Monday, October 08, 2007

Bikers Rally In Support Of University Of New Mexico Student Peter Lynch, Who Pulled Down An Illegally-Displayed Mexican Flag

A large biker-dominated rally was held at the University of New Mexico (UNM) on Sunday October 7th, 2007, to support a student who ripped down a Mexican flag. Organizers said they believe Peter Lynch removed the flag from a UNM pole as a sign of patriotism. The Mexican flag was flying without an American flag above it. Full story, including video, on KOB Channel 4 in Albuquerque. [Ed. Note: Note the subtle media bias against Lynch by KOB claiming the he "ripped down" the Mexican flag. This subtle bias fuels anti-white racism.]

The incident originally occurred on September 17th, three days after the campus's celebration of Mexican Independence Day. According to an October 3rd story reported by KOB, Peter Lynch, a 30-year old U.S. Air Force veteran, has said that he removed the Mexican flag, which was flying in celebration of Mexican Independence day, because it wasn’t accompanied by an American flag. Normally, the flag would have been lowered by UNM ROTC at the same time they lowered the U.S. flag, but ROTC students neglected to do so this time because they believed a Mexican student organization would do it. In violation of campus flag protocol, the Mexican flag flew unaccompanied by an American flag for three days until Lynch, tired of waiting for the university to take action, removed the flag.

However, the Mexican student organization in question, El Centro de la Raza (which, translated, means "the Center for the Race"), did not address their failure to take responsibility for the Mexican flag. Instead, they chose to play the race card and claim that it has found evidence that Lynch had previously referred to illegal immigrants as “wet-backs” on a public MySpace page. “It is the position of El Centro de la Raza that the acts of Peter Lynch were acts of hate and should be treated as such,” the organization said in a statement. Of course, the term "wetback" has no racist connotation, making no reference to any specific race; however, since the preponderance of "wetbacks" is Latino, the Latino lobbies like to justify illegal immigration by Latinos by characterizing any criticism of illegal immigration as "racist". There are NO KNOWN prominent Latino lobbies that condemn illegal immigration.

According to the UNM Daily Lobo newspaper, two other Latino lobbies also piled on Peter Lynch. The New Mexico League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) have asked state and federal officials to investigate the incident as a hate crime. In addition, Mabel Gonzalez, president of the Mexican Student Association, also characterized the flag removal as a "hate crime".

However, those who attended Sunday's rally defended Lynch. “It doesn’t involve a hate crime, in my opinion,” organizer Paul Caputo said. “Everyone takes advantage of every little situation and to try and make it ethnic. What’s important now is that we all realize we’re just Americans.” Many attendees at the rally also left financial donations to help pay for Lynch's legal expenses.

Peter Lynch has been formally charged with criminal damage to property. At his arraignment hearing on Wednesday October 3rd, he pleaded not guilty and his jury trial will take place in November. If convicted, he could get six months in jail and a $500 fine.

Click HERE to read an article from The American Resistance describing how Latino lobbies get overwhelming support from the American corporate elite, to include the Ford Foundation.

There appears to be no connection between this incident and the more popularly-acclaimed October 2nd incident in Reno, NV, where Jim Broussard removed a Mexican flag which was flying above an American flag. Broussard has not yet been charged with a crime in this incident.

Commentary: The increasing willingness of individual citizens to step up to the plate and commit individual acts of patriotism reflects the absolute unwillingness of the federal government to do its job and protect this nation. While our troops are bogged down half a world away fighting on behalf of oil and Israel, Latinos continue to invade and degrade America under the title of "reconquista". Corporate America aids and abets this treason by knowingly hiring illegals to shortchange American workers. Employers further victimize American workers by increasingly requiring that American workers also be fluent in Spanish as a condition of employment, even in industries not requiring frequent contact with foreign tourists. These employers commit economic treason against America by promoting reverse colonialism.

Patriotic Americans must continue to commit acts of resistance after the manner of Peter Lynch and Jim Broussard. Words are no longer sufficient.


  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  2. The link to the article is removed.

    KOB cut off your link to this story.

    The media thru-out the world is now controlled by the "Bankers" of the world.

    Whites and the USA are on a slippery slope to being continually demonized and the truth blocked by the media.

  3. Crap, I can't believe KOB pulled the story. What do they have to hide? I knew they were somehat biased against Peter Lynch, but I didn't think they'd actually cave in to censorship.

    That's why we're developing our own media. Maybe I'll find another link. Thanks for letting me know.

  4. KOB link fixed - I just mis-typed the URL. Doom on me!

  5. The Unbeliever10/09/2007 8:45 PM

    Imagine if you planned a country’s economic future using calculations exclusively based on even numbers. For ideological reasons you excluded odd numbers because you declared that they represent bigotry and have divisive nature since they cannot be divided equally in half. Absolutely all calculations for the future would then end up being wrong. This sounds insane and improbable, but what we’re doing now in the Western world is exactly this naïve. In the name of Multiculturalism we completely ignore all ethnic, religious, cultural and, yes, racial differences, because we have decided that these things don’t matter. But in real life, ethnicity, culture, religion and race do matter. Doesn’t that mean that all our projections for the future by necessity will end up being wrong, since they fail to take important factors into account?

    Policy needs to be rooted in a realistic assessment of human nature, not in wishful thinking. Good intentions are far from sufficient to ensure good results. History is full of well-intended policies gone horrible wrong. We know from past experience that basing an ideological world view on a fundamentally flawed understanding of human nature is bound to end in disaster. Society will become more and more totalitarian in order to suppress all the information that doesn’t conform to the official ideology. Isn’t this what is happening in the West now?

    I used to believe until quite recently that skin color was irrelevant. I was brought up that way. I still don’t think ethnicity or race does or should mean everything. In fact, I would say it is patently uncivilized to claim that it means everything. But I can no longer say with a straight face that it means absolutely nothing, and if it means more than nothing, its needs to be taken into account. Whether we like this or not is immaterial.

    Numerous studies have demonstrated that people tend to prefer their own ethnic group above others. An international poll in 2007 showed that 90 percent of the inhabitants in Egypt, Indonesia and India believed that each country should guard their innate culture and lifestyle. Immigration concerned people in 44 out of the 47 countries.

    Guarding your identity is thus a universal human trait, not a white trait. In fact, it is less pronounced among whites today than among anybody else. Only whites cling onto the idea of universalism, everybody else sticks with their own ethnic group. In white majority Western nations it has become a state-sponsored ideology to “celebrate diversity,” despite the fact that all available evidence indicates that more diversity leads to more conflict.

    In May 2007, Osama bin Laden’s deputy terrorist leader Ayman al-Zawahri stated that “Al-Qaida is not merely for the benefit of Muslims. That’s why I want blacks in America, people of color, American Indians, Hispanics, and all the weak and oppressed in North and South America, in Africa and Asia, and all over the world.”

    Read that statement closely. This Jihadist organization is calling for a global war against whites. Not Christians or Jews. Whites. I have been told all of my life that skin color is irrelevant, but this balancing act gets a lot more difficult when somebody declares war against you because of your race.

    According to the columnist Leo McKinstry, the British government has declared war on white English people:

    In the name of cultural diversity, Labour attacks anything that smacks of Englishness. The mainstream public are treated with contempt, their rights ignored, their history trashed. In their own land, the English are being turned into second-class citizens.

    Keith Best, head of the Immigration Advisory Service, stated that immigrants are “better citizens” than native Britons. Matthew Elliott of the Taxpayers’ Alliance pressure group was shocked and replied that “Taxpayers shouldn’t be funding an outfit that describes them as being second-rate citizens.” But apparently, now they do.

    DNA studies have proved that a significant majority of those who live in the British Isles today are descended directly from the Ice Age hunters, despite the Roman, Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Norman invasions. This accounts for 88% of the Irish, 81% of the Welsh, 70% of the Scots and 68% of the English.

    The UK Commission for Racial Equality in 1996 claimed that “everyone who lives in Britain today is either an immigrant or the descendant of an immigrant.” But if everybody is an immigrant, how come people of European stock in the Americas and Australia are still viewed as alien elements by some, even though many of them have lived there for centuries? As Professor David Conway demonstrates in his book A Nation Of Immigrants?, after the invasion led by William the Conqueror in 1066, the total number of Norman settlers in Britain was never more than five per cent of the population. The inflow now is 25 times any previous level and frequently from totally alien cultures, not from neighboring territories and cultural cousins as previously.

    I’m sure the English are told that this is a result of colonialism, but there are no Britons left in Pakistan, so why should there be Pakistanis in Britain? The Germans had a colony in Namibia. Why should they accept millions of Turks, who have a thousand years of extremely brutal colonial history of their own, because of this? There are not many Dutch people left in Indonesia, so why should the Dutch be rendered a minority in their major cities by Moroccans and others? And why should European countries such as Portugal, Spain and Greece, which have all suffered from centuries of Islamic colonization, have to accept Muslims into their lands? Switzerland, Sweden, Finland and Norway hardly have any colonial history at all, yet are still subject to mass immigration. The truth is that immigration policies bear little correlation to past colonialist history, population density or size. Ireland, Denmark, Britain, France, Sweden, Italy, Germany and the Netherlands have one, and only one, thing in common: The natives are white, and thereby have no legitimate claim to their own countries.

    As Professor Ida Magli writes in an Italian essay entitled A Nation for Sale: “Why can’t we protest? Why aren’t we allowed what every people has always had the right to say, that is that no ruler, whatever the system of government — monarchy, dictatorship, democracy — has either the power or the right to sell off the homeland of their own subjects?”

    The columnist Kevin Myers in Ireland thinks that no country has ever accepted, never mind assimilated, the volumes of immigrants now present in his country:
    - - - - - - - - -

    Why the presumption that an Asian Muslim who lives in Ireland is in any way Irish? My mother lived most of her life in England, but never for a second thought of herself as English. The media should be asking the big question, ‘Why are we still admitting hundreds of thousands of immigrants?’ Instead, we are obsessing with the relatively trivial question of: Are the Irish people, who after all have admitted vast armies of strangers to their national home, racist? This is self-hatred at its most pathetic, and its most self-defeating.

    Rune Gerhardsen of the Labor Party in Oslo, the son of Norway’s longest-serving Prime Minister in history, states that “When I went to school we were taught about the Great Migrations. Today’s migrations are just as big. This is part of an international trend we neither can nor want to stop. I think this development is first and foremost exciting and positive.” He likes to say that we have lived for 10,000 years without anybody visiting us. Now we’ve had a massive change within an extremely brief historical period of time.

    I will give Gerhardsen credit for frankly admitting that this is by far the greatest demographic change in our nation’s history since the end of the last Ice Age. The problem is, this change, which has already made the country a lot less safe than it was only a generation ago, has been conducted without real debate, solely with propaganda and censorship. And I’m not so sure all of these groups have come merely to “visit” us. Some of them are here to colonize and subdue us, and readily admit this if you care to listen to them.

    According to the writer Kent Andersen, the greatest social experiment the population has ever been subject to was never decided democratically. The native majority were never allowed to have a say about whether they wanted to change the country forever. In his view, you don’t get mass immigration for decades unless somebody with power allows this and desires it.

    During the Multicultural craze of the 1990s, novelist Torgrim Eggen in an essay entitled “The psychotic racism” warned against “race wars in the streets” as a result of mass immigration. The solution to this was not to limit immigration, but to limit criticism of immigration. According to Eggen, xenophobia and opposition to mass immigration should be viewed as a mental illness, and hence “the solution to this xenophobia is that you should distribute medication to those who are seriously affected. I have discussed this with professor of community medicine, Dr. Per Fugelli, and he liked the idea.” Mr Fugelli suggested putting anti psychotic drugs in the city’s drinking water.

    This may sound too extreme to be meant seriously, but Mr. Fugelli has continued to publicly chastise those who are critical of national immigration policies. Eggen warned that arguments about how ordinary people are concerned over mass immigration shouldn’t be accepted because this could lead to Fascism: “One should be on one’s guard against people, especially politicians, who invoke xenophobia on behalf of others. And if certain people start their reasoning with phrases such as ‘ordinary people feel that,’ one shouldn’t argue at all, one should hit [them].”

    Repeated violence committed by non-white immigrants against whites is dismissed because they come from “weak groups.” But whites are a weak group. We are a rapidly shrinking global minority, and Nordic-looking Scandinavians are a minority of a minority. Ethnologist Maria Bäckman in her study “Whiteness and gender” followed a group of Swedish girls in the immigrant-dominated suburb of Rinkeby outside Stockholm. Several of the native girls stated that they had dyed their hair to avoid harassment and being called “whore.” We thus already now have a situation where being blond in certain areas of Sweden, not just in Pakistan or Egypt, makes you a target of harassment and aggression.

    In my country, the Equality and Anti-Discrimination Ombud from 2006 made Multiculturalism and total non-discrimination into an official state ideology. If a Muslim immigrant claims that a native has somehow discriminated against him, the native non-Muslim has to mount proof of his own innocence. I have later discovered that similar laws have been passed across much of Western Europe, encouraged by the European Union.

    Native Europeans are being told that we don’t have a history and a culture, and that we thus “gain” a culture when others move to our countries. This is an insult to thousands of years of European history, to the Celtic, Germanic, Slavic and cultures and the Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian heritage all Westerners share in. The funny part is, the next second we are told that we do have a culture, but it consists of nothing but a long line of crimes and is thus nothing to preserve, anyway.

    My nation doesn’t even have a colonial history. It gained its independence as late as the twentieth century, at which point it was a poor country, yet because I am white, I am to be held personally responsible for every bad act, perceived or real, committed by every person who happens to have roughly similar skin color throughout history. American novelist Susan Sontag even stated that “The white race is the cancer of human history.” I am told that I am evil specifically because of my race, and five minutes later I’m told that race doesn’t matter.

    I do not hold Abdullah who sells kebab down on the corner personally responsible for sacking Constantinople, abducting millions of Europeans to slavery, colonizing the Iberian Peninsula, ruining the Balkans or threatening Vienna several times. I criticize Islam because Muslims have never admitted their past and will continue to commit atrocities as long as the institution of Jihad is alive. I do not believe in collective responsibility, and I do not think a person should be held responsible for actions made by his ancestors centuries ago.

    On the other hand, if I am to take the blame, personally, for every bad act, perceived or real, committed by any white person in the past, it is only fair that I, personally, should also take credit for their achievements. It was peoples of European stock who created the modern world, not anybody else. If I am to be held personally responsible for colonialism, I want personal credit for being a part of the one civilization that has taken the greatest strides for mankind of any civilization that has ever existed on this planet. I’m done with apologizing for my existence for the nameless crime of being born white.

    As African-American writer Elizabeth Wright says:

    After decades of inundation about the evils of ‘white racism’ coming from all directions, and most especially from the media and education establishments, the average white is programmed to avoid anything that smacks of conscious endorsement of his own race. In the current social climate, to display favorable regard towards that which is white, not only is forbidden, but is viewed as an automatic disparagement of non-whites. A ‘White Pride’ T-shirt is deemed a threatening symbol, whereas a ‘Black Supremacy’ slogan on a button or garment is viewed as an understandable, albeit angry response to undeserved past abuses. Any public effort to promote a white theme is doomed to failure, even if the proper bows to racial diversity are adhered to. Whites learn early to censor themselves.

    I’ve been told by Americans that they have moved beyond race, but judging from examples such as this, it looks more as if they have established a culture of institutionalized white masochism. It’s not that Americans have moved beyond race, it’s just that the whites have unilaterally surrendered. The United States was almost 90% white as late as 1965, and will be minority white within a couple of generations. I don’t know of any example where the formerly dominant group has become a minority and this has not resulted in a complete change of the nature of that country, or to its dissolution, but in the USA, this entire subject is taboo because it is “racist.” That’s not rational.

    I have listened to claims regarding the supposed benefits of mass immigration, why it is inevitable and why those who resist are bad people. The propaganda is remarkably similar from the Netherlands via Britain to Sweden and Italy, and that’s not a coincidence. This is all happening as a coordinated and well-planned assault on established national cultures, organized by the European Union and supported by the national political and media elites.

    It has happened many times that a people move into an area and subdue those living there, but the natives have at least been allowed to defend themselves. It is unprecedented in the annals of history that a people is banned by their own leaders from defending their lands from foreign colonization and are even expected to fund this colonization. It is one of the greatest crimes of our age that the indigenous people of an entire continent, at least the Western half of it, are systematically deprived of their heritage, their history, their land and ultimately perhaps their entire physical existence, all with the active aid of the very individuals who are supposed to protect their interests. The only reason why this is considered positive, or even remotely acceptable, is because the natives in this case are white. There is no other reason for this.

    In Glasgow, Scotland, Kriss Donald, a 15-year-old totally innocent white schoolboy was abducted, stabbed repeatedly and then doused in petrol and burned to death by a group of Pakistani immigrants. Labour politician Mohammad Sarwar, who helped in bringing some of the men to justice, later became the first elected representative in Britain to step down due to threats against his family.

    The established historical pattern is that people who are conquered by others are harassed by the newcomers. I don’t see any reason to expect this to be different just because the natives happen to be white. On the contrary. We will be attacked even more viciously because we are a formerly dominant group. When we are told that mass immigration is “inevitable,” we are actually being told that verbal and physical abuse of out children is inevitable and that we should “get used to it.” I see no reason to accept that. If mass immigration leads to harassment of my children, it is my duty to resist it.

    Jews were once told to “get back to Palestine.” When they did, they were told to “get out of Palestine.” The people who said this didn’t object to where Jews lived, they objected to the fact that they existed at all. I sometimes wonder whether whites of European descent, a global minority, are the Jews of the 21st century. I also notice that while people of European descent are told to “get back to Europe” in North America or Australia, whites in Europe are demonized if they resist being turned into a minority in their own countries. The problem then, apparently, isn’t where whites live, it’s that we exist at all.

    Observer Ole Kulterstad notes that Europeans who are against free migration are labeled as “right-wing extremists.” But common sense indicates that giving away your country to alien cultures is more extreme than merely wanting to preserve it as it once was. I agree with him. I’m sick of hearing how Islamic organizations that want to destroy my civilization are called “moderates,” whereas Westerners are extremists if we resist, yet that is exactly what our media and our authorities do. We are not extremists; we are subject to policies that are extreme. Is gradually reducing a people to a minority in their own land, without proper debate about future consequences, not to be regarded as extreme?

    I hear some writers fear an extremist backlash in Europe, but if people are so concerned about white extremism then they should cease creating the foundations for such extremism to grow. Native Europeans increasingly get the feeling that they are pushed into a corner and have an entirely justifiable fear of being overwhelmed. Fear leads to desperation, and desperation sometimes leads to aggression. If we do get an outbreak of political movements in Europe that really are extremist — and I sometimes fear this outcome, too — this will not come about because white Europeans are born evil, it will come about because white Europeans will be pushed into extremism, feel that their continued existence is at stake and that they have been abandoned by their own authorities. The solution to this is simply to recognize that Western nations have accepted more immigration from alien cultures in a shorter period of time than any other civilization has done peacefully in history. We have reached our limits and we need a break from mass immigration before our entire political and economic system breaks down.

    The idea that every white person who desires self-determination and self-preservation is a racist, a white supremacist and a Nazi is nonsense and should flatly be rejected. The vast majority of racist violence in Western nations is by non-whites attacking whites. Consequently, if we limit immigration this is anti-racism, since we are protecting our children against racist violence. It is not about white supremacy, either, it is about equality. Whites are currently the only racial group specifically denied the opportunity to defend their countries and heritage. If we assert our right to do so we are thus fighting for equality, not supremacy.

    The “Nazi” accusations so carelessly thrown out these days are completely baseless in this context. The Nazis believed that whites, and blondes in particular, had the right to colonize or eradicate others. But the policy we follow today could be dubbed reversed Nazism since it is based on the assumption that whites should have fewer rights than others and can be colonized or culturally eradicated with impunity. I don’t see why I should either be a “Nazi” or embrace and celebrate my extinction. It’s a false choice.

    I suspect future historians will call this era the Age of White Masochism. The white man conquered the world and then suffered a nervous breakdown, a kind of collective neurosis shared by an entire civilization. However, I sense that this era is slowly coming to an end.

    I would use two arguments as to why the current mass immigration the West should be halted:


    Whites, too, have a right to exist. The primary duty you have as a human being is to preserve the heritage of your ancestors and pass on to your children a country they can call their own and where they can live in dignity.


    The ongoing immigration is population dumping where less successful cultures dump their population in more successful ones. This is a form of global Communism and will generate the same effects by destroying successful communities and centers of excellence.

    I believe whites in the 21st century should desire a room of our own where we can prosper, live in a major Western city without having to fear violence because of our race, and without being stripped of our heritage in order to placate people who moved to our countries out of their own free will. We have the right to preserve our heritage and are under no obligation to commit collective suicide or serve as a dumping ground for other countries. It has nothing to do with animosity towards others. For my part, I am being entirely honest if I say that I still love visiting other cultures, but I will love this even more if I know I can also return to my own

  6. The Unbeliever10/09/2007 8:49 PM

    The above post is from the excellent writer Fjordman.
    The Unbeliever

  7. Excellent post, Unbeliever. I only scanned through it, because I'm in the middle of a write-up on a proposed Alaska oil tax increase, but it is about love of one's race and preference for the company of one's own racial companions rather than hate for anyone else.

    I've often wondered myself whether the racial demographic shift in America from 89% white 40 years ago to 67% white today was really a "random" act. When you see the hard sell of diversity, and the willingness of employers to be used as proxy enforcers of political correctness, you can sense a pattern of orchestration.

  8. The Unbeliever10/09/2007 8:57 PM

    Here is my letter to the ADN reporter who did last Sundays story on the “Muslim Scholarship” presentation at APU.

    Ms. Cox,
    I read with interest your interview with Regina Boisclair at Alaska Pacific University. Unfortunately your credentials as a reporter of the facts seem to be in jeopardy. I found your questioning of Ms. Boisclair to be of the typical softball Politically Correct, Multicultural variety. It was quite obvious to me that you had not done your historical homework and that you felt it was axiomatic that, and agreed with Ms. Boisclair that Americans must accept Islam as an equal to Western society and more specifically that some how Islam is good for America and offers no threat to our existence. But first things first Ms. Cox , two answers to your questions caught my eye in the article and flagged Regina Boisclair as person who is ignorant of Islamic history and at best an academic fraud. Her statement to you which was never challenged by you, most likely because you did not do your home work on the subject and thus were ignorant of the historical facts, regarding the claim that Islam invented the “Arabic” numbering system is patently false and misleading. Let me explain to you the historical facts so that you might be less inclined to accept unchallenged statements from an academic Islamic apologist such as Ms. Boisclair. India has a long history of mathematical prowess, the Hindu numerical system especially the concept of “zero” was a revolutionary concept and far superior to the Roman numeral system. It was one of the most important contributions to Western civilization ever imagined for it laid the ground work for the scientific renaissance that followed. Europeans learned about the Indian numerals via Arabs which is why they are mistakenly called Arabic numerals in the West; it rightfully should have been called the “Hindu” numeric system. The Middle East is situated between India and Europe therefore it seems incontrovertible that the West received the Indian numeric system via the Islamic world. It is worth noting that to get that numerical system Islam slaughtered over one million Hindus. The Bhamani sultans of Gulbarge and Bidar considered it meritorious to kill a hundred thousand Hindu men, women, and children every year. Humm…Ms. Boisclair calls it a “Religion of Peace”, shame on you Ms. Cox for not challenging that assumption. Regina Boisclair’s statement regarding the fact that Thomas Aquinas received his philosophical background from Islamic scholarship is devoid of any substantiating facts; William of Moerbeke was a Flemish scholar and a prolific translator. His translation of virtually all of the works of Aristotle and many by Archimedes, and Hero of Alexandria were the vehicles which paved the way for such Renaissance scholars as Thomas Aquinas; Moerbeke’s highly accurate translation of “Politics” which was never available in Arabic and was the basis of Aquinas’s famous “The Summa Theologica”. Thus Ms. Boisclair’s claim goes completely against the historical facts. The transmission of Greek and Classical learning followed a path from Greek, to Orthodox Christians, to Latin Christians in the West. No Muslim middlemen were involved. As an example of the muddled Multicultural thinking that Ms. Boisclair personifies might I point out that Islamic appeasers in academia consistently use “Spain’s glorious past” as an example of Islamic scholarship but a close examination reveals that more books are translated today in Spain in one year than have been translated into Arabic in the past 1000 years. Any Islamic scholarship that might have come out of Andalusia was simply the work of pre-Muslim ideas and thought. As was customary, Islam developed no original ideas but in fact in their rampages across Eastern and Western Christendom they embraced as there own the ideas and scholarly works of the indigenous peoples. They were quite selective in what pre-Islamic thought they assimilated, virtually no translations of “political” ideas exist today because none were translated, since the idea of the governance of man over his affairs is antithetical to the Islamic belief that Allah governs the affairs of man, hence to this day the hatred of Democracy. Muslims translated and used only ideas that benefited them. Gunpowder invented by the Chinese was carried to the Middle East and many Arabic premiers can be found on the subject, could you expect anything more if your goal was to slaughter and exterminate millions of infidels in the “Dar al Harb”, the land of war, besides Muslims were assured of their God given pre-eminence and did not bother to look into ideas from worthless infidel cultures.
    Here are some questions you might consider asking Regina Boisclair our soon to be resident Islamic Scholar at APU, judging from her answers in your ADN article I can only conclude that the assigning of that title to her is an oxymoron.

    1) Explain how any group of people can worship as a prophet a man who had 12 wives all of whom he took before age 6 and consummated the marriage at age 9, and who considered raping his female captives as a command from Allah, as anything other than a sadistic psychopathic killer and pedophile? For your information Ms. Cox the legal age for marriage in Iran today is 9 years old, do your homework again Rose!

    2) Ask Ms. Boisclair why I as an American must accept a culture who actively promotes the killing of non-believers, ask her how she justifies the slaughter of 1.2 million Christian Armenians between 1900 and 1920 by the Islamic Ottoman Empire.

    3) Ask Ms. Boisclair about the Multicultural acceptance of cultural equality that I am suppose to embrace while the example of Islamic multiculturalism is the slaughter of thousands of Christians in southern Darfur by Islamic hordes from northern Sudan.

    4) Ask Ms. Boisclair to explain why I should not look with disdain upon an Islamic socio-religious ideology that to this day condones and practices slavery.
    5) Ask Ms. Boisclair if she accepts the standard practice of Muslims who perform genital mutilation on young girls. Maybe you should read Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s book “Infidel” for some clarification on that subject. Homework again Rose!

    6) Ask Ms. Boisclair why I must accept as equals and neighbors an Islamic socio-religious cultural who accepts without question from their “supposed” holy book the Quran, a description of Jews as “apes” and Christians as “pigs”.

    7) Ask Ms. Boisclair why I should be tolerant of Mosques and Imams in my town that are screaming from their loud speakers racist rhetoric about killing Jews and Hating America, the Great Satan when I cannot upon penalty of death carry a Bible into Saudi Arabia. It seems to me she is the one who is a little confused about who is tolerant and who is not.

    And finally Ms. Cox I ask you to view this video it depicts the real Islam, an Islam of hateful violent intolerance, and listen to the screams of this man dying at the hands of those Ms. Boisclair insists I must tolerate in my country and my community, watch as this mans blood flows out onto the floor and his screams fade into the cries of “Allah Akbar” as his served head is held up by the followers of “the Religion of Peace” Then Ms. Cox you look Ms. Boisclair in the eye and ask her if I must accept this kind of degenerate culture into my country, my state and my community in the name of Multiculturalism, and Political Correctness.

    The Unbeliever