California Islamic School Rejects Anti-Terrorist Money

Jihad Turk, of the anti-anti-terrorist Bayan Claremont islamic school. You can’t help but jihad when it’s your very name….

Meet a guy named Jihad, who’s so flush with dodgy Arab money that he can turn down nearly a million from the taxpayers, because it came with an expectation his institution would not be a propaganda outlet for small-j jihad.

They don’t want anti-terrorist money, you see. Terrorist money? That, they’re cool with.

A California Islamic school … rejected $800,000 in federal funds aimed at combatting violent extremism.

The school’s head jihad guy Jihad is blaming Trump for the fact that it’s not taking the lavish grant from the Obama-era “countering violent extremism” program. This topsy-turvy program, which apparently continues its undead depradations, sought to fund questionable Islamic institutions whilst blaming other, smaller groups, and fringe crackpots, for the global tsunami of Islamic terrorism.

Money from Saudi terror financiers? That’s OK. After all, the head of the school is named Jihad. There are 7,000 Saudi princes with their checkbooks out for jihad every day!

Other questionable Islamic non-profits did take the money, scores of millions of dollars of which were shoveled out “in the dwindling days of the Obama administration,” per the story’s own moslem author who thinks it’s all a good idea.

The school says it would have used the money to train Islamic and anti-American “community organizers” and “social justice workers.” Oh, yeah, we’ve run into those cats.

Social justice, mohammedan applications thereof.

The school had hoped to use the money to help create a new generation of Muslim community leaders, with $250,000 earmarked for more than a dozen local nonprofits doing social justice work.

Suicide vests were presumably optional. And being California-based, maybe they’d have had hybrid VBIEDs.

But the fledgling school’s founding president, Jihad Turk, said officials ultimately felt accepting the money would do more harm than good.

It’s “a heck of a lot of money, (but) our mission and our vision is to serve the community and to bring our community to a position of excellence,” Turk said. “And if we’re compromised, even if only by perception in terms of our standing in the community, we ultimately can’t achieve that goal,” he said, adding that accepting the funds would be short-sighted.

via Fourth Muslim group rejects federal grant to fight extremism | The Sacramento Bee.

So there you have it. Taking money for an anti-terrorism message: “We’re compromised.” Taking money from the guys procuring murder on a global scale? “Shukran, effendi.”

But hey, they’re just as American as anyone who wants to enslave you.

Speaking of which, another foreign-funded pro-terrorist professor has been taking some incoming for his pettifogging explanation that, when the US allowed slavery almost two centuries ago, a problem “solved” with the deaths of 600,000 non-slaves, that permanently tainted America. But the current practice of slavery, among the very people who fund him? “That’s different, m’kay.”

Jonathan Brown, a tenured Georgetown professor and holder of the Al-Waleed bin Talal Chair in Islamic Civilization at Georgetown University, has delivered a lecture defending slavery and rape non-consensual sex.

You may recognize the name Al-Waleed bin Talal better if we throw in its next chapter, ibn Saud. In that article, Rod Dreher makes a certainly unauthorized exploration into Prince Al Waleed’s genealogy:

In other words, what is a Catholic university doing employing a professor who defends slavery, including sexual slavery, to the point of equating it with Christian marriage?

What kind of fool thinks Georgetown is a Catholic or even Christian institution any more? It is fully converged to the social justice faith, nihilistic atheism.

Al-Waleed bin Talal, the Saudi bllionaire who funds that professorship at Georgetown, is the grandson of an Armenian Christian woman who escaped the 1915 Armenian genocide at the hands of the Turks, and who was presented to King Abdulaziz Ibn Saud, founder of the Saudi dynasty, when she was 12 years old. She was likely an Orthodox Christian child (Armenians are Orthodox) captured and pressed into slavery by Muslims. She could have been a concubine, but he made her his wife. In those days, less than a century ago:

An immense slave corps, mostly of African origin, now served the royal family and its palaces. …

Abdulaziz had been prodigiously fertile, taking brides in order to co-opt one or another tribe or to mend relations with cadet branches of the al-Saud. Abdulaziz, as a unitarian Wahhabi, had been a sternly devout Muslim and as such never had more than four legal wives at a time. But these were regularly divorced and rotated as his whims and passions warranted. And the king had also made ample use of slave-girls and concubines. In this, he had held fast to an Islamic tradition that allowed rulers to take women as chattel in addition to the four wives allotted under Sharia law.

In 1921, …[i]n triumph he and his warriors visited the emir, or prince, of Unayza, a large desert trading post halfway to the Iraqi border. In the emir’s palace, according to family members, Abdulaziz was presented with a beautiful 12-year-old girl, Munayer.

Munayer’s father, it is thought, was most likely an Armenian Christian from eastern Anatolia. His wife certainly was. Six years earlier, in 1915, the family had been forced to flee in terror before the vast anti-Armenian massacres of that year. Unlike the hundreds of thousands of Armenians who fled west to Athens or Beirut, Munayer, her father, mother, and two other siblings traveled southward, along old caravan routes, deep into the interior of Wahhabi Arabia. It was a strange choice for a Christian family. They may have been too terrified to reason carefully. Or perhaps they intended to head for Lebanon or even Persia – safe havens then for fleeing Armenians – and simply got lost.

This slaver is, as Rod points out, Prince Al Waleed’s granddad, and one or the other of grandad’s child-slave wives is probably al Waleed’s grandma. Not that they keep track of mere women in the House of Ill Repute of Saud.

In case you’re wondering just how it happens that extremst, terror-supporting moslems don’t seem to honor their mothers. Who cares? They’re only women!

Dreher also quotes a moslem reformist (tough job, that):

“Slavery wasn’t racialized” in Muslim societies, Brown stated. That would be believable if it weren’t well-known black people in the Arab World and African-Americans in this country weren’t constantly referred to as abeed (slaves) simply because the color of the skin.

Obviously Dreher and his moslem-reformist pal, Umar Lee, didn’t get the memo (or the money) from Riyadh. Equally obviously, Professor Brown of Georgetown and Jihad (!) Turk of the Californian-based Islamic (jihad?) school, Bayan Claremont, did. And a third obvious fact is that a Government program granting millions to characters like this is at best a waste of money and at worst a subsidy to enemies.

We already have a superior program to counter extremism: it comes in you choice of colors: Army, Navy, Marine and Air Force.

23 thoughts on “California Islamic School Rejects Anti-Terrorist Money

  1. Keith

    Fully support freedom of religion like all the rest of the pillars of our country unless it is a clear and present danger to those same pillars of our country.

    Did Protestants and Catholics fly the planes on 9/11? No.

    Did Protestants and Catholics steer the boat into the USS Cole? No.

    Did Protestants and Catholics drive the truck bomb into the Marine barracks in 1983? No.

    Of course these are all facts from recent history and we all know what the Progressives/Tranzis/Cosmos and there fellow travelers think about facts that are counter to the Pravda.

    Keep your powder dry, hold to the truth and your faith in God.

  2. Fuel Filter.

    As I’ve always said, we bombed the wrong people when that idiot Bush conned us into going into Iraq.

    Mecca, Medina and Tehran should have been reduced to glass.

    1. Soylent_Green

      FF, your comment reminded me of author John Ringo’s essay from a few years back. Option Zero.

      Option Zero
      For all that we’re locked in a war with Afghanistan (and, yeah, that is what is happening) and we are probably going to end up at war with other countries, we really haven’t seen much discussion of what the options for a war on terrorism look like. Mostly, in my o so humble opinion, because people don’t like to face them. Why? Because there are no “pretty” options, they are all really nasty.

      Well I’m good at talking about really nasty options; it’s my “day job.”

      So I’m going to lay out the three options to a war on terrorism (and one nightmare.) And if you think about it long and hard, you’ll see that there isn’t a “fourth” option.

      The first thing to consider is what is the ending strategy; what final outcome do you want from this war? The only reasonable “complete victory” description is the following: No nation-state or proto-nation state shall harbor, neither by direct support, nor by omission nor commission, known international terrorist groups.

      Definitions. There’s a fixed definition of terrorism in US Code, so we’ll go with that one for now. Then we have to consider what the “harbor, support” aspects. The US has terrorists. Timothy McVeigh is the most famous but we also have Puerto Ricans, environmentalists, etc. But the FBI also works hard (harder at some times, less hard at others) to shut them down. So the US does not support those terrorist groups. Either by omission (“we know they are there but we don’t want to bother them”) or commission (“we know they are there and we like what they do.”)

      But at that point we have to decide what to do about it, who bells the cat in other words. Remember, victory is getting countries to never ever in their wildest dreams sponsor terrorists.

      This ain’t easy. Terrorism is a good thing to most of these countries. They can attack other countries and not get “blamed” for it. And countries always have something they want to attack other countries about. We could have terrorist groups in Mexico trying to cut off immigration and terrorists in Canada trying to reduce the flow of maple syrup. But we don’t.

      So any option worth discussing means that any nation-state, from Afghanistan to Britain, will think long and hard about sponsoring terrorism, especially against the US, and then decide it isn’t worth it.

      Option One is the nuclear counter-terror option, let’s just call it the “Kill ‘em all” option. “We’re stronger, more ruthless and more horrible than you so ticking us off was a bad idea.” The actual operational method would go broadly along these lines:

      Determine your enemy country’s centers of gravity. This is rarely the capital city by the way. Nuke all functional centers of gravity. Using Iraq as an example, nuke all the “palaces” which are probably used as production and research facilities for Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Nuke Takrit, which is the hometown of Saddam Hussein and from which he draws all his bodyguards. Nuke all barracks and motorpool facilities for the Republican Guard. Then send a list of rather reasonable demands (along the lines of “give us Saddam pickled in brine and all of your WMD and terrorist support people, here’s a list”) and if they don’t respond appropriately, hit a list of targets, centering on governmental groups, until they give up. And they will eventually. It might take four of five governments, but they will. And after it happens to a couple of countries, others will rethink the strategic wisdom of sponsoring terrorism.

      This is not a pretty option and it has a huge number of possible negative ramifications. Most of the ones that are bandied about – the US would be held liable for war-crimes, embargoes, the US would never be the same again, etc. – are fundamentally unlikely or have already occurred. But Bad Things would happen.

      Bad Things are going to happen, have happened and will continue to happen. The only question is which option are the fewest Bad Things going to flow from. This is not support for Option One, simply a statement of fact. Onward and downward.

      Option Two should probably be called “The Card Option” since it was stated first and most eloquently (that I know of) by Orson Scott Card of “Ender’s Game” fame. The Card Option is basically redoing WWII. Invade, subjugate, rebuild, re-stabilize under democratic regimes and stay in place long enough to ensure it holds. Japan and Germany writ over and over again until the remaining “failed states” that harbored terrorists either stopped being “failed” or at least killed all the terrorists with extreme prejudice.

      This option has the benefit of being the most “moral” and being the one most likely to succeed. However, it’s also the most costly, both in military and civilian lives and in dollars. Option Two would kill more civilians than Option One, based upon experiences in WWII and wars since then. “Collateral Damage” would have to be writ large when doing such things as taking Kabul or Kandahar against determined guerrilla forces. “We had to destroy the village to save it” over and over again.

      As to “money”, you don’t want to think about the price tag. Something on the order of a trillion dollars per year defense budget and 15-20% of the American population in uniform. And not for five years but for something on the order of 15-20. Afghanistan alone would require at least 15 divisions of infantry (mixed heavy and light) and we’d probably have to take Pakistan first. Not have it as a weak ally. And that fight would go (briefly) nuclear.

      I think we could return to some relative “norm” at the end of the war. But Bad Things would happen. And we’d have to have a tremendous amount of resolve for many years. Resolve to not only pour our young men and women into the furnace but be willing to say “Yes, constitutional liberal democracies don’t make war on each other so we have to enforce constitutional liberal democracies upon these states.” And stay long enough to make it hold.

      Very ugly. “The White Man’s Burden” for the 21 st Century. The Italian Premier’s “Islam makes lousy civilizations.” Very ugly.

      Option Three is a “Chindit War,” what we are currently waging. Already we are beginning to see the weaknesses of such a war. There is no real “reason” for the Taliban to relinquish power. They know that all they have to do to survive is hold on. And since we’re not getting down and taking territory away from them, they are not fundamentally effected; they still have power which is their main goal. In the meantime, there is huge collateral damage for no noticeable strategic or operational effect.

      A Chindit War can, possibly, work. On a relatively long time scale. And if we stick to it. But it won’t shock the enemy (which is every country that sponsors terrorism ) into rethinking the strategic costs. Nor will it first remove the leadership that supports despotism and terrorism and then emplace over time leadership that understands democracy in its bones.

      Which means a Chindit War can never end; we’ll be fighting international terrorism and failed states that support it when my children are old and gray. And the longer you give a wily and determined enemy to strike you, the more chance he has of scoring. Note the current anthrax “thing.”

      There are various “versions” of these basic option. But mostly they are “Three Plus” or “Two Minus” or even “One Minus.” I have yet to see anyone say “there’s a completely different option” short of “we’ll give in to all their demands.”

      However, there is “another” option, call it “One to Infinity.” It is what I call Option Zero.

      Hemorrhagic smallpox is nearly one hundred percent fatal (194 out of 200 cases.) The only “cure” for it is to be immunized (general smallpox vaccination.) Immunizations last for approximately thirty years. Full population immunizations were discontinued in the US in the 1970s but military personnel were immunized up through 1989.

      Imagine absolute horror for a moment. Imagine that right now hemorrhagic smallpox was being distributed by mujaheddin that were “living weapons.” Imagine that it infected nearly one hundred percent of the American public.

      All that would be left after it swept across the country is former military who served from 1973-1989.

      Their children would be dead. Their friends would be dead. Their parents would be dead. Virtually every “liberal” in the US would be dead.

      And they would still have enough nuclear weapons to vaporize half the world.

      If you don’t think we would use them, you’re dead wrong. You don’t have to be hail to press a button. Bad knees don’t really count in an Ohio. There wouldn’t be a teary eye in the house as the Minutemen and Tridents arched into the sky. And the guys who had last piloted F-4s would be flying B-2s and screaming: “This is for my grand-children you rag-head bastards!”

      Welcome to Option Zero. “At the end of this war, the Arabic language will be spoken only in hell.”

      Which is why we need to get off Option Three by next spring. Before Option Zero becomes “Option Only.”

      1. Toastrider

        Well, there’s a cheerful post. I really don’t like to consider the implications of any flavor of loony haji with a bioweapon, no matter what it might be.

        Although, perhaps it’s time to address it directly. Immunize everyone in the U.S. from smallpox, and then drop virus bombs in the Middle East. Make sure to send a supply of vaccine to Israel, but everyone else is on their own.

        They can’t kill us if we kill them first.

        1. Loren

          I’m absolutely amazed we haven’t had bio attacks yet. I don’t necessarily mean things like Smallpox but rather things like Wheat Rust.
          Several years ago a new version of this appeared in Iran. At the time there was no wheat strain that was resistant. If that had been spread around the US, Canada and Australia it would have devastated the crop and much of the economy. Thank God it didn’t happen but why it didn’t is a mystery.
          Perhaps it doesn’t suit the Islamist sense of drama.

      2. John M.

        What makes you think Islamists have access to hemmoragic (or any kind of) smallpox? Or will by next spring?

        -John M.

  3. LSWCHP

    When I was soldiering I knew Vietnam vets who were praying for war, but I was never like that. I was prepared to go to war, but with head down and teeth gritted. Had it come to it I believe I would’ve done my duty, but I didn’t see any pleasure in it.

    But these people? I would relish the opportunity to shoot some of these sonsabitches. Murderers, rapists, thieves and torturers all hiding behind their stupid soi-disant religion which is actually an evil socio-political system with some loony trappings added.

    Muslims? To hell with ’em all.

  4. Nynemillameetuh

    People (well journalists, so not really) start from a position that unlimited Oriental, South/Central American, or MENAs are just things that we must accept. They assume that Washington himself would’ve settled the country with Barbary Pirates if possible. Islamic terrorism is one of those things that can be greatly mitigated by…not letting them in. Shocking, racist, terrifying, I know. Hell, the few White muslims the 1790 Immigration Act granted entry were probably fine people.

    Of course, Americans cannot think clearly about Western Asia because a sizable contingent of them picked up Scofield Bibles and thought they were the real jews. Before that the schizophrenia called British Israelism clouded Anglo-Saxon judgment regarding the place. Of course, our own Overseas Israelis are happy to use this to their advantage.

    A sane foreign policy would’ve backed the secular nationalists and the Ba’athists instead of Sunni kaboomers. I think the odd Republican Guard torture spree was infinitely better than a crater for a nation. Only bad people prefer that to suicide bombings every other day. Sadly, many of these regimes found themselves without a niche after the USSR fell. Trump seems to be leaning this way, which is encouraging.

    The Drehers and assorted artisanal Christians over at NR/AmCon are worthless. I’ll laugh and cry when their “Benedict Option” ends with blood-soaked frocks and incinerated sheets of Brahms’, Liszt’s, and Mozart’s music. If they embrace nationalism instead of “principals” that shift with every election, I’ll be gentler on them.

    1. Toastrider

      ” They assume that Washington himself would’ve settled the country with Barbary Pirates if possible. ”

      Which is particularly appalling, considering how Thomas Jefferson’s reaction to the Barbary pirates was to send out our fledgling Navy and Marines with orders to stomp a mud hole in them and walk it dry. He wasn’t tolerating any of their bullshit.

    2. John M.

      “Of course, Americans cannot think clearly about Western Asia because a sizable contingent of them picked up Scofield Bibles and thought they were the real jews.”

      Which sizable contingent thought this based on the Scofield Reference Bible? The notes of the Scofield Reference Bible are vigorously Dispensationalist, which position holds, inter alia, that the people who currently identify as Jews are, in fact, the descendants of the Hebrews of the Old and New Testaments and are thus (based on Scofield’s hermeneutic) the inheritors of the promises of the Old Testament (and a few in the New Testament as well).

      Replacement theology teaches that the Church has taken the place of Israel and is the inheritor of all the promises to Israel in the Old Testament. I assure you that no one became an adherent to replacement theology by reading the Scofield Reference Bible’s notes. Replacement theology is taught by almost every mainline Protestant denomination–to the extent that mainline denominations teach theology at all anymore–and many evangelical denominations, including Presbyterian denominations and many Pentecostal/Charismatic churches.

      There are a few very small groups that maintain oddities like British Israelism, Black Hebrew Israelitism, Aryan Nations and such who believe that they are physical descendants of Old Testament Jews and thus inheritors of the Old Testament promises to Israel’s children. They are not a “sizable contingent,” and, again, none of them got to that position by reading the Scofield Reference Bible’s notes.

      You will find among Dispensationalists some very strong advocates for the modern state of Israel because they believe that God’s promises of the land of Israel to the people of Israel still hold for the literal physical descendants of Jacob. But none of those people think they themselves are Jews.

      -John M.

  5. Aesop

    Let’s get serious: most of the Middle East is why thoughtful people invented poison gas and cluster bombs.

    The last thing their culture uniquely contributed to the world was the number “zero”, and nothing of import since, unless you count the piles of Greco-Roman manuscripts they had floating around to fuel the Renaissance.

    That was 600 years ago, and they’ve got some ‘splainin’ to do about the last 50 years.

    But if you’re going to play nuclear ball, you wipe Mecca out first – during the Haj, just to make the point – and you tell the entire circus of monkeys left that if their shit doesn’t cease forthwith and in perpetuity, we erase a city each day. And as proof of their good faith, here’s a list of those whose heads we expect delivered on platters NLT midnight tomorrow, or Medina goes up.
    We’ll erase another major city of theirs each day they dawdle, and we’ll charge past due for each renewal, i.e. if they wait six weeks, and then pull something, 42 cities go away overnight.

    I’m betting they swerve before we do in that game of chicken, but I don’t care which way it turns out.
    The net result is an unmitigated win for the species.

    1. Boat Guy

      I was reading down to see if someone would posit the “nuke Mecca” option. Glad to see it. No kaaba, no islam.
      I also much prefer it over the bio-war scenario. Count me in with Aesop.

      1. Topbuilder

        Not so fast… according to moslem prophesy (and Biblical prophesy, if you believe KSA is the “daughter of Babylon”) Mecca and Medina are both destroyed! Hence the need to secure Jerusalem as the “third holiest site of islam”. As written KSA will be destroyed “in one hour”. So, at this point, we wait to see if they are nuked by our nukes already sitting in Turkey or Iranian nukes not online as yet. The moslem antichrist will carry on just fine without the black rock. My guess is they go back to bowing 15 times a day to Israel.

  6. Bob Bobson

    Since one of the salient points was missed: Religious schools (institutions) reject government money; government money that seeks to influence what the religious institution teaches/preaches. This is a Good Thing(TM). Repeat, for any religious institution, rejecting compromising influence is a good thing.

    Now, continue the discussion of modern Islam’s rejection of some of its historical fundamentals, namely tolerance of other people of the book and its support of learning and science. Consider also how the influence of the western states, particularly the aftermath of WWI and the Palestine protectorate, has contributed to the Near-Eastern morass.

    And because it was asked before,
    Did Protestants and Catholics drive the truck bomb into the Oklahoma City federal building in 1995? Yep.

    Did Protestants and Catholics… (see Irish independence, and American participation)

    1. Hognose Post author

      Er, Timothy McVeigh was a committed atheist, as he made clear repeatedly all the way up to his execution. Media stories often say he was a Christian (even a “fundamentalist Christian,” sometimes) but that’s one of those stories that is “too good for layers and layers of editors to check.”

        1. Hognose Post author

          Nichols was an atheist at the time of the crime, but converted to Christianity in prison. The Washington Post said that that was why the jury spared him.
          http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37406-2004Jun12.html
          Of course, he also says he’s not a terrorist, so I wouldn’t take his word for much:
          http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2015/04/oklahoma_city_bomber_terry_nic.html

          The second article is entertaining. Bomber Eric Rudolph has joined Nichols on a crusade for higher-fiber dining options in the pen.

        2. Hognose Post author

          I cannot find any reference to the Fortiers’ religion or lack of same, only that they were heavy dope users at the time of the bombing. They’re in WITSEC which keeps them out of the media. Michael Fortier’s motivation for joining the conspiracy seems to be McVeigh giving him a copy of The Turner Diaries, which is not a Christian apolgetic (to put it mildly).

          Since the conspiracy was quite small, there’s no real threat to Fortier; WITSEC just keeps him out of the press. Given the poor performance of WITSEC on mafia and national security cases, a committed journalist could certainly find Michael Fortier. The juice is probably not worth the squeeze. He was a peripheral figure, and one of life’s losers.

  7. Swamp Fox

    The Red Pill Brief by Stephen Coughlin

    http://unconstrainedanalytics.org/

    Once you read his book and check out his site you will understand what we are really up against, and like The Matrix there is no going back. His book is about 800 pages and full of notes, Kindle edition is about $6.00.

    Coughlin is one of the officers the Muslim Brotherhood forced out of service.

  8. Docduracoat

    9 mm,
    I did not understand one word of that rant
    “British Israelism”?!?!?
    Aesop and Soylent Green,
    It is satisfying to strike at your enemies and drive them before you and hear the wailing of their women
    You have not thought the nuclear option through
    The Chinese will not take lightly the clouds of fallout and the Pakistanis have nuclear weapons to retaliate
    The Iranians can build a bomb in one year, maybe less.
    Nuclear bombs smuggled into just 4 west coast cities will generate clouds of fallout that will contaminate the entire Americam Midwest for generations
    The real war on terror until victory takes place in the minds of Moslem youth
    Force Saudi Arabia into closing its’ hate filled Wahabi Madrassa schools all over the world
    Pressure Indonesia into opening Madrassas to teach a more tolerant form of Islam
    Fill the movies, Internet, schools, mass entertainment with a counter propaganda message
    Stage a million Iman march against terrorism
    Stop all Moslem immigration into the U.S. And western Europe
    Stay on message for 20 years
    Target terrorist leaders with commando raids
    No more drone war, signature strikes and collateral damage that recruit 10 for one killed
    Not as fun as just killing them all and let Allah sort them out
    Far more likely to have success.

    1. John M.

      Google “British Israelism.” There’s a Wikipedia article. There’s a currently hip variant on the theme called, among other things, Black Hebrew Israelitism that’s good for some chuckles also.

      -John M.

    2. Aesop

      >Compared to the skies of Beijing most days, fallout wouldn’t be noticed. The mandarins of power there have their own hushed-up muslim problem. 80/20 they’d not only keep silent, they’d co-operate and provide material support.

      >The Pakis will be the first to hand over the requested platters of heads, because they need their nukes in case the Hindus come a-calling. If they shoot that wad, Delhi eliminates its longstanding Muslim problem as well, and for all time, and Pakistan knows that to a metaphysical certainty.

      >The Iranian nuclear sites would be 3-100 on the list.

      >Nuclear bombs smuggled into any west coast cities would be a green light for legalized and justified genocide of everyone from Spanish Morocco to the Philippines bowing to Mecca, and hereabouts, the roundups would make Manzanar or even Auschwitz look like a kindness, by contrast.
      Most of the adherents afterwards would be lucky if they were killed, drawn, and quartered, and decorating bridge overpasses in that order by the civilian populace, before the authorities could intervene. (If they’d even bother.)

      Islam needs a Reformation, and if it takes gamma radiation to bootstrap it into being, so be it.

  9. John M.

    “What kind of fool thinks Georgetown is a Catholic or even Christian institution any more? It is fully converged to the social justice faith, nihilistic atheism.”

    I submit that this is the actual purpose of Caesar offering his denarii to this Muslim institution. Would that more Christian colleges and universities had rejected Caesar’s denarii over the years.

    Progressivism* is the state religion of the USA, and always has been. Progressives think that Muslims are just little Progressives-in-waiting. I think they are deluded in this, but time will tell.

    -John M.

    *Progressivism is currently nihilistically atheistic, but that is not an essential property of it; it has not always been so and may not remain so indefinitely.

Comments are closed.