Quote of the day!

One cannot and must not try to erase the past merely because it does not fit the present.

--- Golda Meir


Thursday, April 17, 2014

Kassim Alhimidi Convicted of Murder in San Diego

Gary Fouse

Shaima Alawadi-victim

Iraqi national Kassim Alhimidi was convicted by a jury this afternoon in San Diego for murdering his wife Shaima Alawadi. When the verdict was read, Alhimidi began waving his finger as if to say, No". members of his family rose and began shouting, first expletives in English, then in Arabic. At least one arrest was made. (Alhimidi's son). Alhimidi then began yelling in Arabic as he was handcuffed and taken from the courtroom.

The below CBS News link has a video of the verdict and reaction (viewer warning as to language).


This case raised a furor when it broke because the family claimed an intruder was responsible and that the motive was a hate crime. During the subsequent investigation, it was revealed there was strife in the family, first over an attempted arranged marriage for a daughter, coupled with Alawadi's desire to divorce her husband. It initially became a cause celebe combined with the Treyvon Martin case, and the phrase Hijabs and Hoodies became widely used to refer to both cases.

Gang Rape in France

Gary Fouse

Hat tip Gallia Watch

It seems that from one European country to the next, rape has become an epidemic. We see it in Sweden, Norway, the UK,  and also in France among others. The pattern is identical. The victims are native women or girls, the perps are immigrant Muslims and the resultant sentences are lenient. It is almost as if this crime is our equivalent of a misdemeanor in Europe.

Courtesy of Gallia Watch, here is a horrendous recent case from the French town of Evres, where one French girl was savagely gang-raped for hours by three Turks and a Moroccan. The good news is that they have been captured. The bad news is you should not expect these animals to spend too many years in jail or even be deported.


Europe has a serious problem, and is not responding adequately. Actually, I am surprised that the news media even reported who these savages were. Usually the reports only indicate that they were "youths" or at most people from Asian backgrounds, as if they were Chinese or Japanese. Asian background in this case is code from Pakistan, India, or Bangladesh (South Asia).

Another constant refrain is that the arrestees tell police that the victims were "whores" because all French (or Swedish, Norwegian, or British girls) are "whores".

Does this mean that all or even most of Muslim immigrants in Europe are rapists? Of course not. It must also be added that we don't have this phenomenon in the US. However, the numbers in Europe don't lie. A recent study in Norway reported that over the course of the year, 86 "violent rapes" occurred in that country-all committed by "foreigners". I will bet you a steak dinner none of those were from Latin America, North America or the countries we consider Asian in the US. (Far East, SE Asia, Pacific Rim).

This is partly the fault of Europe's acceptance without question of their own perverted definition of "multi-culturalism", which must not be criticized at all costs. The truth is that the people themselves have had enough. Their leaders, however, the politicians, the academics, and the media-and especially the EU will not bend. They know the Muslim world is watching-and they must not be offended no matter how many outrages the Europeans must suffer-no matter how much their societies are torn asunder. Just think: In some European countries, I could be prosecuted just for writing this piece. Yet in the UK, Anjem Choudary and his gang of Muslim fanatics can stand on a street corner and call for critics of Islam to be beheaded without penalty and nobody dares do a thing about it. That's cowardice.

Just like what is happening in France.

Wednesday, April 16, 2014

A Response to Corey Saylor on Sharia

Gary Fouse

Corey Saylor is one of CAIR's top officials in Washington. Recently, he spoke before a group in Maine on the topic of sharia law. He has written an almost exact version of that speech on CAIR's website, which is linked in the below text.

Louis Palme has written a critical response to Saylor's assertions that Sharia law is compatible with US democracy. I am posting it below with his permission. The only edits I have made were to put appropriate quotation marks and spacing. I also made two spelling corrections (where in place of were and correct spelling of Mr Saylor's first name.)

CAIR loves democracy – so long as it doesn’t contradict Sharia Law
By Louis Palme

On March 22, Corey Saylor, CAIR’s National Legislative Director, gave a forty-minute speech in Vacationland, Maine, on the topic: Is Sharia Compatible with Democracy?  His dancing between likening Sharia to political democracy and hiding behind “religion” to oppose anything that didn’t fit his premise was enough to make one’s head spin.  See the text at: http://www.cair.com/cair-blog/entry/is-sharia-compatible-with-democracy.html  But before we get into his devious arguments, let’s define the situation for those who haven’t been exposed to Sharia Law and CAIR.

Sharia -- The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, ‘Umdat al Salik, (better known in English as Reliance of the Traveler), which has been endorsed by the U.S. International Institute of Islamic Thought as well as the prestigious Al-Azhar University in Cairo, defines Sharia Law as:

The basic premise of this school of thought is that the good of the acts of those morally responsible is what the Lawgiver (syn. Allah or His messenger) has indicated as good by permitting it or asking it be done. And the bad is what the Lawgiver has indicated is bad by asking it not to be done. The good is not what reason considers good, nor the bad what reason considers bad. The measure of good and bad, according to this school of thought, is the Sacred Law, not reason. (para a1.4) (Note: Shafi’I  jurisprudence is identical with 75% of all four schools of Islamic law.)

Since Muhammad was the only witness to Allah and since Muhammad and Allah are partnered no fewer than sixty-four times in the Quran, the measure of good and bad in Sharia Law is ultimately what Muhammad did or said (plus the Quran, of course).  That is why Muslims keep copious accounts of Muhammad’s life and his pronouncements in the Sira and the Hadith. Only 14 percent of Sharia Law comes from the Quran. Less than one-third of the practices specified in Reliance of the Traveler address religious practices like prayer, charity, and fasting. The bulk of the provisions deal with commerce, inheritance, justice, and of course, jihad which is defined as “war against non-Muslims . . to establish the religion.” (o9.0)  Reliance of the Traveler was compiled in the late 14th Century, and it remains the primary source for Sharia Law for English-speaking Muslims.

Democracy – By its very definition, democracy is a “government of the people, by the people, for the people.”  Neither the U.S. Constitution nor the individual laws take force unless approved by the people or their elected representatives.  The U.S. Constitution has been amended twenty-seven times to reflect agreed-to changes in the relationship between our government and its citizens over the past 225 years.

Corey Saylor  --  Corey Saylor converted to Islam in 1992, apparently in his first year at George Mason  University.  He earned his stripes suing deep-pocket companies like Burger King and Bell Helicopter-Boeing “when their actions or advertisements negatively impacted the American Muslim community.”  He actively opposed the renewal of the Patriot Act. Currently he is the National Legislative Director for CAIR – the Council on American-Islamic Relations.  Readers can draw their own conclusions about Corey Saylor as they read this report.  Suffice it to say that when he called on non-Muslims in his speech to be partners to “work together to establish our shared ideals of justice,” he was blowing smoke.  Note that throughout his speech Mr. Saylor cited provisions of the U.S. Constitution numerous times, but he didn’t mention a single specific provision of Sharia Law.  CAIR is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood’s HAMAS and the Islamic Association of Palestine.  The U.S. has declared HAMAS and Hezbollah to be terrorist organizations.  When Fox News reporter David Lee Miller asked Mr. Saylor to condemn HAMAS and Hezbollah by name in 2011, he refused.  His response was, “Well I recognize that you don’t like my answer to the question, but that’s the answer to the question.”

Sharia is a lot of things – In his Vacationland speech, Mr. Saylor complained that sharia “had been hijacked and turned into something scary.”  From his perspective, sharia was like recipe that has different results depending on who is cooking.  He even went so far as to admit that the actions and decrees of Muhammad have actually been, and continue to be, interpreted by human beings.  The flaw in this reasoning is that the sacred source documents of Sharia Law have not changed (and cannot change) since they were first compiled.

Sayyid Qutb, the ideological father of the Muslim Brotherhood, warned Muslims against losing sight of the final commands of the Quran:

"Some defeatist elements are overwhelmed by the pressures resulting from the desperate situation of present-day Muslims, who have nothing of Islam other than its name, and from the wicked attack by the Orientalists on the concept of jihad. Hence they try to find excuses by relying on provisional rulings and ignoring the true basis of the Islamic approach that moves forward to liberate mankind from the servitude to other human beings, so that they can worship Allah alone. . . This smacks of disrespect for Islam and Allah Almighty, resulting from a feeling of utter defeat. . . If the Muslims today, in their present situation, cannot implement these final rulings [in Surah 9], then they are not, now and for the time being, required to do so.  For Allah does not charge anyone with more than he or she can do. . . Let them fear Allah and not attempt to weaken Allah’s faith under the pretext of showing it to be a religion of peace.  It is certainly the religion of peace, but this must be based on saving all mankind from submission to anyone other than Allah." (Under the Shade of the Quran, Vol. VIII, pg. 25-28)

Muslims respect the law of the land – Mr. Saylor’s next defense of Sharia in America was that Sharia Law mandates that Muslims practice their faith while respecting the law of the land.  This is where Mr. Saylor throws political Islam and religious Islam into the blender.  He observed that sixty-two percent of Americans agreed that it was more important for the government to investigate possible terrorist threats, even if it intrudes on personal privacy.  He also cited a Cornell University survey where nearly half of all Americans believe the U.S. government should restrict the civil liberties of Muslim-Americans.  But then he reminded his audience that Article VI of the U.S. Constitution prohibits any religious test for public office.  What Mr. Saylor glossed over in this defense of Sharia is that most Americans have no issue with the religious practices of Muslims, but rather their concern is over the political excesses of denying basic human rights to Muslims and others and waging eternal warfare on non-Muslims.  The supremacist political ideology of Islam commands in its final major decrees of Quran: “Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you.  Deal firmly with them.” (Surah 9:123) and “Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and Allah’s religion shall reign supreme.” (Surah 8:40)

There is nothing “unconstitutional” about requiring loyalty oaths for American citizens.  They were required after the Civil War and after World War II when Communists threatened to infiltrate our government. While loyalty oaths have been challenged in the courts numerous times, the last major loyalty oath case heard by the Supreme Court, Cole v. Richardson - 405 U.S. 676, was decided in 1972, and it upheld a requirement that the State of Massachusetts employees swear to uphold and defend the Constitution and to "oppose the overthrow of the [government] by force, violence, or by any illegal or unconstitutional method". That is why so many Americans took offense when Denver Nuggets player Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf refused to stand during the National Anthem in 1996.

Mr. Saylor might have trouble explaining what it says in Reliance of the Traveler about respecting the laws of the land:
. . . areas where Muslims reside and there is a remnant of Islam’s rules – even if this is limited to marriages and what pertains to them, for example – are considered Muslim lands.  . . . in the light of which, it is clear that there is virtually no country on the face of the earth where a Muslim has an excuse to behave differently than he would in an Islamic country, whether in his commercial or other dealings.  (R of T, w43.5)
Finally, Mr. Saylor might be a bit uneasy about what Reliance of the Traveler says about America’s Christians and Jews:

"Previously revealed religions were valid in their own eras, as is attested to by many verses of the Holy Koran, but were abrogated by the universal message of Islam. . . It is unbelief (kufr) to hold that the remnant cults now bearing the names of formerly valid religions, such as “Christianity” or “Judasim,” are acceptable to Allah Most High after He has sent the final Messenger to the entire world." (R of T, w4.0)

Sharia is for the good of all humanity -- Mr. Saylor stretched credibility when he asserted that the goal of Sharia Law is to bring good to all humanity. This sounds like equal rights for all, n’est-ce pas?  Unfortunately, the actual provisions of Sharia Law make Mr. Saylor a liar.

· An Arab woman may not marry a non-Arab because Arabs are superior (m4.2(1))
· A virgin can be married off by her guardian without her consent (m3:13(2))
· The value of a woman is one-half that of a man (o4.9)
· The value of a Christian or a Jew is one-third that of a Muslim (o4.9)
· The value of a Zoroastrian is one-fifteenth that of a Muslim (o4.9)
· A woman’s testimony is worth one-half that of a man (Quran Surah 2:282)
· A woman’s inheritance is one-half that of a man (Quran Surah 4:11)

(By the way, Mr. Saylor stated in his speech that men inherit more because they have to pay the funeral expenses.  This is not true.  The deceased’s funeral expenses and debts are settled before the inheritance is divided up. (L4.2))

· A slave is worth ten meals (Quran Surah 5:89)

Look – Muslim scholars wrote a declaration saying there is no conflict between Sharia and the Constitution – Mr. Saylor thinks if he can produce a piece of paper that says there is no conflict between Sharia Law and the Constitution, then the issue will go away.  So he reminded his audience that in 2011 the Fiqh Council of North America issued a resolution saying “We do not see any conflict with the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. . . so long as there is no conflict with Muslims’ obligation for obedience to God [i.e., Allah].”  This falsehood has been discussed in detail elsewhere: http://www.archive2012.faithfreedom.org/op-ed/sharia-law-and-the-us-constitution/ Suffice it to say here that the two systems have very little in common.
Blaming all the evils of Islam on Al Qaeda -- Al Qaeda has become the favorite whipping boy not only of the U.S. government but also of apologists for Islam.  Mr. Saylor tried to stake out common ground with Americans by virtue of our common enemy. He declared: “The world view of violent extremists is a complete distortion of Islam. Islamic teachings clearly state that the killing of one innocent is the moral equivalent to killing all humanity.”  One would think that by now CAIR, of all organizations, would abandon that meme about “killing one innocent” because what is clearly stated in the Quran is that the edict applied only to the Jews, not the Muslims.  See Surah 5:32.  The Muslim punishment for those who oppose Islam is clearly stated in the subsequent verse: “[they] shall be put to death or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the country.”

It would be hard to heap on to Al Qaeda all of the blame for such world-wide Sharia Law outrages as Female Genital Mutilation, forced child marriage, wife beating, honor murders, eye-for-eye retaliation, stoning of adulterers, and chopping off hands of petty thieves.  Nice try, Mr. Saylor.

CAIR cranks up the grievance machine --  It wouldn’t be a CAIR speech without ending it with a laundry list of what CAIR perceives as Constitutional violations that have victimized Muslims.  Never mind that everything Mr. Saylor citied is now discredited and forgotten history:

· Oklahoma’s SQ 755 anti-Sharia law, declared unconstitutional in January, 2012.
· Defeated Presidential candidate Herman Cain’s 2011 call for a loyalty oath for Muslim staff.
· Defeated Presidential candidate Rick Santorum’s 2007 call for Americans to “educate, engage, evangelize, and eradicate” to win against the Islamist enemy.
· Defeated Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich’s 2011 speech in which he feared that future generations would see our country potentially dominated by radical Islamists.

Getting back to the issue of the compatibility of Sharia Law with democracy, Mr. Saylor couldn’t ignore the fact that American Laws for American Courts legislation has proceeded successfully all across the nation.  By his own tally, there have been 37 bills in 16 states and laws have been passed in seven states.  He calls them “Anti-Islam” bills, but the American Laws for American Courts legislation have carefully avoided mention of any religion, and consequently, they have not been successfully challenged as being unconstitutional.  The Constitution actually states, “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” (Article VI, Clause 2) There is nothing “Anti-Islam” about the Constitution or about American Laws for American Courts. Instead, Islam and Sharia Law are blatantly and defiantly “anti-Constitutional”-- against the provisions of the U.S. Constitution and our nation’s democratic principles.

Mr. Saylor called on Americans to “debate differences while partnering on ideals.”  He claims that the differences between the ideals of Sharia Law and democracy are relatively minor.  Then why, Mr. Saylor, are states rushing to pass American Laws for American Courts legislation, and why is this effort so “Anti-Islam”?

If anyone is tempted to follow Mr. Saylor’s advice to “work together to establish our shared ideals of justice,” I would recommend that they first take a look at the actual provisions of Sharia Law as contained in Reliance of the Traveler (http://www.shafiifiqh.com/maktabah/relianceoftraveller.pdf) and see how many of those provisions, particularly those in Section o on Justice, would help form a peaceful, equal, and humanitarian society.
To that I would like to add a couple of points. There is a section of sharia law called hudud sharia, which deals with so-called crimes against God. Among the offenses are adultery, blasphemy, apostasy and homosexuality. For all of these, the penalty is death. This is affirmed by leading Islamic schools of thought such as Bukhari. If you ask the leading Islamic clerics and leaders in the US ( I have asked a few), you get a lot of confusing answers. However, setting aside the obvious discriminatory language vis-a-vis women and non-Muslims, those four provisions right there would seem to contradict any claim that sharia is compatible with US law.

In addition, as Palme points out, the 2011 statement by the Fiqh Council of North America as to the compatibility of Islam and the American Constitution and Bill of Rights leaves a bit of wiggle room.

"....so long as there is no conflict with Muslims’ obligation for obedience to God" [i.e., Allah].

It is correct that Muslims are enjoined to follow the law of the country they live in if they are a minority. I assume that includes the above phrase. But I wonder what Mr Saylor would say if asked hypothetically what would or should happen to US law if Muslims became a majority in said country or countries. What about those hudud sharia provisions I listed above?

As always, I invite my Muslim readers to weigh in.

My Exchange With Richard Silverstein (He's a Blogger in Seattle Who Hates Israel)

Gary Fouse

Rule violation. Fighter in the white trunks is disqualified.

As previously described, Seattle blogger Richard Silverstein is a virulent hater of Israel who stoops to very low levels in attacking people with whom he disagrees. Two notable examples are Chloe Valdary, a black female college student who has the audacity to be pro-Israel and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. In the case of the former, Silverstein likens her to Uncle Tom and refers to her as a "Negro", a term he use derisively against other blacks he doesn't like. In this case of Ali, he calls her an Islamophobe ignoring the fact that she lived as a Muslim. He refers to most of her claims regarding her life story as "all fiction".

I caught up with this character on his blog, Tikun Olam, when he posted a series of pieces lately attacking Ali, whom he went after during the Brandeis controversy. Below is his piece and the reader thread where I weigh in. Note that he twice deleted my comments for some rule violation (which appears to be effectively refuting him). I have long noted that Israel bashers usually have very strict rules when it comes to debate. I's a form of stacking the deck.


When Silverstein first deleted my comment (April 15), he said I was off-topic because the topic was the Ali's comment about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Well, that was the title, but the post contained much more than that. What he deleted was that I told him before he admonished me for being off-topic he should admonish the other reader (Dieter) and himself because the post had contained a lot more than just Ali's comments on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which the reader can plainly see in the post.

Here is what I wrote the last time he deleted my words. This time, I took the trouble to copy it before posting.

"Wow. You have an interesting way of debating. When someone makes a point you can't deal with you delete the comment for an imagined violation of your rules. I assume you will do the same here, so consider this for your eyes only if you wish.

I took the trouble to pull up Submission to judge for myself if I agreed with Dieter's view (I don't). As for my comment to him about visiting those camps, no I don't want a medal. I went as a tourist and for my own education. I was trying to make a civil connection with him because even if I disagree with him, I respect his family history.

As for the MPAC conference, here is what I posted on my blog about it. You can read it and judge for yourself.


As for any organization, I am a lone ranger. I have like-minded friends, and I cross-post with other blogs, but I don't work for anyone. I have my blog and I make no money from it.

I would like to close this thread because I have said my piece and whether you care to post it, I don't care.

What I have learned about you is that your critics are correct. You have an unnatural hatred for Israel and have allied yourself with forces that would destroy Israel and kill every last Jew if that's what it took.

In addition, you are a bully. I offer as an example Chloe Valdary, a college student, whom you denigrate as some sort of female Uncle Tom. You refer to other blacks with whom you disagree as "Negroes" . You are old enough to know the history of the word and what it implies when you attach it to blacks. And you call me a racist?

In contrast, I am a part-time teacher at UC Irvine and as a (non-Jew) defender of Israel and foe of anti-Semitism, I regularly challenge the speakers brought to our campus by the Muslim Student Union or SJP, some of whom say anti-Semitic things. But I would never single out an MSU/SJP student by name and attack him or her as you do Ms Valdary. I consider that off-limits because, after all, they are college students.

So feel free to read this and delete it as you wish.

BTW: I have actually linked your blog on mine. You can find it in the Fiction Section."


Silverstein is free to set his own rules on his blog. I basically have two criteria for deleting comments. Racist attacks are out though everyone has their own definition of what constitutes racist. I may occasionally post such comments (which invariably come from anonymous sources) if I feel they prove my points especially as to anti-Semitism).Then I will take the time and trouble to refute them. I will also ban a reader if he or she personally attacks my character. (Hi, Lance.) Other than that, I post the comments even if I don't respond to all of them. I don't delete them just because the reader has effectively rebutted what I say.

As I told Silverstein, his critics are right. Not only does he have an unnatural hatred for Israel, he is also a bully. But he is free to come on here and respond. I will even waive my rules for him.

Blogging Will Be Light

Due to illness I will not be posting for a while.  My contributors hopefully take up the slack.

I pray that I will be back blogging soon.

Monday, April 14, 2014

Would Jew Believe This?

A young boy returned home from Hebrew school, washed his hands and sat down to dinner.

His father asked him what he learned that day in school.

The boy replied that the Rabbi told his class the most amazing story of how the Jews were rescued from the Land of Egypt and brought to the Land of Israel.

His father smiled and asked his son to relate the story the Rabbi told them.

"Sure Dad," the boy said.  "Now this story happened a long time ago, before the time of CNN.  Before the time of computers, and cell phones.  Before even TV.  I think it was in the 1920s or so it happened.

"Egypt was ruled by this guy named Pharaoh.  I think it means "Nasty Egyptian". And we Jews were his slaves. We didn't like being slaves and prayed to G-d to set us free. G-d heard our prayers and sent us a miracle.

"G-d  sent the IDF back in time to rescue the Children of Israel (I think they rescued the parents too.).  The Commandos diverted the Egyptian Army while the Children and their parents fled to the Red Sea (It was red because G-d turned the water to blood like in Zombie Killers 3.).  There the IDF built Pontoon bridges across the Red Sea for the people to go across.  When the Egypt Army tried to follow, the IDF blew up the bridges.

"Then this guy named Moshe Dayan (He is the head of the IDF, I think. Rabbi said he was G-d's greatest profits.) lead the Children of Israel (and their parents) to Mount Sinai where Moshe lays down the law, destroys the Golden Calf and leads them to Israel.

"But it took them 40 years because nobody had a GPS and Moshe would not ask for directions."

His father had a look upon his face that was a cross between total astonishment and WTF.  "Is this what the Rabbi taught you?"

"No Dad,"  the boy said.  "But you wouldn't believe the crazy story he did tell."
Actually I'm not sure that is not the correct story.  It could be giving that a certain Time Lord, his TARDIS and a few units of the IDF could have pulled it off.

Passover Rhapsody - A Jewish Rock Opera

Click here if the video fails to load.

But perhaps G-d did it this way:
From Chabad

After many decades of slavery to the Egyptian pharaohs, during which time the Israelites were subjected to backbreaking labor and unbearable horrors, G‑d saw the people's distress and sent Moses to Pharaoh with a message: "Send forth My people, so that they may serve Me." But despite numerous warnings, Pharaoh refused to heed G‑d's command. G‑d then sent upon Egypt ten devastating plagues, afflicting them and destroying everything from their livestock to their crops.

At the stroke of midnight of 15 Nissan in the year 2448 from creation (1313 BCE), G‑d visited the last of the ten plagues on the Egyptians, killing all their firstborn. While doing so, G‑d spared the Children of Israel, "passing over" their homes-hence the name of the holiday. Pharaoh's resistance was broken, and he virtually chased his former slaves out of the land. The Israelites left in such a hurry, in fact, that the bread they baked as provisions for the way did not have time to rise. Six hundred thousand adult males, plus many more women and children, left Egypt on that day, and began the trek to Mount Sinai and their birth as G‑d's chosen people.

Or maybe not.  Any way that G-d performed the miracle of the Passover was the correct story. 

The KC Murders and the Campaign Against Israel: Seems There is a Connection

Gary Fouse

Hat tip PJ Media

"Jew journalist Max Blumenthal exposes and explains this attempt by a foreign government Israel, to buy the presidential election for the neo-con, war-mongering republican establishment.
Like I’ve been saying, the kikes simply do not trust a lame-duck black president with the name Hussein. Jews fear his re-election, thus this jewish Super PAC to defeat him.
1) Will Ron Paul and his close supporters fight back against this alien super-PAC by telling the truth about jew power in the U.S. ?? It’s insightful and somewhat assuring that the above video news report was posted on www.runronpaul.com.
2) How will Hussein and his 45 million black supporters and the tens of millions of other liberals and anti-war Americans react to this jewish attack on their president and commander in chief ??
3) How will the democrat establishment react, and the so-called liberal media ??
4) Does this signal a huge split among jews, and if so how big is the split ??
Like Dr Pierce once said, “the jews have a tiger by the tail, and they dare not turn loose.”
It sure looks to me like their grip is slipping.
Sieg Heil !!!"

More details are coming about about the shooter in yesterday's attack against two Jewish facilities in the Kansas City suburb of Overland Park, Kansas. It appears that Frazier Glenn Miller was not only motivated by KKK-Nazi sympathies but an animus toward Israel as well. According to the below report by Ron Radosh in PJ Media, Miller posted a reference to writings by anti-Israel activist and writer Max Blumenthal.


Max Blumenthal. Last December, I stood out in the rain in Irvine and protested an event he was speaking at on behalf of some despicable organizations called American Muslims for Palestine, CAIR, Jewish Voice for Peace, the Muslim American Society, and the Muslim Student Association.


If I wanted to play guilt by association, I could say that Blumenthal has blood on his hands as well as all the others who are stirring up hatred against Israel. I recall how the Norwegian mass murderer, Anders Breivik, was found to have read the writings of Robert Spencer, Fjordman, and other critics of extremist Islam. That was used against Spencer et. al. though there was no contact between them and Breivik, and they were all horrified by the killings in Norway. I am sure Blumenthal is similarly horrified by what happened in Kansas and has no connection to Mr Miller.

Having said that, is it not now a time for reflection on the part of those who are carrying out this campaign to destroy Israel? Do they not realize how much this is contributing to the resurgence of Jew hatred worldwide? It matters  little that Blumenthal and many others are Jewish themselves. They are contributing nonetheless to something ugly that goes beyond Israel.

Chances are Miller's anti-Jewish demons are not solely because of what he has been led to think about Israel. Nevertheless, this revelation would indicate that it was a factor, how much I don't know. Chances are Miller could care less about the Palestinians. But this should serve as a cautionary lesson to those who are so determined to destroy Israel.  It should also serve as a cautionary lesson to those of us who  write about extremist Islam. Nobody wants what they write to inspire someone else to violence or to think that all members of a group are bad.

Being a part-time teacher at UC Irvine, I can only hope and pray that we never see a tragedy like this on a college campus. If it happens, however, I will not be shocked.

Blood Moon Rising

TOTAL LUNAR ECLIPSE: On Tuesday morning, April 15th, the full Moon will pass through the shadow of Earth, producing a colorful lunar eclipse.  Although the mainstream media is calling this a "blood moon," the color is more likely to be bright orange.  At the moment, Earth's stratosphere is not dusty enough produce a shadow with the deep red hues of blood.  Whatever color it turns out to be, the eclipse will be visible from North and South America, Australia and New Zealand.

Creedence Clearwater Revival: Bad Moon Rising

Click here if the video fails to load.