There are 500,000 Serbs in Chicago, so jihadists will have a tough time there. Without NATO bombing Chicago to help them, of course...

Posted by: LazarOfSerbia at October 2, 2007 1:58 PM

I'm fairly certain that we execute traitors in this country, or at least it's an option. Those convicted that are citizens of the U.S. should die immediately. Convicted terrorists should be executed by firing squad or hanged.

Posted by: Alaskan at October 2, 2007 2:02 PM

Marisol: your comment is the vital one - need to ask - where did these ideas come from ?

It so offends the current liberal mentality that the core text of a religion could encourage evil (as against the socialists who have evil at their core in their Marxist crap, and hence can fellow travel and laud the islamists)

Liberals: face the truth, stop being cowardly, have courage.

(we are so ill served by our ruling and reporting elites).

Posted by: dgene at October 2, 2007 2:03 PM

As an actress here in Chicago who lives about one and a half miles straight west of the Sears Tower (the first thing I see walking out my front door in the morning) I have been scornfully laughed at by the leftists who dominate my profession when I say that the Sears was and remains a target of the Islamic Jihad. It is not so much the target as the idea that there even IS a "jihad" that these psuedo intellectuals will not even consider.

However they never hesitate to warn this practicing Roman Catholic that they KNOW my Church has plans to "persecute" them because of their lifestyles or beliefs and create a theocracy in the US. I have decided to just agree and tell them that indeed everyday Benny 16 sends me marching orders in my email.

Help me Lord I feel like it is 1938 and I am trapped at the dinner party in Britain when Lady Astor proclaimed that it was not Herr Hitler she feared but "hat warmonger Winston"!

Posted by: bevc at October 2, 2007 2:04 PM

In the mahometan brain, whenever and wherever "chaos" ensues, islam ends up ruling supreme, either with the 'hidden imam' making and appearance or without. Seems just as likely to me that "chaos" could bring about the annihilation of much of the present world that has been conquered by mahomet's minions, including but not limited to mecca and medina.

Posted by: Infidel33 at October 2, 2007 2:04 PM

She said Batiste's group was coerced into going along with the violent plan by "this great con man,"

Coerced by a con...Convinced maybe, but coerced? How so?

Posted by: duh_swami at October 2, 2007 2:06 PM

What we infidels have working for us is the FACT that only STUPID IDIOTS revert to Islam. I mean, if someone is so shit-all stupid that they don't see through the con of Muhammad, and the duplicitous and deranged spewings of the Koran, then how easy is it for an FBI informant to lead them by the nose?

"Miami's impoverished Liberty City" --- I think I know what that Homeric epithet really means.

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at October 2, 2007 2:07 PM

As an attorney myself, I find it disgusting that the lawyer for this Narseal Batiste character is crying entrapment or some such thing. This is a good example of how our laws will be used (and bastardized) in an effort to exculpate Islamic thugs who willingly and enthusiastically seek the overthrow of the American government for their warped purpose of establishing an Islamic regime here in the United States. It's a tough call for me who is more despicable here, the lawyer, Ana M. Jhones, or the Islamic terrorist wannabes, Narseal Batiste et al. Low-life attorneys and Islamic radicals---------------made for each other.

Posted by: Wellington at October 2, 2007 2:10 PM

"...as against the socialists who have evil at their core."

--posted by dgenius!

Oh yes, Jesus the evil socialist. And the many evil socialists at my old kibbutz in Hashomer Hatsair!

More dgene, here:

http://www.prankplace.com/dolls.htm

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at October 2, 2007 2:14 PM

And how many governments has the USA toppled,
over past 50 years who has invaded the most countries, Killed the most civilians, dropped the most bombs, maimed the most people, destroyed the most homes, surley the answer will reveal who the real evil is

Posted by: smithy at October 2, 2007 2:17 PM

Entrapment can be a legitimite defense. Notice I said, can be. If the informant is seen as the ringleader, it might work. A jury might still convict, but an appellate court might see it differently.

The FBI needs to be very careful.

Posted by: Pelayo at October 2, 2007 2:23 PM

over past 50 years who has invaded the most countries, Killed the most civilians, dropped the most bombs, maimed the most people, destroyed the most homes

Easy-- the former Soviet Union and China, what with various forms of economic mismanagement, ideological purges, and occupation and oppression of places like Eastern Europe (USSR), Tibet (China), etc. And on a smaller scale, North Korea. In a word, communists. And before them, fascists. Both of whom the U.S. was instrumental in defeating as imperial powers.

And?

Posted by: MarisolJW at October 2, 2007 2:27 PM

Already I have acknowledged its presence, but I urge everyone to ignore smithy no matter how inflamatory and untrue his comments are.

Posted by: Pelayo at October 2, 2007 2:27 PM

Pelayo--

Good point. For now, at least he's more or less on topic (having been warned yesterday). But I won't allow the thread to be monopolized or driven off-topic.

Posted by: MarisolJW at October 2, 2007 2:36 PM

"jihadists sought to topple U.S. government in favor of Islamic regime."

Couldn't this be said of most Muslims in America? Aren't they all involved in endeavors to spread Islam -- to spread sharia -- and to ultimately "topple" the U.S. government? Some may do it in the local bake sale for the local Mosque or "Islamic Community Center", others may do it sitting around the dinner table instructing their children to hate "infidels" and pointing out the decadence of Western society, others may do it be slouching out more Muslim babies to wage more Jihad and bring more Islam to the land of we "infidels". It's ALL jihad -- every bit of it -- whenever and wherever Islam rears its ugly head there is Jihad of one form or another -- it's axiomatic.

I don't think you can really be a true Muslim and not wish to see Islam uber alles. If so, then all Muslims are seditionists and ultimately, traitors to the U.S.A.

Posted by: jsla at October 2, 2007 3:21 PM

Islamic cleric preaching ‘hate’

Isn’t Sheik Omran a good Muslim?

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22516508-601,00.html

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at October 2, 2007 3:21 PM

Amazingly stupid...how they actually think their schizopathic plan would work at all...they forget the most important thing.
Here, their potential victims are not unarmed, NOT the wimpy numbnuts they've encountered in their "intel gathering" from wackodemia (which was THE reason their 9/11 heros failed miserably-they got it from those who think like noam chomsky), vastly outnumber them by 100 to 1, have been expecting them for a very long time, will fire on them, and hate their guts, too.

They obviously didn't think this *ahem* plan of theirs out nearly well enough, lest they know it was futile as hell...
...and they still use the same playbook!

lol

Posted by: jcom972 at October 2, 2007 3:46 PM

"And how many governments has the USA toppled,
Posted by: smithy"

...ok, Name them.....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at October 2, 2007 3:48 PM

"FBI audio and video recordings show that the so-called "Liberty City Seven" hoped to use street gangs as soldiers who would stage attacks, ranging from large-scale bombings of major buildings to poisoning salt shakers in restaurants,"

.....street gangs as in black muslim or just black street gangs.....?....probably....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at October 2, 2007 3:57 PM

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling that thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. -- John Stuart Mill
John Stuart Mill English economist & philosopher (1806 - 1873)
http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/27169.html

Help me Lord I feel like it is 1938 and I am trapped at the dinner party in Britain when Lady Astor proclaimed that it was not Herr Hitler she feared but "hat warmonger Winston"!
Posted by: bevc

Peace at any price had deep roots in 1930s Britain. Roots fertilized by the blood of almost one million Empire soldiers on Flanders's muddy fields.

About ten years ago I told an old family friend that I was taking my dad, a Korean war vet, to see the newly opened Korean war memorial in Washington. My friend started crying. I asked her what was wrong. She replied that her brother had been killed in Korea. I was stunned. I never knew she had a brother much less that he had died in the defense of our country.

I mention this little tableau because today it is obligatory to say that the death of one American solider is a tragedy, as if this terrible truth should not be obvious to any sentient being. Winston Churchill’s great strength was that he was prepared to lead the ‘English Speaking People’ to the greater and even more terrible truth that war is not the ugliest of things.

A “Winston Churchill” today would have the courage to name the theology that drives our enemies. He would have the courage to confront the adherents of this theology at home and abroad. He would lead a free people to understand that the creed of their prophet Mohammad is incompatible with our individual Liberty. He would lead Americans, dare I say the English speaking people, to the truly terrible truth that we cannot suffer an Islamic polity to possess nuclear weapons.

What city do you think good Muslims will nuke first?

Posted by: Ralph127 at October 2, 2007 4:42 PM

The development of First Amendment free-speech jurisprudence during the 20th century begiins during and just after World War I, beginning with the famous dissents of , the finding in Schenck, the dissent of Holmes and Brandeis in Gitlow,and in Abrams, and the formulation of the "clear and present danger" test by Holmes, writing for the majority in Schenck. Much later, that test, which had undergone modification in Whitney (1927), was further whittled away, and a kind of "balancing test" substituted for that etiolated "clear and present danger" doctrine. Since Dennis other tests have taken over, notably that of the majority opinion in Brandenberg, in which it was decided that there had to be a "threat of imminent lawless violence" from speech for it to be banned. Since Brandenberg there have been still other modifications. But it is clear that whatever threat to the American polity might have been represented by that handful of anti-war socialists throwing a few pamphlets out of a tenement window in Abrams, or by the organized Communist Party of California in Whitney, that threat was nothing -- the Communists never had a chance of "overthrowing the government" -- the threat from the ideology of Islam is more widespread, durable, and persistent (it will last as long as Islam lasts), and the way in which that "overthrow of the government" is meant to be achieved is not through some kind of violent revolution, with those Muslim masses marching on Washington, but rather through a slow but systematic challenge to every single aspect of the legal and political institutions, and even social understandings, of the Infidel nation-state, until little by little, guttatim, those institutions surrender by degrees to conform better to the demands of Islam. In Islam, the duty of Jihad to spread Islam is not one that need be fulfilled only, or even mainly, through violence. Where Muslims are as yet too weak, and violence would undoubtedly fail, then other means, where available, are to be employed. The Money Weapon, campaigns of Da'wa, and demographic conquest can, those who take the long view (not that long, by the way), believe that they can steadily remove all the obstacles to Islam, so that it will inevitably take over. Are we so sure it cannot happen? Many intelligent observers, noting that there were, for example, 15,000 Muslims in the Netherlands in 1970 and now there are one million, and in the Netherlands the most popular political figure, Pim Fortuyn, was assassinated as was a well-kwown public figure bearing one of the most famous Dutch names, and today it is members of the Dutch Parliament who must be protected from Muslims, and so must many of those who speak out forcefully against Islam, all over Western Europe. And there are all kinds of indications -- including the recent banning of a march "against the islamization of Europe" in Brussels, and the statements of various leaders in individual countries, and among the highest levels of the E.U. bureacracy, who apparently believe that demography is destiny, that there is no way for the people of the West to preserve their own civilization, and no good reason to do so, and that mere head-counting will have to decide the fate of Europe, without those Europeans taking any measures, including halting Muslim immigration and then reversing it, and making their countries as unwelcoming to the practice of Islam as they can, not to mention other measures deemed perfectly appropriate when used by the government of the advanced and tolerant state of Czechoslovakia, back in 1946 -- all this is not discussed, all this is held to be beyond the pale. It makes no sense in Europe, and it makes no sense here, in the United States, with our fates, too, tied to those of the civilization and people of Western Europe.

In the Dennis case, the Supreme Court referred to an opinion of that great American jurist Learned Hand, of the Second Circuit. Learned Hand, dealing with free-speech cases in which the relevant test to be applied was that of "clear and present danger," offered his own calculus.

From the majority opinion in Dennis:

''Chief Judge Learned Hand, writing for the majority below, interpreted the phrase as follows: 'In each case [courts] must ask whether the gravity of the ''evil,'' discounted by its improbability, justifies such invasion of free speech as is necessary to avoid the danger.' 183 F.2d at 212. We adopt this statement of the rule. As articulated by Chief Judge Hand, it is as succinct and inclusive as any other we might devise at this time. It takes into consideration those factors which we deem relevant, and relates their significances. More we cannot expect from words.''

Constitutional jurisprudence has gone beyond Dennis, of course, and the "clear and present danger" test no longer exists, having been superseded by, inter alia, Brandenburg, and by later decisiions.

But the new domestic threats, which are linked to constant replenishment from abraod of the coffers, and the personnel, of those who would use violence against the indigenous Infidels of this country, and linked as well to that steady stillicide of demands and threats meant to wear away the resolve of Infidels to preserve their own institutions, and to employ against them their own solicitousness for individual liberties and for pluralism, by those who believe in neither but would do away, if they ever came to dominate, with both, will necessarily lead to the making of new law in the area of free speech.

What form will it take? It is hard to guess. But the calculus of Learned Hand is not a bad place to start to re-think the matter. Instead of is the threat "imminent" (as in Brandenburg) what should be focussed on is the magnitude of the threat, multiplied by its likelihood. And in judging the likelihood, the judges will have a right and a duty to look at history, even recent history, to see what has happened elsewhere where Muslims have steadily gained the demographic upper hand, and the kinds of changes that they have managed to make as a result.

So remember that formula by bushy-eyebrowed Learned Hand: 'In each case [courts] must ask whether the gravity of the ''evil,'' discounted by its improbability, justifies such invasion of free speech as is necessary to avoid the danger.'

The gravity of the evil, discounted by its improbability.

What is the "gravity of the evil" in this case?

And what is the "improbability" of that "evil" coming to pass?

Constitutional law is going to be exciting in the next few years -- alas.

Posted by: Hugh at October 2, 2007 5:18 PM

Overthrown governments:

Ignoring WW2, that regime toppling effort was a group effort.

Let's see, not in any order:

Chile, ending the Allende government.

South Vietnam (1962).

Granada, Panama, Haiti, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran (1953), Yugoslavia, ending Milosovec tenure.

This is a raw list compiled rather quickly, with no explantion of the circimstances. I included Yugoslavia, because B.Clinton was the primary impetus.

Posted by: Pelayo at October 2, 2007 5:23 PM

By Smithy:

"And how many governments has the USA toppled,"

Apparently, not enough.

Posted by: RalphInfidel at October 2, 2007 5:42 PM

I fail to understand the significance of the list above, which is a litany that would make any mother proud -- if that mother happens to be named Mother Jones and is a member of a far-left group that believes the American government has for decades been a force for evil, and practically the most vicious thing going. That is not how I understand the world, and I don't think many others of good sense, who may indeed deplore this or that action by the American govenment, but could easily take issue, and make logical mincemeat, of that little list provided above, by examining closely each name in turn, and the specific situation which trigged some level of American involvement. The American government has often been stupid, has often not recognized rightly its own interests -- as in Iraq today. But it is not the source of all wickedness, as the poster above may think or at least has certainly strongly implied. It was on the right side in World War I. And in World War II. And in the Cold War, and it is Western Europe that owes its continued freedom (which it appears to be throwing away in a fit of negligence or possibly of fear) to American willingness to sacrifice men and spend great amounts of money. The American government has also, here and there, made mistakes. It was a mistake not to fully de-nazify West Germany, and to attempt, as the Dulles brothers wanted, to collaborate with Nazis such as Gehlen. It was not a mistake to engage in the Berlin Airlift. It was not a mistake to support the British when they helped put down a Communist rebellion in Greece and in Malaya. It was not a mistake to support with money the non-Communist socialist parties in Western Europe, so that they would help keep the Communist Parties in check. It was not a mistake for the C.I.A. to support the Congress for Cultural Freedom and especially the magazine "Encounter" as part of the ideological war that was fought so successfully. It was not a mistake to support Tito when he removed himself from the Soviet orbit. It may have been a mistake -- it is not clear -- for the Americans to be inveigled by the British to overthrow Mossadegh, if in the light of history, Mossadegh and the Iranian nationalists might have done better than the Shah to contain the forces of Islam, but that is still not clear. It was not necessarily a mistake to intervene in Grenada, with Bishop, or in Panama, with Noriega. It was possibly a mistake not to realize, from the get-go, that Castro would be trouble. And so on.

The point of this thread is to discuss a trial in Chicago, of those who would, if they could, like a great many others now living in the Western world, undo the legal and political institutions of every Infidel nation-state, including this one.

Posted by: Hugh at October 2, 2007 5:49 PM

The quisling Sean Penn defending Hugo Chavez, he will be an ally to those who overthrow our nation.
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/10/02/video-spicoli-defends-chavezs-shutdown-of-opposition-tv-station/

Posted by: interestinconundrum at October 2, 2007 6:13 PM

Pelayo: You're correct that entrapment can be a legitimate defense, and I certainly didn't mean to imply that it cannot be and it's my error if it came across that way, but it entails a law enforcement authority, or his surrogate, originating the idea of the crime and investigative authorities are usually very careful in this regard, especially professionals like FBI personnel. Also, entrapment as a defense is usually used most successfully in fraud cases where money is the motive in committing a felonious action. Cold-blooded murderous intent, you know, what Islamic nutjobs across the world possess in abundance, would rarely be found to have for its genesis some law enforcement employee implanting in the mind of the defendant the intent to kill. And that's why my ire in this instance is directed at the lawyer as well as at the accused.

Posted by: Wellington at October 2, 2007 6:39 PM

Since when is stupidity an excuse? That's how the moslems have been getting by for the last 1350 years.

In any species other than Man stupidity is subject to the Laws of Darwin.

We tend to feel sorry for the dumb and want to promote them and mke things work in their favor.

We have to STOP making intelligent excuses [via our lawyers and our media] for these dumb evil murdering brutes!

Posted by: Allahfanculo at October 2, 2007 6:43 PM

Sean Penn? The great humanitarian and political thinker? That Sean Penn?

Posted by: Hugh at October 2, 2007 6:56 PM

I joined this yahoo group so I could observe what ideas some Muslims exchange. Some of the postings are in Arabic, some broken English. Anyway, I think some more of us should be checking it out too. Some material is mundane and nothing significant. Some of the posters seem fond of tabloid style gossip. But there is a lot of western culture bashing. If you agree to receive new posts as e-mails, you will get a lot of them.
TanzeemeIslami · Join us in Jihad for Nizam e Khilafat http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TanzeemeIslami/

J.

Posted by: J. Brian at October 2, 2007 8:00 PM

"Constitutional law is going to be exciting in the next few years -- alas." says Hugh.

Yes it is and the sooner a good test case gets to the Supremes, the better.

I always thought that a case such as the Pace Univ Koran flushing case could be the right test case if handled by the right attorney(s). Does anyone know the status of that case and if any noteworthy attorney is handling?

I wish there was way to "create" a case that would make it all the way up to the Sup. Ct.

Here is one idea I had...

Attorney's (and Congressmen) swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. On Bar Applications, questions are asked of all applicants " did you ever belong to an organization that supported the overthrow or replacement of the U.S. Government?" It would not be asked if an affirmative response meant automatic rejection or else why ask?

Any devout muslim who (5x a day prayer, reads the Koran regularly) is also an attorney would have to give an affirmative answer to that question. Any member of the bar who has taken his /her oath and is a devout muslim, cannot truthfully state they will defend the Consituion if they believe Islam should dominate and would like to see sharia law throughout the country. If one could prove an attorney held such beliefs, it should be grounds
for disbarment, or, outright rejection to bar admission.

There are other professionals that take oaths as well to defend the constitution. Don't all military take an oath to defend the constitution? If there was a way to challenge muslim's professional licenses to practice, one case would certainly make it all the way up the appellate ladder.

These criminal cases (eg Padilla, HLF) don't seem to present an opportunity to adjudicate the Constitutional issues that require attention (freedom of speech, religion and other penumbras)

Posted by: USorThem at October 2, 2007 8:10 PM

Sean Penn is indeed a quisling-type character. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer either. I would nominate Bruce Springsteen as another star personality who is easily duped, tedious and unable to comprehend that civilization must be tough and muscular as well as decent and sophisticated.

Posted by: Wellington at October 2, 2007 8:16 PM

Sean Penn? The great humanitarian and political thinker? That Sean Penn?
Posted by: Hugh

I do believe is an author now. Heh heh heh

Posted by: interestinconundrum at October 2, 2007 8:31 PM

Wellington:

I would venture to say that a lot of Hollywood actors and rock stars are not very well educated. Many are high school dropouts.

Years of drug and alcohol abuse doesn't help either.

Combine all that with a lifestyle that is far removed from the everyday life of the working American, total insulation from deprivation and want, plus a job that only asks you to "pretend" and VOILA!

You get Sean Penn and the rest of those people who think they know it all.

Blech.

Posted by: atheling at October 2, 2007 8:33 PM

Why isn't the death penalty on the table for these crimes??? Surely if the death penalty is warranted for anything, it would be this!

Posted by: atheling at October 2, 2007 8:36 PM

atheling: It's a shame what has happened to Hollywood. Half a century ago or so it was a bastion of patriotism and common sense. Be it Jimmy Stewart, Betty Grable, Bob Hope, Clark Gable, Claudette Colbert, Marlene Dietrich, John Wayne, etc., you had scores of actors who unabashedly loved America and said so very publicly. In many cases, for instance Jimmy Stewart and Marlene Dietrich, actors even risked their life in the cause of freedom, democracy and their country. Sadly, those days are gone. Now we have clueless folks like Susan Sarandon, Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, Harry Bellafonte, Jessica Lang, Charlie Sheen, etc., who are in the forefront of denouncing perceived American wrongdoing while excusing the criminal behavior of the tyrannical enemies of America. Tragic turnaround.

As for your comment about the death penalty, I'm with you completely. Treason should be punished by death. And I'm so sick of the gooey, kissy-face, huggy-bear types who see the death penalty as evidence of moral regression. I would vigorously argue that NOT having the death penalty for traitors and first-degree murderers is ipso facto evidence of intellectual confusion and moral cowardice.

Hope all is well with you.

Posted by: Wellington at October 2, 2007 9:25 PM

Wellington:

de Tocqueville said:

"One of the most ordinary weaknesses of the human intellect is to seek to reconcile contrary principles and to purchase peace at the expense of logic."

Consider his saying it is a weakness of the human intellect: Isn't this what we see in the poorly educated Left who have been indoctrinated rather than educated?

I'm very well, thank you. :)

Posted by: atheling at October 2, 2007 9:47 PM

Surprise, surprise!

Fortunately, Muslims fanatics are proving themselves to be such inept buffoons that many people will be woken up before they can actually carry out anything.

Of course, we know that Islamically brainwashed psychopaths are capable of just about anything, so we will continue to need to be on our guard.

In that regard, thanks, Robert!

The Truth About Islam
http://islamwatchers.blogspot.com

Posted by: Suziq at October 2, 2007 10:31 PM

To everyone,
I put up a list of governments that have been removed through direct military intervention or CIA covert activity. I tried to merely supply a quick posting for information that others could look into and form their own opinion. Most of these interventions were certainly justified. I also tried to be neutral. It was certainly not posted in support of anyone's point of view.

Posted by: Pelayo at October 2, 2007 11:10 PM

Islam is seditious. It is traitorous. It is an enemy of the Constitution, a document that all of our elected officials have sworn to defend. When are they going to start doing that? When is Islam going to be declared illegal and all adherents air-dropped off at Mecca? Or deported. Or jailed? I repeat, Islam is an enemy of the Constitution.

Wake up, America! Start calling your representatives and start telling them that you want this scourge on mankind OUTLAWED in this blessed country NOW!

For if we do not, there is no stopping this cult because they leverage our political correctness (read: lame liberal logic)AGAINST us to UNDERMINE our laws and values.

Wake up, politicians. Start passing some laws that recognize that you understand this threat. Do not do nothing and, thus prove that you are like this guy: http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dcrprsj6_241gggzxk

(copy and paste in your browser. It's worth it.)

Posted by: angryeagle at October 2, 2007 11:19 PM

"Islam is seditious." "It is an enemy of the Constitution."

I'm in full agreement with you, angryeagle, but we're still a long way off from having Mo's creed made illegal. A long way off. I'm afraid many tragic chapters of American history have yet to unfold before most everyone in this country, even the most dense among us (i.e., politicians, academics and media folk), grasp the inimical, totalitarian nature of the world's most invidious ideology, Islam. And even then there will be those among us whose contempt for America will still trump their dim realization that Islam is indeed incompatibile with the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Much trouble ahead for us because a particular damn seventh-century Arab merchant lived past his fortieth year.

Posted by: Wellington at October 3, 2007 12:01 AM

Stupid they may be but we ought to take them seriously and be aware there must be hundreds of thousands of other Jihadists in America [globally]
with the same ideas. Looks like some are CONVERTS
TO ISLAM- this is terrifying when a person brought
up with Christian,Hindu,Buddhist,Jewish Faiths suddenly becomes willing to kill, including his
nearest & dearest-FOR ISLAM!
Acknowledge Pelayo's List is correct-there is nothing anyone can do about mistakes of the past
except learn from them in the future. Certainly U.S policy of propping up some of the most corrupt
and repressive regimes makes it look a hypocrite
when lecturing other countries about 'human rights','democracy 'and 'moral values.' However, it in all our interests to have a strong United States and a STRONG, UNITED,ALLIANCE OF
NON MUSLIM COUNTRIES.

Posted by: Morgane at October 3, 2007 5:18 AM

"Islam is seditious." "It is an enemy of the Constitution."

I'm afraid many tragic chapters of American history have yet to unfold before most everyone in this country, even the most dense among us (i.e., politicians, academics and media folk), grasp the inimical, totalitarian nature of the world's most invidious ideology, Islam.

Posted by: Wellington at October 3, 2007 12:01 AM

Only Tom Tancredo is fully aware of the danger Islam poses to USA. He has mentioned this in his book 'In Mortal Danger' as well: http://www.teamtancredo.typepad.com
If America wants a strong, patriotic statesman, Tom Tancredo is the man. Rest are more of the same.

Posted by: Alert at October 3, 2007 7:12 AM

For a few decades the word on the street has been about "the war" that will be coming to America, maybe now people will wake up. Thank God there are folks like Robert for the info he passes on. Now only if we could get the MSM on board.

Posted by: americanmadestrat at October 3, 2007 8:57 AM

"Now only if we could get the MSM on board.

Posted by: americanmadestrat"

...as in...walk the plank?...

Posted by: exsgtbrown at October 3, 2007 10:28 AM

Alaskan sez: I'm fairly certain that we execute traitors in this country, or at least it's an option. Those convicted that are citizens of the U.S. should die immediately. Convicted terrorists should be executed by firing squad or hanged.

My friend, I believe the liberals and leftists, bleeding hearts, the ACLU included, in this country have just about done away with executions of ciminals, traitors, and similar first-class citizens.
You see, according to them, these poor souls need to be treated in a humane manner; to execute them would be inhumane. We now have to pay for their trial, and incarcerate them for the remainder of their lives, providing them with three squares a day, plush living accomodations, a library with all the legal books they need to help them get out of prison again, and oh yes: television; mustn't forget that.

America: WHAT A COUNTRY!!!!

Posted by: hardball at October 3, 2007 11:30 AM

bevc: your acting partners who are of the leftist bent are puppets of the Hollywood "elite" who get their marching orders from them. America laughed when the warnings went out, upon the first attack against the World Trade Center towers; we slept, and we saw what happened on 9/11/01. Your puppet friends have much to learn, and sadly they will blame the results of another devastating attack on the United States.

It IS 1938 all over again!

Posted by: hardball at October 3, 2007 11:43 AM

Not gonna happen...they not only can't be persuaded, but heartily endorse such lunacy, thus part of the enemy within...especially when the MSM runs interference for them.
With leaders like theirs who get a free pass, even for such illucid BS like claiming hurricane katrina was some sort of "honkey conspiracy" (calypso louie farrakhan)...
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={5A00A72C-1A8E-4A4C-8DAE-13E915C15A5D}
...they'll get "3 hots & a cot"...a step up from the sh*thole they're accustomed to...
...but that's another story...

They're classic case-in-point to bring back THE penalty for treason:
hanging

Posted by: jcom972 at October 3, 2007 3:38 PM