Monday, April 25, 2011

When good guys don't understand Islam

Listening to the unabridged audiobook "The Tea Party Goes to Washington" by Rand Paul, I found much to agree with in his domestic policy ideas, particularly auditing the Fed. I even could agree with some of his criticisms of neocons and nation building, however at a certain point his foreign policy ideas don't hold up to examination.

Chapter 7 of Rand Paul's book states,

“The standard neoconservative line throughout the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars has been that America must fight terrorism there so that we don't have to fight it here. The former head of the CIA's Bin Laden unit, terrorism expert Michael Sheuer stresses that they come here precisely because we are over there...that Muslim hatred is motivated by US interventionism more than any other factor.

Many like to claim that Muslim hatred for our culture - or our freedom, to use Bush's language, is what causes Islamic terrorism. This is likely a factor in terrorist efforts and recruitment but not the primary factor. Or as Sheuer says bluntly, "We are at war because of what the US government does in the Muslim world - unqualified support for Israel, support for Arab tyrannies, invading Iraq, etc. and not for who we are and how we live here in North America.

If Sheuer was wrong, and the CIA had no justification for developing the term ‘Blowback,’ and it really was Americans' way of life that was the primary factor for Islamic terrorist attacks, logic would follow that more culturally liberal nations like Sweden or Switzerland would have more to fear from radical Islam than the United States.”

Sen. Paul has overlooked the epidemic of rapes of Swedish and Norwegian women by Muslim immigrants

In 2005, "The number of rape charges per capita in Malmö is 5 Р6 times that of Copenhagen, Denmark." Is Sen. Paul also aware that a Muslim clumsily blew himself up in a busy Stockholm shopping area last Christmas in an attempt to kill as many Christian Swedes as possible?

This poor choice of the example of Sweden leads me to ask: has Sen. Paul ever read Robert Spencer's "Jihad Watch" or Pamela Geller's "Atlas Shrugs" website for three days straight?

And exactly what belligerent actions have the Coptic Christians engaged in Egypt, causing Muslims to burn their churches?

In a famous rant by Ewald Stadler of the Austrian Parliament that can be seen on YouTube, Stadler recounts how Catholic Archbishop Luigi Padovese was stabbed 8 times in the heart in Turkey in June of 2010. When no one came to his aid as the Archbishop ran into the street, the young man the cut his head off. Was the Archbishop the cause of this intolerance in Muslim Turkey?

Perhaps Sen. Paul and the like minded Cato Institute writer would care to address the activities a prominent 1940s Islamic cleric, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who spent World War II in Nazi Germany helping to create all-Muslim SS units. 

What has changed since those times is that the watermelon (green on the outside, red on the inside) parties ability to place limitations on domestic land and offshore oil drilling in the US which has helped to make many Muslim countries very wealthy, wealthy enough to fund - either directly or as extorted money - many terrorist activities. Ironically, Sen. Paul complains about US forces bribing Taliban officials who then use that money to buy and place roadside IEDs that kill American soldiers. What does Rand Paul think happens with part of the money that Iran and Saudi Arabia get for their oil?

Perhaps Sen. Paul would care to at least address the writings and studies on the Muslim Brotherhood who specifically state they hate our Western way of life and consider it something to overthrow. These writings date from the 1920s and 1940s. Or would Rand Paul care to address the writing of Reza Safa, a Christian convert and evangelist who grew up as a devout Muslim, who wrote a book called “Inside Islam.”
On page 64, it quotes Sura 9:30 of the Koran which states:

‘…and the Christians call “Christ the Son of God.” This is a saying from their mouth; (In this) they but imitate what the Unbelievers of the old used to say. . Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!’

Or how does Sen. Paul reconcile his belief that the US caused "Blowback" when the Koran, written centuries before the US came into existence, says:

Verse 7:176 compares unbelievers to "panting dogs" with regard to their idiocy and worthlessness.  Verse 7:179 says they are like "cattle" only worse.

Verse 5:60 even says that Allah transformed Jews of the past into apes and pigs.  This is echoed by verses 7:166 and 2:65.

A hadith says that Muhammad believed rats to be "mutated Jews" (Bukhari 54:524, also confirmed by Sahih Muslim 7135 and 7136).

Verses 46:29-35 even say that unbelieving men are worse than demons who believe in Muhammad.

Sen. Rand further states in his book:

"In my proposals to end foreign aid, many critics often ask: well, what about our ally Israel? Actually, Israel's example illustrates the problem. We give about 4 billion dollars annually to Israel in foreign aid and we give about 6 billion dollars to the nations that surround Israel, many of them antagonistic towards the Jewish state. Does this make any sense at all? Does any of this have actually anything to do with America's security, much less Israel's?

Actually, Senator Paul is conveniently leaving out the hundreds of billions sent overseas to Muslim oil producing countries which tips the scale considerably, even as we let our domestic oil production capacity atrophy.  This linked article speaks of "hundreds of billions of dollars" sent overseas for oil, so I am making a modest claim that Israel's enemies are getting at least one hundred billion of it per year. I would further ask that if spending 10 billion dollars in foreign aid makes no sense, then shipping one or more hundreds of billions overseas makes literally ten times less sense?

A major foreign policy point of Sen. Paul's is that (to paraphrase) "if we act calm and let the Muslims be, they will leave us alone." For a largely reasonable population, that would make sense. But consider this following finding.

Ann Barnhardt, writing in American Thinker, has discovered a blockbuster revelation, the flaw in the argument that "Muslims will eventually assimilate like everyone else" and that they are no more prone to violence or shiftless unemployment than any other group of people. It is a Koranic approved first cousin marriage rate in Arab countries of a typical rate of 25 percent, up to 39 percent and greater. This inbreeding has been going on for Fourteen Hundred Years. And the current first cousin marriage rate among Pakistani Muslims living in Great Britain is 55 percent.

The article is entitled "The Keystone of the Islamic Milieu: Inbreeding" by Ann Barnhardt and is located at

Barnhardt states:

“But there is one culture, one faux ‘religion,’ that expressly condones and encourages consanguineous marriage and breeding.  That system is Islam, and the document that explicitly ratifies incest is the Koran, specifically Sura 4 verse 23:

    Prohibited for you (in marriage) are your mothers, your daughters, your sisters, the sisters of your fathers, the sisters of your mothers, the daughters of your brother, the daughters of your sister, your nursing mothers, the girls who nursed from the same woman as you, the mothers of your wives, the daughters of your wives with whom you have consummated the marriage -- if the marriage has not been consummated, you may marry the daughter. Also prohibited for you are the women who were married to your genetic sons. Also, you shall not be married to two sisters at the same time -- but do not break up existing marriages.”

Sounds like an exhaustive list -- but it is not.  It is the most lax incest prohibition in all of human culture.  There is a massive omission: cousins only once removed.  In the Muslim culture, marriage and breeding between first cousins has existed since day one.  Mohammed himself married Zaynab, who was his father's sister's daughter.  Mohammed and Zaynab were direct first cousins.


The Reproductive Health Journal reports the following rates on consanguinity in Muslim countries.  Where a statistical range has been recorded, I have used the lower parameter: (A table is found at that website which lists cousin marriage rates in Arab countries ranging from 12 percent in Lebanon to 22.6 percent in Algeria to 48 percent in Libya to 60 percent in southern Egypt).


According to the BBC,    55% of Pakistani-Britons are married to a first cousin, and as a corollary to that produce "just under a third" of all children in the UK with genetic illnesses, despite being only 3% of the total births.

As a direct result of inbreeding, the Muslim population is the only population on earth that is mentally and physically devolving.  This inherent weakness makes Muslim populations more susceptible to nefarious, oppressive leadership and mass manipulation.  The amount of objective evidence supporting this statement is colossal and obvious.

Add to this the fact that roughly 75 percent of Muslims cannot read.

Reza Safa, a Christian convert and evangelist who grew up as a devout Muslim, wrote a book called "Inside Islam." In it, he points out that, very few Muslims have read the Koran because the rate of illiteracy in many Muslim countries is 75 to 85 percent. He also states that since only 20 percent of Muslims worldwide can read Arabic, they don't fully know what the Koran advocates. This makes them especially susceptible to tyrants who use demagogic tactics to whip them into an emotional fury.

I'm not saying that Muslims can't become more enlightened people, but between the genetic inbreeding and the illiteracy and the wife beating, well...let's just say that Thomas Jefferson isn't about to become the Muslim world's role model any time soon. While this grim picture could be reversed with effort (the Koran doesn't require marriage of first cousins and people can be taught to read), to say that all we have to do is leave the Middle East, keep sending them our petrodollars, and expect Islamic countries to adopt a Live and Let Live attitude is a dangerous self-delusion. I suspect that if we dug our own oil, as many conservatives have advocated, the need or desire to placate Middle Eastern despots would lessen.

There are many Rand Paul domestic issues I agree with and I don't advocate nation building and military adventurism as cheap thrill for those that don't fight themselves or send their own sons and daughters. But ignoring the mentality and values of other peoples around the world - and both their potential and very real threats to our way of life - while we send them hundreds of billions in "play money," i.e., money to play with, is not a viewpoint one should adapt.

Rand Paul states, as a generalization, that Democrats want to cut the military budget and not domestic spending, while Republicans want to cut domestic spending and not the military budget. This impasse, if no one wants to rise above it and do what is good for the Country, namely cut aspects of both, could lead to a situation where Sen. Paul may be proven at least partially right on his foreign affairs positions. If the US doesn't reform its spending habits and balance its budget, it will greatly inhibit the ability of the US military to intervene in a number of situations around the world.
Current and former allies of the US are probably looking for ways to self-finance their defense needs because they see that America will either not want to - or not be able to afford – to support its mutual alliance treaties in the same way it could in the past. Either way, Sen. Paul has pointed out the folly of our current conventional political “wisdom.”

No comments: