What I’ve Learned in The Last Two Weeks, and Other Tales from Hiatus (or Come Here, All Ye Ron Paul Faithful)

Well, finally, I’m back, being provocative, controversial, unread, etc., etc. after a two week break. I hope you all enjoyed it. I experienced a lot I could have used for the blog during the past two weeks, and most of it actually wasn’t about Islam, which I doubt I’ll be writing about again for a short time, you’d be surprised how scarce sources are. I’ll recap for you:

 JetBlue is being stupid. They’re sponsoring the DailyKos convention, which even Hell Inc. has declined to to sponsor. CEO Beelzebub had this to say to reporters after being spotted leaving his Inner Ring, 7th Circle office: “It’s scary, what those guys are trying to do. Hillary’s [Hillary Clinton] offered us some real competition, and Satan has had to work hard to keep his title as Prince of Darkness, so this is the last thing we need on top of that. We don’t want people coming in here talking about what an improvement it is after the Global Socialist Union.”

And yet, JetBlue has decided to sponsor them. I saw it on O’Reilly, they had a bunch of stuff out of MoveOn: “The pope is a primate,” “Better luck next time” in the Dick Cheney terrorist attempted assasination, “Maybe it would be better if Tony Snow were dead” after his announcement that he had cancer, a bunch of stuff like that. What really annoyed me, though, was that the CEO that the Fox reporter caught up with and completely destroyed wasn’t wearing any sort of suit. Nothing. You’re a CEO of major airline, buy a suit for God’s sake. And also, in the same O’Reilly factor, Bill made a very articulate statement that I think we should all follow: “You don’t put your kids in a pool with a killer.”

Ron Paul is an idiot. I already knew this, but I was further reassured by this, via criminyjicket. In October of 2006, Ron wrote this boring article. I don’t care about how highways are destroying our freedom, myself, but it does make for an interesting double standard. If you dig through this garbage, I guess you find that he’s trying to appropriate funds for the same NAFTA superhighway to extend it through Texas he was talking about in the article, I-69, just months after writing the article.

Ron Paul is an idiot, again, yeah. Look at what he’s decided now. Mr., sorry, Dr. Paul says that we’re in danger of blah blah blah after being asked about a statement by Cindy Sheehan where she said something about the Bush administration perpetrating a terrorist attack. Now, he never actually said anything about the staged terrorist attacks, but he did seem to agree with them to me and added on in a friendly way. He said that Bush was blaming Iran for everything in Iraq as well. Wait until he says Bush is blaming al-Qaida for everything, that’ll be fun.

 

SHOCKED RONPAUL SEZ 

I IZNT IDIOT!

Ron Paul’s genetic makeup is an idiot. Never mind the guy himself. Now it’s what he looks like that’s getting him into trouble. This comes via Braden’s Take On the Matter.:

Ron Paul Is Magneto.

Something is going on with Michael Moore and CNN. I’m too lazy to dig into anything about lefty vs. lefty-er like this so I have no idea what’s going on at all, but here’s a piece of advice to Mrs. Moore: if CNN is criticizing you for your accuracy in filming a movie about health care from a leftist point of view, you’ve gone too far. You are at least a garden variety Stalinist.

Oh yeah, and if you needed any more reasons to not watch Oprah, now she’s throwing her full weight behind Barack which isn’t saying a lot because it’s liable to change drastically every other day.

Wait, I forgot again… what was it? Oh, yeah, Harry Potter spoiler people. Stop. Now. That’s right. As a fan (yes, it’s completely true, I am a fan of Harry Potter) I don’t need this stuff days before the final book comes out, I really don’t. They were supposed to have security. I guess you just can’t trust anyone with an advanced copy anymore.

Firefighters are For Fred! Which has a very nice ring, unlike Firefighters for Rudy. For other Fred news, check out the Fred ’08 with new Fred News Aggregate, FredTube, Breaking Fred News features as well as Fred OnTheIssues and I’m With Fred Blog links a Fredload of Fredfilled logos and of course, home of my new “Fred Can Haz Ur Vote?” campaign.

OH HAI RUDY! 

 

I’M JUST IN UR CITYZ, STEALIN UR VOTEZ

**I do hope you like the new  lolpoltishunz idea I had. I don’t have or want photoshop, so you’re stuck with simple captions for now.

This blog is dedicated to the memory of I can has Cheezburger. CNN Political Ticker has recently replaced them as top blog. You will always be number one purveyor of nonsense in our hearts, ICHC, despite the fact that CNN makes you seem articulate.

Hiatus

To all readers: This blog is going on a short hiatus (around two weeks). I will still try to be around, but I will not be posting anything for a while as of now.

Feel free to read the archives, use the information in the sidebar, or visit the Fred ’08 page to get to know more about the blog, in the meantime.

White House Criticizes Clintons on Libby

ARTICLE

 

 Evil… the Clintons, I mean.

“I don’t know what Arkansan is for chutzpah, but this is a gigantic case of it,” presidential spokesman Tony Snow said.

 Oooh, Hillary’s not going to like that. Watch out, Tony, she might make you look at her. Seriously, the Clintons are involved in several murders and suspicious deaths (more on that later.)

Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has scheduled hearings Wednesday on Bush’s commutation of Libby’s 2 1/2-year sentence.

“Well, fine, knock himself out,” Snow said of Conyers. “I mean, perfectly happy. And while he’s at it, why doesn’t he look at January 20th, 2001?”

Wow, Tony’s really telling it like it is. The Dems can dish it out but they can’t take it apparently. I might go for a Hillary controlled White House in 08 as long as the GOP got Congress. Hopefully they’d have some fun making a big deal out of everything she does then.

In the closing hours of his presidency, Clinton pardoned 140 people, including fugitive financier Marc Rich.

Conyers said the hearings would include pardons made by Clinton, former President Bush and possibly other past presidents. “We won’t need to review each and every one of them, but the whole idea is to examine to what use this part of our criminal law is being put and whether it’s being used adequately or are their other changes necessary,” Conyers told Fox News Radio.

Oh, I see, he’s being fair. i suppose it’s just a big coincidence that the hearings are going on now. Anyway, i’ll just have to keep an eye on that situation.

President Clinton tried to draw a distinction between the pardons he granted, and Bush’s decision to commute Libby’s 30-month sentence in the CIA leak case.

“I think there are guidelines for what happens when somebody is convicted,” Clinton told a radio interviewer Tuesday. “You’ve got to understand, this is consistent with their philosophy; they believe that they should be able to do what they want to do, and that the law is a minor obstacle.”

Sen. Clinton, seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, said the Libby decision “was clearly an effort to protect the White House. … There isn’t any doubt now, what we know is that Libby was carrying out the implicit or explicit wishes of the vice president, or maybe the president as well, in the further effort to stifle dissent.”

Former Vice President Al Gore said he found the Bush decision “disappointing” and said he did not think it was comparable to Clinton’s pardons.

“It’s different because in this case the person involved is charged with activities that involved knowledge of what his superiors in the White House did,” Gore said on NBC’s “Today” show Thursday.

Okay, who’s buying the Clinton’s and Gore’s excuses? Anyone? Is there one single person (brainless people excluded) who thinks any of this should have even gotten a day in court, any of the original (non)”covert” case at all (be aware that saying yes without backup automatically makes you brainless.)

“It’s different because in this case the person involved is charged with activities that involved knowledge of what his superiors in the White House did,” Gore said on NBC’s “Today” show Thursday.

Scott Stanzel, a White House deputy press secretary, said that, “When you think about the previous administration and the 11th-hour, fire-sale pardons … it’s really startling that they have the gall to criticize what we believe is a very considered, a very deliberate approach to a very unique case.”

Snow also tried to clear up confusion about Libby’s probation. While commuting Libby’s sentence in terms of prison time, Bush left in place his two years of supervised release. But supervised release — a form of probation — is only available to people who have served prison time. Without prison, it’s unclear what happens next.

Snow said the White House view was this: “You treat it as if he has already served the 30 months, and probation kicks in. Obviously, the sentencing judge will figure out precisely how that works.”

To summarize, the Clintons are being stupid. And this from Yahoo News.

Scooter Spared

Well, you know the story by now, Bush commutes 30 month sentence, libs haven’t broken out of the kennels yet but they’re snarling quite threateningly, etc. Just thought I ought to post something on it it. For anyone wanting to know my reaction to it: Good. It was all a farce anyway but you’ve heard all of that, I’ve done one post reeking of sarcasm today, I’m too tired to do another.

 UPDATE FOR ALL THE WHINERS:

Clinton Pardons

Bush Pardons

Comrade Putin in Maine to Meet Bush

Bush & Putin Meet Today In Maine

The mighty champion of true democracy, the last bastion of freedom in the world, putting the “U” back in “USSR” is meeting today with President Bush in Maine. The meeting with one of precious few world leaders shorter than Bush, judging from the picture in that first article, may be cut short because the Secret Service doesn’t want Bush exposed to, uh, too much democracy, or so I hear.

Buoyed by a strong economy, Putin has become more assertive on the international stage. At home, he’s stoked nationalism, encouraging Russians who want their country to be viewed with respect — as a powerful player, not a world power wannabe. In short, Putin feels he’s gotten the brush-off from Bush.

And who doesn’t want that? The good old days back again, Cuban missiles, nuclear standoffs, ah. “Putingrad” does have a nice ring to it, don’t you think. And it’s just bursting with Russian pride.

Putin has repeatedly rejected U.S. assurances that the planned missile defense installations pose no danger to Russia and are meant to counter a potential threat from other nations, such as Iran.

“We know that Iran is not a threat,” Peskov said. “If radar will not have any missiles to track from the Iranian parts, then the job of radar will be inevitably to work against Russian military infrastructure. And this is a problem for us. This is a threat for our security.”

I feel safe now! Iran’s not a threat, see, even a spokesman for a neo-Stalinist leader of a country that is still recovering from an era of communism says so! And really, come on, he has a point. Ahmedinejad only wants nuclear facilities for peaceful purposes and to give Israel a nice seaside vacation, it was all mistranslated! Just because he’s an extremist Muslim doesn’t mean he’s not a nice guy.

 Over Sunday night’s meal, there was “family style dialogue” about coming elections in both countries. Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov denied any tense discussions.

“Definitely not,” Peskov said. “We could not have predicted the warmness and hospitality from President Bush. The Russian president was very much satisfied with that.

How very nice, a warm reception and a “family style” discussion. And there were also a bunch of people protesting Bush. Putin seems to be a better guy to protest to me if you’re talking human rights, but they do live in Maine after all.

UPDATE: They keep changing the article, excerpts may not be found in article.

Dhimmitude, Part Two: The Basic Rules of Subjugation

 Continued from here…

In the recent situation in London (see here),  Islamic radical expansionism is once again demonstrated in the West. In my ongoing series, I am examining the aftermath of this, if Islam is the winner, for non-Muslims, important also because of President Bush’s appalling and scandalous pandering to Muslims. Today I will focus on hisorical dhimmitude once again. Let’s start where we left off.

 The dhimmi’s inferior status was first instituted by caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab (caliph from 634-644, the second one, the first having died two years into his reign, so note that they wasted no time in implementing this). The Qur’ranic commentary of Ibn Kathir talks about the Christian pact with Umar. They pledged:

We made a coalition on ourselves that we will neither erect in our areas a monastery, church, or a sanctuary for a monk, nor restore any place of worship that needs reparation nor use any of them for the purpose of enmity against Muslims.

If you think that’s a raw deal in and of itself, which it is, you’ll hate to hear that there’s more than than meets the eye. You see, this can and was used against Christians to seize churches and other places of worship or Christian gathering, etc. Testimony of Christians was often simply disallowed and pretty much never counted that highly against a Muslim in the first place. This made it easy  for a Muslim to charge that a place of worship was being used for purposes of “enmity against Muslims,” and then seize the church.

Apparently, Umar had a pretty good lawyer for the time, because the Christians’ agreement with him continued in a rather thoroughly subjective fashion:

We will not prevent any Muslim from resting in our churches whether they come by day or night…. Those Muslims who come as guests will enjoy boarding and food for three days

In following Qur’an 9:29, the Christians, as dhimmi, had to “feel themselves subdued.” So, they also had to agree to various regulations made form their humiliation:

We will not… prevent any of our fellows from embracing Islam, if they choose to do so. We will respect Muslims, move from the places we sit in if they wish to sit in them. We will not imitate their clothing, caps, turbans, sandals, hairstyles, speech, nicknames and title names, or ride on saddles, hang swords on our shoulders, collect weapons of any kind or carry these weapons… We will not encrypt our stamps in Arabic, or sell liquor. We will have the front of our hair cut, wear belts around our waist, refrain from erecting crosses on the outside of our Churches and demonstrating them and our books in Muslim fairways and markets. We will not sound the bells in our churches, except discreetly, or raise our voices while reciting our holy books inside our churches in the presence of Muslims.

The agreement ends: “These are the conditions we set against ourselves and the followers of our religion in return for safety and protection. If we break any of these promises that we set before and against ourselves, then our Dhimma (promise of protection) is broken and you are allowed to do with us what you are allowed of people of defiance and rebellion.

And it’s all still part of Sharia today, or it would be quite as irrelavent to the discussion of modern Islam as the Inquisition is to the modern practices of the Catholic Church in Spain. According to a contemporary manual of Islamic law, Umdat al-Salik , “The subject peoples must pay the non-Muslim poll tax (the jizya)” and “are distinguished from Muslims in dress, wearing a wide cloth belt (zunnar); are not greeted with ‘as-Salamu ‘alaykum’ [traditional Muslim greeting: “Peace be with you”] must keep to the side of the street; may not build higher or as high as the Muslim’s buildings, though if they acquire a tall house, it is not razed; are forbidden to openly display wine or pork… recite the Torah or the Evangel aloud, or make public display of their funerals or feast days, and are forbidden to build new churches.”

All of these  terms must be followed or they no longer have “protection.” As far as I see, the protection is mainly from the protectors themselves. In losing their “protection,” their lives are forfeit. They can be killed or sold into slavery at the Muslim leader’s discretion, according to the law if they violate the terms.

Dhimmis were also forbidden on pain of death to proselytize among Muslims. Notice, however, that above it clearly gave Muslims the right to attempt to convert Christians with no opposition from the Christian community. Also, Muslims who converted were also sentenced to death. As with everything above, both of these remain part of Islamic law up to today.

For over a millenium, these harsh, humiliating and subjective laws were the rules of interaction between Muslims and non-Muslims in Muslim countries. They were only brought to an end in the middle of the nineteenth century because of Western pressure on the weakened Ottoman Empire, and the dhimmi were emancipated. In some places they were relaxed or ignored at times, but have always been part of Islamic law and easily called back by any Muslim ruler with the inclination to do it.

And from Hamas’ charter, according to The Poltically Incorrect Guide to Islam “comes a keen awareness of how to manipulate the myth of Islamic tolerance: ‘Under the shadow of Islam, it is possible for the members of the three religions: Islam, Christianity, and Judaism to coexist in safety and security. Safety and security can only prevail under the shadow of Islam, and recent and ancient history is the best witness to that effect… Islam accords his rights to everyone who has rights and averts agression against the rights of others. Hamas doesn’t exactly spell  out the deprivation of rights entailed by living ‘under the shadow of Islam,’ however.”

Why is this all relevant, again, you may ask? Because it is still part of Sharia law today, and has been for virtually as long as the religion itself has existed in any notable size or importance, and it’s not going to change any time soon. And if the global caliphate is restored by the millions of Muslims who subscribe to extremist viewpoints and jihadists in particular, then there will be no Sunni Muslim country part of the caliphate where it is not in full effect. That’s not to say it’s not on the books in full effect now, it’s just that it’s not always followed in Muslim countries seeking to have a good reputation in a Western dominated world. But that may change as Islam grows and Western civilization shrinks to become a less formidable foe to it.

And everyone knows that nothing much is being done about it where it’s needed, and the government has an annoying tendency of repeating liberal lies about Islam being a religion of peace and tolerance, blah, blah, blah. So unless you, for some odd reason, have no problem being a dhimmi, (heads up non-Christian, non-Jewish, [religion, that is, not ethnicity] secular liberals, if you could stop trying to spin the above self-explanatory facts for a few seconds- you’re even worse off than us. Look at the Zoroastrians, Hindus, etc. Subject to even harsher laws than “People of The Book.” Usually they get dhimmitude as a matter of course though, but it will be a pretty bad start unless you convert to Islam. We all know you will) you should probably be informed about this and be vigilant.

My two favorite resources:

Jihad Watch

The Religion of Peace

There’s a plethora of information in both. I’m sure you’ll change your perception of Islam by reading them, if you haven’t already. And stay tuned for my next installation in the Islamophobia series. We’re still on dhimmitude, by the way. 

Okay, I’m done now. Where’s my fatwa?

 Thanks to Robert Spencer for writing the PIG to Islam (and the Crusades). Most of the information here is from his book, The Politically Correct Guide To Islam (and the Crusades), in the “Islam: Religion of Intolerance” chapter.

‘Refuse To Bow’ Speech–Newt Gingrich

This is a nice speech. I love how he works history into it. I wonder if he’ll run for president, Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes joke about it with him all the time. I hope not, though, I won’t know who to support between him and Fred. It would be great if they ran together.

 Thompson/Gingrich ’08!

Part One Of Islam Intolerance Series: Dhimmitude

Post #3 in Islamophobia series

Post 1

Post 2

Welcome back. In my never ending efforts to get a fatwa issued against me I’m going to kick off my new and more confusing subsubseries (series within a series within a series) of posts on Dhimmitude. What, you ask? Well, you’ll soon find out, unless you want to be woefully uninformed (you don’t want to be woefully uninformed, now, do you?)

So, dhimmitude. Where to start? Well, I suppose I’ll just start where Spencer does in his guide to Islam (and note that I’m taking a lot directly from the guide, chronologically and all. Not quite plagiarism, but still, let’s not go around talking about it to anyone from JihadWatch :)). Christians and Jews are classified under “People of the Book” by the Koran, placing them above complete idolaters like Hindus and Buddhists (Yay!). As such, they are dhimmi, meaning both “protected” and “guilty” people. They’re protected because they have recieved legitimate revalations, and guilty because they rejected Muhammed and had the nerve to distort Allah’s revelations.

This guilt allows them to live in Muslim states, but basically, the Muslims have to find the best ways possible to degrade them. After all, as one Muslim jurist explains, in accordance with Qu’ran 9:33 (Islam be ‘made uppermost above every [other] religion’) the caliph has the duty to “make jihad against those who resist Islam after they have been called to it until they submit or accept to live as a protected dhimmi community.”

I could go on in this post, but, quite frankly, why should I when I’ll have to turn a page in this book? I’ll give it to you in small portions, because this is really quite important to everyone everywhere who is not a Muslim. No, I don’t think anything positive will come out of my posting it. But it’s worth a try. Consider this the opening paragraph of a very long and tedious essay on dhimmitude. And I swear that’s it with the subseries for a few more posts, the next one will still be on dhimmitude. Maybe I’ll throw in some stuff that wasn’t completely from the Spencer book next time, if you’re lucky and I’m not lazy.

Thanks To Robert Spencer and his Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades).

Senate Blocks Immigration Bill

 SENATE BLOCKS IMMIGRATION BILL

By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – The Senate drove a stake Thursday through President Bush‘s plan to legalize millions of unlawful immigrants, likely postponing major action on immigration until after the 2008 elections. if(window.yzq_d==null)window.yzq_d=new Object(); window.yzq_d[‘bGWPQ0LEYrM-‘]=’&U=13b621q02%2fN%3dbGWPQ0LEYrM-%2fC%3d592820.10920758.11508929.1442997%2fD%3dLREC%2fB%3d4613113’;

The bill’s supporters fell 14 votes short of the 60 needed to limit debate and clear the way for final passage of the legislation, which critics assailed as offering amnesty to illegal immigrants. The vote was 46 to 53 in favor of limiting the debate.

Senators in both parties said the issue is so volatile that Congress is highly unlikely to revisit it this fall or next year, when the presidential election will increasingly dominate American politics.

A similar effort collapsed in the Congress last year, and the House has not bothered with an immigration bill this year, awaiting Senate action.

The vote was a stinging setback for Bush, who advocated the bill as an imperfect but necessary fix of current immigration practices in which many illegal immigrants use forged documents or lapsed visas to live and work in the United States.

It was a victory for Republican conservatives who strongly criticized the bill’s provisions that would have established pathways to lawful status for many of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. They were aided by talk radio and TV hosts who repeatedly attacked the bill and urged listeners to flood Congress with calls, faxes and e-mails.

Voting to allow the bill to proceed by ending debate were 33 Democrats, 12 Republicans and independent Joe Lieberman, Conn. Voting to block the bill by not limiting debate were 37 Republicans, 15 Democrats and independent Bernard Sanders, Vt. Tim Johnson, D-S.C., did not vote.

The bill would have toughened border security and instituted a new system for weeding out illegal immigrants from workplaces. It would have created a new guest worker program and allowed millions of illegal immigrants to obtain legal status if they briefly returned home.

Bush, making a last-ditch bid to salvage the bill, called senators early Thursday morning to urge their support. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez approached senators as they entered and left the chamber shortly before the vote.

“We have been in contact with members of Congress over the past couple of days and the president has made it clear that this is important to him,” White House spokesman Tony Snow said before the vote.

But conservatives from Bush’s own party led the opposition. They repeatedly said the government must secure the borders before allowing millions of illegal aliens a path to legal status.

“Americans feel that they are losing their country … to a government that has seemed to not have the competence or the ability to carry out the things that it says it will do,” said Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn.

Sen. Elizabeth H. Dole, R-N.C., said many Americans “don’t have confidence” that borders, especially with Mexico, will be significantly tightened. “It’s not just promises but proof that the American people want,” Dole said. -AP

Islam is Not Tolerant

 Post #2 on my series on Islam.

 Post#1

A hugely common liberal myth today is that, in the Middle Ages, “Muslims and Christians peacefully coexisted under muslim rule, which apparently proves Islam is a very tolerant religon (much better than those nasty, Crusading, Inquisitioning Christians!). WRONG.

It is appalling how liberals can view reality that way. They are a cultural oddity, creating a civilization that blames itself on most issues and is quick to blame itself on any it hasn’t already if the occasion arises. It seems as though, on 9/11, they immediately thought of the Crusaders and cursed our culture rather than Islamic culture. But that’s all another post which I am sure will be written. Back on topic.

Okay, so as I was saying, Muslims were never kind to the Christians they ruled during the Middle Ages, nor did they really coexist all that peacefully, and they most certainly did not coexist equally.

Last time I provided you with a large amount of violent Qu’ran verses proving Islam’s violent tendencies, linking to a site I frequent. Most of these speak for themselves, but my new subseries on the intolerance of Islam in my series on Islam (from here on it will be known as “Islamophobia”. Please, no applause) will expand on the uses of some verses. There will be other subseries in this series as well.

 In doing this, I plan to focus on dhimmitude and other such fun aspects of being a non-Muslim in a Muslim world. You’ll laugh, you’ll cry, but mostly you’ll either hate me or the Muslim rulers of the time. I will rely heavily on genius Robert Spencer’s The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And the Crusades). I reccomend it highly, did I mention it was written by a genius?

 Liberals and S-Ps have the American people so brainwashed that most people would reject my premise out of hand because it is racist (note that Islam is not a race if you plan on writing hateful comments.) I apologize if I hurt anyone’s feelings. On second thought, no, I don’t.

 So, check back for more fun-filled posts about Muslim intolerance.

_______________________

BLOG ANNOUNCEMENTS

I’m thinking of doing a tentative revamp of the blog, with focus on Fred Thompson and Islam and a shift from news to opinion and op-ed on the news and other things. This all among other things. Liable to change. The first steps have already started to take place with header changes and a large amount of Blogroll additions.