2008 Dhimwit of the Month Honors

Dhim·wit (dïm-wît) - A non-Muslim member of a free society that abets the stated cause of Islamic domination with remarkable gullibility and creativity.  A dhimwit is always quick to extend sympathy to the very enemy that would take away his or her own freedom (or life) if given the opportunity.

December 2008 Dhimwit: The Washington Post

Nixon should have converted to Islam

Islam's most significant contribution to 2008 was probably the terror attacks in Mumbai, India, in which a dozen Pakistani-trained gunmen managed to massacre members of every other major world faith in one fell swoop, including Buddhists, Christians, Jews and a whole lot of Hindus. 

But of all the bloody stories to come out of the incident, perhaps none were worse than the rape, torture, murder and mutilation of innocents at the Chabad House, including the rabbi and his family.  In a city of 18 million, it is wildly improbable that the handful of Jews there were chosen at random.

Despite the religious declaration of the surviving gunman and the claims of responsibility for the violence by the Mujahideen, giving credit to Allah, the New York Times predictably refused to call the mass murder spree an act of Islamic terror.  The BBC even took it a step further by actually declining to label the gunmen as terrorists (stopping just short of calling them community activists, apparently). 

Clearing Islam of blame in circumstances such as these is certainly the stuff of which Dhimwits are made.  Yet, the Washington Post managed to outdo both the NY Times and the BBC by blaming Jews for the carnage (along with the US and India): 

The Mumbai Massacre: Caused by the Jews

Just as Muslim organizations such as CAIR and MPAC-UK notoriously exploit acts of terror against the West to further the same Islamic goals as the terrorists, the Washington Post is using tragedy to push a pre-existing political agenda.  It is both crude and astonishingly inappropriate in this particular case.

Neither Israel, the United States nor India has a policy of doing deliberate harm to innocent people.  Security forces from all three countries, which have seen their own civilians unfairly targeted in the name of Islam, have routinely laid down their lives to protect Muslim civilians from Muslim terrorists. 

Neither are Muslims being persecuted in the West.  In fact, they are constantly trying to gain entry into Israel and the United States as "immigrants," where they know they would enjoy a better life than would be possible anywhere in the Islamic world.  Even the Muslims of India are tired of being used as an excuse for terrorism and are demanding that Pakistan destroy the terror training camps.

If misplaced blame and fantastic tales of Muslim persecution are what is really transforming ordinary devotees into mass murderers, then shouldn't media outlets like the Washington Post be dispelling the paranoia and false rumors rather than feeding them?

November 2008 Dhimwit:
Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran

Holy Qur'ap!

Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, the Vatican's interfaith contacts department head, is gushing with praise for the Islamic invasion of Europe (in a different sort of way than his Christian predecessors generally gushed during prior Muslim incursions, which was in blood).

Oh, don't worry. Everything's gonna' be alright this time around, according to the Cardinal, because this time they're bringing God with them.  "Muslims, having become a significant minority in Europe, were the ones who demanded space for God in society," he tells us, in applauding Muslim immigration.

Well, there's a relief.  No... wait a minute... did he say God? 

No, no.  With respect to the Cardinal (and who wouldn't respect a man that lives on handouts) it's not actually God that Muslims are making demands on behalf of - it's Allah.  And Allah is quite different from God, at least according to His alleged word.

Just start with the basics.  Whereas the God of the Bible loves everyone, Allah's love is entirely conditional.  According to the Qur'an, Allah really, really hates anyone who doesn't believe Muhammad's claims about Muhammad.  So hateful is Allah for infidels, in fact, that it isn't terribly difficult to guess why most of the Muslim world doesn't exactly lose sleep over Islamic terrorism.

Another way to distinguish between God and Allah is traffic flow.  Citizens of countries that worship Allah generally jump at the first opportunity to leave.  Then they tell their new countries (those without Allah) that they will be tortured or deprived of their human rights in some way if they have to sent back.

So, the Cardinal might want to leave the champagne corked for the time being.  Just because devout Muslims have a long history of forcing religion down the throat of secularists doesn't mean that a Muslim Europe is going to be a good thing for members of his own faith - or anyone else for that matter.
 

October 2008 Dhimwit: Jacques Barrot

Jacques Barrot orders up another round of Islam for Europe

Once there will have been a place called Europe.  Maybe it will still be called Europe in the future, but it will not be the same as what we know today.

Instead of being a bastion of Western liberal values, Future Europe will have gone through decades of increasingly violent internal strife until finally the values of 7th century Islam emerge in triumph in what was once the cradle of modern enlightenment.

With Islam's victory, of course, will come the civil repression, economic decline, and cultural stagnation that distinguishes the Muslim world of today.  The continent that successfully fended off Muslim armies long enough to give humanity the greatest advancements in science, medicine and liberty will slip sadly beneath the waves of theocratic dogma.

Just as they do today, the Muslims of Future Europe will try to immigrate from their own countries to those areas of the globe where Islam isn't in dominance, never once pondering why it is that their perfect religion is incapable building societies in which they themselves want to live.

It is at this point that the marginalized infidels of Future Europe, the tragic heirs of today's multicultural gunslingers, will look back in utter astonishment at those responsible for squandering their quality of life and freedom and wonder... why?

Unfortunately for them, the Jacques Barrots of the world, the leaders who gamble away their people's future in pursuit of impractical ideals, will no longer be around to answer for their personal legacy of blood and tears.

Islamic immigration is an irreversible experiment with catastrophic social consequences.  It is the beginning of the end for Europe.

Jacques Barrot - "Islam is Welcome.  Immigration is a Moral Necessity."

September 2008 Dhimwit: Ms. Sally Lopez

Sally Lopez survives her brush with reality.

Our dhimwit nominees are usually chosen from the ranks of misguided government officials or public celebrities.  Occasionally, however, an "ordinary" person comes along who just can't be ignored.  This month, Sally Lopez of Lemoyne, Pennsylvania is that individual - and we're pretty sure that she will appreciate the attention.

Here's a question, let's say that you get something through the mail with which you disagree... a political advertisement or commercial propaganda, for example.  What would you do next?

Well, most truly "ordinary" people would simply throw it away and forget about it.  A few might actually write the sender to have themselves taken off the mailing list or perhaps send back their own opinion in less-than-tactful fashion.

But it takes a special kind of person (or at least someone who thinks they are special) to call up the local newspaper and request a photographer.  And this is exactly what Ms. Sally Lopez did when she found a copy of the anti-Jihad DVD, Obsession: Radical Islam's War against the West, in her mailbox.  According to the Patriot News article:

Lopez said she was offended by the DVD.... "My thing is, I'm not stupid.   There are definitely radical Islamic cells all over the world, but we also have the Aryan Nation, the [Ku Klux Klan], all kinds of hate groups out there.  They're just instilling fear in us. I'm tired of living in fear."

The poor dear is offended that someone is trying to warn her about Islam and its merry band of sociopaths.  Why?  Well, the reasoning is a bit sketchy.  It seems that there are other hate groups out there as well, so there's no point in hearing about the only one that happens to be piling up dead bodies by the hour...

At this point, it's probably understandable why Ms. Lopez felt it necessary to tell us that she isn't stupid.  She may very well be the sort of woman who skips regular breast examinations because there are "all kinds" of other things that can kill you.  (But don't call her stupid).

Our guess is that she did not watch the DVD and knows little about it outside of the title and description  For one thing, Obsession is a wonderful documentary that justifies itself.  Then there's the small matter of the fact that the envelope (which appears unopened in the picture) wasn't really addressed to her.

Did we forget to mention that?  Yes, actually the DVD was mailed to her daughter's husband, who isn't even living in the house.  Ms. Lopez is apparently every man's nightmare - the mother-in-law who makes the business of others her own and doesn't seem to care if the world knows it.

Of course, it isn't the content of the DVD that upsets this woman, despite her contrived indignation.  Like other sanctimonious types, Ms. Lopez is simply anxious that others understand what a tolerant and generous soul she is, so willing to accept people of other religions and defend them from offense.  (Perhaps her son-in-law should consider converting).

At the end of the day, our nomination of Sally Lopez is really more of an indictment of the many people in the West who are too consumed by self-righteousness to pay attention to what the Qur'an says about them and their way of life.  For now, they can afford this state of blissful ignorance... 

Their children probably won't have the luxury.

August 2008 Dhimwit: The Government of India

Hindus are tired of getting burned by the Religion of Peace.

It might surprise some to learn that India has the world's second largest population of Muslims.  Given this, however, it probably surprises no one that the predominately Muslim regions of the country are marked by constant demand, violence, and economic drain.

For sure, most of the Muslims who live in the Kashmir region would prefer to get on with their lives, which certainly have more potential in the world's largest secular democracy than they would across the border in Islamic Pakistan.  But, wherever there is Islam, there is radicalism and the persistent unwillingness to accept anything short of Islamic hegemony.

In the last 15 years, over 100,000 people have lost their lives to the low-wage terror campaign sponsored openly by Pakistani intelligence.  Most of the victims have been Muslims killed by the Islamists for collaborating with "the enemy" (ie. their own government), but there have been brutal religious cleansing campaigns in which peaceful Hindu pilgrims, families, and sometimes whole villages have been wiped out in barbaric fashion by Allah's Holy Warriors.  High-profile Mujahideen bombings against ordinary citizens living elsewhere in India also occur from time to time, leaving a trail of death and heartache.

Historically, Islam's brush with other culture is always punctuated by periods of casual genocide.  Even as late as 1990 some 350,000 Hindu Pandit survivors were evicted from the land of their ancestors and forced to seek refuge outside of Kashmir.  Unlike the Palestinian cause, there are no international tears shed for this extremely gentle group of refugees, since the Pandits have chosen to accept their plight with dignity, rather than petulance and violent retaliation.

Despite meting out a constant stream of self-defeating misery, India's growing Muslim minority can be likened to a spoiled brat, constantly demanding special privilege and lashing out in anger when it does not get its way.

And yet, the Muslims of India are given special status by the ostensibly secular government, which bends over backwards to accommodate the endless demands with a steady series of unrequited concessions. 

The latest example occurred this past month when the government attempted to allocate a few acres of forest land to shelters for Hindu pilgrims traveling to their traditional shrines in Kashmir.  The shrines existed well before Muslim armies began their massacre of 80 million of the original Hindu and Buddhist residents some 1000 years ago.  Still, this small measure resulted in the typical Muslim temper tantrum, in which people and property are abused in the name of Allah.  The government quickly caved to the bigotry.

So much more could be written about the government's remarkable unwillingness to admit that co-existence with Islam is a failed experiment.  Unfortunately, there will be many more chapters to come - all of which will be written with the blood of innocents.

July 2008 Dhimwit:
Britain's Chief Justice Lord Phillips

Pithy comment withheld out of respect for our British readers.
(Sure hope you chaps appreciate this, because it was a good one.)

Given that it is the model for every country that immigrants are currently trying to get into (by hook or by crook), one might wonder what is so wrong with the British legal system as to require augmentation.  The answer, according to the country's chief justice, is that it isn't Islamic enough.

Muslims in the UK are demanding a parallel legal system based on Sharia (Islamic law) and dhimwits like Lord Phillips seem eager to accommodate them, even though it means irreversibly opening the door to a backward and tragic set of rules and penalties that carry divine sanction.

Rather than legitimizing Islamic law, British leaders should be pointing out the obvious: it doesn't work.  In fact, this is why Muslims flee to the West in the first place.  It is no coincidence that countries with Sharia (or even Muslim majorities) have some of the worst records of human rights abuse, social repression and economic stagnation.

Instead of importing the sort of religious dysfunction that is clearly antithetical to progress, the British should be exporting those Muslims who want to live under Sharia.

What Part of Muslim Theocracy Does this Man Not Understand?

June 2008 Dhimwit:
Tampa-Hillsborough County Human Rights Council

Human rights never looked so glamorous.

According to its charter, the Tampa-Hillsborough County Human Rights Council in Florida bills itself as "an organization that brings together citizens of various backgrounds. They all have one thing in common: a desire to promote the human rights of all individuals, as outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948." 

One might therefore assume that the group would be somewhat at odds with the spread of Islamic supremacy.  After all, from slavery to women's rights, Islam is in such stark contradiction to the 1948 Declaration of Human Rights that Muslim nations actually had to create their own "declaration" a few years back just to avoid signing the real version.  Gone, for example, were the Freedom of Conscience clauses that are fundamentally incompatible with the Islamic mandate to kill apostates and deny other religions rights explicitly reserved for Muslims.

In 2006, however, the Tampa Council was charmed by local snake-oil salesman Ahmed Bedier, a spokesperson for the notorious Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).  The stocky, Egyptian-born Bedier, who has openly defended both Islamic terrorists and Islamic bigotry, somehow scored the 2006 "human rights" award (although having to share it with the local sheriff).

At the time, Bedier's organization was openly advocating discriminatory practices against religious minorities in Muslim countries through a fatwa by CAIR's own Jamal Badawi.  Badawi appeared in an interview with Bedier (posted on the latter's website) in which he affirmed physical discipline as a legitimate means of keeping wives in line, as well as laying down the rule that Muslim women are forbidden to marry non-Muslims.

[Note: the video-taped interview is also notable for Bedier's initial inability to recall a single hate crime committed by a Muslim on American soil... and this only three years after the massacre of 3,000 innocents on 9/11!]

Ahmed Bedier has defended practically any fellow Muslim with a complaint against his adopted country.  This recently included two Egyptian college students arrested in South Carolina with explosives.  Bedier thunderously insisted that they were victims of racial profiling... prior to their confessions, that is, though he has yet to apologize.

Of course, Bedier's concern for true victims of bigotry and human rights abuse never extends to Christians, journalists, and others suffering horribly at the hands of Muslims in his native Egypt.  The man who describes himself as an "expert on Islam, media relations, civil rights, hate crime and the mideast" is remarkably tolerant of rape, kidnapping, torture and murder, provided that it is Muslims who are responsible (and preferably that the victims are non-Muslim or homosexual).

Bedier's sole interest in life seems to be the propagation of his own religion and the furthering his own identity group.  To this end, he has actually spoken well of the Palestinian terrorist groups, Islamic Jihad and Hamas, which have deliberately inflicted barbaric atrocities on innocent Israelis.  He has even spent much of his time going to bat for Sami al-Arian, who is not only a convicted terrorist, but also insists that the Jews are "cursed" and "made into apes and pigs." 

Needless to say, we can hardly think of a less appropriate choice for a human rights award recipient than Ahmed Bedier, but, as mentioned, the Tampa-Hillsborough County Human Rights Council doesn't appear to set the bar very high (assuming they even have one).

And if this wasn't enough to make the organization utterly meaningless, guess who is now serving as its president?  It's none other than Ahmed Bedier himself... arrogant, unrepentant and (we assume) fully intent on using the new title to further the Islamic agenda.

Are you kidding us?

May 2008 Dhimwit: Ken Livingstone

Dear god, Man!  Just recite the Shahada and get it over with already...

In retrospect, pandering to votes that he already had wasn't the best campaign strategy for Ken Livingstone, who lost London's mayoral race to Conservative rival, Boris Johnson, in a shocking defeat that certainly caught us by surprise. 

By any sane measure, the reign of Ken Livingstone was an unmitigated disaster.  Government expenditures nearly tripled under his 8-year watch while taxes skyrocketed.  Even the cost of public transit grew from about $3 to over $8, while London commuters enjoyed rising congestion with less reliability.

Although making social issues his top priority, violent crime in the city rose 17% during Livingstone's term, while London's unemployment rate climbed steadily to well over the national average.  The self-described Socialist even accomplished something rarely seen in the contemporary West - a sharp increase in the rate of child poverty.

At the personal level, the narcissistic mayor often made a spectacle of himself with sanctimonious tirades and anti-Semitic rants.  Livingstone famously insulted a Jewish reporter by likening him to a Nazi concentration camp guard - even after being told that the other was offended by the insinuation.  Not surprisingly, anti-Jewish hate crime made a strong comeback during his years in office.

This appears not to have bothered Livingstone one bit.  His most loyal bloc of voters were Muslim, and he spent part of his time playing Dhimmi dress-up (see picture) and openly fraternizing with avowed terrorist supporters such as Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi.  Naturally, Muslim peevishness soared during his years in office, particularly as the mayor did his best to minimize integration incentives.

Unfortunately for Mr. Livingstone, Muslims only make up 10% of the city's voting populace and it appears that not all Londoners were quite that enamored with his groveling.  Perhaps he will take solace in the fact that he is leaving a legacy... albeit in the form of petulant group of Muslim whiners whose demands will only get worse, particularly as they discover that future administrations are not as eager to sell out Western values for votes.

April 2008 Dhimwit: John Esposito

"Show me the money!"

John Esposito is a name unfamiliar to many, but there are few people on the planet more deserving of general Dhimwit honors than this Catholic apologist for Islam, who is currently on the Saudi payroll at Georgetown University. 

Technically, Esposito is the founding director of the "Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding," which already tells you a lot about the man.  Anyone with a decent set would have long told the Saudis just how pathetic this guise of religious tolerance really is, when they won't even allow churches on their own soil.

As for Esposito, just two years before 9/11, the second edition of his book “The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality?” was published.  In it, the professor told a primarily American audience that the threat of Islamic extremism is overblown and that they actually have nothing to fear from the Religion of Peace. 

Only in academia can being so fantastically wrong about something of such tragic significance actually be a boost to one’s career.  Inexplicably, John Esposito found his profile enhanced by the loss of thousands of innocent lives and has since devoted himself to trying to convince Americans that they are the real bigots.  (This evidently delights his Muslim handlers, who find in his writings yet another excuse to put off introspection and reform).

This month, Esposito is promoting his new book “Who Speaks for Islam?  What a Billion Muslims Really Think.”  Not surprisingly, it is Esposito himself who speaks for Islam and, as such, the voice of a ‘billion Muslims’ sounds remarkably similar to his own.  In fact, when it comes to U.S. foreign policy, Western values and the superiority of Islam, the resemblance between Esposito’s personal views and that of a “billion Muslims’ is downright uncanny.

Esposito bases his new book on Gallup polling, which has an objective ring to it at first – up until one discovers that the “Senior Scientist” on the cited Gallup project is none other than Esposito himself.  Having the ability to influence the wording of survey questions yields some rather curious findings, such as the claim that Americans are three times more likely to support the killing of innocent people than are the Iranians, whose country pioneered suicide bombings and whose religion fuels over a thousand deadly attacks on civilians each year.

As with his earlier (pre-9/11) effort, “What a Billion Muslims Really Think” is designed to play on Western tastes and convince readers that they have no reason to be concerned about an ideology with an explicit agenda of political and cultural dominance.  Toward this end, Esposito either glosses over or ignores inconvenient details that might otherwise alarm anyone who is mindful of Islam’s irreversible creep into the West.

For example, the professor makes much of the finding that two out of three Muslims believe that the 9/11 attacks are “morally unjustifiable.”  That a third of all Muslims (almost a half billion people) say they agree to some extent with the carnage seems to be of trivial concern to him.  Esposito also fails to mention the rather critical detail that only 18% of all Muslims believe Muslims were really responsible for 9/11!  Who or what then, are they really condemning?

Many other natural questions go unanswered in the book.  Why do more Muslims oppose the U.S. action in Afghanistan, for example, than they did the brutal attack on New Yorkers and others which prompted it?  If Muslims are so opposed to religious extremism, then why do less than 1 in 10 support the overthrow of the Taliban?  If Muslims place such a high value on the lives of others, then where is the outrage when such attacks occur?  Why hasn’t Osama bin Laden been burned in effigy?

At the end of the day, “What a Billion Muslims Really Think” is really just an exercise in illusion – a parlor trick to fool readers into thinking that they do not see what they see.  By stacking survey questions so as to yield preferred results, Esposito has the advantage of creating the very data to which he then refers.

Even the overall sampling is somewhat suspect.  Esposito claims that his modeling method represents “90% of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims,” which is both patently absurd and a glaring indication of the manipulation taking place behind the scenes.  How is it possible to “include” 1.2 billion people while “excluding” 130 million others?  Who is really being “excluded” when a contrived survey sample of a few thousand is said to be representative of over a billion other people?

Each day, dozens of innocents are murdered explicitly in the name of Islam somewhere in the world, yet in all of the forty countries that lost citizens on 9/11, only one Muslim was killed by one person in revenge for the slaughter on that day.  What explains Islam's violent temper?  In the Sudan, over a million Christians have lost their lives to a Jihad-minded government that has also displaced millions more from their homes – yet sympathy in the Muslim world is reserved only for Palestinians.  What explains Islam's astonishing self-absorption and lack of human empathy?

Hundreds of Westerners have lost their lives on their own soil to Islamic terror in the years since 9/11.  Millions of Muslims overseas celebrated the attacks that day and continue to openly support the thousands of other Muslims who are as determined as ever to commit mass murder in accordance with Qur’an’s expressed hatred for those outside the faith, even as the West sacrifices cherished values to accommodate mass numbers of Muslim immigrants whose gratitude is as weak as their sense of entitlement is conspicuous.

Yet, along comes Professor John Esposito to tell us that it is Westerners who have the tolerance problem.

The Saudis have definitely bought their man.

See also: John Esposito, in His Own Words and
John Esposito: Reputation vs. Reality

March 2008 Dhimwit: Network Solutions

The Internet for Dhimmis.

This month we were going to nominate Sally Kern, the judgment-impaired Oklahoma representative who said that the "homosexual agenda" is a bigger threat than Islam.  (We have to give Ms. Kern a few points for originality, however, since homosexuality and Islam are almost never mentioned in the same sentence unless it is to report the lashing or hanging of the former by the latter for the crime of having a private life).

At the last minute, however, another American entity swooped in to save Ms. Kern's bacon. 

Network Solutions is one of the world's prominent Internet services firm.  Apparently they are also in the sensitivity business, which is why they suspended the "Fitna the Movie" website, the venue of choice for Geert Wilder's 15-minute film that (ironically enough) warns of Islam's threat to Western freedom.

It wasn't that the company had actually seen the movie, which they admitted they had not, but rather that they had been getting complaints from Muslims, who... uh... also had not seen the movie. 

So, in effect, Network Solutions banned the site on the mere probability that the content would offend Muslims and not on the basis of whether there is anything in the presentation that is actually libelous.  (In fact, nearly every word in the film comes from the mouth of a Muslim).

Interestingly, Network Solutions had no qualms about hosting the Hamas and Hezbollah websites for the brazen terrorist groups that have slaughtered hundreds of Jews and Christians.  Neither do they mind hosting Islam-Online, an Islamic propaganda site that advocates Sharia and has a pronounced anti-Semitic bent (in other words, what passes for moderate Islam these days).

One might think there would be a bit of offense involved there as well... but apparently Jews and Christians aren't racking up enough dead bodies in the name of their god for their opinion to register on Network Solutions' sensitivity scale.  The new rule is that if you want your religion to have respect, then you have to be willing to kill anyone refusing to begrudge it.

Message received, as far as Network Solutions is concerned.  Muslims now know that critical viewpoints can by blocked from the Internet by intimidation and complaint, so you can bet that there will be plenty more of that.

More importantly, thanks to craven Dhimwits like Network Solutions, who wet their pants at the first sign of trouble, the criteria of censorship has become offense rather than falsehood.  If the truth offends (which is nearly always the case with Islam), then it will be suppressed.

Get ready for a brave, new world.

February 2008 Dhimwit: Rowan Williams

Anglican Archbishop Rowan Williams says its time to bring
Sharia law to Britain.  Aside from Hindus, Christians, Jews, atheists,
artists, homosexuals, drinkers, intellectuals and women, we can't
possibly imagine anyone objecting to such a sensible suggestion.

We aren’t sure what explains the recent enthusiasm with which Anglican Church leaders been bending over to grab their ankles when the subject turns to Islam.  From John Pritchard, the Bishop of Oxford, who wants to hear the Islamic call to prayer echoing across the English countryside from loudspeakers, to Chaplain Philip Gray, who actually compared the 7/7 bombers to Jesus, Anglican clergy are clearly intent on reducing their religion to minority status.

Now, Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, has momentarily outdone the others by proposing that “elements” of Sharia (Islamic law) be allowed to operate independently of British law as a means of placating the restless UK Muslim population.  Presumably he is not speaking of the portions that call for the beheading of apostates, the beating of wives, the amputation of limbs, nor the stoning of homosexuals and adulterers… but where exactly did he get the idea that Sharia is a smorgasbord?

How long does the Archbishop think Muslims will be happy with a government that validates Islamic law, but then tells them which parts they can and can’t practice?  (We advise non-Muslim Brits to either start greasing up early or work on that stiff upper lip, because the smart money is on a very short honeymoon).

Rather than setting the stage for a long series of concessions to Muslim demands, we would suggest an alternative: remind the Muslims in Britain who want to live under Islamic law that there are places in the world where it is practiced.  No one is forcing them to live under the British system.

Now, if it sounds cruel and heartless to tell Muslims to go raise their families in places that are characterized by civil oppression, economic disaster and totalitarianism just so they can experience life in an Islamic country, then, for god's sake, connect the dots!  This is precisely the case against the Muslim way.

We also have a similar suggestion for the Archbishop: don’t drag the rest of us down with you.  If you want to live as a dhimmi, then we’ll gladly pick up the tab on a one-way ticket to Gaza.

January 2008 Dhimwit: Jacqui Smith

More Islam = More "Anti-Islamic activities" (by Muslims)?  Hmmm...

If Dhimwit meant dimwit, then this month's nominee would probably be Republican Mike Huckabee.  While the US Presidential candidate may otherwise be a decent person, his response to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto was downright moronic:

"[The United States should] have an immediate, very clear monitoring of our border, and particularly to make sure, if there's any unusual activity of Pakistanis coming into the country."

This is wrong on so many levels that we could write a book on the subject.  Needless to say, if Bhutto's assassins were of Pakistani origin, then it was completely incidental to their action, which was motivated by religious belief.  Islam is neither a race nor a nationality.

By coincidence, this was also the month that we were tempted to name our first "anti-Dhimwit," who would have been the Pakistani-born Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir Ali.  We've been pretty tough on Anglican clergy here, and it would have been nice to finally feature one who stands up and speaks the politically-incorrect truth about Islam.

As it is, however, we couldn't think of a snappy name for our new category of anti-Dhimwits, so we decided to stick with tradition.

Our nominee this month is British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, who is apparently also a professional theologian.  Ms. Smith made the breakthrough discovery that Muslim terrorists are acting contrary to their Islamic faith, thus compelling her to officially re-dub terror attacks as "anti-Islamic activities."  (We thought this was a joke at first).

Obviously this is a cynical attempt to pander to the fast-growing Muslim community in Britain, which is notably less than cooperative in the battle against, uh… anti-Islamic activities.  This is where Smith makes Huckabee look like a genius, since even he can probably tell that if these 'activities' were really so hostile to Islam, then such pandering wouldn't be necessary because British Muslims would be leading the fight to defend their own religion.

Neither is it terribly difficult to figure out that relieving the Muslim community of responsibility for Islamic terrorism merely reduces the incentive for participation and reform.  It also lowers the natural defenses of the native British population, which is encouraged to hit the snooze button while its leaders continue paying Muslim immigrants to colonize the country.

So what used to be known as Islamic terrorism will now be called "anti-Islamic activity."  It isn't exactly clear how long this Orwellian doublespeak is tolerated before it becomes painfully obvious that "anti-Islamic activity" by Muslim terrorists corresponds proportionately to increasing Islamic influence, although, with leaders like Jacqui Smith at the helm, it probably won't make much of a difference anyway.

Current Year Dhimwits
2009 Dhimwits Page
2007 Dhimwits Page
2006 Dhimwits Page
2005 Dhimwits Page

Go back to the List of Islamic Terrorist Attacks

TOP