clerics are just as guilty of conspiracy to commit murder as Charles Manson, and this is why they must be confined or killed. They are the head of the serpent. This is neither cruel nor barbaric; it is merely the acknowledgement that crimes carry penalties, and punishment must be served to preserve the scales of justice.

As the imams are dispatched so must the shock troops be annihilated. They are immune to reason and rationale, and operate as Terminators. The West must also operate as Terminators to defeat them: large, vicious strikes, great destruction, and tactical retreat. No long-term boots on the ground, no nation-building, no prisoners. Special forces with air support without standing armies. Strike and leave, repeatedly. Destroy them all, one battalion at a time.

There are likely 50,000 to 100,000 active jihadists in the middle east. Although this appears to be a vast number, they are as susceptible to destruction as any other army. It took only five months for the Soviets to capture the entire 107,000 man Sixth Army at Stalingrad. The jihadis congregate for strength, which is also their weakness. Should the West truly have the resolve to destroy them, they are easily found. The sorrow of collateral damage is mitigated by the fact the jihadis are slaughtering the innocent anyway. Brute force will actually lessen the victim toll, in what one might consider collateral mercy.

There is no reason to believe the West will stiffen and respond to Islamic terror for any number of reasons: multiculturalism, cowardice, appeasement, denial. But What Is To Be Done must be done, otherwise Europe will become an enormous, radicalized Muslim ghetto a decade hence, and America will eventually suffer calamities far greater than 9/11. War is rotten business, and no one should exult in the obliteration of others, but war is already upon the West. It is in our neighborhoods, our stores, our military bases, our campuses. War is here, and without strategy and willpower there looms only defeat. 

Source is here.

Tags: Islam, Muslims, Jihad, Sharia law, Hudna, Taqiyya, Kafir, Infidel, 732, 1683, 9/11, Cultural Marxism, Political correctness, excessive diversity and multiculturalism, War with Islam To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the Patriot's Corner. thanks!

Nothing to do with Islam-Pat Condell

Published on Jan 15, 2015
The death rattle of a dhimmi society.

Cowards at Sky News refuse to show Charlie Hebdo cover

It’s lazy to say the Paris attacks had nothing to do with Islam

A third of Brits too scared to speak out on immigration and religion

Douglas Murray: The religion of peace is not a harmless platitude

The Charlie Hebdo murders

Jews flee anti-Semitism upsurge in Europe

Jewish MP cancels surgeries after threat

The Islamisation of Britain in 2014

Cameron: “We must celebrate Islam as a great world religion of peace”.

2000 feared killed in deadliest Boko Haram attack in Nigeria

Large majorities in several Muslim countries support death for apostates and stoning for adulterers

You can download audio versions of all my videos at

Tags: Pat Condell, Islam, Sharia, Global Islamic Caliphate, At war with Islam To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the Patriot's Corner. Thanks!

Another Idiotic Article in the NY Times

Gary Fouse

Hat tip Jihad Watch

Jihad Watch has taken on an article written by David Kilpatrick in the New York Times to the effect that Islam is no more violent than any other religion. I don't need to add much to the discussion since JW pretty much covers it.


As JW points out, Kilpatrick opens his piece by killing any counter argument. He does this by stating that "The majority of the scholars and the faithful say that Islam is no more violent than other religions." OK. Case closed

That reminds me of Al Gore's statement that "the debate is settled" on Global Warming (which is now called Climate Change to account for those cold spells that come around every winter).

It also reminds me of those ads that state that, "a recent study suggests that brushing your teeth every day with Colgate will prevent your teeth from falling out."

But there is more. Kilpatrick brings in a political science professor from UC Berkeley named M. Steven Fish. He did a study and wrote a book.

“Is Islam violent? I would say absolutely not,” Mr. Fish said in an interview. “There is very little empirical evidence that Islam is violent.”

I suggest Professor Fish pick up a newspaper or turn on the news. Kilpatrick might do the same. He should find one within easy reach.

A Traitor in the White House? If the shoe fits.......

The case made by Pat Boone for exoneration of Benedict Arnold.

Well, not quite but perhaps an apology is in order to Mr. Arnold?

Yes, that Benedict Arnold. Yes, from this Pat Boone.

Benedict Arnold was a traitor and had deep sentiments for the crown and England. He felt 'under appreciated' by his countrymen here. Benedict Arnold wanted revenge and payback.

Say what you might about Pat Boone but I like the man. Not wild about his music but he is a man who can stake out a position and defend it quite well. He can make a case, a 'hypothetical one' like this one and well you can read the post and decide for yourself. I think Pat Boone has done a fine job of connecting the dots and calling Obama out for what he is, a TRAITOR.

I have said that many times before but I do not have the career or carry the weight of Pat Boone. Trust me, you DO NOT want to hear me sing and I have about as much rhythm as a 4x4 post. Barack Obama is a traitor and he is a a manufactured 'man'. He is a charlatan of the worst kind. PatriotUSA   

Post nicked from WND.

Hat tip to FOTM


A Traitor in the White House? If the shoe fits
By Pat Boone

“The traitor rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. 

The traitor is the plague.”

– Marcus Tullius Cicero, 1st century B.C.

What is treason? Good old Webster’s Dictionary describes it simply as “betrayal of one’s country to an enemy.” And traitor as “one who betrays one’s country, cause, friends, etc.”

I’ve recently read a biography of Benedict Arnold, American history’s most notorious traitor. Though he was beneficiary of our young country’s opportunities and honors, rising through the military to the rank of major general, historians record he was arrogant and impatient with civilian deliberateness and legislative oversight. He courted the favor of British loyalists, angering the patriots – and exhibited such a love and need for money that he lined his pockets with questionable side ventures.

He decided he wasn’t sufficiently appreciated by his fellows and formulated a treasonous plan to crush the Revolution and revenge himself on Congress. When, amazingly, he was given the command of West Point, he plotted with British Gen. Clinton to surrender the fort for 20,000 pounds! The plot was discovered, and Arnold barely managed to escape to England, where he lived out his life as a social outcast … and infamous traitor.

Is it remotely possible such a terrible thing could happen in America today? What would one of our leaders have to do to be accused of treason?

Well, let’s create a purely hypothetical scenario.

Suppose America elects a charismatic young president who makes all kinds of brave promises and sweeps into the White House. This young man not only has little political or governmental experience, but none at all in business or administration. Curiously, his upbringing is never closely examined or evaluated; it’s just assumed that anybody elected president must love America – but this young man had been trained by parents and others to consider this country a colonial oppressor and unfit to be a world leader! In college, by his own autobiographical account, he sought out Marxist professors, in not one but three colleges.

Once elected, he uses his newfound executive authority to seal off all his early school, passport and travel records, lest his true intents be uncovered. He eventually has a fake “copy of a birth certificate” created and exhibited on the White House website, complete with glaring errors that betray its falsehood. Somehow Congress seems mesmerized and intimidated from confronting him, so he creates a phalanx of legislative “czars” to regulate and virtually stifle all business and energy progress, and these “czars” – among them known Muslim and Marxist and homosexual activists – report not to Congress but directly to him!

Having declared that he considered the U.S. Constitution a “flawed” document, he proceeds as president to ride roughshod over the document and its establishment of three separate and equal branches of our government, declaring openly if Congress won’t give him what he wants, he “has a phone and a pen” and will make executive decisions and even change laws he has crammed through the legislature, determined to effectively dismantle the two-party system and the separation-of-powers concept.

Now, theoretically, many might call all this treason. But wait.

Suppose that this increasingly arrogant young man, having become commander in chief of the military, begins to quietly fire and replace full admirals and generals who object to his decisions to withdraw from territories gained by the lives of 4,000 brave young Americans, and to issue more orders that will weaken the whole defense system and cost more young American lives. Treason? Wait …

Suppose this pompous man also appoints an attorney general who announces with him that they not only will enable hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens to invade the country – but that they will not enforce the immigration laws themselves! This, knowing that among those undocumented aliens there would certainly be trained enemies of the United States, whose sole purpose for crossing our borders is to destroy the country he had learned to despise as a young man. And what if this attorney general concocts a scheme to furnish thousands of weapons to Mexican drug cartels and potential terrorists? Treason? The case is building.

Now suppose that this Manchurian (or Indonesian) Candidate, never having any business or economic experience, but knowing that one vital reason for America’s world dominance is its giant economy, forces through a weak and compliant Congress decisions that add trillions of dollars of unpayable, inexcusable debt, piling up three times more debt on American taxpayers and businesses than all past presidents combined! In this unthinkable scenario, he is systematically crippling, bankrupting and discrediting his country. And in all of the this, he’s following the plan he had learned from a famous Communist Party organizer.

Now, in this imagined story, we can add the deliberate dividing of the citizens along racial, economic and political lines. We can add his awarding billions of dollars of speculative contracts to party donors and even family friends. We can toss in his leaving his command post while a U.S. ambassador and other Americans are under fire and eventually dying … to pack his bags and fly to Las Vegas for a political fundraiser. A definite Benedict Arnold comparison.

And, to leave no doubt whatsoever, while our nation is slipping into all-out war against inhuman killers who behead innocent people, this pretender in chief makes the personal decision to release known murderers from a military prison and to send them back to the Mideast, all expenses paid and with no penalty for their crimes, to supposedly “rehab” – and then certainly reassume leadership positions with our murderous enemies. No consultation with, or consent from, Congress. Just his own decision, knowing brave young Americans will face these beasts again in a battle to the death. If there’s a clearer definition of treason, I can’t think of it.

All this is theoretical, of course – but I think if such an interloper and subversive impostor were to somehow arise and become our president, if he weren’t eventually exposed, prosecuted and impeached, America should apologize to Benedict Arnold.  

And his picture should be posted in Webster’s alongside the words “treason” and “traitor.” 

Source is here.

Tags: Benedict Arnold, Barack Obama, Traitor, England, United States, CIA, Saudi Arabia, Rothschild, Rockefeller, New World Order, Communism, Bush, Clinton, Cultural Marxism, Karl Marx To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the Patriot's Corner. Thanks!