Alternative history is a popular genre in American fiction and film. What if Lee had won at Gettysburg? What if Hitler got the Bomb before we did? What if the American Revolution had failed? These kinds of speculative, leading questions can also help us understand current events.

What if, during the height of the Cold War, President Eisenhower had been found to be a Communist? What if President Kennedy was a Stalinist? The answer to these questions is obvious: impeachment.

The United States fought a protracted decades-long ideological war against Communism. The entire population of the country was involved in this effort; the horrors, injustice, and brutality of Communism were commonly known as was the obvious superiority of our own democratic system in comparison to it.

Those few who publicly discuss the threat of Islam are often described as bigots or paranoids even after 9/11, Fort Hood, and thousands of successful and interdicted jihad attacks. The jihad forces fight a growing ideological war against the United States and the West but we do not respond in kind.

“Paranoid” is the word often used to describe such bell-ringers and critics but, as the saying goes, just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean that they’re not out to get you.

Ignorance about Islam is far more prevalent and the fact that it should be so even ten years on from 9/11 is a devastating indictment of our culture, political and religious leadership, education system, and our connection with what we hold dear and true.

In the third Lord of the Rings movie Gandalf asks the steward of Gondor, “As steward, you are charged with the defense of this city. Where are Gondor’s armies?” We should ask the same question, where are the armies of the United States?

They fight two wars to prop up two Islamic states whose foundational legal code is Islam itself. The constitutions of Iraq (Article 2) and Afghanistan (Articles 1 and 2) affirm this. This means that the United States supports two Sharia law countries with the blood of our best and extraordinary amounts of national treasure even as our own economy falls.

There can be no more obviously antithetical system of laws than Islamic Sharia to that of our Constitution. American support of Sharia law is nothing short of tragic and self-destructive.

President Obama’s announcement of support for the Ground Zero mosque should come as no surprise. His fawning speech last year in Cairo, his bowing to the Saudi King, and his comments regarding “Arab and Pakistani Americans” in his autohagiography “Audacity of Hope” (p.261),  “that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” “Them” in the quote refers to Arab and Pakistani Americans (adherents of Islam). Obama’s support of the Ground Zero mosque is in keeping with his previous statements and actions.

9/11 and Fort Hood, subsequent jihad attacks, ongoing jihad against Israel and other democracies is the context in which we live. The motivator for jihad is Islamic doctrine.

The mosque at Ground Zero has nothing whatever to do with religious tolerance or religious freedoms as the president suggested in his recent Ramadan White House remarks. The mosque at Ground Zero is the newest phase in an endless ideological war against the United States and non-Muslims everywhere.

Where do we go from here now that our Commander in Chief publicly supports an oppositional and hostile ideology whose purpose is our destruction?

Had Eisenhower or JFK publicly supported Communism during the Cold War the result would have been impeachment. We are now engaged in an ideological war more important than the Cold War, and we are not fighting.

First posted at Big Peace.

The most popular plots in American horror movies are about the "undead" - deceased people who won't stay dead. Last month, New Mexico's Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson announced, "If there is evidence, I will consider pardoning Billy the Kid." There is a growing controversy in that state as to whether a noted mass murderer and cop killer of the Old West should be granted a posthumous pardon.

The issue does not revolve around whether the Kid killed 21 men, as legend suggests, or the more likely number of six or nine, but rather relates to an unfulfilled promise of a long-dead territorial governor.

A posthumous pardon is granted to correct a historical miscarriage of justice.

A promised 1879 pardon of Henry McCarty (aka "Billy the Kid") by then-governor of New Mexico Territory Lew Wallace (former Union Civil War general and author of "Ben Hur") was never delivered; this is the apparent crux of the current controversy.

In 1881 (two years after the undelivered pardon) the Kid was held in a courthouse in Mesilla, New Mexico Territory, after being sentenced to hang for the murder of a sheriff. He escaped and killed two guards in the process. It would be reasonable to think, then, that the Kid's escape and murders after the non-delivered pardon would obviate any later discussion of posthumous pardons. Not so.

Because the Kid committed murders after the pardon was offered by Wallace (but not delivered), the Kid still would have been subject to the noose. This must raise reasonable questions about Mr. Richardson's purpose in publicly considering a pardon of Billy the Kid.

Certainly there must be matters on the governor's agenda more pressing and worthy of his official attentions than a dead murderer?

As we live in a confused and unpleasant time of change, it is not so surprising that an American political leader should try to effect change upon the dead when doing so upon the living seems so much more difficult and unappreciated.

Fiddling with history, whether it is a footnote (as in this case) or involves more serious matters, is not about history at all - it is about the future. Altering the past changes the future, as such alterations require that the past be viewed in a different light. This kind of change is a display of power.

The correction of past perceived transgressions or errors is a loaded and dangerous business and should be undertaken only in the most extreme, obvious and meritorious of circumstances.

Rehabilitation of the reputation of a dead murderer diminishes the seriousness of his deeds, minimizes the suffering of victims and families (and descendants) and provides the killer with a level of posthumous attention and legitimization that is almost universally unmerited.

Henry McCarty's victims were real people who should not be ignored in this entirely unnecessary pardon controversy.

If the pardon controversy is simply a matter of Mr. Richardson being a Billy the Kid buff and inserting himself into a story he loves, the pardon is ill-advised and should be canceled. If it is about something else - about a politician's plans for a legacy - that also is reason to cancel the pardon discussions.

The argument that a historical injustice must be righted in this case is hollow because the Kid's post-pardon murders negate his worthiness for any posthumous action on his behalf.

We should tread carefully among the detritus of our past and not so readily bring the dead back to life, so to speak. Manipulation of the past has long been a red line that most political leaders would not cross. Any reassessment of historical events and personages, especially where official actions and statements are concerned, should be opposed if they are not completely and verifiably legitimate and worthy.

Billy the Kid's crimes were vicious and unpardonable; perhaps then-Gov. Wallace thought as much.

The inability to tell the difference between pressing and crucial matters of governance and distracting historical footnotes better left for calmer times - or ignored - is indicative of a failure of leadership, context and vision.

The most disturbing films and books in American popular culture are about the dead who haunt the living. History's central lesson is that it is immutable; it cannot be changed. Billy the Kid ought to remain on the screen and in his grave.

Originally published in the Washington Times.

NYPost:

The imam behind a plan to build a mosque near Ground Zero is set to depart on a multi-country jaunt to the Middle East funded by the State Department -- raising concerns that taxpayers may be helping him with the controversial project's $100 million fund-raising goal.

Feisal Abdul Rauf is taking the publicly funded trip to foster "greater understanding" about Islam and Muslim communities in the United States, the State Department confirmed yesterday.

"He is a distinguished Muslim cleric," said State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley, when asked about the journey, reportedly to include stops in Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Bahrain and Qatar.

"I think we are in the process of arranging for him to travel as part of this program, and it is to foster a greater understanding about the region around the world among Muslim-majority communities," he added.

Crowley said no fund-raising for the mosque and cultural center during the trip would be permitted. "That would not be something he could do as part of our program," he said.

Abdul Rauf said funds for the center will come from Muslims and members of his congregation.

But a London-based Arabic-language newspaper that interviewed Abdul Rauf reported that he says he also will collect money from Muslim and Arab nations around the world -- raising the possibility his goodwill mission could help him build contacts in oil-rich states.

"Does the State Department have any idea they are sending a guy to the Middle East who is going to be fund-raising perhaps among the very same people he will be meeting with?" asked Debra Burlingame, a 9/11 family member.

"We know he has a fund-raising association with Saudi Arabia," Burlingame said, noting that the Saudis have contributed money to underwrite programs by the American Society for Muslim Advancement, a not-for-profit that Abdul Rauf runs with his wife and that is one of the sponsors of the Ground Zero mosque. "He's going to the well, and how can they say they do or don't know what he's doing?"

Meanwhile, state regulators said the sale of an adjacent Con Ed building needed to complete the Ground Zero mosque -- as disclosed by The Post on Sunday -- might be subject to review after all, even as Mayor Bloomberg insisted the project has "nothing to do with Con Ed."

Public Service Commission spokeswoman Anne Dalton said state law requires the agency to sign off on the "transfer or lease" of any property a utility owns within its franchise area.

The question is whether Con Ed satisfied that requirement nearly four decades ago, when it granted a 99-year lease on the former substation site at 49-51 Park Place.

Anas Zahed, a columnist for the Saudi government daily Al-Madina, criticized Arab and Muslim intellectuals who limit the term jihad to a personal, spiritual struggle and reject its interpretation as waging war against occupation, which he said is its principle meaning.

In a strange and dangerous pandering to populism over constitutionalism, the Massachusetts legislature approved a law on July 27 that overturns the Electoral College in that state. In other words, nullification is alive and well in the Bay State. According to Democratic state Sen. James B. Eldridge, "every vote will be of the same weight across the country." This nullification of Article 2, Section I, Clauses 2 and 3 (Electoral College) of the Constitution is meant to facilitate a particular political outcome.

The nullification phenomenon is all the more important because of the deafening silence from Washington. Nullification is not new. The 1832 Nullification Crisis involving tariffs ended with compromises and threats of war by President Andrew Jackson. The greatest predicament in our history was a nullification crisis that finally was resolved by the defeat of the Southern states in the Civil War.

It should come as no surprise that there are no fiery, angry complaints from Washington regarding this challenge to the Constitution by Massachusetts legislators. Five other states already have passed similar measures. The current administration is very choosy in how it asserts its authority.

For example, the U.S. government has sued the state of Arizona for its immigration bill, which asserts Arizona's right and authority to secure its international border. Border security falls under the purview of the government in Washington, but that government chooses to leave the border porous and insecure. This may seem an absurd and dangerous situation to most observers.

There is, of course, a serious possibility that enemies of our country have crossed the Arizona border with the drug smugglers and illegal long-term visitors. Still, there was no action from Washington, thus finally prompting Arizona's legitimate actions to do what the national government is mandated to do but chooses not to do. It may seem strange to some that the federal government takes no action against the state of Massachusetts for nullifying the Constitution but vigorously opposes Arizona's attempts to secure our national boundary with Mexico.

Many on the political left think illegal immigrants will be a supportive voting bloc if immigration amnesty is passed. The inaction of the federal government in Arizona would appear to show that its position is "the more illegals, the better." Likewise, it seems the feds think nullification of the Electoral College, which enforces the checks and balances created by the Founders to ensure representative democratic rule rather than direct rule of the people, will facilitate liberal majorities in the future.

Continue reading here.

Miracles do happen. This is from the NY Daily News:

A Jewish group famous for fighting for religious freedom came out Friday against the proposed mosque near Ground Zero.

The Anti-Defamation League said it has no use for the bigots who have used anti-Islamic rhetoric to try and block the project.

"However, there are understandably strong passions and keen sensitivities surrounding the World Trade Center site," the organization said in a statement.

"We are ever mindful of the tragedy which befell our nation there."

This is not, the ADL said, "a question of rights, but a question of what is right."

"In our judgment, building an Islamic Center in the shadow of the World Trade Center will cause some victims more pain - unnecessarily - and that is not right."

The ADL also said "some legitimate questions have been raised" about who funding the project and "what connections, if any, its leaders might have with groups whose ideologies stand in contradiction to our shared values."

J Street, a rival Jewish civil rights group that tangled with the ADL in the past, accused the venerable organization of giving in to the "fear mongerers."...

The radical, and so far ineffectual but significantly costly, programs and policies of the current resident of the White House suggest that a new "Nullification Crisis" will soon be upon us -- not on account of sectional or partisan motives, and this time for the entire nation.

Continue reading here.

A son of Osama bin Laden said about 20 members of his family stranded in Iran are seeking sanctuary in a third country and that the U.S. may agree to accept them.  -- Henry Meyer, Bloomberg

NOWY TARG, Poland – With every step toward the gate, Jerzy Bielecki was certain he would be shot.

Story here.

Sometimes, only a celebrity angle can get the public to pay attention to what's important. The Harry Potter actress who suddenly became subject to Sharia law may be the source of such a moment when the public pays enough attention to create a sea change in national opinion.

On July 2, CNN reported, "The father and brother of a Harry Potter actress will appear in court later this month in Manchester, England, on charges of threatening to kill the young star." The family is Muslim, and the suspected motives are clear - Afshan Azad, who played Harry's classmate Padma Patil in the popular movies - was dating a Hindu.

Popular publications including Entertainment Weekly, People and US Weekly are all covering this disturbing but not unprecedented case, bringing a horrifying fact of life in Europe and across the world to the attention of people who don't immerse themselves in news and politics.

Though the assault on Miss Azad by her father and brother is in the spotlight, such cases are hardly new. Last year in Ohio, teenager Rifqa Bary ran away, claiming her parents threatened to kill her because she had converted to Christianity. The drama received a blip of press coverage, and she remains a ward of the state. Also last year, in Arizona, a Muslim father murdered his daughter by running over her for being too Western.

One of the most horrific and notorious instance of Islamic "honor killing" in recent memory in the United States occurred in Buffalo, N.Y., in February, 2009. The founder of Bridges TV, a television station whose stated purpose was to show a more tolerant and positive view of Muslims and Islam, beheaded his wife. Muzzammil Hassan murdered her in the facilities of the TV station.

In a 2004 press release, Hassan stated, "Every day on television we are barraged by stories of a Muslim extremist, militant, terrorist, or insurgent, but the stories that are missing are the countless stories of Muslim tolerance, progress, diversity, service and excellence that Bridges TV hopes to tell."

While Miss Azad's case is receiving more attention than most of its predecessors, almost all of the reporting is missing a key component - the Islamic doctrinal basis for these horrific attacks on and murders of females by males within Muslim families for leaving Islam and/or not being "Islamic enough." These attacks are neither accident nor aberration.

According to Islamic doctrine, adherents are in a state of perpetual and universal conflict and war with nonbelievers.

According to "Reliance of the Traveller," the definitive book of Sharia law, leaving Islam (apostasy) requires a death sentence: "When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostasizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed."

Behavior considered "un-Islamic" is also cause for execution, according to Sharia law: "Someone raised among Muslims who denies the obligatoriness of the prayer, zakat, fasting Ramadan, the pilgrimage, or the unlawfulness of wine and adultery, or denies something else upon which there is scholarly consensus and which is known as being of the religion thereby becomes an unbeliever (kafir) and is executed for his unbelief."

Islamic doctrine and law allow murder of family members and non-Muslims (kafirs).

"Reliance of the Traveller" on killing:

"The following are not subject to retaliation: a Muslim for killing a non-Muslim ... a Jewish or Christian subject of the Islamic state for killing an apostate from Islam (because a subject of the state is under its protection, while killing an apostate from Islam is without consequences) ... a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring."

The multitudes of Harry Potter fans are likely now to do some reading on the subject of Islam, perhaps researching the doctrine of Islam - Koran, Sira, Hadith or even Sharia law. They will not likely be pleased with what they discover.

Continue reading at the Washington Times.

Continue reading at Family Security Matters.

NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said in a recent interview that his "foremost" mission as the head of America's space exploration agency is to improve relations with the Muslim world.

 

Though international diplomacy would seem well outside NASA's orbit, Bolden said in an interview with Al Jazeera that strengthening those ties was among the top tasks President Obama assigned him. He said better interaction with the Muslim world would ultimately advance space travel.

 

"When I became the NASA administrator -- or before I became the NASA administrator -- he charged me with three things. One was he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math, he wanted me to expand our international relationships, and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science ... and math and engineering," Bolden said in the interview.

...

Munich Games Terrorist Leader is mourned by the PA

(CNN) -- Abu Daoud, the man who claimed to be the mastermind behind the massacre that marked the 1972 Munich Olympics, has died, according to the official news agency of the Palestinian Authority.

 Please note the tribute sent by Abbas, Israel's "partner for peace" in the PA:

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas sent his condolences to Daoud's family, WAFA reported.

"He wrote in his letter to his family, 'He is missed. He was one of the leading figures of Fatah and spent his life in resistance [against the occupation] and sincere work as well as physical sacrifice for his people's just causes,' " the news agency quoted Abbas as saying.