The following is a book review by Debbie cross posted from Right Truth.

Over the life of Right Truth and prior to the inception of Right Truth Book Club, I have read, reviewed and recommended many books. I can say without reservation that The Gathering Storm by W.C. is a MUST READ for every person concerned about Islamic terrorism. I think we should send a copy of this eBook to the White House!

According to W.C., we have not begun to fight this war, we have not even been brave enough to accurately identify the enemy, out of fear we may offend someone. He notes some want to conduct the war as a “criminal investigation” while others see it as a war “against the acts of terror.” He believes both are wrong and what we are involved in now is only a “prelude to the real war.”

To quote former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld:“Churchill saw that there was a storm gathering, but there were people in Europe who didn’t believe it and who didn’t take the periodic storm clouds and the squalls as a real threat. They thought they were transitory and, of course, paid an enormous penalty in treasure and life for their failure to understand the nature of that threat. I worry we are in a gathering storm and we do not, as a society, accept it. Many of the elites of our society, the key opinion leaders, are unwilling or unable to accept what an awful lot of people believe to be the case. The penalty for being wrong can be enormous.”

We are fighting Jihadists who have one goal, “… imposing peacefully or violently the rule of Shariah law upon the world.” We have two choices — surrender or Victory. It’s that simple, and that complicated all at the same time. The Jihadists can impose their laws upon us by force or they can “change our laws.” Remind you of any current events or Islamic groups?

The enemy uses “intimidation, infiltration and disinformation tactics” and the “appeasers and apologists” defend and aid the enemy. Those would be “what Lenin called ‘Useful Idiots’,” according to W.C. The Gathering Storm is packed full of facts, figures, resources, history. You will not want to miss one page in this book.

According to Walid Shoebat in the Forward, “This book “is definitely void of any politically correct language, censorship, spin, double-talk, or complex vocabulary.” … And “explains in detail the chilling prognosis — radical Islam is even more of a threat than Nazi Germany and has so many parallels in it‘s ideology.: … “Reading The Gathering Storm will leave us with only two choices – surrender or Victory.”

I believe that there is only one choice, Victory! However, the intimidation, infiltration and disinformation tactics are sometimes so subtle that we let them slide right by us. It brings to mind the old vaudeville skit used in the Three Stooges movie, “Gents Without Cents” made in 1944 and Abbott and Costello movie entitled “Lost in A Harem”: “Slowly I turned, step by step, inch by inch…I took my revenge.”

That is the premise the Jihadists are working under right here in the United States. They are patient, subtle, effective, and will use any means to reach their goal.

The Gathering Storm is an eBook, easy to purchase, download, and easy to read. Price $6.95, order here. Jacket Notes are by Always on Watch Two

British Tory leader David Cameron states the terms ‘Islamic’ and ‘Islamist’ should not be connected to terrorism.  I agree, but they undoubtedly are.

Cameron states using those terms to describe terrorism “[helps] do the terrorist ideologues’ work for them, confirming to many impressionable young Muslim men that to be a ‘good Muslim’, you have to support their evil campaign.”

How would describing a terrorist act that was carried out in the name of Allah confirm that terrorist act was in accordance with Islam?

I’m not the only one confused by Cameron’s logic.  Melanie Phillips is also confused.

During the same week in which U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) visited Syria to present “an alternative, Democratic foreign policy” and adorned a veil, Dr. Nouriya Al-Subeeh, the new minister of education in Kuwait, defied tradition and received the ire of Islamists in her nation for taking office with a naked head. Al-Subeeh’s act of defiance against the headscarf is worth noting, espcially in the context of Western dhimmis symbolic stance in support of the piece of clothing.

After her precedent-setting episode, Dr. Subeeh explained her stand in an interview with the Egyptian weekly Rose El Yousuf: “A woman who wears the veil out of belief, which must be respected — just as the belief of a woman who does not want to wear a veil must be respected. The essence of democracy,” she said, “is to respect and accept the opinions of others.”

Pelosi certainly does not wear the veil out of belief.  She has a belief, though I’m unsure of what it is when she is ready to curry favor with Assad while Iranian women are being arrested for not wearing Islamic dress.
Pelosi fancies herself as a feminist, but her action of wearing the veil is anything but being a feminist. Yousseff Ibrahim offers a suggestion for Pelosi.

The next time America’s highest ranking female office holder, Ms. Pelosi, wants to make a splash, she should opt for championing Muslim women in the line of fire.

Among those she might want to invite to appear before Congress is a brave Somali immigrant to the Netherlands, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who came to the attention of the world in 2004 when a Muslim fanatic killed director Theo van Gogh for making a film based on her accounts of the oppression of women under Islam. After fleeing her adopted nation under threats of death, the 37-year-old politician and activist’s best-selling 2006 memoir “Infidel” has finally been published to great success in America — it contains plenty of useful information about the veil to enlighten Ms. Pelosi.

The House speaker could also honor an amazing Syrian-American psychiatrist who resides in Los Angeles, Dr. Wafa Sultan, who also receives constant death threats since denouncing Islamists on Al Jazeera and CNN, and scolding Muslims for persecuting non-Muslims and treating their women as “cattle” and “indentured servants.”

Another possibility might be an Egyptian sociologist, medical doctor, and militant writer on the problems of Arab women, Dr. Nawal El Saadawi, who is now a refugee forced to shuttle between Belgium and the Netherlands in order to escape the death warrant placed on her by several sheiks of the Saudifunded Al Azhar School of Theology in Egypt.

With all due respect to Ibrahim, his suggestions assume Pelosi is actually trying to shed light on women’s rights in the Middle East, not to just campaign against President Bush any way she can think of.

Liam Houlihan of The Sunday Telegraph in Australia reports of a new pro-jihad film aimed at children has been given a PG rating by the Office of Film and Literature Classification.

The films urge parents to make their children holy warriors and martyrs, and praises jihad as the pinnacle of Islam.

The radical sheik [Sheik Feiz Mohammed who is in exile in Lebanon] makes snorting noises on the films as he vilifies Jews as the “army of pigs”.

He blames a lack of courage for martyrdom on the battlefield for the “humiliation” of Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and Guantanamo . . .

The OFLC finding said the sheik’s calls to “jihad” and “martyrdom” were ambiguous.

And it found that comments vilifying Jews as an “army of pigs” and saying “behind me is a Jew, come kill him” were mitigated by the context.

Other films aimed at children that have sported the PG rating include Shrek, E.T., Return to Snowy River and the pro-time travel series of Back to the Future.  In Australia, a movie that calls for murder and death warrants was given the same rating.

According to a translation on the MEMRI blog, what might have been included in House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer’s (D-MD) visit with the Muslim Brotherhood was extending an invitation to talk to Congress. No, that appears not to be a joke.

The Egyptian opposition daily Al-Masryoon reported that high-level diplomatic sources said that Muslim Brotherhood General Guide Muhammad Mahdi ‘Akef, several members of his office, and Muslim Brotherhood MPs had been invited by U.S. Democrat congressmen to visit the U.S. next month and to speak to Congress.

Question: Are the Democrats who went on the Pelosi trip, which included Hoyer, complete morons or just idiots?

And note the difference, please.  A moron wouldn’t know the difference between right or wrong, technically not being able to process simple information.  An idiot would, but would make their own decisions regardless, and usually make the wrong ones.

It’s as if Hoyer or whomever else invited the Muslim Brotherhood to D.C. has never heard of the group, only that they oppose Mubarak which since Democrats have already taken many shots at allies of the United States they wish to take another.  Is it possible to become the House Majority Leader and not have the first clue who this group is or that their spinoffs have killed thousands of people across the globe and is the sworn enemy of both Democracy and the United States?

A politically correct world will be the ruin to us all. The EU has now decided to be more sensitive to radical Islamic terrorism and take out certain keywords.

Brussels officials have confirmed the existence of a classified handbook which offers “non-offensive” phrases to use when announcing anti-terrorist operations or dealing with terrorist attacks.

Banned terms are said to include “jihad”, “Islamic” or “fundamentalist”.

The word “jihad” is to be avoided altogether, according to some sources, because for Muslims the word can mean a personal struggle to live a moral life [ed. it can also mean a 'defensive' war that is purely offensive, which is actually the definition that thrives in the very part of the world where the ideology emanates from].

One alternative, suggested publicly last year, is for the term “Islamic terrorism” to be replaced by “terrorists who abusively invoke Islam”.

The same EU official claims this is not about political correctness but instead “stems from astute awareness of the EU’s interests in the fight against terrorism” because terrorists use these phrases for their own purposes. Yes they do, but they also use other terms and completely made up ideas and actions for their purposes too. If the EU were just simply precise in describing Islamist terrorism there wouldn’t be a problem, that is unless their words are incorrectly translated whether deliberate or incidental.

It just seems strange to be to state they will try to erase Islam from terrorism but not the other way around. When a jihadi invokes Allah right before he drives a car into a crowded market in Baghdad to kill his fellow Muslims, is he simply abusively invoking Islam? This is a debate that should happen within the Islamic world, while the rest of us Infidelian folk simply call it for what it is. It is radical Islamic terrorism because the bombs that go off daily across the globe have their basis within the Islamic texts, or at least according to those who set them off.

In case you didn’t think to click the link shared over what jihad means, do so because it’s a transcript of a television show debating the meaning of jihad.  The EU would be ashamed if they cared.

This past November, The Telegraph report Sharia courts were springing up in England within Muslim communities. Thrown out was the British code of law and inserted was the law of Islam, or at least as interpreted by a group of elders within these communities. During a case in Canada the defendent claimed wanted the verdict decided upon not by Canadian law, but rather by Islamic law.

But in Britain, Sharia only operates in pockets within the nation. In Canada, a federal court turned down the plea for Sharia to decide the case.

In Germany, however, a judge used the basis of the Koran to deny a wife who alleges her husband beats her a “quick divorce” that would circumvent the German statute married couples must remain seperated for one year prior to filing for divorce. A “quick divorce” is often used in abusive cases, and the wife in this case alleges just that.

In January, though, a letter arrived from the judge adjudicating the case. The judge rejected the application for a speedy divorce by referring to a passage in the Koran that some have controversially interpreted to mean that a husband can beat his wife . . .

“The exercise of the right to castigate does not fulfill the hardship criteria as defined by Paragraph 1565 (of German federal law),” the daily Frankfurter Rundschau quoted the judge’s letter as saying. It must be taken into account, the judge argued, that both man and wife have Moroccan backgrounds.

Without getting into whether or not the Koran allows for a husband to beat his wife because it really doesn’t matter in this specific case, why would a German judge use an outside source of law to decide the case? Is German law not good enough to merit a “quick divorce?”

Also see coverage in the New York Times.

Other Coverage:

• Dr. Sanity
• The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
• Western Resistance

Students at the Honley Church of England Junior School in West Yorkshire were to perform the ‘Three Little Pigs,’ but the politically correct wolf blew the house down. The Kirklees Primary Music Festival believes all pigs should be taken out and replaced with puppies so the play doesn’t offend any British Muslims.

A board member described the situation thusly:

“We have to be sensitive if we want to be multi-cultural. It was felt it would be more responsible not to use the three little pigs. We feared that some Muslim children wouldn’t sing along to the words about pigs,” [Gill Goodswen] said.

“We didn’t want to take that risk. If changing a few words avoids offence then we will do so.”

Make no mistake about this. This entire incident was not brought upon by British Muslims, rather by Islamophobic teachers learning quickly how best to dhimmify a situation in order to appease what they feel might be multi-cultural misgivings.

And just like in the case of the self-imposed end to a centuries-old festival in Bocairent, Spain where effigies of Muhammad were burned and an opera in Germany being canceled in case of future threats, Muslim groups are wondering what in the world is going on. Don’t worry my Muslim friends. There’s an explanation to all of this. It’s called ‘Islamophobia.’

Sheikh Ibrahim Mogra of the Muslim Council of Britain, hardly a group who wouldn’t take a punch when they see an opening, called the move “bizarre.”

He said: “The vast majority of Muslims have no problem whatsoever with the Three Little Pigs. It’s always been the traditional way of telling the story and I don’t see why that should be changed . . .

Mr Mogra said: “How far are we going to go? Are we going to change the seven dwarves because it’s discriminatory towards people who are physically less able? Where do you draw the line?

“Every time we get these stories Muslims are seen more and more as misfits. We have to accept there’s a predominant culture here.”

The line should have already been drawn. Even though Mogra states there isn’t a problem with pigs in houses being chased by a wolf, Saudi Arabia thinks differently of pigs, or Piglet to be precise.

In Minnesota Target stores, which I am now reluctantly a share holder in, Muslim cashiers do not have to ring up bacon. If you’re reading, Mr. Mogra, is it against Islam for someone to scan bacon for a customer? Elsewhere in Minnesota, Muslim cab drivers ponder the great debate of whether to give a ride to a drunk customer because the customer has alcohol in their body.

When I was 16, I worked at a local grocery store. There were Catholics working at the store, but there was not a time when a customer purchased contraceptives only to have that Catholic tell the customer they won’t touch it because it’s against Catholicism. Sure, Catholic bombers aren’t exactly threatening to detonate nukes in large Western cities, but in the cases above, neither were Islamists. People just decided they should change things in fear of what? It is fear of Islam while CAIR suggests true Islamophobes are those that openly criticize the religion or Islamists who use the basis of Islam to murder.

What is this world coming to, seriously?

Diane West writing in the Washington Times ponders if Senator John Kerry had won in 2004, and doesn’t envision what is happening right now any differently than if it occured under a Kerry presidency.

And that notion surely would have included something as cockamamie as the “neighbors’ meeting” on Iraq that was recently announced. This diplomatic potluck, calculated to seat jihad network “neighbors” Iran and Syria at the table alongside the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China, the Arab League and, of course, Iraq, might easily have had “Kerry administration” written all over it. But it is, unhappily, a Bush administration initiative, a new riff on the defunct Bush Doctrine: “You’re either for us, or you’re against us — we don’t care which.” What happened to the policy of not negotiating with terror-states like Iran? It’s gone, apparently, replaced by a deadly confusion of cross-purposes. We want peace and stability in Iraq; Iran is already at war with us to destabilize Iraq and drive us from the region. We want Israel to live long and prosper; Iran supports Hezbollah and openly promises “to wipe Israel off the face of the map.”

On a similar note, the London Times’ Gerard Baker wonders when the blame cannot be passed on Bush, will nations step up to the plate to fight against Islamism?

Take a look at the miserable mess that is unfolding in what is supposed to be the “West’s” fight in Afghanistan against the Taleban and al-Qaeda. Afghanistan was, remember, unlike Iraq, “the good war”. Within days of September 11, 2001, all the European members of Nato readily signed up to assist America in righting the wrongs of international terrorism by defeating the Kabul regime and its allies.

Even after the alliance fell out over the Iraq war, those who opposed that conflict reiterated their dedication to winning the one in Afghanistan. When the Spanish socialists pulled their nation’s troops out of Iraq in 2004, they insisted they were fully committed to the war against the Taleban.

But what is the state of that struggle? These days, despite the notional presence of a Nato force involving more than 15 countries, only a handful — Britain, the Netherlands, Canada, and plucky Lithuania included — are putting anything like the effort required in terms of resources and willingness to take the fight to the enemy.

Others — such as the Germans and the French — will commit troops and equipment but won’t let them fight, preferring noncombatant roles. Last week the Italian Government collapsed because some of its members actually want to make friends with the Taleban. European countries are not failing to fight the war in Afghanistan because they don’t like George Bush. They lack either the perception of the threat or the will to deal with it.

Does anyone really think the election of President Hillary Clinton will be greeted with a sudden surge of German and French troops to Kabul and Helmand, routing al-Qaeda militants in the name of multilateralism?

Read Baker’s full column, and if you have the stomach, read the comments to it which many of reinforce exactly what Baker argues. In my opinion, as long as there is a war against Islamism, that is to say until it’s defeated or it has defeated us, Bush will be blamed for just about everything.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or as Allahpundit calls him, the “Dane Cook of anti-semitism,” for his rather less than original comments, blamed all the world’s problems on the United States and Israel yet again. In a tirade only fitting of Ahmadinejad, while in Sudan meeting with the Sudanese government, Ahmadinejad said “there is no place in the world that suffers from divisions and wars unless America or the Zionists’ fingerprints are seen there.”

“Our strength and the cornerstone of the victory is in our (Muslims’) unity … we have to pay attention to the devils who want to cause divisions among us,” the Iranian president said.

“They want to keep science in their hands only … they don’t want the rest of the world to progress,” he said referring Iran’s nuclear program.

Once again framing the opposition to Iran’s nuclear program as some sort of litmus test for nuclear advancement, Ahmadinejad spins this opposition to note that the collective ‘West’ is against scientific research and advancement. This is a constant moniker of Ahmadinejad’s, again forgetting that scientific breakthrough has come through the work of Pakistani nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan and Iran’s friends in Moscow who have built Iranian nuclear facilities.

On February 22 of this year, Ahmadinejad again called for the end of Israel, which again is a symbol rather than just a nation when it comes to Ahmadinejad’s use of the word ‘zionism,’ stating Israel’s existence will soon meet an “undesirable ending.”

That did not stop the National Council of Churches, an American group of American Mennonites, Quakers, Episcopalians, United Methodists who responded to Ahmadinejad’s invitation to visit Iran, from deciding it is their quest to travel “to Washington, D.C., and visit Congress to give a report on Iran’s desire for peace.” The group, quite obviously, was suckered in by Ahmadinejad’s double speak and refuses to read or hear what the Iranian leader tells other gatherings.

More below the fold, including a video . . .

(more…)