The University of Kansas Student Auxiliary


V.V.A.R.: Leading the student revolt on campus against speech codes, political correctness, multiculturalism, gender feminism, dormitory re-education, lying about Vietnam, and other instruments of academic oppression.


Leonard Magruder - Founder/President

Former professor of psychology - Suffolk College, N.Y.

Director of Counseling and Research – University of N.D. (ret.)

Academic Advisor – Gathering of Eagles

Academic Advisor – Veterans For Academic Freedom




“There is no omen true but this, to stand

 and be a bulwark to your fatherland.”

- Horace



by Leonard Magruder

March 6, 2010


In our article, “Obama/Islam,” posted on on Aug.27, 2009, we wrote at length on the repeated connection, in the best works we have on the crisis of our times, between Islam, the religion, and terrorism, and how these insights were being suppressed throughout the media and by our academics and now even our government. A few months later we came across another lengthy discussion of this phenomenon, mentioning essentially the same authors, by one of our most astute thinkers, Diana West, in her book, “The Death of the Grown-Up.” In this article we put these two discussions together to make the case for the absurdity, that at a time when everyone is complaining about the failure to “connect the dots,” the dots of Islam and terrorism are never connected.


From “Obama/Islam,” Aug. 27, 2009:


In studying Islam you learn to be alert to two groups in particular, Western scholars who want to present Islam in the most inoffensive terms possible, and Muslim apologists, who discovered “peaceful” jihad in the 19th century and have been emphasizing it ever since as the normative expression of jihad—in defiance of all religious and historical evidence to the contrary.


The books written by, often Muslim converts, or present or former FBI or CIA analysts, or counter-terrorism experts, are the ones you learn to rely on to be objective.


Here are some of the authors whose names appear repeatedly in the rosters of symposiums and conferences on terrorism, events always boycotted by media and by professors. Some of these people have to remain in hiding because to death threats, as does Geert Wilders of the Netherlands for producing “Fitna,” which documents in film the clear connection between terrorism and the Koran:


Michael Cappi

Walid Phares

Andrew McCarthy

Kenneth Timmerman

Robert Spencer

Brian Jenkins

Daniel Pipes

Abul Kasem

Whalid Shoebat

Dr. Andrew Bostom

Brigitte Gabriel

Paul Williams

Sam Harris

Nonie Darwish

Ibn Warraq

Bat Ye’or

Shmuel Bar

Geert Wilders

David Horowitz

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Michael Evans

Mark Gabriel

Serge Trikovic


Every one of these authors document in their works the incitement to murder, the true “root cause” of terrorism, in the verses of the Koran.


As Sam Harris wrote in “The End of Faith“:


It is widely claimed by ‘moderates’ that Islam is a ‘religion of peace.’ You need only to read the Koran to see that this is untrue. The basic thrust of Islam is undeniable: convert, subjugate, or kill unbelievers; kill apostates, and conquer the world. There is no substitute for confronting the Koran itself. On almost every page, the Koran instructs Muslims to despise non-believers.


We are at war with Islam. It may not serve our immediate foreign policy objectives for our political leaders to openly acknowledge this fact, but it is unambiguously the truth. It is not true that we are at war with an otherwise ‘peaceful religion’ that has been ‘hijacked’ by extremists. We are at war with precisely the vision of life that is prescribed to all Muslims in the Koran.


This is the one fact that cannot be mentioned on an American campus, where students are indoctrinated in a multiculturalism which says that all religions are equal, meaning, of course, that none of them are true, a sneaky, round-about way by secular humanists of assaulting the Judeo-Christian tradition of the West.


In her speech, “Time to Take the Campus Back,” at Columbia University for “Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week,” Phyllis Chesler, noted author and professor of psychology and women’s studies at City University of New York courageously addressed the issue of how professors are suppressing the truth about Islam.


It is time to take the campus back so that the rights of free speech and academic freedom also apply to those who tell the truth about Islam. Such rights also belong to those of us who are pro-American and pro-Israel and not only to those who demonize the West and glorify Islamist misogyny, death-cult terrorism, and Wahabi fundamentalism. It is both extraordinary and tragic that one needs serious security in order to be heard on campus, that one must run a gauntlet of hostility for the right to teach. Goon-squad tactics of intimidation and disruption should have absolutely no place in the free exchange of ideas... and it is coming to us from the Left. Telling the truth about Islam is, apparently, “provocative.” One risks everything for doing so. In my opinion, one risks even more for failing to do so.


You risk everything.


As Newt Gingrich said in a speech in New Hampshire not long ago:


I think that the national security threat of losing an American city to a nuclear weapon, or losing several million Americans to a biological attack is so real that we need to proactively, now, develop the appropriate rules of engagement…This is a very sober topic, and I think it is a topic we need a national dialogue about, and we need to get ahead of the curve rather than wait until we lose a city, which could literally happen. We are now at war with a culture that wants, not to take over our land, but to kill us.


What could that culture be, other than Islam?


The noted Stanford scholar Victor David Hanson gives us some idea of what needs to be done.


We should be clear about a proper response now and inform the appropriate parties exactly of the real damage they should expect...inform hostile countries of a big list of their assets - military bases, power plants, communications, and assorted infrastructure - that will be taken out in the aftermath of another attack…Honesty and resoluteness now might just save lives later on, as the Middle East realizes that it has a collective stake in preventing such a calamity.


Not long after sending this article out we ran into the same observation about suppression of material in the writings of Diana West, one of the most perceptive analysts we have on the subject of Islam. In chapters 7, 8, and 9 of her book, “The Death of the Grown-Up,” she has written the best exposé of Islam as the enemy that we have seen. And she sees the same cover-up of information on this that we do:


Both the topic of Islam...and the topic of Islamization - are verboten. Islam as a whole, as a historical continuum, as the theology of what we know as terrorism, as a rationale for dhimmi repression, is off the charts; out of bounds, really, and way beyond acceptable discourse. The issues central to Islam’s incompatibility with modernity are ignored according to an unspoken consensus, and thus, never appear on the public agenda. What is left is a black hole.


When, in the shell-shocked wake of 9/11 President Bush began his historically inaccurate and theologically absurd “Islam is peace” offensive —which to this day relies on a willful ignorance of the jihad ideology that has driven Islamic history for thirteen centuries—no voices of correction, no attempts at historical analysis, coalesced into a school of thought that was admitted into the political mainstream, not even among pro-war anti-PC conservatives.


But, there does exist a formidable body of contemporary scholarship that bravely explicates the history of jihad and its modern- day applications - a bibliography I was relieved to find after 9/11 when the happy talk of a Karen Armstrong or a John Esposito sounded out of sync with what was actually being heard on the news.


For over four decades Egyptian-born Bat Ye’or has pioneered the study of dhimmitude, the non-Muslim experience under Islam that follows jihad. The Pakistani-born scholar, Ibn Warraq, has, since the Rushdie affair, compiled a wrenching record of “apostasy,” the fearfully dangerous Muslim experience of leaving Islam. Daniel Pipes has long catalogued the progress of jihad and Islamization of the West. In the years since 9/11, Robert Spencer has produced several clear-eyed studies of Islam for both laymen and experts, also establishing a Web site that tracks current events called Andrew G. Boston, also since 9/11, has compiled a scholarly compendium of writings on jihad that offers many key texts and studies in English for the first time, including those of Islamic commentators on the Koran (al-Baydawi, al-Tabgari, Suyuti ), the Sufi mystic al-Ghazali’s surprisingly bellicose pronouncements on jihad war, and those of overlooked historians like Clement Huart and Dmitar Angelov.


But such scholarship has been largely relegated to the sidelines, scholarship all but ignored by elites for purposes of public discussion and debate.


It’s enough to engender nostalgia for the Cold War, mushroom clouds and all. From that epic struggle emerged an indomitable anti-Communism movement, Cold Warriors who persevered and triumphed by following a clear, rational line of academic analysis and astute polemic. By glaring contrast, ex-Muslim intellectuals such as Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Brigitte Gabriel, are held at arm’s length by our most fervent warriors on terror, members of a post-PC generation that see in their dreams of an Islamic “reform” the key to a strategy of avoiding civilizational clash.


They seek to defend the West by repelling or defeating “Islamic extremists,” but not the ideology contained within mainstream Islam that seeks to establish a world caliphate ruled by sharia. This is dream politic.


Warming to their policies of wishful thinking, today’s Terror Warriors keep the apostates and critics of Islam out in the cold, their copious knowledge of the dire perils of jihad unheeded, unexplored, undebated.


This has helped enforce a terrible silence on the urgent questions of our times.


Silence on crucial questions not only denies answers, it denies us a fighting chance. You know the silence is deafening when Abu Qatada, a notorious British imam says, “I am astonished by President Bush when he claims that there is nothing in the Koran that justifies jihad or violence in the name of Islam. Has he ever actually read the Koran?” (Note: Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran, the father of the Islamic revolution and godfather of terrorism, the reason why the Parliament of Iran always opens a session with “Death to America,” would certainly have been shocked. Here he is quoting directly from the Koran in what is practically a dictionary definition of Jihad:


Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males to prepare themselves for the conquest of other countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. Those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world. Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those who say this are witless. Islam says: Kill the unbelievers... Islam says kill the non-Muslims, put them to the sword and scatter their armies. There are hundreds of other Koranic psalms and hadiths, sayings of the Prophet, urging Muslims to value war and to fight. So does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit on those foolish souls who make such a claim.

-Taheri, Amir. Holy Terror, pgs. 226-227.)



The resolute denial of the relationship between Islam and jihad is perplexing, exhausting all routine exercise of common sense. Indeed, these bizarre loops of logic take us into a psychological realm of delusional thinking—patterns of thought at odds with reality. We are taught to see our own behaviors as the cause of our being abused. ‘Daddy doesn’t really want to hurt me. If I’m a better girl, he’ll stop.’


Thus, we pretend Islam isn’t a threat to Western liberty; it’s those awfu “extremists.” Jihad isn’t a historic and theological tradition in Islam; it’s those awful “extremists.”“ Shari’a isn’t a threat to freedom of expression and sexual equality; it’s those awful “extremists.” Rather than confront the hard truths of our times, we tell ourselves soothing tales, rather than act on the logic of reality, we deny its implications.


Moderate Islam is coming! Moderate Islam is coming!


We are afraid to do anything about our fears, even name them. We have reached the point where we are even afraid of logic. Because logic leads to discrimination, the “ability to make or perceive distinctions, perception; discernment” (Obama: “all religions are going the same place.”). If we revive our innate ability to make distinctions, suddenly rub our eyes and see that the beliefs of Islam and the beliefs of the West are at irreconcilable odds, the multicultural mirage of interchangeable diversity and “universal values” necessarily vanishes, in its place arises an inevitable hierarchy of discrimination. Not all religions are equal. Not all cultures are equal. A painful, awkward awakening from the dream world of sunny universalism and pale indecision into a stark reality of black and white, good and evil, win or lose, do or die. We call our self-censorship the silence of respect; in reality it is the silence of fear. We call it the silence of tolerance; actually, it is the silence of cultural submission.


In vain then, Ibn Warraq wrote:


On the world stage, should we really apologize for Dante, Shakespeare, and Goethe? Mozart, Beethoven and Bach? Rembrandt, Vermeer, Van Gogh? Galileo, Copernicus, and Newton? Penicillin and computers? Human rights and democracy?


The West is the source of the liberating ideas of individual liberty, political democracy, the rule of law, human rights and cultural freedom. It is the West that raised the status of women, fought against slavery, defended freedom of inquiry, expression and conscience.


No, the West needs no lectures of the superior virtue of societies that keep their women in subjugation, cut off their clitorises, stone them to death for alleged adultery, throw acid on their faces, or deny the human rights of those they consider to belong to lower castes.


The valiant Dutch ex-parliamentarian and ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali explains why the silence is a problem. “You cannot liberalize Islam without criticizing the Prophet and the Koran....You cannot redecorate a house without entering inside.”


But who among us has even gone up to the door to ask whether jihad in all its modern manifestations—airplane hijackings, skyscraper massacres, bus bombings, rioting over novels, rioting over cartoons, car bombs, suicide bombs, pursuit of nuclear bombs—is not the perversion of a noble faith, but rather a core institution? In denial there is defeat.


(Well, we don’t mean to brag but we have gone up to the door multiple times since our first article on Sept.21, 2003. See excerpts of these at And what happened? The University of Kansas here in Lawrence ordered us to stop sending our articles to students under penalty of law, and the pastors told us they didn’t want to receive our material either. To say nothing about Law Enforcement, Emergency Management, City Hall, “The Journal-World,” the Kansas Legislatur,e and other institutions whose job it is to tell us the truth about the enemy and keep us safe.)


There has never been a time when the world did not know of the danger posed to liberty by the religion of Islam. It is absolutely unbelievable how media and university have managed to erase this knowledge from American consciousness. This is probably the most profound betrayal in the history of mankind: A great nation, misled, disarmed, helpless, before the greatest threat imaginable. Just so media and academia can continue to cling to their left/liberal mythologies.


Wrote the great Middle East scholar, Sir William Muir, in 1856 in his 4-volume Life of Muhammad:

The sword of Muhammad, and the Koran, are the most stubborn enemies of Civilization, Liberty, and Truth, which the world has yet known.


Alexis de Tocqueville, famous 18th century historian:

I studied the Koran a great deal. I am convinced that by and large there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad. So far as I can see, it is the principle cause of the decadence so visible today in the Muslim world.


John Quincy Adams, early American president:

Muhammad proclaimed himself a messenger of Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. He declared exterminating war as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. The essence of his religion is violence and lust. As long as the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth.


Winston Churchill, British Prime Minister:

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its followers! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next life of its dignity and sanctity. No more backward force exists in this world.


In our time, Ibn Warraq, author of “Why I Not a Muslim,” said:

Islam is a totalitarian ideology that aims to control the religious, social, and political life of mankind in all its aspects. And I mean Islam. I do not accept some spurious distinction between Islam and Islamic ‘fundamentalism’ or ‘Islamic terrorists.’ Their actions reflect the teachings of Islam, whether found in the Koran, in the acts and teachings of the Prophet Mohammad, or in the Islamic law, (Sharia) based on them.


The danger is made especially clear in this statement by Amil Imani ,an Iranian born American citizen and pro-democracy activist residing in the U.S.

Beliefs steer people in life. Some beliefs are harmless, some are the motive force for good and yet others are delusional, misguided, and even outright dangerous. Every version of the belief called ‘Islam’ ranges from the delusional to the dangerous. This delusion presently has in its stranglehold over a billion humans, posing an existential threat to all non-Muslims. Islam is rooted in the primitive tribal mentality of ‘We the righteous against heathens.’ To Islam, a non-Muslim is a combatant against Allah and he is fair game to be subjugated and killed. When a billion people adhere to this pathological belief and use it as their marching order of life, the rest of humanity can ignore the threat only at its peril.


The truth is, there are Muslims wandering around everywhere, like Major Hasan at Fort Hood, looking for someone to kill because the Koran orders them to do so, or they insulted Islam or the Prophet. In 2004, Theo Van Gogh was shot off his bicycle, stabbed, and nearly beheaded on an Amsterdam street by Mohammed Bouyeri, a Dutch-born Muslim. He said van Gogh had “insulted” Islam with his film “Submission,” which critiques the plight of Islamic women, and as he put it while on trial in 2005, “the Koran compels me to chop off the head of anyone one who insults Allah and the prophet.” This point of view is so prevalent in the Netherlands that the Dutch Interior Ministry has established a special unit to assess death threats from Islamic groups and provide security for the ”soaring number of Dutch academics, lawmakers and other public figures who have been forced to accept 24-hour protection or go into hiding.” And among those who have been in hiding is the Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders for producing “Fitna,” a film showing the connection between Islam and terrorism. His trial began last week. If he loses Interpol can then pick up anyone anywhere in the world who criticizes Islam, and deliver them for trial to anyone who files charges.


The world cannot live any longer with a religion whose mission is to murder the rest of mankind, and now has access to the weapons of mass destruction that can make it possible.


On the claim by academics and media elites that terrorists are “misusing the Koran,” one of our most powerful thinkers, Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch, has written the definitive challenge to that claim. We urge all those who read this article, especially the many Vietnam veteran groups we reach, copy this statement by Fitzgerald, march on the university and the media, hand it out, and demand answers. Let this signal the beginning of the rollback of the cover-up by our media and academic elites of Islam as the “root cause” of terrorism, hiding behind “misunderstanding Islam”:


Eric Holder, The American Government, and the Diminishing of Public Trust

by Hugh Fitzgerald


A statement by Eric Holder, Attorney General of the United States:


“What we’ve seen in the recent past, I think, is an indication of one of the things that we’re going to have to be most concerned about in the future, this self-radicalization of American citizens or people who reside in the United States. They have too often come under the influence of people who have misinterpreted Islam.”


Could Eric Holder tell us exactly in what ways—quoting from the texts of Islam—the jihadis are misinterpreting Islam? How is Mr. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab misinterpreting Islam? How, for that matter, is Nasrallah of Hizballah, or Meshaal of Hamas, or the leaders or members of Lashkar-e-Toiba, or Jaish-e-Muhammad, or Al Qaeda, along with thousands of groups and millions of individuals, all of whom take what Islam teaches very much to heart, “misinterpreting Islam”?


We are told this over and over. We are never given a single bit of proof, not a single interpolated or apocryphal passage, attributed to the Koran, Hadith, Sira. We are never told even of a single Hadith, upon which reliance has been put by Muslim terrorists, that they have improperly assigned a higher rank of authenticity, according to the most respected muhaddithin, than it deserves. We are given not a single shred of evidence, textual or otherwise, to support the idea that there has been a “misinterpretation” of Islam.


Eric Holder can keep repeating this stuff, and so can others, so can Barack Obama, for example, until the cows come home. But the more those who presume to protect and instruct us show that they expect us to be satisfied, and that they themselves are apparently satisfied, with soothing banalities and assertions that are easily shown to be baseless, they lose our trust. The very people they claim to lead and to protect stop trusting them. We all know what we are looking for is Muslim terrorists, committing acts of terrorism because of what Islam inculcates—the duty of Jihad to remove all barriers to the spread and then the dominance of Islam. They differ from other Muslims only in that they have decided to both participate in Jihad directly rather than indirectly, through financial, diplomatic, propagandistic, or moral support.


No one is asking Eric Holder, or anyone else in the Administration, to take off a few months to study at Leiden, or Aix-en-Provence. But we do expect from him a justified diffidence, a hesitation to make pronouncements about Islam that are palpably absurd, and worrisome to all those who do know something, when he states that the problem are those who “misunderstand Islam.”


More and more people in Western Europe (and America), despite the propaganda campaigns conducted on behalf of Islam, not only by Muslims, but by their own political and media elites, have come to conclusions about Islam. They have come to them slowly, reluctantly, often unwillingly. And these conclusions then result in such measures as the Swiss referendum that expressed an overwhelming desire by people to ban minarets, but also, one can be sure, to limit the presence and power of Islam in a dozen other ways. And that Swiss ban is supported, public opinion polls tell us, overwhelmingly by people in France, Great Britain, and elsewhere.


And there is a larger lesson, not for Holder alone, but for all those who talk about the “public trust.” Let’s talk about something else: the public mistrust. When the public, on issues of life and death, begins to recognize that it is not being talked to straight by those who govern, and who claim that they govern because they know best how to protect and how to instruct the citizenry, they lose faith in the government. When the public sees that members of the governing class are not telling the truth, but still worse, are actively misrepresenting the nature of the threat and acting as apologists for Islam, the ideology whose promptings explain Muslim terrorism and terrorists, they lose faith in the government. They become worried, fearful, disheartened. We wonder why the words “Islam” and “Muslim” are still not to be used, and why phrases, self-evidently unhelpful, such as “violent extremists,” are used instead. “Extremists” about what? Tell us. Stop making us try to guess or still worse, trying to make us not guess, but to be satisfied with such empty formulations that tell us nothing, that help us understand nothing.


Eric Holder can keep telling us, if he wishes, that the people we must worry about are those who “misinterpret Islam,” even though he offers not a shred of evidence, not a single passage, to prove such “misinterpretation.” Barack Obama can keep prating of “violent extremists,” but never telling us more about what those “violent extremists” are “extremists” of. But when we hear these words, when we listen to these solemn speeches, when we endure these misplaced security searches, what happens is that our trust, our faith in our own government, goes down, and down, and down.


And that is not something that people in a mass democracy can, or should, be expected to endure or, as quite a few in the current administration, appropriating Lincolnian phrases whenever they can, long endure. Those whose most important tasks include those of protecting and instructing us have to stop thinking they can mislead their own citizens, 99% of whom are non-Muslim, in order to avoid offending the 1% who are Muslim, or out of some ill-thought-out Machiavellianism, to avoid offending Muslims in Dar al-Islam. So we tiptoe timidly around so much, we avoid recognizing, much less discussing or still less confronting, the Muslim threat to Europe, the historic heart of the West, and we continue to allow ourselves to describe as “staunch allies” such meretricious and sinister places as Saudi Arabia, fearful of giving offense to those who night and day spend feverishly to spread Islam and ensure its dominance even in our lands.


We have to stop describing as part of “our values” what is merely a cripplingly inhibiting fear of offending Muslims. We must let them know we know what Islam inculcates and are now prepared to construct policies designed not to deal not merely with this or that terrorist group, but with the Camp of Islam, with all those who by identifying themselves as Muslims can reasonably be treated as adherents of an ideology that we have every right to be alarmed about - the ideology of Islam.”


This statement reminds us of what we wrote in that article right before the election, “Obama/Islam--part 2.”


Usually the American electorate accepts the outcome of a presidential race and moves on. But this time, if Obama wins, as Americans increasingly see the truth about Islam, and see that Obama’s ‘naivete’ (Romney) is placing their lives at risk, there will be various and growing forms of protest, Tensions over this will grow rapidly, especially as demoralization grows in the armed forces, and media and academic attempts to shore up the delusion grow more hysterical.


This is what the growing threat of a nuclear attack, on a nation paralyzed by the delusions of its own government, will do.


To help educate people on these issues, please also include one or more of these videos in your next mailings:


For “Fitna”:


For shocking FBI Interview:


For Obama as apologist for Islam:


For materials we recommend, films, books, and online resources, to start an educational program on the pathologies of Islam see the last paragraphs of “Obama/Islam -part 2.”


In ending, we call upon Senator-elect Scott Brown to raise in Congress as early as possible, this whole issue of the relation between Islam, the religion, and terrorism.



this article may be reproduced in any form.

See our new “Manifesto of Student Liberation From Leftist Tyranny” at



Leonard Magruder

Founder/President, V.V.A.R.

Phone: 785-312-9303


Website design and management courtesy of Annette R. Hall. Hosted by


Top of Page