Radical Islam is not merely an extreme version of Islam. It is a cultural-social ideology dominating all aspects of life. And like many violent totalitarian movements, its primary objective is to dominate all those within its reach and suppress all other ideologies, movements and beliefs in its path.

In short, Radical Islam is dedicated to the conquest of the world, by any means possible.

Radical Islam draws on widely accepted Islamic religious philosophy and customs. However the movement also draws heavily on dangerous ideas that negate basic human rights and freedoms of expression.

Not all Muslims are radical, and not all Muslims are politically motivated. In fact, most aren’t. However, when Muslims adopt a politically motivated, radical ideology, the whole world is at risk.

Radical Islam's arsenal is diverse and dangerous. Terrorism is only one of the tactics used by radicals. New tactics pop up everyday. Some are more subtle such as the use of textbooks. Others are outright violent such as terrorizing those who embrace freedom of speech. 

The picture is chilling. We are at a crucial juncture. We can continue in this way, hoping for change. But we must know that by doing so, we risk losing the freedoms for which we have fought so hard.

Or, we can get involved and stop Radical Islam's march on our civilization. We urge you to inform yourselves, speak up and get active.

October 2009 Dhimwit: Judge Ann Montgomery

"Now comes the deceased..."

Judge Ann Montgomery is the reason CAIR is triumphantly pumping its fist over the resolution the Flying Imams case, in which six Islamic clerics engaged in provocative behavior on an airplane so as to deliberately arouse suspicion, get detained, garner publicity, and do what Muslims do best - play the victim.

The 2006 Minneapolis incident accomplished all of these goals, even if most Americans familiar with the case were probably disgusted over grown men playing such games only five years after the 9/11 hijackings.  Fortunately for the imams, this apparently did not include Ann Montgomery, the federal judge presiding over their lawsuit against the airline.

According to her honor (and we use the term loosely) six Muslims on an airplane asking for seatbelt extenders, cursing the U.S., praising Allah (as suicide bombers are prone to do right before detonation), requesting seat assignment changes, and pretty much doing what they can to appear suspicious is hardly grounds for their detention by law enforcement.

As the Weekly Standard points out in this well-written assessment, the judge's logic in this case would have prevented the 9/11 hijackers from being detained as well, had they been caught at the time with their box-cutters and chants of 'Allah Akbar'. 

The airline had little choice but to settle the case.

As this was being written, the aftermath of the Fort Hood massacre was playing out in another part of the U.S.  In that situation, another America-cursing, Allah-praising Muslim played out his religious leanings in yet another deadly shooting rampage against non-believers.  Afterwards, the media immediately began asking how the "warning signs" could have been missed by his colleagues in the US Army.

They should ask Ann Montgomery instead.  It is because of influential people like her, who value political correctness over common sense, that ordinary Americans no longer feel comfortable acting in their own defense.

November 2009 Dhimwit: General George Casey

Pledging to "support and defend diversity against
all enemies, foreign and domestic" perhaps?

OK, so he didn't actually replace the words "Constitution of the United States" with "diversity" in the U.S. Army's Oath of Enlistment, but chief of staff George Casey's reaction to the Fort Hood massacre was hardly any less nauseating.

Countless articles pointing out the obvious religious motive behind Maj. Malik Hasan's shooting spree have already been written, so there is no point in rehashing the details here, other than to say that it can hardly be of mystery to any reasonable person as to why a man does something, when he is literally shouting his reason for doing so at the time (and if that weren't enough, he even created a PowerPoint presentation).

While not entirely unsympathetic to the 56 dead and injured, or their families, It was quickly evident in the aftermath of the shooting that George Casey's immediate objective was spin control in defense of political correctness. 

He spoke repeatedly about diversity in the days that followed, saying that a "diverse Army gives us strength" and that "as great a tragedy as this was — it would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty as well."  In other words, diversity is even more important than the very lives of his own soldiers.

Fortunately for the general, diversity is alive and well (although there are at least thirteen families out there which probably won't be celebrating with him).

Casey's seemed ostensibly concerned with shielding the "3,000 Muslims" within the ranks of a million-member army from "bias."  Their sensibilities apparently outweigh any benefits from simply acknowledging that Hasan's deep commitment to Islam inspired his violent outburst - something that is quite obvious to anyone without an agenda.

While not arguing the fact that protecting people from the consequences of something for which they are not responsible is a noble motive, the timing of Casey's contrived state of denial is wildly inappropriate.  Dead patriots deserve better.

The irony, of course, is that a dozen soldiers who pledged to serve their country on the battlefield were murdered in cold blood on their own home soil because of the very political correctness that Gen. Casey felt obliged to defend. 

It wasn't as if Maj. Hasan was shy about expressing his contempt for non-Muslims, or exhibiting overt devotion to Islam - even while claiming that America's "diverse" army is waging a war against it.  Yet, the opportunity to prevent disaster was willfully ignored because none of his fellow professionals dared put their careers on the line by appearing to oppose the sublime standard of diversity to which their leadership continues to swear allegiance.

If this were the action of a corporate CEO concerned with public relations and protecting shareholder interests, then perhaps Casey's obscene choice of priorities would be vaguely understandable.  But young soldiers in today's Army are required to face death and debilitating injury in service to their country, not out of an imaginary duty to diversity.  The least their leaders can do is have the courage to tell the truth when they do lose their lives to the enemy.

WaPo: When did Switzerland become Europe’s Saudi Arabia?

Swiss minister: The minaret ban is aimed at fundamentalists, not all Muslims

Breaking: Hasan wired money to Pakistan?

Pentagon: No one told us Hasan was e-mailing the enemy