Saturday, June 30, 2007

"We Make The Threats Around Here"


From the Telegraph (UK; h/t LGF):

Hamas Police Lay Down Law In Gaza

The newly appointed Gaza City police captain was sitting at his desk, mopping sweat from his brow and explaining the new order of things in the Hamas-run territory, when a subordinate handed him the telephone.

Moataz Abu Khaled, the thinly bearded, previously soft-spoken captain, listened calmly and then erupted.

"We are the police. The people don't threaten us. We make the threats around here," he shouted, a vein in his dripping brow bulging. He slammed the Nokia telephone against the wall and it splintered.

Wow. What an excellent summary of the fascist state that is now Hamastan.

Translate that statement into any language, at any time, and you have the nature of fascism.

Except, of course, when the fascists are marketed by the world media, and even U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, as "a resistance force," instead of as a gang of bloodthirsty jihadist murderers. And when "the police" is defined as a segment of that gang, which happen to wear badges. And when "the law" is defined as anything that the gang proclaims it to be. Just like it was in Nazi Germany, and in Soviet Russia, and in Pol Pot's Cambodia, and in Mao's China. You get the idea.

There is virtue in clearly and objectively identifying people, groups and concepts such as law and justice.

Unfortunately, we are not living in an age in which clear identification is a value to be pursued and defended. No, ours is an age of linguistic gymnastics and self-sacrificial "diplomacy."

Have a nice day.

Original content is © Copyright 2007 by Jon Quixote. Email to

Thursday, June 21, 2007

How To Earn Brownie Points With Allah In One Easy Step


If you're a woman, forget the Nobel Prize, or any kind of productive achievement.

Dispel the yearning to create that next breakthrough medicine, or a 100mpg engine, or a new type of high-yield crop, or anything else that enhances or extends the existence of human beings, here on Earth, during their lifetimes.

Nope, if you want to be down with Allah, and get a prime spot in the afterlife, all you need to do is defy the Western nation you've been permitted to move to (and which provides you with more rights than are conceivable in your native Islamist land), by insisting on wearing a head-to-toe veil (a niqab) that covers everything but your eyes, wherever you go, and whatever you do.

"Wearing the niqab means you will get a good grade and go to paradise," said Hodo Muse, 19, a Somali woman. "Every day people are giving me dirty looks for wearing it, but when you wear something for Allah you get a boost."

And of course, following the lead of agitatin' radical Islamist front groups like CAIR, etc., scream "racism!" or "Islamophobia!" whenever anyone dares to suggest that in Western culture, one will be marginalized (if not lawfully limited) if she insists on dressing as if she's living in the 7th century. Except, whoops... the niqab is only as old as disco.

From the International Herald-Tribune today (hat tip DrudgeReport), we learn that England is finally starting to stand firm against Muslim women who insist on covering themselves from head-to-toe, and expect to be part of modern Western culture. And of course, let's not even talk about how it's a thumb in the eye of Western culture in the post-9/11, post-7/7, post-3/11 world.

"For me it is not just a piece of clothing, it's an act of faith, it's solidarity," said a 24-year-old program scheduler at a broadcasting company in London, who would allow only her last name, Al Shaikh, to be printed, saying she wanted to protect her privacy. "9/11 was a wake-up call for young Muslims," she said.

I see. Mind you, it was not a wake-up call to Muslims to stand up to the radical Islamists and jihadists in their midsts, nor to publicly deny as often as necessary that deliberately butchering civilians is never justified by (their interpretation of) Islam. No, 9/11 was "a wake-up call" to some Muslim women to publicly identify themselves by... preventing anyone from identifying them at all.

Marginalizatin and ostracization, indeed. But certainly not by the Western cultures that have liberated women in a way that is unthinkable in the Islamist societies that they (or their parents) escaped from.

Newsflash, female Muslims: If you want to live in a society that accepts (if not mandates) the niqab, there are plenty to choose from: Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Sudan, Somalia, Egypt, Libya, etc.

If, however, you wish to live in Western culture, there are certain standards. And one of them is that if you prevent us from being able to see your face or hear your voice, and you attempt to impose your standards upon us --- don't act shocked(!) and offended(!) when your host culture starts to resist this imposition.

Fortunately, some brave Muslims are actually standing up to and opposing the attempt to impose the niqab in British schools; read the story here.

I'll refrain (from now) from commenting on the Western dhimmis who are catering to this phenomena, via their fetish for "jihad-chic" fashions.

But if you want to learn more about the advance of niqab/hijab chic via Western dhimmis and culture-shapers, read here, here, here. Culture wars, indeed.

Original content is © Copyright 2007 by Jon Quixote. Email to

A BBC Study Accuses The BBC Of... Leftist Bias?


Behold --- the first honorary "pigs flying moment" at JonQuixoteWorld.

From the Washington Times: BBC Unmasked

The British Broadcasting Corp. has "failed to promote proper debate on major political issues because of the inherent liberal culture of its staff," a report commissioned by the BBC itself has concluded.

Coverage of single-issue political causes, such as climate change and poverty, can be biased — particularly Live 8 coverage, which it says amounted to endorsement. The report warned "that celebrities must not be pandered to and allowed to hijack the BBC schedule."

It concluded that BBC staff must be more willing to challenge their own beliefs.

"There is a tendency to 'group think' with too many staff inhabiting a shared space and comfort zone."

A staff impartiality seminar held last year is also documented in the report, at which executives said they would broadcast images of the Bible being thrown away but not the Koran, in case Muslims were offended.

"During the seminar, a senior BBC reporter also criticized the corporation for being anti-American," the London Daily Telegraph reported yesterday.

See the source article, and the full report HERE.

Wow. Who could have seen THIS one coming, eh?

Oh, right... with a little help from friends on both sides of the pond who've not drank the Seething Leftist Kook-Ade™, JQWorld cited a predecessor study that documented the endemic bias at the BBC,

But let's keep one thing in mind: There is a fundamental yet all-but-unpsoken difference between "liberalism" and "leftism."

"Liberalism," in its original and proper definition, was embodied by courageous thinkers such as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and America's Founders, who created the world's first nation based on the principle of individual rights and limited, constitutional government. "Leftism," however, is the inverse: it is a thinly-disguised term describing socialists/fascists/communists, who have hijacked the term "liberal" to propagate their big-government-pushing, America-bashing, Eurotrash-worshipping, jihadist-appeasing collectivist idealism.

In the early and mid-20th century, seeking to restore its proper definition after the socialists had hijacked "liberalism," political scientists reclassified America's Founders and those who inspired and followed them as "classic liberals."

With that in mind, what the BBC (and the vast majority of the American mainstream media) suffer from is not "liberal" bias, but leftist bias, spinning and manipulating stories to feed and stoke a distinctly leftist agenda and worldview.

But hey, kudos to the BBC from JonQuixoteWorld for at least taking the first steps to acknowledge what it has been and is doing (even if it needs to stop screwing around with its terminology). Will the BBC take this opportunity to change its ways? Who knows. As I hear they say at Alcoholics Anonymous, accepting one's problem is the first step towards solving it. Solve on, BBC.

Original content is © Copyright 2007 by Jon Quixote. Email to

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Subversion Via A Former U.S. President: "Then" And Now


(JQWorld News --- Dateline 1938)

Former U.S. President: America Should Stop Favoring German Rivals Over Nazis

The United States and its allies must end their policy of favoring rival political parties over the Nazis, or they will doom the German people to deepening conflict between the rival movements, the former American president said Tuesday.

While addressing a conference of "human rights" officials, the former U.S. president said the current administration's refusal to accept the 1933 victory of Adolf Hitler was "criminal."

The former American president said that, besides winning a fair and democratic mandate that should have entitled it to lead the German government, the Nazis had proven themselves to be far more organized in their political and military showdowns with rival parties.

The Nazis routed rivals in their violent takeover of key regions last week. The split prompted the Nazis' rivals to dissolve the power-sharing government with them.

The former U.S. president said the consensus of the current American administration and its allies to reopen direct aid to the new government, but to deny the same to the Nazis, represented an "effort to divide Germans into two peoples."

He went on to say that the election was "orderly and fair," and the Nazis triumphed, in part, because they were "shrewd in selecting candidates," whereas their divided, corrupt rivals ran multiple candidates for single seats.

Far from encouraging the Nazis' move into parliamentary politics, the former U.S. president accused the current American administration of having sought to subvert the outcome by shunning the Nazis and helping its rivals to keep the reins of political and military power.

"That action was criminal," he said in a news conference after his speech.


What would have been the public reaction in America to a U.S. president having made such colossally stupid, freedom-subverting, tyranny-endorsing statements back then?


Well, statements identical to these are being made today, by a real former U.S. president, about America's current situation with another group --- Hamas --- that has declared (and demonstrated) its intention to murder its way to global domination.

(Read about Hamas here, here, here, here; and of its embryonic relationship to America's most prominent Islamic "civil rights" organization, CAIR, here and here)

Read on:


(Associated Press, June 19, 2007)

Carter: America And Its Allies Should Stop Favoring Fatah Over Hamas

The United States, Israel and the European Union must end their policy of favoring Fatah over Hamas, or they will doom the Palestinian people to deepening conflict between the rival movements, former US President Jimmy Carter said Tuesday.

Carter, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate who was addressing a conference of Irish human rights officials, said the Bush administration's refusal to accept the 2006 election victory of Hamas was "criminal."

Carter said Hamas, besides winning a fair and democratic mandate that should have entitled it to lead the Palestinian government, had proven itself to be far more organized in its political and military showdowns with the Fatah movement of Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.

Hamas fighters routed Fatah in their violent takeover of the Gaza Strip last week. The split prompted Abbas to dissolve the power-sharing government with his rivals in Hamas and set up a Fatah-led administration to govern the West Bank.

Carter said the American-Israeli-European consensus to reopen direct aid to the new government in the West Bank, but to deny the same to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, represented an "effort to divide Palestinians into two peoples."

While seeking to boycott the Hamas leadership because of its refusal to renounce violence and recognize Israel, Europe and the US have continued to send humanitarian aid to Gaza through the United Nations and other organizations.

During his speech to Ireland's eighth annual Forum on Human Rights, the 83-year-old former president said monitors from his Carter Center observed the 2006 election in which Hamas won 42 percent of the popular vote and a majority of parliamentary seats.
Carter said that election was "orderly and fair" and Hamas triumphed, in part, because it was "shrewd in selecting candidates," whereas a divided, corrupt Fatah ran multiple candidates for single seats.

Far from encouraging Hamas's move into parliamentary politics, Carter said the US and Israel, with European Union acquiescence, has sought to subvert the outcome by shunning Hamas and helping Abbas to keep the reins of political and military power.

"That action was criminal," he said in a news conference after his speech.



JQWorld musing: Are psychiatric benefits included in the retirement health care plans for former U.S. presidents who have clearly gone insane? Just curious.

(JQWorld clarification: Before I get pummeled with emails, yes, I realize that Fatah is no benevolent Jeffersonian party, and that it has its roots in the same jihadist ideology and terror that Hamas does. But whereas Fatah has recognized Israel's right to exist, and is at least attempting to make steps towards peace with Israel, Hamas is about the closest thing we have today, along with al Quada, etc., to modern-day religious Nazis.)

A link for the daring:

Hamastan: The Deadly Flower Of “Democracy”

Wow, who could have possibly seen this one coming? Oh, right --- any liberty-loving realist with more than two functioning brain cells. Hat tip LGF, HERE.

Carter's favorite jihadist terror troup gets a slot on the editorial pages of the world's most influential newspaper, as covered by LGF ---
HERE. See previous instances of NY Times dhimmitude, here.

The WashingtonTimes weighs in:
"Munich 1934, Gaza City 2007." Excerpt:

The bloody anti-Fatah putsch staged by Hamas last week constitutes a strategic black eye for the United States and another sign of the ability of the Tehran-Damascus Axis to project power with absolute ruthlessness and brutal precision throughout the Middle East.[...]

The Hamas thugs who invaded what had been Mr. Abbas's office in Gaza City on Friday were certainly under no illusions about who the big international superpower loser was in last week's Gaza bloodbath. The newspapers have been blanketed with pictures of armed, masked men putting their feet up on desks and lounging on sofas as they make mock telephone calls to Miss Rice's office in Washington.

In response to this debacle, Washington and the Europeans are discussing a a resumption of aid to the Palestinian Authority and ending the economic embargo imposed after Hamas won legislative elections last year. Mr. Olmert, a politician whose popularity is barely above zero, is under considerable pressure from Washington to help Mr. Abbas.

But to what end? Congress needs to take a hard look at U.S. policy toward Mr. Abbas and the PA. Given the corruption that has long been endemic, how do we know that money going to Mr. Abbas will be usefully spent? How do we know it won't "trickle down" to the al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades — a terrorist arm of Mr. Abbas's Fatah that has worked with Tehran and its allies in the past and remains one of the dominant terrorist gangs in the Abbas-controlled West Bank? It's time for some serious congressional oversight hearings about the continued usefulness of U.S. assistance to Mr. Abbas.

As for Hamas, its behavior towards Fatah bears resemblance to the way in which Adolf Hitler did away with rival gangsters who were no longer useful to him. Ernst Rohm had been with Hitler from the beginning and his Brownshirts (the SA) had been instrumental in his rise to power. But once Hitler assumed power in January 1933, Rohm and Company became a liability. The SA acted like gangsters, extorting money from businesses, beating up and occasionally murdering German civilians. And Rohm's insistence that the SA absorb or replace the German Army alienated the German High Command and industrialists who had helped bring Hitler to power.

Original content is © Copyright 2007 by Jon Quixote. Email to

Saturday, June 16, 2007

Infidel Hottie Of The Week: Jessica Alba


From the UK Sun:

Jessica Alba told Cosmopolitan magazine: "I just wanted to see what it was like to be with different people. I don't think a girl's a slut if she enjoys sex. [...]

"I feel like a lot of women try to make it into more, so they don't feel so bad about just wanting to have sex. I don't really have a problem with just wanting sex. Never have.

"Even when I was a virgin and wanted to marry the first guy who I slept with, I never passed any judgments about that. But now I'm done with dating around."

And from another interview:

Jessica Alba decided to leave her born-again Christian church after religious leaders accused her of being too promiscuous. The Fantastic Four star insists her multi-ethnic appearance stopped her from being accepted in the Latin community she grew up in, so she turned to the church looking for comfort.

After four years as a born-again Christian, Alba backed away from religion because "older men would hit on me and my youth pastor said it was because I was wearing provocative clothing, when I wasn't. It just made me feel like if I was in any way desirable to the opposite sex, that it was my fault, and it made me ashamed of my body and of being a woman."

Alba also vehemently disagreed with the church's condemnation of premarital sex and homosexuality and was bothered by the lack of strong female role models in the Bible. She tells US Elle magazine, "I thought it was a nice guide, but it certainly wasn't how I was going to live my life."

Let's face it: what kryptonite is to Superman, what a wooden stake is to a vampire, and what a silver bullet is to a werewolf, women like Jessica Alba are to radical Islamism.

All of a sudden, laser-guided missiles, night-vision goggles, Apache attack helicopters and hollowpoint rounds don't quite seem so potent in the war against jihad, eh?

A tip-of-the-hat to uber-hottie Jessica Alba for daring to express such a boldly infidel view of herself and of her rights as a woman, to chart her own course in life, and to enjoy physical pleasure here on Earth, with whomever she chooses.

And for her boldness and principles, Jessica Alba earns the JonQuixoteWorld "Infidel Hottie Of The Week" Award.

Now, if we could just export her images and statements to the Islamist world... well, let's just hope there aren't any mass-deliverable cures for cultural coronaries.

Because for the radical Islamists, who view females as possessions, who believe women and girls must be dominated and have their lives and marriages determined for them, who must be sexually mutilated to deprive them of the pleasure from physical love with partners of their choosing, and who must be murdered for the "crime" of having premarital sex (or even kissing an unapproved-of person), or of being raped... or of having the audacity to defend themselves against attempted rapes...

...well... they'd all suffer one massive, collective stroke as oppressed Muslim women threw off their burqas/niqabs, demanded equality, and stood as one to say, in one voice...

"NO MORE!!!"


Unsurprisingly, one Islamist cleric vehemently disagrees with JQWorld on this, claiming that women are best when they are "weak," HERE (h/t HotAir/MEMRI). And another describes the proper way to beat one's wive/wives into submission --- all in perfect compliance with their version of religious scripture, of course, HERE (h/t LGF).

Read more about how Islamists treat women
here, here, here, here.

Read about the supposed right of Islamists to rape women, especially "infidels," here, here, and justification from top Australian Islamist, here.

MUST-SEE video interviews of uber-infidel Ayaan Hirsi Ali,
HERE; learn more about this remarkably courageous woman at her website, here.



Infidel He-Men Of The Week: Robert Spencer & Jason Mattera

Infidel Hottie Of The Week: Pamela Geller

Original content is © Copyright 2007 by Jon Quixote. Email to

Hamastan: The Deadly Flower of "Democracy"


Year after year, day after day, hour after hour, minute after minute, we are told by our (supposed) intellectual and moral superiors that "democracy" is the cultural and political ideal that societies should aspire to.

For decades, the U.S. government and innumerable non-governmental and business organizations have been trying to "export democracy" to oppressed peoples around the world. Most insultingly, we are and have been told that America is, and always has been, a "democracy."

We are not a "democracy," we never have been, and although we are steadily descending into one, I hope that we never will reach that point.

What is a "democracy?" It is unlimited majority rule. It is two wolves and a sheep "voting" on what to have for dinner. It is two rapists and a woman "voting" on what to do for "fun." It is two blue-collar workers and one self-made millionaire "voting" on an equitable distribution of his wealth among "the people." And it is two millionaires and a vagrant "voting" on who should be lawfully permitted to eat, and who should starve.

It is also a people "voting" themselves into suicide, or worse --- "voting" to empower a gang of bloodthirsty, suicidal murderers to rule over them, and to conquer neighboring and distant nations.

For years, the U.S. and our (bipartisan) leadership had been urging the Palestinians to recognize the supremacy of "democracy."

And we were treated to a perfect case study in the deadly nature of "democracy" --- which is systematically being equivocated for, if not outright denied --- when in 2006, via a "democratic" process, Palestinians "voted" Hamas into power.

Now, the "flower" of that "democracy" is now blooming, with all the murder, terror, destruction and depravity that clear-thinking individuals predicted. The "democratically-elected leadership" of the PA is now murdering their Muslim opponents in the streets, and has claimed that it will murder a sufficient number of Jews to destroy Israel.

How in the world can any advocate of "democracy" now decry what their ideals have wrought? Answer: They can't.

And now, the Palestinians are realizing what their "democracy" has wrought, are trying to escape the carnage they've been led to, and are being prevented from doing so --- via a religious order (or fatwa). From
Winston Churchill at The Gathering Storm:

Entitled "No Permission to Emigrate from Palestine," the fatwa reads: "There has been much talk in Palestine about emigration, especially among the young people, due to the difficult security and economic situation. This is being done in search of a better life abroad. Many are continuing to rush to the gates of the embassies and consulates of the Western nations with requests for visas in order to reside permanently in those countries.

"We hereby declare that emigration from the blessed lands is not permitted according to religious law. The people living in these areas must remain in their homes and must not leave them to conquerors. Those who abide by this ruling will perform an honorable deed and will support the Aksa Mosque."

Welcome to the world of "democracy."

Now, individuals in the Palestinian territory don't even own their own bodies, and cannot determine where they wish to live. Starting from this premise and working forward, the rest is completely logical:

Palestinians are trying to rush into the arms of the Israelis, who they've been told by their leadership (and by innumerable freedom-hating, jihadist-excusing media sources, bloggers and political organizations) are evil, fascist aggressors

Hamas announcement: "The era of 'justice' and 'Islamic rule' has arrived"

Hamas is summarily executing fellow Palestinian Muslims in the streets, often in front of their families (more here, here)

Hamas is converting government buildings into mosques, and ordering all Palestinians to reaffirm their loyalty and devotion to their particular interpretation of Islam --- or be murdered; more here

Hamas is murdering opposing patients in hospitals (along with those who happened to be nearby)

Hamas is now controlling the ability of all Palestinians to obtain travel visas

Hamas is going to continue indoctrinating Palestinian children to aspire to become suicide bombers, "drink the blood of Jews," conquer Israel, destroy Western civilization --- but now, with real "authority"

But hey, this carnage isn't without its bright spots: Hamas has ruled that its fighters will no longer wear their trademark face masks -- unless they are firing weapons at Israel, and as it has already created a river blood, it is no longer "seeking vengeance," and will soon consider releasing its "hostages"

Was this not all foretold? Did the Palestinians not know the history, the tactics, the aspirations and the motivations of Hamas, prior to "democratically voting" to put them into power?

And what is the American government's response? To promise to send more aid to the slightly-less insane wing of the Palestinian "democrats" who were "voted" out of office, for their endemic corruption: Mahmoud Abass's Fatah party (from whom Hamas recently "stole" truckloads of US-provided weaponry, and which they are using to create a river of blood). But hey, this follows a long train of "support" that Fatah and Hamas have received from those "enlightened" Western European nations that are our (supposed) moral and cultural superiors, and which never miss an opportunity to lecture the US on how to "get along."

* * *

What we should be aspiring to, and expressing to other nations via our diplomacy, is the virtue of what America once was, and can be again: a constitutionally-limited representative republic, that recognizes an objective (non-contradictory) code of individual rights.

What that means is that although one's representatives are elected via a "democratic" process, the powers of government are clearly articulated and strictly limited, with all focused on one object: protecting the rights and property of its individual citizens. In short, a constitutionally-limited representative republic that operates according to this code is the inverse, the diametric opposite, of a "democracy."

It matters not whether 50.001% or 60% or 80% of 99.9% of citizens "democratically vote" for a legal proposal, if it in any way violated the rights of even a single citizen (let alone the rights of those in a neighboring nation, either individually or collectively). It cannot be valid if such a legal measure requires that a minority, or a majority, must sacrifice their rights (or have them violated via the power of government) for whatever they collectively decide is their "common good," or "the needs of society."

Yet from President Bush to Sen. Ted Kennedy, from self-described "conservatives" to "liberals," and talk-show hosts across the political spectrum, all preach the (supposedly) unimpeachable virtue of "democracy."

Well, folks, we're now staring directly into the abyss that "democracy" ultimately results in. And it's called "Hamastan."

And until we wake up to this fact, and start to think in terms of the sheep, the woman, the millionaire and the vagrant described above, we in America and the Western world are going to continue to create and empower our own destroyers --- all via "democratic" vote.

It's time to confront the fallacy and evil of "democracy" head-on, by using the newly-instituted "Hamastan" as a perfect example of what it leads to. Once we do, we may then begin to finally rebuild our culture on the only foundation that can lead to peace and progress: a foundation of a rational code of individual rights, under a constitutional government with strictly-limited powers.

Let the rebuilding begin.

Original content is © Copyright 2007 by Jon Quixote. Email to

Friday, June 15, 2007

The Capstone Of A Colossal Outrage

Hat tips to, and compiled from reports by Robert Spencer (JihadWatch) and Daniel Pipes (MiddleEastForum)

From AP/YahooNews:

"A cap is lowered by a crane to the top of the minaret during a ceremony at the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center, the largest mosque in New England, before the first call to prayer, Saturday, June 9, 2007, in Roxbury, Mass. (AP Photo/Lisa Poole)"

From JihadWatch:

"Why is the flag upside down? Maybe it was just on its way up when Lisa Poole's shutter snapped, but it's a telling photo. From the U.S. Code:

"The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property."

"And here is a capsule explanation of why the Boston mosque is a signal of dire distress."


The above photo is the last, but certainly not final insult in the 5-year saga of dhimmitude, obfuscation, intimidation and retribution revolving around the creation of the largest super-mosque in New England.

Read the "dire distress" link, above, to learn about this outrage from the perspective of The David Project, one of the prime targets of the Islamic Society of Boston (ISB), and their dhimmis on the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA).

Read more about this outrage via Daniel Pipes's additional coverage of how, by standing up to both the radical Islamists at the ISB and their dhimmis at the BRA, the ISB dropped all its lawsuits against The David Project and the others it targeted for "litigation jihad," to intimidate them all into silence. Follow the links that are contained in Dr. Pipes's articles; he provides a fascinating and scholarly accounting of how this campaign of intimidation and dhimmitude relates to others that all Americans should be aware of. Key excerpt:

(June 7, 2007) "The decision last week by the Islamic Society of Boston* to drop its lawsuit* against 17 defendants, including counterterrorism specialist Steven Emerson, gives reason to step back to consider radical Islam's legal ambitions.
(*JQW note: Follow these links for very detailed articles by Dr. Pipes)

"The (ISB) lawsuit(s) came about because, soon after ground was broken in November 2002 for the ISB's $22 million Islamic center, the media and several non-profits began asking questions about three main topics: why the ISB paid the city of Boston less than half the appraised value of the land it acquired; why a city of Boston employee, who is also an ISB board member, fund raised on the Boston taxpayer's tab for the center while traveling in the Middle East; and the ISB's connections to radical Islam.

"Under this barrage of criticism, the ISB in May 2005 turned tables on its critics with a lawsuit accusing them of defamation and conspiring to violate its civil rights through 'a concerted, well-coordinated effort to deprive the Plaintiffs … of their basic rights of free association and the free exercise of religion.'

"The lawsuit roiled Bostonians for two long years, and Jewish-Muslim relations in particular. The discovery process, while revealing that the defendants had engaged in routine newsgathering and political disputation, and had nothing to hide, uncovered the plaintiff's record of extremism and deception.

"Newly aware of its own vulnerabilities, the ISB on May 29 withdrew its lawsuit with its many complaints about '
false statements,' and it did so without getting a dime."

For background on what is being preached in radical Islamist mosques across the USA, read this detailed report by the Center for Religious Freedom. Small wonder why the ISB was so hellbent on hiding the sources of its support, and which imams will or may be preaching at this new super-mosque.

Also, read about The Legal Project, being created in conjunction with Pipes and the Middle East Forum, to provide legal counsel and representation to those who are legally targeted by radical Islamists.

Finally, read "When Will It All End?" at the conclusion of the JonQuixoteWorld post, "Roundup Of Western Government-Enforced Dhimmitude." Excerpt:

"It will end when everyday Americans finally stand up and say that each of our citizens --- regardless of their religious, ethnic, racial, economic, gender or political characteristics --- have equal rights before the law, but that in a culture built atop the principle of liberty and constitutionally-limited government, none have special rights, privileges or considerations, whether they comprise 1%, or 51%, or 99% of our population.

"This principle is especially apt when one group of people becomes intent on imposing their totalitarian edicts on a school, town, city, state or an entire nation. It does not matter whether this imposition occurs all at once, or gradually, by degree --- by the thousands of little, seemingly inconsequential surrenders that escape notice or scrutiny by journalists and educators, often because they themselves are either supportive of this transformation, or are unwittingly facilitating it. But eventually, all those little surrenders add up, especially when one is faced with a patient, determined and resourceful opponent, acting on what they believe to be unimpeachable principles, regardless of whether they are the polar opposite of those underlying the host culture's."

From AP/YahooNews - photo taken at the same time that the minaret was lowered:

"Shazi Abbasi, of Cambridge, Mass., left, and Safia Mohamed, of Roxbury, Mass., a neighborhood of Boston, right, react during a minaret-capping ceremony at the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center, the largest mosque in New England, Saturday, June 9, 2007 in Roxbury, Mass. (AP Photo/Lisa Poole)"


I wonder if these American Muslims even realize what it means when the American flag is deliberately displayed in an upside-down position? Or the eminently justifiable resentment that the founders and backers of this super-mosque (and their dhimmis in the BRA) have incited in the minds of rational, everyday Americans, by pursuing its creation via their campaign of intimidation, taxpayer subterfuge and obfuscation? Or of how far back this cabal of radical Islamists have set back the seedlings of cross-cultural understanding and respect, which they (supposedly) seek?

Apparently not. But maybe once the mainstream media gets tired of covering the latest momentary political scandals, the status of Britney Spears' underwear, of Paris Hilton's prison-issued underwear, and the latest diet fad, they'll get around to discussing how radical Islam is routinely using intimidation and deception to advance shari'a in America. (Is this not more important than yet another day-after-day profile on the largest American TV news network of the British princes? Apaprently not.)

Unless and until ordinary Americans start waking up to this phenomena, and the gang of radical Islamists that are behind it, this may well be the pictorial legacy that we leave to our children, through our inattentiveness and willfull (or unconscious) dhimmitude:

Oh, and by the way: Happy Flag Day from JonQuixoteWorld.



Defeating the Islamic Society of Boston Lawsuit: Why It Happened and What It Means, with addresses by Charles Jacobs, President of The David Project, and Jeffrey Robbins, the uber-attorney who helped to force the ISB to drop its suit without receiving a single penny.

These people are modern-day heroes. Carve out time and watch this video.

And the mainstream media will get around to covering this outrage any day now... any day now... any day now...


Yup, right after Paris Hilton, Britney Spears and the 2008 presidential derby money race doesn't captivate our most honored "journalists," 24/7...


Have a nice day.


Original content is © Copyright 2007 by Jon Quixote. Email to

Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Dr. Mark Steyn Removes The 'Delusion Tumor' From The Immigration Debate


Mark Steyn is as good of a columnist and commentator as there is out there. And this article, "The Documented Delusion," from the June 11 Washington Times, is as good as he gets.

With his characteristic clarity and precision (not to mention wit), Steyn performs a masterful surgical dissection of the delusional phrases, propaganda and anti-concepts that we've been spoon-fed for decades regarding immigration. Thus, for today, JonQuixoteWorld has reclassified Steyn as a journalistic surgeon --- hence his honorary designation, "Dr. Steyn."

What kryptonite is to Superman, what a wooden stake is to Dracula, and what a silver bullet is to a werewolf, Dr. Steyn's article is to the fraudulent "comprehensive reform" that is being foisted upon America by a bipartisan group of political panderers.

Excerpts (the full first part of the article):

I forget where I was when I first heard the phrase "undocumented worker." Possibly it was after swimming the Rio Grande and emerging dripping on the northern shore to be handed a fake Social Security number and a driver's license. But I assumed, reasonably enough, that this linguistic sleight of hand was simply too ridiculous to fly even with the American media. I underestimated my colleagues, alas.

The "undocumented" are, as it happens, brimming with sufficient documents to open bank accounts or, on the other hand, rent a Ryder truck, as Mohammad Salameh did in 1993 when he and his pals bombed the World Trade Center first time round. Being "undocumented" means being documented up to the hilt as far as everyone else is concerned but "undocumented" only to the U.S. government. Which, when you think about it, is a very advantageous status. Anyway, about five years or so back, I started referring in columns to "fine upstanding members of the Undocumented-American community."

But from the lame Steyn joke of yesteryear to the reality of tomorrow is a mere hop and a skip. A few days ago, Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, declared: "This week we will vote on cloture and final passage of a comprehensive bill that will strengthen border security, bring the 12 million undocumented Americans out of the shadows, and keep our economy strong."

Talk about "a fast track to citizenship." Never mind probationary visas, Z-visas and Green Cards, in the eyes of the Democrat steering "comprehensive immigration reform" through Congress these guys are already "undocumented Americans." Was it simply a slip of the tongue? (Speaking of which, I thought thanks to George W Bush we had "the worst economy since Herbert Hoover." When did it get "strong"?) Or did Mr. Reid mean it?

If he did, the very concept of citizenship is dead, and the Senate might as well opt for "really comprehensive immigration reform" and declare everyone on the planet a U.S. citizen with backdated Social Security entitlements. As Le Monde's famous headline of Sept. 12, 2001, put it, "Nous sommes tous Americains." ("We are all Americans"). Literally.

I don't know whether this sham of a bill is dead or just resting "in the shadows" like a fine upstanding member of the Vampiric-American community. But, if it rises on the third night to stalk the land once more, I would advise its supporters to go about their work more honestly.

First of all, the only guys "living in the shadows" are the aides of American senators beavering away out of the public eye to cook up this legislation and then present it as a fait accompli to the citizenry (if you'll forgive the expression). That is an affront to small-r republican government, and, if intemperate hectoring mediocrities like Trent Lott and Lindsay Graham don't understand that, their electors should give them a well-deserved lesson.

Second, the bill's supporters should stop assuming the bad faith of their opponents. On Fox News the other night, I was told by NPR's Juan Williams, "You're anti-immigrant." Er, actually, I am an immigrant -- one of the members of the very very teensy-weensy barely statistically detectable category of "legal immigrants." But perhaps that doesn't count any more. Perhaps, like Colin Powell's blackness, it's insufficiently "authentic." By filing the relevant paperwork with the U.S. government, I'm not "keepin' it real."

I wouldn't presume to speak for the millions of Americans who oppose this bill, but it's because I'm an immigrant myself that I object to the most patent absurdity peddled by the pro-amnesty crowd. The bill is fundamentally a fraud.

Its "comprehensive solution" to illegal immigration is simply to flip all the illegals overnight into the legal category. Voila. Problem solved. There can be no more illegal immigrants because the Senate has simply abolished the category. Ingenious. For their next bipartisan trick, Congress will reduce the murder rate by recategorizing murderers as jaywalkers.

Read the rest here.

I hope that "Dr. Steyn's" analysis and commentary gets the exposure that they so richly deserve.

Because if his views --- and those of similarly clear-thinking, liberty-loving patriots --- are not exposed via our "political-journalistic complex," and we continue to allow ourselves to be spoon-fed the deceptions and propaganda that he identifies, we are going to get exactly the "comprehensive immigration reform" legislation that we deserve.

And America, as we know and love it, will have taken one more giant leap into a form that we will no longer recognize.

Original content is © Copyright 2007 by Jon Quixote. Email to

The Democrats' Unrelenting Assistance To Jihadists


In wartime, two types of battles are waged: one that uses physical weaponry, and one that relies on ideological warfare.

Opposing forces use both types of warfare to try to weaken and ultimately defeat their enemies. The latter, however, is used to subvert, and ultimately collapse an enemy's will to fight.

And as has been shown time after time throughout history, the ideological war often strongly influences (if not dictates) how the military war is fought, and its ultimate outcome. A strong, proud nation is capable of withstanding and repelling its enemy's ideological warfare.

But what happens when the enemy's ideological warfare campaign strategies and tactics are mirrored by those in high political office in one's own nation? The answer is: subversion from within, by acting to echo, justify and propagandize the enemy's message and strategy.

Let me be clear: One need not agree with or endorse everything that America's Commander-In-Chief does. In our free society, there can be --- and ought to be --- principled, calm, reasoned debates everywhere from the kitchen table to the highest legislative bodies, so long as they are focused on one common goal: the security of one's own nation.

Today, however, the enemy that America is engaged in a generational struggle against --- militant Islamism (Muslim supremacism & totalitarianism) is getting invaluable, enduring and powerful assistance from one of America's two dominant political parties. And I am convinced that future historians will look back upon today's Democratic Party (and their enablers in the MSM and beyond) as a phemenon that has no parallel.

First there was Sen. John Kerry's claim that U.S. soldiers are "terrorists." Then there was Rep. John Murtha's claim that the U.S. "cannot win" in Iraq. Then there was Speaker Nancy Pelosi playing diplomatic tonsil-hockey with Syrian tyrant Basher Assad (mere hours after she refused to allow the House to vote on a resolution condemning Iran's taking of 15 British soldiers and holding them hostage). Then Majority Leader Harry Reid proclaimed the U.S. has "lost the war" in Iraq.

Then, the Democrats in the House and Senate tried to upend our Constitution at its roots, by declaring that it is they --- not the President and the generals under his command --- who are vested with the lawful authority to dictate how lawfully-authorized military engagements are fought, and when, where, and how troops are deployed and when they are to be withdrawn. And thanks to the insufferable dumbing-down that our (Democrat-enabled) teachers unions have perpetrated on generation after generation of our kids, most Americans don't even know the most basic provisions of the Constitution, so they are unable to tell the difference; right now, it's an "anything-goes" in regards to Constitutional matters.

And stretching back to 2003, Democrats and militant leftist organizations have --- just like jihadists --- been calling President Bush a "war criminal," and America an "imperialist aggressor" for daring to finally go on the offense against jihadists and their enablers after the 9/11 attacks.

Then, as documented here at JQWorld, in
The (Literal) "Daily Call For Surrender," turns out the Democrats are holding daily phone conferences with the most rabid leftist anti-war groups, to plot and plan strategies and tactics to force America to surrender to al Quada in Iraq (and by default, in Afghanistan and elsewhere). And as usual, the MSM just let out one big collective *yawn.* (Of course, if it were discovered during the Clinton administration that the Congressional Republican leadership was holding daily conference calls with their supporters, to plot strategy to subvert his military deployments [Kosovo, Haiti, etc.], the Democrats, their MSM lapdogs and leftist activist groups would be going apeshit bananas, screaming for hearings, campaign-finance investigations, etc.)

And through it all, the jihadists and their enablers have been laughing their collective asses off, because the Democrats and their seething leftist base has been largely doing their work for them, regarding their ideological warfare campaign against America.

Most recently, on Sunday, June 10, Sen. Joe Lieberman told CBS's Bob Sheiffer that the U.S. Senate has conclusive evidence that Iran has been training, arming, deploying and supporting jihadists that have murdered upwards of 200 of our soldiers, across its border in Iraq. Lieberman went on to say that this cannot be allowed to continue --- and that if Iran doesn't stop this activity post haste, the U.S. may have to take military action against Iran, primarily in the form of air strikes against the bases and facilities where these activities are occurring.

And what was the response from the top eschelon of the Democratic Party?

Majority Leader Harry Reid proclaimed that the U.S. should not even consider striking Iran --- a de facto enemy that has been and is provoking a military battle with America --- because it would "destabilize the region." Unironically, this is almost precisely what the Iranian madman, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his minions are saying: that if America launches any kind of military attack against any of its facilities, up to and including those devoted to its nuclear-weapons development, that it would not only (a) destabilize the region, but that it would (b) trigger a severe response, up to and including the deployment of 50,000 suicide bombers (many of whom are now living among us, or could be rapidly redeployed from bases in Central and South America), to strike on U.S. soil.

Further, Sen. Reid went on to deliberately mischaracterize what Sen. Lieberman said, by referring to his statements as indicative of supporting an "invasion" of Iran, which Lieberman clearly did not say.

But today, facts and context no longer matter to leading Democrats (or their enablers in the MSM). Nor, apparently, does the very-real and very-obvious encouragement that Iran --- one of the world's leading sponsors of jihadist murder and intimidation --- derive from the current Democratic strategy to subvert America's efforts to combat this deadly enemy.

To draw an analogy, imagine if there were a gang of murderers that was terrorizing a town. The people would rightfully look to their law enforcement agencies to hunt down this gang and bring them to justice --- and if they refused to be taken alive, to physically strike back so hard that the gang was rendered unable to commit any more of its murderous acts. But what would happen if a significant (if not dominant) portion of the town's law enforcement leadership proclaimed that it would not pursue the gang, because it would only make things worse, by "destabilizing" the town? More importantly, what would such a message send to the gang of murderers? It would tell them that despite all the bluster and justified rage of the townspeople, the gang has won the tacit approval to continue its murderous reign, because the townspeople have been rendered impotent by the policies adopted by their leaders --- policies which could well have been written by the gang itself, to ensure not only its survival, but the lawful impossibility of an armed response.

Let history be our guide as to what happens when such a phenomena occurs not in a town, but on the world stage, when murderous regimes are not only tolerated, but are given a tacit moral sanction by the one organization that is (supposedly) chartered to prevent international conflicts: the United Nations.

Iran and its proxies in Hezbollah, etc., have murdered more Americans than any other Islamist group prior to the 3,000 that al Quada did, on 9/11. It declared war on America in 1979, and has been at war with us ever since. And we have done essentially nothing, except to withdraw from every fight they have provoked with us. Surprise: this has only served to embolden Iran's political leaders and its mullah-ocracy (especially being that we are so dependent on their oil, and our leftist legislators have prevented us from weaning ourselves from foreign oil, by prohibiting the expansion of our ability to find and access our own oil supplies, on our own soil).

Today, if Lieberman is correct, Iran is facilitating the murder of our soldiers. And Iran has threatened to "wipe Israel (and by default, any nation that stands up to it) off the map" via the nuclear weaponry it is developing. And the supposed body of international moral governance and diplomacy --- the U.N. --- cannot even muster the votes necessary to condemn this clear violation of its charter.

But while the U.N. is a passive enabler of Iran's murderous acts and aspirations, the Democratic Party is actively enabling it, by using the power of our laws (that they are now largely in command of) to subvert America's ability to finally respond to Iran's acts against us. Put simply, if Harry Reid, John Murtha, John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi were actually being paid by Iran, it's hard to imagine how much more they could be doing to subvert American security than they already are, today.

And yet one presumes they aren't doing this for money --- they are doing it out of a combination of sheer political expediency, to hold onto their power at any price, which means placating the seething, America-hating, jihadist-appeasing leftist organizations that constitute their "new base," led by, which proudly claims it has "bought, paid for, and now owns" the Democratic Party, en masse.

Let a principled debate begin on how to deal with the very-real, very-potent threat that Iran represents to not only American security, but to global stability. But by their actions, such Democrats have rendered themselves not only unworthy of engaging in such a debate, but actually detrimental to one --- because American security, and a rational view of justice, is clearly not what they are aiming for.

Perhaps once the MSM's fixation with Paris Hilton, the latest celebrity dust-ups, and up-to-the-minute poll standings of presidential candidates abates, we can actually engage in such a debate.

Though I'm an optimist, I won't be holding my breath.

It will be up to ordinary Americans, and especially bloggers and those precious few news outlets that refuse to act as sockpuppets and enablers of the Democratic Party, to let Republicans (and security-minded Democrats) know that if they will not finally lay down the law with Iran, then we will find public servants who will.


UPDATE: File this under "Wisdom from the most unlikely sources..."

After the recent pet-food scare, I contacted the manufacturer of the one I use. Upon learning that the food I buy was not included in the recall, and in response to my concern, the firm opted to send me a coupon for a substantial discount off my next purchase.

The coupon arrived today, along with instructions for those who wish to transition their pets from wet to dry food. After Step 1, which discusses how to portion the old vs. new types of food during the transition period, along comes:

"Step 2: Don't give in to demands. During the initial two-day period, don't give your dog treats or table scraps. Giving in to his demands only reinforces refusal behavior."

Wow, eh? Maybe I should make a photocopy of this instruction sheet and send it to the Democratic leadership (and the State Department, etc.). It's painfully evident that they've never been exposed to this principle.

Iran, Syria and North Korea have learned this principle quite well: rattle your physical and ideological sabres against a better-armed but internally-corrupted opponent, and they'll give in every time. The U.N. has been in the business for 50 years of giving in to demands of the most bloodthirsty and brutal regimes (including jihadist ones), all in the name of "getting along."

And as has been warned, the ultimate showdown between America and the bastards behind those nations will, in all likelihood, be far bloodier than it would have been, had we dealt with them when the mountains of problems we face today were mere molehills.

Original content is © Copyright 2007 by Jon Quixote. Email to

Sunday, June 10, 2007

The NY Times' Schizophrenic Quasi-Dhimmitude


JonQuixoteWorld has documented how, on numerous occasions, the New York Times has acted to subvert America, most notably by whitewashing, burying or ignoring stories concerning radical Islamism, and the threat it poses to our people and culture (here, here) --- also known as journalistic dhimmitude. And JQWorld isn't alone in documenting this phenomena.

Most recently, the NYTimes buried the jihadist plot to blow up JFK airport and a good portion of Queens, as exposed by:

James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal, here

Former NYC Mayor Ed Koch: "NY Times, I Weep For You" here.

Ben Johnson at FrontPageMagazine, here

TheBigPicture chronicles this incident, along with a brief history of the NYT's jihad-whitewashing biases, here

The NY Times' lame excuse for this outrage is located here.

In its Sunday, June 10, 2007 edition, however, the Times has exhibited what I contend can only be described as schizophrenic quasi-dhimmitude.

Were it not for a momentary lapse in judgment --- in its excerpting of a journal kept by the murdered victim of Jew-hatred (see Issue 2) --- today's NY Times would have earned the JonQuixoteWorld "Dhimmi Of The Month" Award.


On page 1 of the editorial section (Week In Review), the Times featured an above-the-fold, two-page cover story entitled "The Guidebook For Taking A Life," which explains the basic rules that jihadists refer to when considering who they may murder and how. This is a MUST-READ article.

Although it is quite interesting and insightful, the Times obscures the reality of this phenomena by employing phrases such as "Islamic militants" (see definition of "militant" here), and in an oblique way, serves to simultaneously enlighten infidels like us --- and embolden, if not justify jihadists like those they interviewed.

The article's authors, Mochael Moos and Souad Mekhennet, apply a dispassionate, antiseptic approach to describing the bloodthirsty jihadist code (as it were), rather than explicitly identifying these Islamist murderers as being just that: "militants" who happen to deliberately murder civilians, often in theatrically-gruesome ways, wage war against free societies, and appy 1,400-year-old "revelations" in order to justify their barbaric actions --- including against children.


See Robert Spencer's detailed dismemberment of this NY Times feature, at JihadWatch, here.

See LGF take here --- turns out the "expert" the NY Times turned to for analysis of this piece is actually a Saudi-funded professor at Georgetown who, in this article attempts to equivocate between jihadist murder and U.S. military actions (surprise!)

See TigerHawk's insightful angle on it, here.


Then, on page 7 of the same section, something rational, contextual and relevant to the reality of murder somehow snuck through the NT Times' editorial board: "As the Nazis and Adolescence Took Hold," containing wrenching excerpts of a diary kept by Rutka Laskier, a 14-year-old Jewish girl in 1943, before she was taken to Auschwitz and murdered by the Nazis. This is a must-read. Excerpts:

(Feb. 5, 1943) Well, Rutka, you’ve probably gone completely crazy. You are calling upon God as if He exists. The little faith I used to have has been completely shattered. If God existed, He would have certainly not permitted that human beings be thrown alive into furnaces, and the heads of little toddlers be smashed with butt of guns or be shoved into sacks and gassed to death. ... It sounds like a fairy tale. Those who haven’t seen this would never believe it. But it’s not a legend; it’s the truth. Or the time when they beat an old man until he became unconscious, because he didn’t cross the street properly.

(Feb. 6, 1943) I saw how a soldier tore a baby, who was only a few months old, out of mother’s hands and bashed his head against an electric pylon. The baby’s brain splashed on the wood. The mother went crazy. I am writing this as if nothing has happened. As if I were in an army experienced in cruelty. But I’m young, I’m 14, and I haven’t seen much in my life, and I’m already so indifferent. Now I am terrified when I see “uniforms.” I’m turning into an animal waiting to die.

Let's see --- I forgot: were the Nazis who committed these barbaric atrocities called "militants," or murderers?

Apparently, it's not only the NY Times that has difficulty discerning between these two words; see HERE (h/t LGF) for an example of how the Associated Press is now referring to reporters who are pushing for Hamas to release their kidnapped BBC colleague, Paul Johnson, as "militants."

To help put this issue into focus, let's revisit this JonQuixoteWorld post from last summer, profiling Samir al-Quantar, one of the Palestinian "militants" whose bretheren (and the international left) have been trying to get released from an Israeli prison, as part of a "prisoner-exchange program" (in which kidnapped Israeli soldiers are exchanged for murderers like this guy):

Bassam al-Qantar has allowed himself to hope. After years trying to get his brother Samir out of an Israeli prison, he said, now may finally be the time."

Samir al-Qantar, 44, was sentenced to over 500 years in jail after leading a four-man Palestinian raid at the age of 16 on Nahariya in northern Israel that killed two policemen, a civilian man and his 4-year-old daughter."Witnesses said Qantar smashed her skull with his rifle butt... (B)y Israeli accounts, his brother took the girl and her father hostage, then shot the father and killed the girl with his rifle butt as police closed in."

Ah yes, another Islamist "militant," I presume.

From what I've read, however, such "militants" actually prefer to be called "martyrs" or "holy warriors," but the NY Times has not gone quite so far --- yet. (USA Today, however, has opted to begin describing these murderers as "holy warriors," though; see this article regarding the "Fort Dix Six.")


Then, one comes to page 12 in the same section --- opposite the beginning of the editorial section --- and sees an incendiary, full-page ad for something called the "Council for the National Interest Foundation."

Wow, now that's a name, eh? Hm, could it be standing up against the illegal immigrant tidal wave rushing over our borders? Perhaps a group that is studying how to avoid the impending financial collapse of our welfare-state schemes? Or maybe...?

Nope. It's an ad depicting for a 501(c)(3) foundation (translation: tax-exempt charity), which starts with a cartoon depicting all of the top candidates for president rushing over each other to speak before AIPAC, the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee. Yes, the very same AIPAC that radical Islamist front groups in America (CAIR*, MPAC, ICNA, MSA) routinely decry as owning and controlling the U.S. Congress, etc. (*CAIR being now named an unindicted co-conspirator in a jihadist terrorist funding scheme; but hey, let's not be too unpleasant by pointing out such discomforting facts)

See it for yourself. Then, if you're really feeling brave, see this video on the history of how Islamist murderers have infiltrated and sought to dominate/have achieved dominance over other cultures, for 1,400 years. Also, see AIPAC's explanation of how Israel happened to "occupy" these territories --- which it took from Arabs when three of their military forces were lined up on Israel's borders, ready to pulverize and conquer the Jewish state.

But alas, thanks to propaganda like that which has been enabled by the NY Times, and Jew-hating allies who now rank among the most vicious, anti-American, anti-Israeli leftist organizations (also see JQWorld story, "The Hidden Truth Behind The 'Peace' Marchers"), the lies and misrepresentations against Israel just percolate along, without any real substantive opposition. Well, except this group of counter-protesters, who will be meeting the CNI forces on the DC Mall, today.

After the New York Times' recent bouts of unmistakable dhimmitude, burying and whitewashing stories concerning radical Islamism at home and abroad, well, I guess this shouldn't be much of a surprise.

But I'm an optimist. Call me surprised. Especially when one considers that this outrageous, full-page advertisement (which the NYT charges a fortune for) was positioned only 5 PAGES after the article about Rutka Laskier. Then again, given the fact that the NY Times' profits are falling* faster than Bill Clinton's zipper at a drunken sorority party, I guess they really do need the money --- no matter who it comes from. (*down 26% in 1st quarter 2007 alone)

UPDATE: AtlasShrugs2000 has video of the CNI protesters --- and the counter-protesters --- HERE. Wow, when was the last time you heard of Jews/Israelis being referred to as Nazis? Oh, right --- the last time the rabid jihadist-appeasing American leftists got together for one of their many "peace" marches. See Zombie's site, here, for the gruesome details.

UPDATE 2: AgeOfHooper has video and more pictures here; also, seems that the international ideological convergence between radical (America-hating) Islamists and radical (America-hating) leftists is proceeding apace; details at GatewayPundit, here.


Moving along now to page 16 of the main section of today's paper, we come to this headline: "Palestinians Attempt to Capture Israeli Soldier."

I see. This couldn't be those "Palestinians" that we are told day after day are seeking peace, that our tax dollars are going to support and arm, right? Well, of course not. And "capture" --- hm, interesting choice of words.

The NY Times wouldn't happen to mean, "kidnap," then "hold for ransom, to compel Israel to release butchering jihadists who've been captured and prosecuted (see Issue 2, above), and if they don't get their way, to murder the 'captured' Israeli soldier," now would they? Let's look at the article copy, shall we?

At least four Palestinian gunmen using an armored vehicle and grenade launchers broke through Israel’s border fence from Gaza on Saturday and fought a gun battle with Israeli soldiers, while Israeli troops entered Gaza near the southern town of Rafah to search for weapons and tunnels used to smuggle arms and explosives from Egypt.

One of the Palestinian gunmen was shot dead after the armored vehicle, labeled “TV,” crashed through the border fence at the old Kissufim crossing, near Deir el Balah, according to the Israeli Army. A spokesman for
Islamic Jihad, Abu Ahmed, said three of the four gunmen had returned to Gaza, and the intention had been to try to capture an Israeli soldier.

Wow, well, that phrasing --- "capture" --- comes directly from the mouth of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, one of the most vicious, bloodthirsty, diabolical radical gangs of Islamist murderers in the world. And the NY Times just runs with his description; after all, it certainly comes from a real authority-figure, a credible source, right? (FYI, look up the definition of "dhimmitude" sometime). Moving on...

The attack evoked the Hamas raid into Israel a year ago, in which several Israeli soldiers were killed and another, Cpl. Gilad Shalit, was captured. He is still being held somewhere in Gaza. Negotiations for a prisoner exchange have been intermittent but have faltered over Hamas demands for prisoners Israel does not want to release.

Ah yes, more word-games. Now, we are supposed to believe that bloodthirsty, sadistic convicted murderers (like Samir al-Quantar, in Issue 2, above) should be referred to as "prisoners," and being in the same category as Israeli soldiers that are kidnapped by these same murderers. Equivocation on a UN-multiculturalist-worshipping scale, I do believe. And those mean Israelis don't want to release scum like al-Quantar, so they can resume crushing the skulls of 4-year-old Israeli children in front of their parents (who they then murder, too). Now there's a shocker. Moving on...

He (Abu Ahmed) said the raid had been carried out with the help of members of the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades, affiliated with Fatah.

The intention, he (Ahmed) said afterward, was to kidnap an Israeli soldier but the mission failed.

Waaaaiiiittttt a second. I thought just a few paragraphs ago, Ahmed said that the mission was to "capture" an Israeli soldier --- as confirmed by the NY Times, "the newspaper of record?" (Note to NY Times' Dhimmi Standards & Practices Division: Better get your act together and not let any more of these accurate terms slip through, or no more bloodthirsty jihadist interviews for you!!!)

And wait... did that passage say that the raid had been assisted by a group affiliated with Fatah? Wait... I thought Fatah was the "peace-seeking," "moderate" wing of the Palestinian government --- which
your tax dollars and mine are going to support and arm against... uhmm... right... the "radical Muslim" side of the equation, headed by (Iran-supported) Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad??? Now I'm confused. Are U.S. dollars and weaponry ($86.4 million, to be precise - but hey, who's counting?) being used in part to help attack/capture/kidnap/murder Israelis? Back to the story...

Islamic Jihad, a small radical military group supported largely by Iran, has always rejected any sort of cease-fire with Israel and carried out all four successful suicide bombing attacks in Israel in 2006.

"A small radical military group," eh? Wow, sounds just like the Continental Army led by George Washington in our Revolutionary War, eh? Very patriotic and noble-sounding, eh? Gooooooooddddddd dhimmi, good dhimmi.

NT Times, you could have labeled Islamic Jihad as "a bloodthirsty gang of murderers who seek nothing short of the destruction of Israel and the wholesale slaughter of Jews..." (or at least something approximating that definition), but thank goodness you didn't. Your pipeline to quotes from the blood-drenched hands of jihadist butchers is still intact.


Now, moving to page 3 of the International section, we come to this jewel: "Trinidad Group Denies Link To New York Bomb Plot." Well, this must be the first time in history that a gang of murderers (or murder facilitators) has denied involvement in the crime for which they are being investigated. The article begins:

One senior member of this island’s most hard-line Islamic group said he loves American television and hopes to send his son off to university in the States. Another said that when he is not praying or preaching, he plays in a steel drum band.

Cool!!! How often do you get a radical Islamist (Muslim supremacist) who also violates one of the strictest rules in Islamism --- playing music? And gosh, he even wants to send his son off to study at one of America's institutions of higher learning? Give him an American flag --- or perhaps, a chemistry set? Maybe some firearms training? How about a job as a JFK baggage handler, you know, to earn some pocket money during his studies? Continuing...

Denying that their group, Jamaat al Muslimeen, was tied to any plot to bomb a New York City airport, members this week portrayed themselves as both Islamists and islanders, devoted to God but also part of the multicultural mix that defines the Caribbean nation of Trinidad and Tobago.

Even as they did, the fiery imam who has long been the Jamaat’s public face ducked out the back of the mosque. That man, Yasin Abu Bakr, who once led a violent coup attempt here in 1990, faces trial next week for sedition and extortion and oversees a group with a reputation for thuggishness.

"Thuggishness," eh? Hm, somehow I wouldn't associate that word with the description that follows later:

Jamaat officials said two of the suspects had visited their mosque, but they dismissed the notion that a real terrorist operation was in progress and that their group was part of it.

“We don’t subscribe to that — this randomly blowing up of people,” said Kala Akii-Bua, Jamaat’s social welfare officer and the leader of a steel drum orchestra, adding, “I have a lot of respect for the security forces of America.”

Jamaat al Muslimeen, which has about 1,000 members in Trinidad, has long been the region’s most controversial Islamic organization.

Well now THAT'S a relief!!! Jamaat al Muslimeen apparently supports blowing people up on a deliberate, targeted basis... but ("Rain Man" voice here) certainly, definitely not "randomly" blowing people up. That would be veeeerrryyy uncouth, and might even lead to a weakly-worded rebuke from a UN committee. And thank goodness, he respects our security forces.

We can all sleep much more soundly knowing all this, eh? And heck, when was the last time you heard of the leader of a steel-drum "orchestra"* blowing up people at random??? Yeah, me neither. (*see definition of "orchestra,"

At what was perhaps the height of its radicalism nearly two decades ago, Jamaat established ties with Libya when it was considered by Washington to be a terrorist state and dispatched armed fighters to take over Trinidad and Tobago’s Parliament.

Since that raid, which left two dozen people dead, the prime minister with a bullet wound to the leg and the police headquarters in ashes after a car bombing, Jamaat claims to have transformed itself.

Transformed itself... into WHAT?

After seizing power for about a week, Mr. Abu Bakr and his 100 or so followers were charged with murder, treason and other charges stemming from the coup. But a court dropped the charges after ruling that the men had been pardoned by the then-president.

...(B)ut even since his pardon, Mr. Abu Bakr, who was born Lennox Phillips and converted to Islam while studying in Canada in the 1970s, has repeatedly run afoul of the authorities here.

Next week Mr. Abu Bakr faces trial on charges of sedition and extortion, stemming from an explosive sermon he delivered in 2005, threatening war against fellow Muslims who did not follow the Islamic law of handing over part of their income.

Wow. Just a peaceful, peace-seeking (radical) imam. Wonder how many of those peaceful, peace-seeking imams are now preaching in mosques in America? Continuing...

Shortly after the 2005 fiery sermon, the authorities raided the Jamaat compound in search of what they suspected was a large cache of weapons hidden underground. Using a jackhammer to bash in Mr. Abu Bakr’s office and dig through his concrete floor, police officers found a rifle, a grenade and hundreds of rounds of ammunition.

In another case, a member of Jamaat was found guilty in Miami in 2005 of trying to smuggle 70 submachine guns and 10 silencers to Trinidad from the United States.

Wow, again. When was the last time you heard of a priest, rabbi or other spiritual leader in America or elsewhere being part of a heavily-armed murder gang, which "declared war" against followers who wouldn't follow its orders to surrender part of their incomes? Hm.

And whatever could those weapons being illegally imported from the US be for? Last time I heard, you don't need a silencer-equipped submachine gun to hunt rabbits... or anything other than, well, humans. Continuing...

Jamaat said it is focused on domestic matters, assisting the many people who are left out of the economic boom here and shielding its faithful from Trinidad’s famed Carnival.

Gosh. A socially-conscious, murderous sect of religious "thugs." Kind of sounds like how Hezbollah won such loyalty among the poor and socially-conscious politicians in Lebanon, eh? (as described at JQWorld, here). Handing out welfare aid (provided by Iran) with hands still dripping with the blood of innocent civilians. Almost poetic (in a hellish sense).

Lastly, given that the NY Times boasts of its top-tier level of objective, socially-conscious "journalists," do you think it would have been worthwhile for the writer or the Times' editors to inject the definition of taquiyya into this article? For those unaware of that word, permit me to provide the definition:

Short definition of taquiyya: The Koranic-sanctioned use of denial and deception in order to clandestinely advance the imposition of shari'a, the repressive Islamist code that dictates all aspects of personal conduct and social policy, upon an unsuspecting culture

Detailed definition of taquiyya: See Robert Spencer's article here, and Hugh Fitzgerald's article here, both courtesy of JihadWatch

You don't suppose that a fine, upstanding,socially-conscious, steel-drum-playing imam like Mr. Abu Bakr would engage in taquiyya, would you?

Nah, me neither.

The NY Times certainly paints him as a downright lovable fellow --- you know, a misunderstood rascal --- who has seen the error of his previously-brutal jihadist ways. And heck, his colleagues are even ready to send their kids to study in America (which they claim to admire --- well, at least our television and security, anyway).



Well, not quite. Like previous JonQuixoteWorld threads examining the NY Times, I'll be forwarding this one to its ombudsman for review.

Like it or not, the NY Times still wields great influence in our culture and beyond --- for good or ill --- and as an optimist, I remain hopeful that perhaps one day, its editors and writers will begin to present stories on issues concerning Islamism and jihad in a responsible, complete and (dare I say) balanced manner.

Hey, one can hope, right?

Have a nice day.


Here is the email I sent to the NY Times' obmudsman (

(Subject line): Complaint re NYT coverage of jihadist/radical Islamist issues

To the executives and editors at the New York Times:

I believe you would do yourselves, your readers, America and the global struggle against radical Islamism a service by reading and really considering this blogthread:
The NY Times’ Schizophrenic Quasi-Dhimmitude

Your paper pulls no punches when it goes after anything it dislikes and disagrees with. I hope you'll respect my pull-no-punches criticism of how you play these stories. The NY Times is certainly not the lone target of my criticism re how jihadist and radical Islamist issues are being dealt with in America - see below:
Jihadist-Enabling MSM, Part 1,247 - The Washington Post
Roundup Of Western Government-Enforced Dhimmitude

I sincerely hope that you'll consider the data and viewpoints in these threads.


Note: I am not expecting a (real) reply, but the auto-reply I received stated the following:

Thank you for contacting the Public Editor. An associate or I read every message. Because of the volume of e-mail, we cannot respond personally to every message, but we forward many messages to appropriate newsroom staffers and follow up to be sure concerns raised in those messages are treated with serious consideration. If a further reply is warranted, you will be hearing from us shortly.

Hey, at least now the NY Times can't say it wasn't provided with a detailed chronicle of what it's doing, right?

Now, the question is: What will they do with
"all the criticism that's fit to... consider?"

Original content is © Copyright 2007 by Jon Quixote. Email to