Subscribe: JonQuixoteWorld
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade B rated
Language: English
america  american  cair  democrats  government  iraq  islamist  jqworld  made  military  people  political  president  war  western 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: JonQuixoteWorld



Last Build Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 18:02:23 +0000


The Woman Who Should Have Won The Nobel Peace Prize

Mon, 15 Oct 2007 02:22:00 +0000


Contrary to the pathological liar-propagandist who received the (once-honored) Nobel Peace Prize this year, no one on the face of the Earth is more deserving of this award than Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Perhaps at some point in the future, those who appoint the people who stand in judgment of an individual's contributions to a more peaceful, prosperous and just society, will begin to apply and honor something resembling an objective standard to their criteria. For if that had happened in years past, this remarkable woman would have been the hands-down winner this year.

As you watch these videos, ask yourself: How is it that a woman who courageously stood up to and broke free of the bonds of physical and psychological oppression, such as Ms. Hirsi-Ali, is unknown to all but a handful of Americans --- and most tragically, to young Americans? Who is more deserving of recognition and encouragement --- even if you disagree with her --- Ms. Hirsi-Ali, or any of the supposed "role models" for young people that litter our magazines, radio stations, TV programs and movies? Who is truly advocating peace --- and who is advocating, enabling and even justifying things that can only lead to conflict, and the subversion of freedom?

Editorializing is over. Sit back, and enjoy:






JQWorld Exclusive: Charlie Manson To Speak At Columbia!!!

Tue, 25 Sep 2007 15:35:00 +0000

.CHARLIE MANSON TO SPEAK AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITYOffer to be made once mass-murdering psychopath is paroled, and appointed as head of a new, tolerant nation: "Nutjobistan" . JQWorldNewsDateline: September 25, 2007Continuing its recent tradition of embracing “diversity” and “dialogue” and “tolerance” to foster global peace, Columbia University will soon announce that it will be sponsoring a speech by convicted mass-murderer Charlie Manson at some point in the near future.In a pre-release statement obtained by a secret source inside this prestigious institution, JQWorld has learned that Columbia University Dean John Coatsworth – who recently hosted a speech by Iranian madman Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and said that if Adolph Hitler were alive, he’d sponsor a speech by him as well – is planning to announce: “Yes, Mr. Manson has something of a checkered past, and has demonstrated numerous anti-social tendencies."But it’s recently come to our attention that in conjunction with the UN, the European Union --- in order to create a nurturing, supportive environment for the most psychopathic members of our global family --- will be establishing a tiny, new nation in its midst, that will be exclusively occupied and run by criminally insane Jew-haters and America-bashers: Nutjobistan.“Through sources within the EU’s senior leadership, I’ve also learned that to facilitate cross-cultural understanding, the constituent members of the future Nutjobistan have indicated that there is only one man in a position to lead this new, young nation: convicted mass-murderer Charlie Manson, assuming he is paroled soon. And to ensure that this election runs smoothly, I’ve learned that former president Jimmy Carter has volunteered to travel to Nutjobistan, to oversee ballot-counting.“As part of my role to inculcate our students with a greater appreciation not only for the world they’re about to inherit, but also of the most troubled people that inhabit it, I’ve made the decision that once Mr. Manson is duly elected as President of Nutjobistan, Columbia would be happy to sponsor a speech by him."To those who say that a taxpayer-subsidized American university as prestigious as Columbia should not be hosting a speech by a person such as Mr. Manson, I ask them: Does not the advancement of cross-cultural understanding benefit our young people? Does not Mr. Manson have a right to redeem himself? And do we, as a leading research institution, not have a moral obligation to help facilitate, in a nurturing, positive environment, the healing that Mr. Manson so obviously yearns for?“I therefore urge our critics to find some sympathy within themselves, and not be so intolerant of, and closed-minded to Columbia’s efforts in outreach and diplomacy. After all, Mr. Manson will soon be the elected leader of the newest member of our family of nations --- should we not extend every courtesy to its legitimate leader?"A JQWorldNews reporter made contact with Dean Coatsworth, and asked if Columbia would be also willing to host speeches by other prominent national figures such as President Bush, former UN Ambassador John Bolton, or Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice. Coatsworth responded: “Are you (expletive) crazy??? Of course not. They’re all a bunch of mass-murdering, fascist neocons, who are hell-bent on enslaving the world for their own greed. They have absolutely no understanding of cross-cultural dialogue, and believe that military might is the answer to every problem --- especially with maniacal, terror-sponsoring dictators who lust after nuclear weapons. Heck, didn't you see what our tolerant, inclusive, peace-seeking, dialogue-cherishing student body did to the founder of the Minuteman Project, when he came to speak at Columbia last year? We don't take kindly to people who stand on principle, and for the defense of the American people around here.”When our reporter pointed out that this description is actually much more appropriate to figures such as Hitler, Ahmadinejad and Manson, Coatsworth angr[...]

A Culture Of Corruption (and Betrayal), Indeed...

Fri, 21 Sep 2007 15:25:00 +0000


Senate votes to condemn slander ad against Gen. Petraeus;
25 Democratic senators, afraid to stand up to, vote against measure

American Thinker analysis here, with note on how Obama abstained from vote

(image), which claims it has "bought, paid for and owns" the Democratic Party, is now organizing vicious retaliation campaigns against any Democrat who votes against it, or refuses to submit to its "surrender Iraq to al Qaeda" line

In bow of submission, Democrats now expected to resume their "daily call for surrender" with and other seething, America-hating, leftist pressure groups

Sen. John McCain echoes JonQuixoteWorld question: If Democrats can't even stand up to, how are they going to stand up against jihadists?


For a comprehensive chronicle of the Democrats' betrayal of America and our soldiers, and their emboldening of jihadists, see the following original JQWorld essays:

"But They Support Our Troops --- No, Really!!!" Parts I & II

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


Part I: But They Support Our Troops - No, Really!!!

Mon, 17 Sep 2007 15:50:00 +0000

.Summary:This is a two-part blogpost that documents how key figures in the Democratic Party, and the leftist anti-war groups who claim they now “own” it, have been subverting America’s war on Islamist terror – and the U.S. soldiers who are fighting it – despite their continued protestations that they “support our troops.”The mainstream media (MSM) has failed (some would say refused) to hold Democrats accountable for their subversive actions and blatant hypocrisy. Therefore, it is up to individual bloggers (like me) to do the MSM’s job. Part I (this essay) provides a narrative background and summary of the Democratic Party’s subversions since soon after the start of the Iraq war.Part II provides a detailed, sourced chronology and background of the statements of (a) leading Democrats, (b) America’s military and intelligence agency leaders, and (c) al Qaeda and other militant Islamist groups – all in a timeline that enables the reader to instantly see the relationships between them.==============================================Whether in a boxing match or a military confrontation, there is one guiding principle that transcends time, culture and language: the first one to leave the theater of conflict before it is concluded, loses.When one of the opponents, however, claims a divine right to not only beat, but to snuff the life out of his adversary, this principle takes on added, timeless significance – because there surely will be another confrontation between them. And when that confrontation comes to pass – all else being equal – the one who remained in the “theater” will be at a significant, if not overwhelming psychological advantage. For as reality-based strategists and tacticians know, the ability to break the will of an opponent in physical or intellectual combat is often more important than other, traditional assets.Modern philosophers, linguists, political spin-doctors and coffee shop pundits can do all the mental gymnastics they want, in an attempt to obfuscate this principle – but nothing changes its validity, as has been proven time after time throughout history.Similarly, when a nation commits its military forces to a conflict, there are only two moral actions it can take once this decision is made:(a) To encourage and enable its military to defeat the enemy as quickly and thoroughly as possible (b) To stop military action if the nation can no longer justify the missionIn a nation such as America, with two (or more) major political parties, it is incumbent upon each party’s respective members to conduct debates and public presentations concerning international conflicts with accuracy, dignity and candor, while always being mindful of their patriotic duty. This principle becomes even more important as the significance of the conflict increases.If the members of one of those parties, however, cannot conduct themselves in this manner, then it is up to their colleagues, as well as political journalists and others (especially educators) to pick up the slack, and hold them to account.But what happens, in the midst of an international conflict: When one party foments and pursues a scorched-earth propaganda campaign, in which they are willing to say and do anything, no matter how vile, demonstrably untrue, or subversive --- up to and including even echoing the enemy's propaganda --- in order to achieve and maintain power? . When a cadre of influential journalists not only grants that party a cloak of immunity from criticism, but actually joins in their propaganda campaign?When that political party (along with said “journalists”) uses its propaganda to demoralize their nation’s military, intelligence and law enforcement personnel, and undermines their capabilities, while emboldening and even morally justifying its enemies?The answer is: You get the grotesque spectacle that is facing us today, courtesy of (a) the Democratic Party, and (b) the gang of seething, America-hating, jihadist-appeasing lefti[...]

Part II: But They Support Our Troops - No, Really!!!

Mon, 17 Sep 2007 15:47:00 +0000

.Please see Part I of this post for a detailed background and structural explanation of this follow-up post.Tip: For best viewing of this post, close out your Favorites sidebar to maximize screen width. ________________________________________________BACKGROUND: DEMOCRATS ON IRAQ, 1992-2003________________________________________________ September 29, 1992: Al Gore blasts President Bush for not taking out Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War, due to the threat he posed to America, and his involvement in and support of terrorism:In this video, Gore, then a candidate in the home-stretch of the 1992 presidential campaign, was addressing the Center for National Policy in Washington. In the course of accusing the Bush administration of allegedly betraying America by allowing the Saddam/Iraq menace to fester --- desite the fact that the UN resolution for the Gulf War only permitted coalition forces to drive Saddam out of Kuwait, and no more --- Gore was articulating the (supposed) tougher line that the Democrats would take on issues such as this, if elected in a mere five weeks.What Gore forgot (or refused) to mention, amidst all of his faux-principles, is that as a Senator in 1990, he threatened to vote against the war if Republican Senators Dole and Simpson didn't give him 20 minutes of prime-time on the Senate floor. In summary, Gore sold his vote for the war for a purely self-aggrandizing spotlight moment, in preparation for his own run for the Presidency in 1992.Did the fact that the mainstream media refused to expose this fact, then or since, have anything to do with Al Gore's confidence in telling such a long string of lies and distortions from that point, until this very day? One wonders.-----------------------------NEXT, here is a montage of statements by top Democrats from the early 1990s all the way through 2003, expressing the grave, gathering threat that Saddam Hussein was becoming, why the U.S. has to act against him, and in 2002-2003, justifying America's military action against Iraq, especially in our post-9/11 world:As is noted in Part I of this post, every last one of these Democrats knew, or had an obligation to know two things:(1) That once Congress "pulled the trigger" on military action against Iraq, under the U.S. Constitution, it would have to stand by that decision until the Commander-In-Chief pulled our soldiers out (or unless they voted to cut off the funding).(2) That the intelligence upon which they claimed their statements were based upon was reliable and verified.Read all the key quotes here.-------------------------------------- This vital background information and context, and that which is contained in Part I of this post, will prepare you to review and appreciate the significance of the following.The remainder of this post documents the systemic subversion and denial that many of these very same Democrats committed against America, our soldiers and our national security, since soon after the 2003 invasion of Iraq (which most of them voted for), until this very day.________________________________________________BACKGROUND: JUNE 2005 - AUGUST 2006________________________________________________ June 14, 2005Sen. Richard Durbin, (D-IL):"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime--Pol Pot or others--that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners." (See notes 1-3)June 17, 2005Al-JazeeraHeadline: US Senator Stands By Nazi Remark: "A US senator has refused to apologise for comparing the actions of US soldiers at Guantanamo Bay to those of Nazis, while others have decried or defended the mandate and method used to hold prisoners there.US Senator Dick Durbin on Wednesday refused to apologise for comments he mad[...]

Is John McCain Reading JQWorld???

Mon, 17 Sep 2007 00:57:00 +0000


It would seem this is a distinct possibility.

On March 11, 2007, JQWorld featured an original article,
"Dems Surrender To; What Chance Have They Against Jihad?"

From CNN, today:

Republican presidential candidate John McCain criticized the field of Democratic presidential hopefuls Sunday for failing to apologize for the controversial advertisement that referred to General David Petraeus as “General Betray Us.”

“Now, they acknowledge that [Petraeus] is an honorable and fine military man, but they refuse to repudiate,” McCain said of the Democrats. “And as you say, if you can’t stand up to them, how can you stand up to the tough challenges that are presented to you as President of the United States? I don’t know the answer to that.”


Now, I wonder when the mainstream media is going to ask the Democrats who "support our troops" and "want to fight the real war on terror," how they're going to do so when they can't even stand up to a gang of America-hating, jihad-appeasing leftoons in Birkenstocks?

But then, the MSM would have to stop acting like panting lapdogs to all things with a (D) next to them, first.

JQWorlders are optimists, though. We can hope.

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


Another Pop Quiz for JQWorld Readers

Fri, 07 Sep 2007 11:45:00 +0000

.Here's another pop quiz: Who said the following?"I would say (we need to send another) 20,000 to 30,000 (troops to Iraq), for the specific purpose of making sure those (Islamist & insurgent) militias are dismantled, working in concert with the Iraqi military…"(W)e certainly can’t leave Iraq and run the risk that it becomes (like) Afghanistan… (W)e could not allow Iraq to become a safe haven for Al Qaeda, for Hamas, for Hizbullah, or anybody else. We cannot allow Iran or Syria to have a free hand in there to further destabilize the Middle East."We’re all interested in getting out of Iraq. That’s a common goal. How we do it, I think, is the tough part. There are those that say, they don’t care what Iraq looks like once we leave there. ‘Let’s just leave there,’ (they say). And I argue against that. I don’t think that’s responsible. And I think it plays right into the hands of Syria and Iran.” Is the correct answer: (a) President Bush(b) Vice President Cheney(c) Secretary of State Rice(d) A representative of Halliburton(e) A conservative Republican Senator or Representative(f) Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity(g) William Kristol / another signatory of the PNAC(h) A FreeRepublic / TownHall “warmongering chickenhawk coward”(i) Another “brainwashed fascist warmonger”Give up?OK, I admit --- it was a trick question.None of the above uttered that quote.Scroll down for the real culprit.No, further.Answer: Congressman Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas) said that, on December 6, 2006, shortly after it was announced that incoming “Speaker” Nancy Pelosi was going to appoint him to be Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. And unironically, Reyes's statement was made just before President Bush made almost the exact same statement --- an act that leading Democrats claimed he should be impeached for.Which begs the question: Is this why we haven’t heard anything further from Chairman Reyes?The only people in the Democratic Party that we’ve heard from (almost exclusively) have been those who’ve echoed the party line of defeat, surrender and withdrawl.Stay tuned to JQWorld in the next few days for a new, blockbuster analysis of the shameless way in which the rabid left in America:Has been so instrumental in subverting the American military's efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and encouraging our enemies .Hopes to use such lies and propaganda in preparation for and after the release of "The Petraeus Report," to snatch a final, definitive defeat from the jaws of the remarkable progress that US forces have been making in those theaters Original content is © Copyright 2007 by Jon Quixote. Email to[...]

A Pop Quiz For JQWorld Readers

Thu, 06 Sep 2007 13:39:00 +0000


OK, JQWorld readers --- here's a pop quiz: Who said the following?

"The war in Iraq makes millions of dollars for big corporations, either weapons manufacturers or those working in the reconstruction, such as Halliburton and its sister companies. It is crystal clear who benefits from igniting the fire of this war and this bloodshed. They are the merchants of war, the bloodsuckers who run the policy of the world from behind the scenes: President Bush and his ilk, (and) the media giants."

Is the correct answer:

(a) A Democratic Congressman/woman

(b) A Democratic Senator


(d) CodePink

(e) International ANSWER

(f) Worker's World Party (socialists)

(g) Communist Party USA

(h) A HuffingtonPost / DailyKos / Democratic Underground resident blogger

(i) Michael Moore / Susan Sarandon / some other Hollywood "star"

(j) Another America-hating domestic organization/individual

Give up?

OK, I admit --- it was a trick question.

None of the above uttered that quote.

Scroll down for the real culprit.

No, further.

Answer: Osama bin Laden said that, on April 15, 2004.

Which begs the question, as carbon-copy statements have been and remain a rallying cry for the rabid left in America:

Does bin Laden get his talking points from the them --- or do they get theirs from him?

Does it really matter?

Yes, it does --- a lot.

Stay tuned to JQWorld in the next few days for a new, blockbuster analysis of the shameless way in which the rabid left in America:

  • Has been so instrumental in subverting the American military's efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and encourage our enemies .

  • Hopes to use such lies and propaganda in preparation for and after the release of "The Petraeus Report," to snatch a final, definitive defeat from the jaws of the remarkable progress that US forces have been making in those theaters

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


Michael Vick Does The Linguistic Twist

Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:15:00 +0000

.Oh, for the days when words actually meant things. Specific things. When they had objective definitions.But as George Orwell foresaw, when government controls education and communications, a culture's language is generally the first thing to suffer the assault; "war is peace," and so on. In a thousand ways, we are now witnessing the cashing-in of this phenomena, right here in America.Today, we have the grotesque spectacle of Michael Vick, who, to the casual observer, should have been on top of the world --- a mega million dollar NFL career, good looks, and all the material comforts, prosperity and security that America's race hustlers and victim-crats (white, black, red and brown) keep saying are eluding minorities.But all that wasn't quite enough for Vick.No, he had to go and commit unspeakable acts of barbarous cruelty to dogs, that amounted to torture*. And when these dogs had no further use for him and his depraved friends, they killed them with their own, bare hands. (*I normally supplement my posts with appropriate pictures, but in this case, I don't have the stomach for it; just Google "Vick dogfighting" and you'll see what I'm talking about; don't do this if you've just eaten, or ever plan to eat again)As a dog lover and one who works in the legal field, upon hearing stories like this is the past, I have expressed to friends my belief that maniacs who perpetrate this level of barbarity upon creatures as sentient and loving as dogs should be subjected to the exact type of abuse that they dished out. Especially if it is being done for no purpose other than one’s own amusement, or for something as petty as gambling.(And as one who recently recovered from a near-death situation, I cannot even begin to express my renewed sense of appreciation for my own dog, and how much she has helped me through this, just by her being... her).We have a “civil” justice system, however, that would not permit such “cruel and unusual punishment.” So in all likelihood, Vick will only have to pay a hefty fine (for the abuse, and the gambling), serve time in a safe, warm prison cell, and then live out the rest of his life in some degree of luxury and security.But Vick and his sleazeball attorney weren’t quite through perpetrating their outrages. No, they had to go just a bit further, and in a classic case of Clintonian double-speak, claim that he "accepts full responsibility" for this “mistake.” From the Orlando Sentinel: Vick's lead attorney, William "Billy" Martin, issued a statement on Monday."After consulting with his family over the weekend, Michael Vick asked that I announce today that he has reached an agreement with federal prosecutors regarding the charges pending against him. Mr. Vick has agreed to enter a plea of guilty to those charges and to accept full responsibility for his actions and the mistakes he has made. Michael wishes to apologize again to everyone who has been hurt by this matter," the statement said.A “mistake.”(But Vick's attorney wasn't the only one to use this misnomer; so did the LA Times, and the Minneapolis Star-Tribune)Let’s be clear: A “mistake” is when one is walking through a park and inadvertently steps in dog squeeze. Or, when one accidentally enters the wrong figure in his checkbook. A “mistake” is not what happens when one is walking down the street and deliberately punches a person in the face. Or when one betrays the trust and confidence of a friend who'd done her no wrong. Or when a top-level political leader sticks his, ahem, you know, into the mouth of an intern entrusted to his supervision (“Mistakes were made…”).Or when one deliberately brutalizes, injures, disfigures and then kills dogs. No, that is the trademark sign of a sadistic son of a bitch.Hey, Michael Vick: I sure hope no “mistakes” happen to you while you’re serving time in the[...]

August 6 Update to Roundup Of Western Government-Enforced Dhimmitude

Mon, 06 Aug 2007 19:07:00 +0000

.This is the July 31 - August 6 update to the master directory, Roundup Of Western Government-Enforced Dhimmitude: Hat-tips to fans of JQWorld who've sent in story links, and to stories sourced from the real heavy-lifters who document these things, primarily JihadWatch, DhimmiWatch, Daniel Pipes, AmericanThinker, LittleGreenFootballs, AtlasShrugs2000, The Jawa Report, Family Security Matters, The Gathering Storm and BrusselsJournal. -------------------------------------------(Taxpayer-funded) Cambridge University Press (UK) bends over, grabs ankles to placate super-wealthy Saudi prince who's been funding jihadist terror for decades, claims it will destroy all books it published documenting his actsU.S. taxpayer funds were going to support Hamas murderers, until it was recently stopped (tip-of-the-iceberg alert from JQWorld)(Taxpayer-funded) NYC madrasses principal tied to "Intifada NYC" t-shirt; calls US foreign policy "racist;" but this school will absolutely, positively not engage in any kind of political propaganda --- nope, none, promise!Weeks after Bush admin announces plans to send diplomat to "learn from" OIC, including Muslim Brotherhood, jihadist terror-funding case in TX (with CAIR as unindicted co-conspirator) reveals Muslim Brotherhood's long-term planning statement to convert U.S. into Islamist-dominated nation(Taxpayer-funded) British health system: UK burn victims must wait for special treatment, we have a murderous follower of... no particular religion, who attempted to blow up Glasgow airport, to treat first!!!(Taxpayer-funded) British elementary school teacher tells 10-year-olds to write “Allah is the greatest,” and “I bear witness that there is no God but Allah,” for "handwriting practice."French Dhimmitude, Part 9,336? Report - France selling advanced weaponry to Libya, helping to arrange for release of Lockerbie bomber from EnglandEuro-Socialists formalize their dhimmitude; aim to use power of government to stamp out "Islamophobia" (a/k/a free speech)CAIR-salivation alert:(Taxpayer-funded) Heterosexual San Diego firefighters forced to march in "Gay Pride" parade, file discrimination suit in response (JQWorld: Based on this precedent and others [here, here, here, here] how long will it be before CAIR and its admiring leftist apologists begin requiring anti-Islamist police officers, college professors, civil servants to march in "Jihad Pride" parades?)Spanish Foreign Minister: Admires Iran's "constructive and effective role" in resolving conflicts in Middle East (JQWorld: Hm, wonder if this shocking European demographic data might have something to do with Spain's dhimmitude? In other news, militant Islamist attacks on Spanish cilivian train stations on 3/7/04 to be airbrushed out of Spain's schoolbooks, in act of "friendliness towards our Muslim overlords, er... neighbors.")British police ignore video of radical imams who preach hatred, violence, urge takeover of Britain by followers of... no particular religion; videographers who filmed them --- notOriginal content is © Copyright 2007 by Jon Quixote. Email to[...]

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

Sun, 05 Aug 2007 13:23:00 +0000

."He-men" have been celebrated throughout time for standing up and acting on principle, in the face of danger and consternation. Usually, their acts of bravery involve standing up to only a single foe, or a small group of bullies/miscreants/psychopaths.But this week, Americans and freedom-loving people everywhere were shown what true courage is all about, when two men --- one, a seasoned truth-teller, the other, a younger spokesman for a national civic organization --- stood up to domestic Islamists (and their attorneys, and the mainstream media and academic and political "intelligentsia" that continually whitewash, defend and obfuscate for them) --- Robert Spencer of JihadWatch, and Jason Mattera of the Young America's Foundation.Background:Robert Spencer is the author of numerous books on the nature of the war that Islamists and jihadists have declared on Western civilization in general, and America and Israel in particular. Spencer's websites, JihadWatch and Dhimmi Watch, provide a daily dose of the brutal realities of the deadly foes facing us --- as well as those individuals and groups that appease and enable them, up to and including those at the highest levels of government in America and other Western nations.Spencer was scheduled to speak at the YAF conference on August 2. The day before, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) --- long-documented of having ties to global Islamist terror, and now an unindicted co-conspirator in a jihadist terror financing scheme* --- had their attorney fire off a threatening letter to the YAF, demanding that it cancel Mr. Spencer's speech.(*Background on CAIR here, here, here, here, here)And just several days before that, CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper leveled false and defamatory charges against Spencer on CNN. Trivia:(Q) And who is the attorney that CAIR retained to try to suppress Mr. Spencer's right to free speech, and the YAF's right to host the event, without fear of legal intimidation? In the immortal words of Gomer Pyle, USMC, "Surprise, surprise, surprise!!!"(A) It's none other than the attorney who represents the Democratic National Committee, Joseph E. Sandler.(Yes, that's the same DNC that has been making such a diligent effort to subvert America's war against Islamist terror at every turn, to enable groups like CAIR to sue "John Does" who report suspicious behaviors to law enforcement officials, to chip away at our intelligence agencies' ability to intercept and monitor suspected jihadist communications, and to crush free speech in America by resurrecting the [Un]"Fairness Doctrine.")Perhaps CAIR, Mr. Sandler and their DNC sympathizers were thinking that the YAF would just buckle under in dhimmitude, and comply with their demands --- like so many public and private institutions in America have now made it a practice of doing (see JQWorld's "Roundup Of Western Government-Enforced Dhimmitude").One thing we know for sure: They weren't counting on a steely-spined free-speech advocate like Jason Mattera, spokesman for the YAF, who issued this brief, stunning response to CAIR's and attorney Sandler's "demand" for an answer by the end of the day: (Mattera said) The decision was made to defy CAIR and its demand that Spencer's talk be cancelled. "We will not be intimidated by radical Islamic thugs," Mattera said. "Not only will we let Robert Spencer speak, but we will invite even more people to hear him. We are not going to fluctuate the conference just to suit their demands."And in another statement, Mattera said:"CAIR can go to hell, and they can take their 72 virgins with them.” See the video of the second statement here.Ouch! That's gotta hurt. But that's what a patriotic, free-speech-loving, concerned American sounds like, folks. Perhaps one day we'll have elected leaders and businesspeople [...]

Infidel Hottie Of The Week: Pamela Geller

Fri, 03 Aug 2007 02:40:00 +0000

. The human middle finger is a remarkable appendage, that can be used to do many wonderful things.For example, China is now celebrating Ji Fengshan, 56, who hopes to get into the record books for his ability to pull four cars roped together - using only his middle finger.Mr. Fengshan, however, has nothing on Pamela Geller, creator and webmistress of AtlasShrugs2000. For three years, Pamela has been working hard to root out news items and provide perspective on vital issues and events that the mainstream (in Pamela-speak: "lamestream") news media won't touch with a 10 ft. kaffiya.But on Sunday, July 29, Pamela decided she would use her middle finger to give an up-close and personal voice to to the tens of millions of Americans who are repulsed by Mother Sheehan's disgusting, jihad-endorsing, America-subverting, hero-decrying, Jew-hating, dictator-swooning charade, via the classic one-fingered salute:See Pamela's whole photo-diary of this day's finger-iffic festivities here.And to show that she's a multi-cultural and equal-opportunity offender, be sure to check out Pamela's classic vlog on Hassan Nasrallah, butcher-in-chief of Hezbollah, here. She goes just a bit further than giving that jihadist monster merely her very-articulate finger...Then, there's the weekly podcast radio show that Pamela hosts, "Atlas On The Air," Tuesdays at 9pm EST. Recent podcasts are available for streaming there. Since mid-2006, Pamela has conducted one-on-one interviews with a broad range of people who should be in the news, but aren't (hey, MSM, we understand... the Lindsey Lohan rehab issue, the Britney Spears panty issue, the 2008 presidential money-derby, the... yeah, you get the idea). Here are some of the more notable interviews Pamela has done, that are available for downloading (typically 15MB files):Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA), 2008 presidential candidateReed Rubinstein, attorney who represented Anti-CAIR against CAIR-initiated lawsuitBat Ye'Or, author, "Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis"Evan Coyne Maloney, director of film "Indoctrinate-U"Lt. Col. Allen West, from Kandahar, AfghanistanMark Steyn, author of "America Alone"Dore Gold, former Israeli Ambassador to the United NationsRobert Spencer, author of "The Truth About Muhammed," and creator of websites JihadWatch and DhimmiWatch (named a JQWorld "Infidel He-Man Of The Week," here)"Lionheart UK," a Briton who's been driven out of his home by Pakistani jihadistsDr. Andrew Bostom, author of "The Legacy of Jihad"John Bolton, on the Israeli-Hezbollah "ceasefire" (8/12/06)For her valuable work at AtlasShrugs2000... for possessing (and utilizing!!!) testicular units that put supposed "real men" like Harry Reid, John Edwards, Howard Dean and Bill Clinton to shame... and for being willing to go skin-to-skin* with Mother Sheehan to give the voiceless masses of clear-thinking Americans a voice (*and having to burn her own clothes afterwards)... ...the lovely Pamela Geller is theJonQuixoteWorld INFIDEL HOTTIE OF THE WEEK On a personal note: How Pamela (and Arianna Huffington!?) helped to inspire the creation and development of JonQuixoteWorld.About one year ago, I was almost totally unaware of the personal blogosphere. Then, I saw a link to something called "AtlasShrugs" at HotAir. As an admirer of Ayn Rand, I was curious and clicked... and the rest, as they say, is history.Via AtlasShrugs2000, I was given my first glimpse into the reality of the encroachment and appeasement of Islamism (Muslim supremacism) in America. I had never heard of CAIR, of the linkages between domestic Islamists and murderous jihadists here and elsewhere, and had no idea of the irrefutable "convergence" that is occurring between the lunatic left (including the mainstream media) and radical Islamism, in America and beyond. A[...]

July 30 Update to Roundup Of Western Government-Enforced Dhimmitude

Fri, 27 Jul 2007 00:05:00 +0000

This is the July 24-30 update to the master directory, Roundup Of Western Government-Enforced Dhimmitude: -------------------------------------------SPECIAL FROM NRO/LGF: The Wahabbification of American education; while we're supposedly "at war" with jihadist terror, one of its chief sponsors, Saudi Arabia, has been quietly injecting Islamist-whitewashing, jihadist-appeasing doctrines into U.S. schoolbooks.Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) removes online search tool that helps investors identify and steer clear of companies involved in sponsoring terrorTHE DHIMMICRATIC "YOUTUBE DEBATE": Strangely missing from discussion, the war that militant followers of... no particular religion have declared on the USA and Western civilization. Instead, Dhimmicrats focus on the war they'd rather be fighting --- against Bush, free enterprise, faux "inequality," faux "racism," etc. See analysis at AmericanThinker, HERE, and liveblogging at InfidelsAreCool, HERE.VICTORY!!! (Taxpayer-funded) San Diego elementary school ordered to shut down madrassas, stop Islamist indoctrination; ACLU, MSM: "Yawn... hey, what's the latest with the Lindsay Lohan car chase?"UPDATE: (Taxpayer-funded) NYC madrasses still on track to open in fall 2007; group formed to demand answers; MSM (sans FNC): "Yawn... hey, when does the new season of 'American Idol' start???"JOHN DOE" LAWSUIT PROTECTION UDPATE: After months of leftist Democrats (Dhimmicrats) trying to keep "John Doe" lawsuit protections out of Homeland Security bill (in shameful attempt to win "hearts and minds" of radical Islamists, and hand trial lawyers' lobby a windfall), Repubicans and bloggers fight to keep it in... and it stays in, kinda-sorta... for now.In ironic timing, more suspected jihadists are perpetrating "dry runs" on U.S. airlines... and if Dhimmicrats ultimately get their way, anyone who reports them will face the legal wrath of lawsuits from... dry-run jihadists and their supporters.(Taxpayer-funded) Pace University has student arrested under "hate crimes" for throwing Koran into toilet; CAIR has fit of ecstasy at PU's dhimmitude; militant student followers of... no particular religion who stomp on, burn American & Israeli flags, claim... no particular religion should murder its way to global conquest... not. Updates here, and hereCondi Rice and jihadists agree: Israel must end "occupation" of West Bank (JQWorld: Next --- Jews must be driven into the sea?) Well that was fast!!! After U.S. pushes for Israel to make "goodwill" gesture of releasing 250 Fatah jihadist murderers (on condition that they promise to not murder any more Israeli civilians...), and Israel capitulates... freed Fatah murderers say they won't stop murdering Israeli civilians!!! (Sound FX here: Gomer Pyle - "Surprise, surprise, surpriiiissseee!!!")Mitt Romney: If elected president, I'll try to combat jihad by... imitating Hezbollah!! (well, their welfare-state, anyway)France: Let The Jihadists Have Nukes!!!, Part II: Earlier this year, JQWorld documented how former French president Chirac expressed his support for Iran having nuclear weapons, here; now, the "conservative" Sarkozy is expressing support for terror-supporting Islamist states including Libya to be able to acquire "peaceful" nuclear technology, hereU.S. District Court: Islamist franchisee of Dunkin' Donuts can sue company for requiring him to serve all pork products on menu (JQWorld: By implication, now McDonalds franchisees are cleared to launch massive class-action lawsuit to upend McD's menus in stores owned by militant followers of... no particular religion; hello halal food, goodbye Sausage McMuffin!)(Taxpayer-funded) George Mason University tells non-Muslim students to observe Islamist rules in... non-denominational "medi[...]

Total Dhimmitude In The Great White North

Thu, 26 Jul 2007 00:54:00 +0000

.Fans of JQWorld know that I've assembled an extensive, categorized series of links that document government-enforced dhimmitude in the Western world, here.But some acts of governmental dhimmitude are so egregious, so outrageous, and so close to home, that they deserve special, isolated attention.Such a case was contained in today's Washington Times, below. After reading it, compare it to the following story, and ask yourself: How hard must the radical Islamists, and the jihadists they support, be laughing their asses off at how easily they are totally conquering Canada, without having fired a single shot?.Activist's Remarks About Islam, Sex ProbedThe Washington Times, July 25, 2007Excerpts:SAULT STE. MARIE, Ontario — Organizers of a conservative online forum in Canada say their free-speech rights are under attack after they received a letter saying a complaint has been filed with the Canadian Human Rights Commission.The complaint, filed by a private citizen and accepted for further investigation by the commission, protested a critical posting on the forum's Web site regarding Islam and homosexuality.The remarks were posted on, a sister site to the conservative U.S. forum FreeRepublic, by FreeDominion member Bill Whatcott, a former homosexual prostitute turned outspoken Christian activist.“I can't figure out why the homosexuals I ran into are on the side of the Muslims,” Mr. Whatcott wrote on the Web site. “After all, Muslims who practice Sharia law tend to advocate beheading homosexuals.”He also attributed the worldwide Muslim fury at the Danish Muhammad cartoons to “violence and discrimination inherent in Islamic theology.”The complaint, which has not been made public, reportedly said the posting “has a discriminatory content against Muslims, and Free Dominion contributes to disseminating hate literature by allowing it to be on its Web site.”(.....)If the case does reach adjudication, she said, the tribunal would be empowered under the Canadian Human Rights Act to order the Web site to “cease and desist” the publication of hate speech or to impose a monetary fine.Canadian hate speech laws are more stringent than in the United States and outlaw some remarks that would be protected in the United States by the First Amendment. Miss Gregoire said she was unsure whether a tribunal could order the shutdown of a Web site.(.....)“Whatever your political persuasion, you can't possibly condone this attack on free expression by an unaccountable, unelected bureaucracy,” wrote Kathy Shaidle of Toronto, who denounced the complaint as a “secular fatwa” on her widely read Relapsed Catholic blog.Islamist (er, I mean, Canadian) fascism, anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Anyone? Keep in mind this is a private website on which a (supposedly) free people express opinions.Now, are you ready for the second part of the double-feature on Canadian dhimmitude?OK, read on....VisionTV Defends Airing 'Jihad' LectureNational Post (Canada), July 19, 2007 (h/t LGF)Excerpts:(JQWorld: Taxpayer-funded) VisionTV says it will monitor one of its shows more closely after it broadcast a lecture by an Islamic preacher who said scripture requires Muslims to either fight jihad or finance it.The multi-faith channel, available in 7.8 million Canadian homes, said it took the precaution following a complaint about last Saturday's broadcast of a lecture by the Pakistani fundamentalist.In the hour-long talk, Israr Ahmad said, "Jihad in the way of Allah, for the cause of Allah, can be pursued either with your financial resources or your bodily strength when you go to fight the enemy in the battlefield."So jihad, the highest form, is fighting in the cause of Allah."Mr. Ahmad runs a sem[...]

Matt Lauer -- Meet the U.S. Constitution

Wed, 18 Jul 2007 11:53:00 +0000


On whole, I find Matt Lauer to be among the least-offensive morning TV hosts.

But today, he demonstrated once again that even with mega-million dollar annual salaries, research staffs and lots of other assets, most TV "journalists" (a) are among the most Constitutionally-illiterate people in America, and (b) continue to believe whatever Sen. Barack Obama says, without question, no matter how obviously full of excrement his statements are.

Case in point: On this morning's Today Show, Lauer was asking Obama some questions after the Democrats' all-night political theater to try and force an unconstitutional vote to begin withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq, thereby signaling our surrender to al Quada in this main front.

Obama's reaction was basically that our troops have done a great job in Iraq with the orders they've been given --- but that the orders they've been given were ineffective. Then, Obama went on to say that in our civilian-led military, it is in part the Congress's job to issue new orders in such a scenario.

I covered this in detail a few days ago: Congress has NO Constitutional authority to issue ANY orders whatsoever to the U.S. military --- not to withdraw, not to redeploy, not to "change strategy" as Obama said, nothing. Congress is, however, empowered under our Constitution to do four things regarding military affairs: (1) declares war, (2) pass spending legislation, (3) withdraw such funding, and (4) approve treaties to end military conflicts. That's it.

Obama knows this. Lauer, with all his education, millions in salary and research staff --- along with all the knowledge-assets of NBC News --- should know this, but apparently he doesn't.

Or, is it that Lauer does know it, but he --- like about 95% of other leftist journalists --- is so starstruck with political lust for Obama that he chose not to correct this attorney's statements concerning a basic aspect of the U.S. Constitution? (for more, see the classic JonQuixoteWorld expose Jack Bauer Interrogates the MSM re ObamaMania!!!)

Either way, a huge disservice was done to the American people today, by perpetuating a basic misconception of the U.S. Constitution, by the network that claims it is "watched by more people than any other news organization in the world."


Have a nice day.

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

The Democrats' Assault On The U.S. Constitution

Fri, 13 Jul 2007 01:47:00 +0000

.Well we can't say that we didn't see this one coming.Given the colossal, indoctrinated ignorance of the American people and MSM journalists regarding the U.S. Constitution (thank you, leftist-controlled public school system), not to mention the fundamental misconceptions they harbor concerning it (thanks again), the House Democrats' assault on this document tonight will likely go by without so much of a whimper of critical analysis, from a constitutional viewpoint.The U.S. Constitution vests only one authority with the power to direct America's armed forces: the President of the United States, acting in his capacity as the Commander in Chief. Whether acting against an imminent danger, or via the authorization of Congress, which solely has the power to declare war, the President's orders are formulated in consultation with a body of advisors who he (or she!) chooses. But the President's instructions --- and only the President's instructions --- are directed to the Secretary of Defense, and on downward through the chain of command.According to Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution:The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United StatesOn Tuesday night, however, the U.S. Congress will attempt to fundamentally --- and unlawfully ---- subvert this basic Constitutional provision.According to The "Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act" (HR 2956) ---SEC. 3. REQUIREMENT TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF ARMED FORCES IN IRAQ AND TRANSITION TO A LIMITED PRESENCE OF THE ARMED FORCES IN IRAQ.(a) REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary of Defense shall commence the reduction of the number of Armed Forces in Iraq beginning not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act and shall complete the reduction and transition to a limited presence of the Armed Forces in Iraq by not later than April 1, 2008. [blah, blah, blah...]Newsflash, Rep. Pelosi, Sen. Reid, and the MSM: neither the House of Representatives nor the Senate has the authority to issue orders to the U.S. military.The only thing the U.S. Congress can legitimately do is to cut off funding for military operations. That's it. Bottom line: This bill is invalid, even if all 100 Senators, and all 435 Representatives voted to approve it.Now, the question is this: Will the mainstream media acknowledge this little fact --- or continue to act as swooning, unquestioning lapdogs to the Democratic Party?Original content is © Copyright 2007 by Jon Quixote. Email to[...]

France's Latest Anti-Individualist Mini-Manifesto

Fri, 06 Jul 2007 02:06:00 +0000

.American intellectuals, politicians and "artists" keep claiming that there's so much we can learn from the French, and lecturing us on how we should listen to and emulate their stances on international diplomacy, cultural affairs, etc.No, we shouldn't.France is committing a slow, agonizing suicide, as has been documented at JQWorld and elsewhere. And the centerpiece of their suicide-march is their war against individualism, and on a larger scale, individual rights.Well, those lofty French intellectuals who set the framework for their culture have come out, en masse, against the distinctly American trait of individualism and self-determination yet again, alleging (brace yourself) that their new president's jogging habit is... a right-wing propaganda campaign.From this July 4 TimesOnline article (UK; hat tip DrudgeReport):President Sarkozy has fallen foul of intellectuals and critics who see his passion for jogging as un-French, right-wing and even a ploy to brainwash his citizens.Attacks on Mr Sarkozy’s pastime, which he has made a symbol of his presidency, began on the internet as soon as he bounded up the steps of the Elysée Palace in shorts when he took office in May. That moment has become the icon of his hyperenergetic administration. The grumbling has now moved to television and the press.“Is jogging right wing?” wondered Libération, the left-wing newspaper. Alain Finkelkraut, a celebrated philosopher, begged Mr Sarkozy on France 2, the main state television channel, to abandon his “undignified” pursuit. He should take up walking, like Socrates, Arthur Rimbaud, the poet, and other great men, said Mr Finkelkraut.“Western civilisation, in its best sense, was born with the promenade. Walking is a sensitive, spiritual act. Jogging is management of the body. The jogger says I am in control. It has nothing to do with meditation.”I see. Wow.Well, as long as we're delving into the meaning (and threat) of individualism and self-determination, let's consider what was said by another collectivist thinker who certainly had the opportunity to implement his visions on what was billed as "an advanced culture."(1) "It is thus necessary that the individual should finally come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole...that above all, the unity of a nation's spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual... we understand only the individual's capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow man."(2) "Each activity and each need of the individual will thereby be regulated by the party as the representative of the general good. There will be no license, no free space, in which the individual belongs to himself. This is socialism -- not such trifles as the private possession of the means of production. Of what importance is that if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them then own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the state, through the party, is supreme over them, regardless whether they are owners or workers. All that, you see, is unessential. Our socialism goes far deeper. Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings."Wow, who was that brilliant anti-individualist thinker?Who brought such an "enlightened" and "community-minded" perspective to cultural affairs?Scroll down.None other than Adolf Hitler.Sounds an awful lot like the statements made by our "enlightened" and "community-[...]

The Enemy Among Us - Indeed

Mon, 02 Jul 2007 16:27:00 +0000

.In September 2006, JonQuixoteWorld revealed that the DNC was planning to advance a Mahmoud Ahmadinejad --- Hugo Chavez ticket for the 2008 presidential derby (here), and that Mr. Ahmadinejad planned to nominate Michael Moore to hold the title of Minister of Propaganda in his administration (here).Here's what Uncle Mahmoud had to say, way back then --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Post: Minister of PropagandaNOMINEE: MICHAEL "DER FAT FURHER" MOOREUncle Mahmoud says: "Until the 2004 American presidential campaign, I and the mullahs had been largely unaware of Mr. Moore's 'work.' I mean, what could we possibly learn from 'artists' such as this obnoxious, bloated, America-hating boor?"But all that changed with the release of 'Fahrenheit 9/11,' which has been a hit in jihadist circles around the globe, and has even been featured in their training and propaganda videos."What really put Moore on our radar screen for this post, however, was the near-godly status showered upon him by intellectuals, politicians, schoolteachers, the movie industry, college professors, young people and the world media, despite the most obvious lies, distortions and misrepresentations in this film, and others he has made.The Bush campaign could not offset the damage that Moore was doing to it, and even American news organizations were unwilling to put their admiration for Moore aside long enough to see if what he was saying was true, contextual and verifiable."Miscreant though he may be, Michael Moore is exactly the kind of dhimmi we need to direct propaganda films and campaigns, particularly for us to help shape young people. Breaking that American spirit of rugged indvidualism, independence and private religion won't be easy --- but with Moore's assistance, we are confident we will eventually prevail."UPDATE (September 28, 2006): Well it turns out this nomination has been partially verified; see article "Moore Please: Ahmadinejad Likes Leftist Moviemaker" and "Mahmoud and Me." And as it turns out, JQWorld research was on the money --- again.Today, the Iranian Student News Agency reported (h/t Drudge) that Ahmadinejad has accepted Michael Moore's offer to travel to Iran to show his new America-bashing socialist screed, "Sicko." Excerpt:TEHRAN, July 02 (ISNA)-Writer, producer and director, Michael Moore is to come to Iran for the screening of his new production SICKO in the first international documentary film festival held here.This festival will be held from the 15th to the 19th of October in Tehran.According to reports in SICKO, Michael Moore interviews Americans who have been denied treatment by the U.S. health care insurance companies, whose policies are designed to maximize profits at the expense of providing essential care. The consequences of these individuals' plights range from bankruptcy to the unnecessary deaths of loved ones.Moore then looks at universal free health care systems in Canada, France, Britain, and Cuba, debunking all the fears (lower quality of care, poorer compensation for doctors, big-government bureaucracy) that have been used to dissuade Americans from establishing such a system here.The roots of those health care systems are explored, and our failure to establish free health here care is traced to a) President Richard Nixon's deceptive support of the then-emerging HMOs pursuing huge profits and b) subsequent pressures for Congress to sacrifice sound health care in favor of corporate profit.Will this in any way cause America's intellectuals and the mainstream media to take a second look at exactly who (and what) Micha[...]

"We Make The Threats Around Here"

Sun, 01 Jul 2007 01:13:00 +0000


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

How To Earn Brownie Points With Allah In One Easy Step

Fri, 22 Jun 2007 02:15:00 +0000

.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 [...]

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

Thu, 21 Jun 2007 04:59:00 +0000

. 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, here.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[...]

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

Tue, 19 Jun 2007 22:59:00 +0000

.(JQWorld News --- Dateline 1938)Former U.S. President: America Should Stop Favoring German Rivals Over NazisThe 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?Yeah.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 HamasThe 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[...]

Infidel Hottie Of The Week: Jessica Alba

Sat, 16 Jun 2007 20:03:00 +0000

. 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!!!" UPDATES: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, especia[...]

Hamastan: The Deadly Flower of "Democracy"

Sat, 16 Jun 2007 17:14:00 +0000

.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 sou[...]

The Capstone Of A Colossal Outrage

Fri, 15 Jun 2007 08:31:00 +0000

.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 preach[...]