Religious Muslim Charged in Plot to Blow up Federal Buildings: Islam and its toys

Terrorist toy

Rezwan Ferdaus, a 26 year old Muslim man, living in Massachusetts, was arrested yesterday, in Framingham, a cute little town located along the route of the Boston Marathon. Ferdaus planned to use three remote control planes, loaded with C-4 explosive, to blow the dome of Washington's Capital Building to "smithereens," and also hit the Pentagon. He also planned to use a team of six Muslim jihadists, armed with machine guns and grenades, as a follow up to ensure maximum casualties. When the undercover federal agent asked Ferdaus  how he felt about the possibility of killing women and children he alledged that all unbelievers of Islam were his enemies.  The feds busted him in a sting operation.

Islamic War Manual

How could this poor terrorist wannabe be so misguided about the "religion of peace"? Well, the answer is, he is not being misguided, he is simply being orthodox in the practice of Islam. Sura 8:12 "smite ye above their necks and smite all their fingertips off them." Then Allah goes on to say: "This is because they contend against Allah and His Messenger. If any contend against Allah and His Messenger, Allah is strict in His punishment" (8:13). And yadda yadda yadda in the Koran. It can be found on almost every page where Allah is angry and Mohammad (his messenger), is even angrier. It's a religion of conquest and anger. Mohammad was a warrior who killed many men and enjoyed it. On one given day, he was responsible for organizing the beheadings of 600 to 900 Jews in the Qurayish tribe, simply because they wouldn't bow to Islam. Mohammad hated Jews and called them apes and pigs, and his love for Christians was about the same. This is Koranic fact--I am not saying anything that isn't in their "holy book."

Interestingly, most media did not mention this Islamic terrorist's religion, but merely claimed that he is an 'extremist' or that he was influenced in an al-Qaeda style jihad. To their credit, Fox News referred to the slimeball as a Muslim.

So what is the truth? Is it the act of an extremist, al-Qaeda style crazy guy, of did his religion have anything to do with it? Was Rezzy misguided? Did the undercover federal agents talk him into doing this horrible act, or did the devil make him do it?

I vote for the devil. But in this case, the devil is the religion of Islam and its call for jihad. Rezzy even said, "Allah has given us the privilege .  .  .  He punishes them by our hand. We're the ones."  

He is simply being a good Muslim, much like that dude bin Laden. Thankfully the SEALs put out his lights and sent him to Hades.

Islam is not the religion of peace; Islam is the religion of pieces.

If you are interested in terrorism and suspense, I have provided 2 links (below) for a hard copy (soft cover) edition and an eBook edition of my latest novel, Jihad Joe.  It's a story about Zed Nill, a New York based reporter, taken hostage by Islamic terrorists.  He must escape, or be beheaded the following day . . . the clock is ticking.

click here for softcover Jihad Joe                     

click here for ebook version

Tweet

If Iran Attacked by Sea

Iranian Warship

The Iranian warships are closing in. They are near the shores of the United States and we have a president who sleeps with a nightlight. What will he do?

Well, for one thing, he doesn't need to apologize to Iran or any Muslim nation about the problems people in the West has with Islam--he already apologized to them when he first took office. Obama has done nothing to show his leadership or the courage to use American force if he needed to show strength to Iran. Obama, in fact, has done nothing an actual Muslim would not have done as president, so it doesn't matter what religion he claims to be. So what do you think he will do if Iran floats a warship off the shores of, say, Coney Island?

I think he will actually wet himself if he had to confront a real war on home soil or American waters. I think he will react too slowly if Iran was serious about throwing the first punch and we will be hurt by them--I'm just not sure that they would do it--I think they're just testing the level of fear Obama has over the possibility of confrontation.


Our military, G-d bless them, are basically saying that if that little rat-faced shit tries to scare us with his warships, they will have the company of the United States Navy. I can almost imagine us daring them to make a move--flinch, you jihadist bastards, and we will show you what we are made of, and who we are. Iran's navy cannot measure up to ours, and is rather feeble by our standards--kind of like Michael Moore but smaller.  But we have to wait for our "Commander in Chief" to make the call if they make the first move and I worry about that.  

Go For It Mahmoud

As Sean Hannity suggested, he thinks the US and Israel should get together and get rid of the Iranian nuclear capabilities--he fell short of actually stating he favors a pre-emptive strike, but how else could one do this? I have to agree with this because Iran has made it perfectly clear what their goals are, and they don't see us in their future. Maybe we should accomodating them by changing their future.  Just saying.

If you are interested in terrorism and suspense, I have provided 2 links (below) for a hard copy (soft cover) edition and an eBook edition of my latest novel, Jihad Joe.  It's a story about Zed Nill, a New York based reporter, taken hostage by Islamic terrorists.  He must escape, or be beheaded the following day . . . the clock is ticking.

click here for softcover Jihad Joe                     

click here for ebook version

     
tweet

About Abbas and the UN

Mahmoud Abbas may look Jewish, but don't tell him that--he'd have you beheaded, Islamic style. When he requested statehood for Palestine and received a standing ovation at the United Nations, it should have become clear to all Americans, particularly New Yorkers whose tax money helps pay for the NYPD security, that the UN has deteriorated into an intolerant, anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist, and yes, even an anti-American organization.  Aside from paying for security, the United States pays over 20% of the funding for the UN, which consists of about 130 other nations, and many, like China, could buy the entire island of Manhattan and throw in an extra UN building to boot.

If it isn't obvious to you that the United Nations (or the Untied Nations, a better term) has been taken over by the Arab nations--56 now, 57 if Palestine becomes a full member--then you had better check your medication levels. These are Islamic nations, and for those who don't know it, Islam hates the Jews. If you don't believe that, read the Koran, the Holy Book written by none other than Allah, where Jews are referred to as apes and pigs, and so are Christians. The goal of Islam is to rid the world of Jews, gays, and personal freedom, and make the entire world a place where only the name of Allah is known to all mankind. That doesn't bode well for the rest of us. It isn't healthy for women either.  The United Nations is a terrible joke on the free world--what's left of the free world, anyway.
 
Right now, as I write this, over 20 thousand surface to air missiles (SAMs) have gone missing in Libya, and likely sold on the black market. To date there have been over 800 passenger deaths in civilian planes that have been shot down by these weapons. If you don't believe this incident is not related to Islamic jihad, you probably also refuse to believe that President Obama has left-leaning tendencies, and that Elvis is dead. 

If you don't believe that orthodox Islam is unhealthy to non-Islamic human life, you need to wake up--especially if you're Jewish . . . or Christian . . . or Hindu . . . or Zoroastrian . . . or Seikh . . . or Pagan . . . or



Tweet

Some Seriously Taxing Issues & Michael Moore's Tutu

 It seems that government is involved in everything nowadays--from your child's education, to the food that you aren't allowed to eat, even if you want to. We pay taxes and expect services from the government, but how much is too much and where should we draw the line?

One thing that must be provided to Americans by the federal government is the infrastructure--roads, bridges, tunnels, and highways, and these must be maintained by the government with our tax money. I believe the government has the right to collect tolls for bridges and roads, but the people should have a say in the amount that we pay. It's ludicrous to think that paying $14.00 for the Verrazano Bridge toll is reasonable. We were promised that once a structure such as this bridge was paid for, the toll would be removed. With the threat of Islamic terrorism, I concede that we need to continue to pay for security for these structures, but to think the government can rake us over the coals for money that goes beyond these needs is unfair and probably illegal. And the worst thing of all is that the infrastructure of our country is crumbling and throwing more money into it hasn't helped.


Secondly, the government is responsible for our defense as a nation. I know President Obama doesn't take that too seriously, and even W. said that Islam is a religion of peace, but most Americans know otherwise. Our military should not be cut and we need to continue to keep military defense as a priority, rather than cutting back in this area. If I had my way, I'd cut back on $16.00 muffins and $8.00 coffee for our government officials who, like Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama, spend our tax dollars for their personal pleasures. I have written about this in a previous blog here.

Grand Jete

Thirdly, well, that's difficult to say. There isn't much more the government should be involved with because they have the Midas touch when it comes to running things, except instead of turning things into gold, they turn it into human waste. They do education like Michael Moore does an arabesque or grand jete. Also, we all know that the government does not create jobs, although they do provide them, as can be seen in the US Postal Service. In fact, there are so many jobs in the postal service that we are paying people not to work because there isn't enough work for them to do. Millions of taxpayer dollars is wasted at USPS every year and that's our money. Of course, we can blame it on government but the real culprit here is the union, which negotiated to protect jobs that don't need to exist. We need to remember too that government jobs do not generate more jobs, and unions do not generate more jobs--they're designed to maximize their workers salaries and benefits, often at a huge expense to management.

Michael Moore?

School teachers are also protected by unions and it practically takes an act of God to fire a teacher, even if he or she commits a crime involving their students. Since liberals like to see everything as equal, like the US is morally equivalent to Saudi Arabia, for example, teachers also have an equal situation with USPS because there is a significant number of them getting paid to sit in a "Quiet Room" and not teach. I wonder if the walls in the Quiet Room are padded to protect them from themselves.


So it should be clear that the purpose of the government in a free society is to take care of its citizens. It is not the role of government to take away their money to share with those who have less, for whatever reasons. Fact: Republicans are more generous than Democrats when giving to charities. Democrats only pretend to be the morally superior. 

My final brain flushing for today is: if we trained people who receive unemployment benefits, rather than to simply give them two years of sitting on their duffs, we would do more for them in the long term. Giving them more time to find a job has only extended the amount of time they tend to be out of work. We have spent our grand children's money on frivolous entitlements for too long and we need to become responsible again for their sake and the sake of our country. Just saying.


Tweet

Obama: Incompetent or Malevolent?

If Barack Obama is incompetent, then our nation is safe and it all ends well with the next election. If he is malevolent, then everything is going according to plan and the tanking economy is just his way of saying, "Hey folks, socialism can work for those of you who don't wanta work." (Don't you love his folksy word endings and pronounciations like, hafta, doin', feelin' and the rest of his garbage, when he's trying to be like you and me?)


One reason to think he might be malevolent is AttackWatch.com, a website created to keep checks on us folk, 'cause he hasta if he wantsta win. The video to the right is a parody of this infamous website. Imagine, the President of the United States creating a "Big Brother is Watching You" website to "fight the smears and attacks" and yes, the freedom of speech this country has always enjoyed. One might suggest that to create AttackWatch, Obama is running scared, or paranoid. But if Obama is malevolent, then, as Stella Paul says in her American Thinker article as cited by David Solway in FrontPage Magazine (click on the link below for full text): "the destruction that Obama wrought may ultimately dwarf the wreckage of 9/11." 


Americans, as I have often said, may be extremely tolerant, easy, and soft, but we're not stupid by a long shot. Many of us have buyer's remorse with the Obama administration. Those Americans who are willing to look beyond the lamestream media are feeling angst over Solyndra and Lightsquared. 

Many of us now know that Obama had his fingers in the cookie jar when he  invested $90 thousand in the Lightsquared, back when it was known as SkyTerra in 2005. He was put into the investment by a UBS broker at the request of George Haywood, another major investor in SkyTerra and a major campaign donor to the annointed one. When the Gray Lady (NYT) reported the investment in 2007, Obama claimed ignorance about the stock and said he lost money when he sold it. Today, Obama and Haywood are buddies as witnessed by the fact that he and his lovely wife were on the guest list for the India State Dinner. Okay, maybe this isn't a sign of malevolence, but it certainly is a sign of basic scumbaggery.


So let's look at the fact that his handling of the USA in world affairs has made us a potential source of global warming due to the number of American flags being burned throughout the world--particularly the Islamic world. As our president, he has discarded the US Constitution and had the audacity to call it an imperfect document. He has polarized this nation like no other president before him. Is it wrong to say he is in way over his head as the leader of the free world? That his policies have plunged us into a quagmire of problems from unemployment to a severe fiscal emergency? 


But if he isn't incompetent, then his socialist-Marxist philosophy is working itself out with a nation of unemployed and failed businesses that will need a nanny state to step in and provide sustenance. Of course, this would not come easy if it ever came to that point--it would come with destruction, death, and incredible suffering because it would take a revolution this country has never experienced before. It would make the Civil War look like a game of Cops and Robbers. (The Conservatives the cops, the Liberals the robbers--you know, something resembling real life.)


As Solway says in his article, the truth of who Obama is probably lies somewhere in between the two premises of malevolent and incompetence. His philosophy is clearly socialist , just like Mommy and Daddy. But his competence is clearly less than what a president's competence should be to run a nation. 


In a way, I see Obama as an idiot savant--a man who speaks like a god, but says nothing of substance. He is a pursuasive empty suit whose machinations may be sinister, but who has little substance beyond his concrete understanding of the philosophy he espouses. He attracts the liberal mind because one need only appeal to the emotions to do so. It isn't "What I can do," but "What I intended to do" that counts for liberals. Of course being anti-Semitic doesn't hurt you if you're a liberal--it makes great cocktail talk at Obama fundraisers.


So you decide--is Obama incompetent, malevolent, or both.
CLICK ON THIS LINK  
Obama: Incompetent or Malevolent?

On another note, if you are interested in terrorism and suspense, I have provided 2 links (below) for a hard copy (soft cover) edition and an eBook edition of my latest novel, Jihad Joe.  It's a story about Zed Nill, a New York based reporter, taken hostage by Islamic terrorists.  He must escape, or be beheaded the following day . . . the clock is ticking.

click here for softcover Jihad Joe                     

click here for ebook version

Conservatweets ebook free download

Tweet

The Fox-Google Republican Debate

"Not payin' for illegal's education is heartless"

I just finished watching the Fox-Google Republican Debate. I feel this was the best one of the three debates. I can't help but like Newt and his directness and intelligence when he finally gets the chance to speak. Michele Bachmann wore red, indicating that she was feeling her oats, and I thought she also made some good points. She was in the Spin Room afterward and spoke with Sean Hannity, explaining her thoughts on immigration and how she would seal off the border whereas Perry is too moderate on this issue, and it doesn't sit well with conservatives--Bachmann may just get back some of those people that Perry won over before he joined the debates.

Perry and Romney slugged it out, as predicted, but I think Perry was kind of flat, and when he spoke about the 32 year old woman who had cervical cancer and who approached him about her dilemma regarding her health care, I didn't think he was being genuine. In fact, it seemed like he was doing his Texas rodeo thing of throwing the bull. But the worst thing he did was to say that people who were against supporting college funding for illegal aliens were heartless. Romney destroyed him with his comeback and Perry deserved the beatback. I cannot believe any normal conservative would not see it as unfair for illegal aliens to pay in-state financial rates for college and out of state Americans pay $100 thousand more for tuition--not only does it not make sense, as Romney put it, but it isn't fair.


One thing that came out of this debate, that should be perfectly clear to anyone who is fairminded, is how the Fox News team handled the questions. Nobody on the panel did a Brian Williams and editorialized their left wing agenda with such a snarky question as he did over the death penalty (see video). Nobody went gently into the night with softball questions like the liberal media did with Obama in his run for the White House. It was a fair debate with questions coming from the public and the panelists, and overall, the debaters handled it well.

While it doesn't appear that any of the candidates are ready to jump off the bandwagon, I thought Johnson should have considered it; but after seeing a Fox poll asking who people believed won the debate, Johnson actually did a lot better than I would have guessed, and came in second with about 14% of the vote--a total surprise as I thought he appeared nervous and unsure of himself. What do I know?


I like Ron Paul, not as a candidate, but as an uncle. I can see him telling me his thoughts about the world, and I could listen to him for hours, then I would use what is useful and discard what was crazy with his thinking. For example, his beliefs about Iran are not accurate and his permissiveness regarding their nuclear program are incredibly dangerous. Iran is a clear and present danger, a nuclear threat, and populated by a suicidal people who believe they will get to heaven by killing us. Not a good idea to say they have the same rights as the rest of us to have nuclear weapons. I rest my case with Ron Paul (notice how you never say only his last name because it's also a first name).


Rick Santorum seems like a bright guy, but when he speaks, he looks pained. I always get the impression that he's constipated. But Santorum had the guts to give an opinion on Iraq and Afghanistan and would continue our efforts there--you don't have to agree with him to see that he is, at least, a guy with principals.

Herman Cain rocks, but I don't believe he has a chance in getting the nomination. If he did, I would vote for him in a heartbeat. His "9-9-9" plan actually sounds interesting and rather practical--I just wonder if it would work. I like the straightforwardness of his approach and his sharp answers. I worry, however, that he'd get eaten up in the political arena if he became president, and I suspect I'm not alone in that thinking.


Well, that's the way I see it for now--this will likely change as time shows us the flaws and inconsistencies of the candidates. For now, I'm going with Romney, but that's just for now. He is probably the best choice to beat Obama, and Obama must be beaten if this country is to succeed and not go the road to socialism. Sarah Palin waited too long to jump in, I believe, and she would be too much of a distraction at this point. I think it will be important to discover who she ends up endorsing, so let us wait and watch.

I'd love to know what you think.  




Tweet